By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

 

Do you believe in any god?

Yes 63 36.21%
 
No 111 63.79%
 
Total:174
Pemalite on 08 September 2018
Snoopy said:

7. I actually want a space force. We need equipment to protect our satellites and future projects.

No we don't.

Snoopy said:

Imagine if our satellites are destroyed then what? No uber, no internet and no porn.

I know you tend to be fairly lax in your understanding of technology from prior conversations we have had... However... The bulk of the worlds data transmissions is done via terrestrial means and does NOT rely on high latency, low-bandwidth satellite transmissions.

Uber and thus GPS will continue to work, but with far less accuracy as our Cell-phone towers are often used to triangulate locations when GPS navigation is not available.

Snoopy said:

2. Again, we have to have proof. It should decrease significantly because with all the technology we have we came up with 40 billion and no life. There is