Hello I thought I'd give it another chance.

5_senses_does_n...
Posts: 40
Joined: 2011-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Hello I thought I'd give it another chance.

I doubt the existence of god.

But then again, I doubt existence itself sometimes.

I would consider myself an atheist, regretably. I don't seem to agree with many atheists on anything.

A few weeks ago i made a huge mistake by telling people how I think that 9/11 was a conspiracy. but there are so many facts and figures that point to a conspiracy, and so many others that can disprove it,and so many sources that have been tainted by there own ambitions on either side of the argument, that I simply gave up, the rabbit hole is too deep. 

So far I've got a bad taste in my mouth from this website. And I thought that I would leave, but I'm a glutton for punishment i guess so i'm back.

 

You see I don't think its religion that I find fault with as much as absolutism and materialism.

At one time as a child I believed in a God, but I rebelled against his absolutism, before I doubted his existence.

and I find myself here, rebelling against another form of absolutism.

 

When most atheists and theists talk, it as if they are on a political smeer campaign, and neither one can conceed even one valid point to the other.  its like being forced to vote for one president when you can see that their both full of shit, so you just vote for the one that you think is less full of shit, and complain about him the whole time he's in office.

 

I find it funny how some atheists are convinced that there is no god, in the same way that theists are convinced that there is one. I find so much hipocracy on either side of the argument.  I find it rediculous and self serving when atheist scientists go out of there way to disprove the existence of god, and theists who claim to rely on faith go out of there way to prove that god exists.

 

It seems that atheists try to prove to theists that there idea of god (man with beard in clouds with inferiority complex) doesn't exist. I would have to agree with them on that, but to say that a higher power doesn't exist, is a jump.  the wind and water is a higher power than us. and it certainly seems to exist, there are many things and unthings that we have not discovered yet. to be so sure that they do not exist, when we no more about the moon than we do our own oceans, is so naive.

 

I tend to accept on some level, that there might be an immaterial world, (please don't confuse this concept with heaven or an afterlife)  not because I fear death, but for the simple fact that it confuses my mortal human mind. something that doesn't make sense, doesn't nesicerilly cancel itself out, it might just mean that we have not the capability to conceive it yet. now some will say "that way of thinking opens the doorway to myth".

 

but you see I'm not jumping to conclusions here, I'm just admitting that I'm a stupid human, compared to what I could be and that not everything is so black and white.

 

 


 

I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Don't worry 5-senses

 

no one here agrees with each other about anything aside from the fact there's a vanishing small chance of a god existing. We also promote an empiricist position. The name of the site implies we are rationalists but I think most people here are empiricists and will appeal to evidence over reason every time.

We are also mostly monists so we don't think the human mind is some ethereal spirit thing but believe the evidence suggests mind is the product of biochemical processes inside the human brain. Perhaps to someone unfamiliar with this position it sounds - locked. On the contrary we are prepared to change our minds if the evidence demands it. 

What we are fixed about is the standards we apply to evidence.

If you want to go sideways, fuck god. Let's talk about aliens instead.   

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
'God' is a fundamentally

'God' is a fundamentally logically flawed concept, so it is vastly more reasonable to simply assume that there is no God, in the absence of some startling new evidence, than concede some small possibility of such an poorly worked-out concept corresponds to something real.

Whereas Theists accept God on the basis of wishful thinking, over-interpretation of mental experiences and ancient texts.

How are those two sides remotely comparable?

If you want to actually put forward some arguments against this position, please let's hear it, that's what we're about.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3267
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
5_senses_does_not_reality_mak

5_senses_does_not_reality_make wrote:

 

 

It seems that atheists try to prove to theists that there idea of god (man with beard in clouds with inferiority complex) doesn't exist. I would have to agree with them on that, but to say that a higher power doesn't exist, is a jump.  the wind and water is a higher power than us. and it certainly seems to exist, there are many things and unthings that we have not discovered yet. to be so sure that they do not exist, when we no more about the moon than we do our own oceans, is so naive.

 

Well of course, wind, water, volcanos and earthquakes are much more "powerful" or as you put it "higher" than us, I see no evidence that any of those powers on Earth or in the universe are sentient or aware of our existence.

I too, despise absolutism.

My position is simply the fact that in the absence of all evidence, it makes sense to me that the logical default position would be disbelief.

Like Bertrand Russell's teacup theory.

I don't discount the idea that there could be "immaterial worlds" as you put it, or all sorts of other things. But until I see some evidence for these things, I don't believe in them.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There are certainly more

There are certainly more things making up reality than we currently know about or even suspect.

But history should tell us that until we get some actual evidence as to the existence and nature of these aspects of reality yet to be discovered, to try and intuitively second-guess them is increasingly less likely to match what actually turns up.

It was once thought 'obvious' that heavy objects should always fall faster than light ones, that projectiles from a cannon travel in straight lines until they 'run out of momentum' and then just drop, that the Earth is the center of the Universe, that the stars are just lights on some 'celestial sphere', etc, etc. These ideas predated what can be properly called science, ie systematic empirical observation and testing/verification/replication. Galileo was one of the first, if not the historical first,  person to really 'get it' and seriously successfully act on such ideas in a big way. And of course he quickly ran foul of the theologians and metaphysicians, who took the ultimate source of 'knowledge' to be based on the 'power' of reason and a priori intuition and revelation alone.

Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, the details of the Big-Bang Origin of the Universe, Black Holes, are all things which were pretty much unexpected and in many or all respects highly counter-intuitive. Which points to the inadequacy of our naked reasoning and imagination, ie, not stimulated by and based upon the often surprising results of our ongoing empirical investigations of reality itself, to anticipate such empirical 'revelations'. The Big Bang origin was rubbished by some prominent scientists, especially Fred Hoyle, who came up with the name 'Big Bang' as a derogatory label on what he thought was a naive and silly idea.

'Higher Power' seems to me to be simply an ancient and ill-defined idea which we are pre-disposed to think in terms of, it doesn't really point to anything like what we have actually uncovered. There are many things in the larger universe that are 'powerful', but just what exactly is meant by 'higher'?

The feeling that some such 'power' must actually have its own will and awareness and intent is an ancient superstition, based on the precautionary reaction to a motion in the grass on the savannah, which may be a lion.

But so far, our ongoing discoveries show that a fundamental randomness or indeterminacy appears to be the additional factor blurring the more deterministic mechanics at the base of existence. IOW no hint of a 'higher' consciousness or 'purpose' or direction. Apart from the direction of increasing entropy. Quantum phenomenon are currently the most purely statistically random events yet discovered.

To quote JBS Haldane, "Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


5_senses_does_n...
Posts: 40
Joined: 2011-07-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:'God' is a

BobSpence1 wrote:

'God' is a fundamentally logically flawed concept, so it is vastly more reasonable to simply assume that there is no God, in the absence of some startling new evidence, than concede some small possibility of such an poorly worked-out concept corresponds to something real.

Whereas Theists accept God on the basis of wishful thinking, over-interpretation of mental experiences and ancient texts.

How are those two sides remotely comparable?

If you want to actually put forward some arguments against this position, please let's hear it, that's what we're about.

OK

 

these two sides are comparable because of assumption. Is it vastly reasonable to simply assume that there is no god, or is it vastly more  unreasonable to simply assume at all?

Unless I'm getting the definition of Atheist wrong, it is DOUBTING the existence of god, not ASSUMING that it does not exist.

 

 

I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
5_senses_does_not_reality_mak

5_senses_does_not_reality_make wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

'God' is a fundamentally logically flawed concept, so it is vastly more reasonable to simply assume that there is no God, in the absence of some startling new evidence, than concede some small possibility of such an poorly worked-out concept corresponds to something real.

Whereas Theists accept God on the basis of wishful thinking, over-interpretation of mental experiences and ancient texts.

How are those two sides remotely comparable?

If you want to actually put forward some arguments against this position, please let's hear it, that's what we're about.

OK

these two sides are comparable because of assumption. Is it vastly reasonable to simply assume that there is no god, or is it vastly more  unreasonable to simply assume at all?

Unless I'm getting the definition of Atheist wrong, it is DOUBTING the existence of god, not ASSUMING that it does not exist;

"Atheist" simply refers to a lack of a belief in a God. This can encompass the range from don't give a f**k about the concept, to actively rejecting it as a nonsense concept.

'God' is not a concept that can justify being a default belief, since it goes way beyond anything we actually experience directly with or without augmentation of our senses by instrumentation and magnification. And it no longer fits in well what we have come to know of reality. It cannot explain existence, since that would require that it 'exist' or come into existence, prior to existence, which is nonsense.

There are an infinite number of scenarios of the origin of everything which could be postulated, the Abrahamic God is just one.

Since God is logically unnecessary, and we have no evidence to point unambiguously to the existence of any supernatural entity, let alone to any specific kind, the fully justified default assumption is that there is no such thing. This issue was largely addressed famously by Bertrand Russell's orbiting china teapot analogy.

The normal atheist position is that the claim that a God exists is extraordinary, and so requires extraordinary evidence, in the absence of which the rational thing to do is to go about affairs without concerning ourselves over much with it. Except when we are forced to by people interfering in our life. or the affairs of society, based on belief in such a thing.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13535
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:There are

BobSpence1 wrote:

There are certainly more things making up reality than we currently know about or even suspect.

But history should tell us that until we get some actual evidence as to the existence and nature of these aspects of reality yet to be discovered, to try and intuitively second-guess them is increasingly less likely to match what actually turns up.

It was once thought 'obvious' that heavy objects should always fall faster than light ones, that projectiles from a cannon travel in straight lines until they 'run out of momentum' and then just drop, that the Earth is the center of the Universe, that the stars are just lights on some 'celestial sphere', etc, etc. These ideas predated what can be properly called science, ie systematic empirical observation and testing/verification/replication. Galileo was one of the first, if not the historical first,  person to really 'get it' and seriously successfully act on such ideas in a big way. And of course he quickly ran foul of the theologians and metaphysicians, who took the ultimate source of 'knowledge' to be based on the 'power' of reason and a priori intuition and revelation alone.

Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, the details of the Big-Bang Origin of the Universe, Black Holes, are all things which were pretty much unexpected and in many or all respects highly counter-intuitive. Which points to the inadequacy of our naked reasoning and imagination, ie, not stimulated by and based upon the often surprising results of our ongoing empirical investigations of reality itself, to anticipate such empirical 'revelations'. The Big Bang origin was rubbished by some prominent scientists, especially Fred Hoyle, who came up with the name 'Big Bang' as a derogatory label on what he thought was a naive and silly idea.

'Higher Power' seems to me to be simply an ancient and ill-defined idea which we are pre-disposed to think in terms of, it doesn't really point to anything like what we have actually uncovered. There are many things in the larger universe that are 'powerful', but just what exactly is meant by 'higher'?

The feeling that some such 'power' must actually have its own will and awareness and intent is an ancient superstition, based on the precautionary reaction to a motion in the grass on the savannah, which may be a lion.

But so far, our ongoing discoveries show that a fundamental randomness or indeterminacy appears to be the additional factor blurring the more deterministic mechanics at the base of existence. IOW no hint of a 'higher' consciousness or 'purpose' or direction. Apart from the direction of increasing entropy. Quantum phenomenon are currently the most purely statistically random events yet discovered.

To quote JBS Haldane, "Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

There is no "higher power". There is just energy and material in varies sizes and states.

What causes the thought of "higher power" in the mythological sense is the same anthropomorphism that had people once thinking the volcano was a god.

It is gap filling from mere wishful thinking and infantile narcissism. It is an evolutionary flaw. Dawkins in "The God Delusion" describes this best as the moth mistaking the light bulb for the natural moonlight it guides itself by.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
That's close to it

5_senses_does_not_reality_make wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

'God' is a fundamentally logically flawed concept, so it is vastly more reasonable to simply assume that there is no God, in the absence of some startling new evidence, than concede some small possibility of such an poorly worked-out concept corresponds to something real.

Whereas Theists accept God on the basis of wishful thinking, over-interpretation of mental experiences and ancient texts.

How are those two sides remotely comparable?

If you want to actually put forward some arguments against this position, please let's hear it, that's what we're about.

OK

 

these two sides are comparable because of assumption. Is it vastly reasonable to simply assume that there is no god, or is it vastly more  unreasonable to simply assume at all?

Unless I'm getting the definition of Atheist wrong, it is DOUBTING the existence of god, not ASSUMING that it does not exist.

 

 

I think many or most here are agnostic atheists. We don't know for certain there is not a god but we see no evidence supporting the assertion there is.

By the way, 5-senses, do you believe aliens exist?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


5_senses_does_n...
Posts: 40
Joined: 2011-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

5_senses_does_not_reality_make wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

'God' is a fundamentally logically flawed concept, so it is vastly more reasonable to simply assume that there is no God, in the absence of some startling new evidence, than concede some small possibility of such an poorly worked-out concept corresponds to something real.

Whereas Theists accept God on the basis of wishful thinking, over-interpretation of mental experiences and ancient texts.

How are those two sides remotely comparable?

If you want to actually put forward some arguments against this position, please let's hear it, that's what we're about.

OK

 

these two sides are comparable because of assumption. Is it vastly reasonable to simply assume that there is no god, or is it vastly more  unreasonable to simply assume at all?

Unless I'm getting the definition of Atheist wrong, it is DOUBTING the existence of god, not ASSUMING that it does not exist.

 

 

I think many or most here are agnostic atheists. We don't know for certain there is not a god but we see no evidence supporting the assertion there is.

By the way, 5-senses, do you believe aliens exist?

 

 

That's pretty close to the way I feel actually, you have to understand, that I love to play the devils advocate quite a bit. (I'm sure you've noticed)  I don't know for certain there is not a god, but I see there are many things that have yet to be discovered, which may or may not have been misconstrued as a god or deity. If these things are ever discovered I'm almost confident that it will be nothing like the bible or any religious scripture, but something much more complex. And I'm willing to accept the idea that maybe our minds have not evolved far enough to even grasp these concepts or complexities.

I'm not sure if I would use the word believe, when it comes to the existence of Aliens. I think it is highly probable that they do exist.  I don't however, think that they have ever visited earth if that's what you mean.  But I'm not assuming that they do exist, or saying its ridiculous that they don't.

 

I think if any aliens were going to visit earth, they might destroy us, and take all the natural resources.  Mainly because we could pose a threat to the rest of the galaxy being as warlike and animalistic as we are.  At this point in history I think we would appear like monkeys with revolvers to them, not a good combination.

 

Another scenario is that they might take us as slaves, because of our genetic adaptability, unless of course they were more adaptable, which would probably be the case, since they were able to sustain a technological civilization capable of interstellar travel.  I would think that they could be either very peaceful and understanding or very tactical and cold.

 

Then again we could be the only sentient life in the universe, I just don't know.

 

Some part of me hopes that they are Trippy Hippie aliens, who love to smoke the ganja, and hopefully they will take me with them to planet Funkadelic. har har.

I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Interstellar travel to get

Interstellar travel to get resources would be extremely inefficient, even in the extremely unlikely event that there was some 'resource' uniquely available on Earth.

Anyone sufficiently advanced to travel between star systems would almost certainly be able to synthesise anything they had used up locally, at far lower energy expenditure.

Similarly, any possible genetic setup they wanted could be synthesised by such advanced intelligences.

I think it is highly unlikely we are the only intelligent species in the Universe, or even just in our galaxy.

But I think the scale of the Galaxy makes interstellar contact extremely unlikely, apart from possibly contact via light or radio communication.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


5_senses_does_n...
Posts: 40
Joined: 2011-07-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

Interstellar travel to get resources would be extremely inefficient, even in the extremely unlikely event that there was some 'resource' uniquely available on Earth.

Anyone sufficiently advanced to travel between star systems would almost certainly be able to synthesise anything they had used up locally, at far lower energy expenditure.

Similarly, any possible genetic setup they wanted could be synthesised by such advanced intelligences.

I think it is highly unlikely we are the only intelligent species in the Universe, or even just in our galaxy.

But I think the scale of the Galaxy makes interstellar contact extremely unlikely, apart from possibly contact via light or radio communication.

 

Yeah i guess your right, kind of like food replicators on star trek or something like that I suppose.

But there is one factor that could make interstellar contact likely, curiosity.

 

I doubt that they would have huge mother ship like you see on sci fi movies, but rather it would make much more sense to send out trillions of probes in many different directions, with artificial intelligence interfaces that connect with the original species. They could even be microscopic, so as not to interfere, sort of like a prime directive. (not sure if you watch star trek)

 

maybe there just as curious as we are.

I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

Interstellar travel to get resources would be extremely inefficient, even in the extremely unlikely event that there was some 'resource' uniquely available on Earth.

Anyone sufficiently advanced to travel between star systems would almost certainly be able to synthesise anything they had used up locally, at far lower energy expenditure.

Similarly, any possible genetic setup they wanted could be synthesised by such advanced intelligences.

I think it is highly unlikely we are the only intelligent species in the Universe, or even just in our galaxy.

But I think the scale of the Galaxy makes interstellar contact extremely unlikely, apart from possibly contact via light or radio communication.

I think it's NOT likely that we are alone in this universe of which we don't really even have a good concept of yet.

We are 3 year olds playing with a a modern laptop with no idea of what it is or where it came from.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

Interstellar travel to get resources would be extremely inefficient, even in the extremely unlikely event that there was some 'resource' uniquely available on Earth.

Anyone sufficiently advanced to travel between star systems would almost certainly be able to synthesise anything they had used up locally, at far lower energy expenditure.

Similarly, any possible genetic setup they wanted could be synthesised by such advanced intelligences.

I think it is highly unlikely we are the only intelligent species in the Universe, or even just in our galaxy.

But I think the scale of the Galaxy makes interstellar contact extremely unlikely, apart from possibly contact via light or radio communication.

 

This week I watched Wonders of the Universe with Brian Cox. I really like his show, reminds me of Carl Sagan in is positive wonderment of our universe. I had heard we are star dust but this show put it together for me. There are 92 known elements in the universe.  The stars are what produces these elements with carbon and oxygen being quite common. He said gold is very uncommon because it takes a supernova, a dying star, to produce the intense heat that can form the bonds to produce gold molecules. All this radiates out into space and collects I suppose from gases. 

I wonder if these elements are still passing through space and could enter earth's atmosphere and continue to form if enough of the molecules could bond so that we could see it. Brian said humans are a collection of billions, billions, billions of these elements. When we die we pass on those elements, regardless of how our body is handled.

I think this is the stuff of sci-fi that says we could re-create these bonds and produce food or the reverse engineering behind a "beam me up scotty" transformer.

All the stars are the great engines of life. Cool shit. "it only takes a spark to keep a fire going". 

 

Dang, wish I had take science in college instead of theological diddling.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Agree Ex-Min

ex-minister wrote:

This week I watched Wonders of the Universe with Brian Cox. I really like his show, reminds me of Carl Sagan in is positive wonderment of our universe. I had heard we are star dust but this show put it together for me. There are 92 known elements in the universe.  The stars are what produces these elements with carbon and oxygen being quite common. He said gold is very uncommon because it takes a supernova, a dying star, to produce the intense heat that can form the bonds to produce gold molecules. All this radiates out into space and collects I suppose from gases. 

I wonder if these elements are still passing through space and could enter earth's atmosphere and continue to form if enough of the molecules could bond so that we could see it. Brian said humans are a collection of billions, billions, billions of these elements. When we die we pass on those elements, regardless of how our body is handled.

I think this is the stuff of sci-fi that says we could re-create these bonds and produce food or the reverse engineering behind a "beam me up scotty" transformer.

All the stars are the great engines of life. Cool shit. "it only takes a spark to keep a fire going". 

 

Dang, wish I had take science in college instead of theological diddling.

 

getting a handle on this fundamental stuff is awesome. It's real epiphany material.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I really am quite impressed

I really am quite impressed with pretty much all of Brian Cox' doco's. I have the latest 'Wonders of the Universe' that went to air here recently recorded digitally in HD ready to watch when I feel like taking a break from my work.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
What elements get thru our atmosphere now?

For me Brian Cox takes the right amount of time to put out some science. Then he provides a pause with incredible scenery for me to digest what he just said. 

 

So what do you guys think/know about what the sun provides to earth now? Plants can process its light through photosynthesis.  I know we get vitamin D. 

I don't know how to properly form my next question. But can any of the elements created by the sun or stars pass through our atmosphere and become a part of the earth with even the crazy notion that even gold molecules from some supernova could be forming right now on earth?  Or were nearly all the elements captured on earth when it was formed ~4 billion years ago and little can pass through?

Is it an ongoing process or fixed? I don't want to used open or closed, because it is open.

Looks like I am trying to learn what our atmosphere allows in and blocks out.

TIA

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Elements heavier than

Elements heavier than hydrogen are only formed in stars, and normally only distributed out into inter-stellar space when they explode as supernova.

We are pretty much stuck with the elements that were in the the original dust, rock, water/ice etc that collected into what became our planet, plus some ongoing contribution from chunks left over from the original formation of the planets, that hit our atmosphere, and fall as meteors.

If the sun and planets go though an interstellar cloud of dust/gas, we would gather some more, but if it is too dense, we might have other problems. It could disrupt the planetary orbits...

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology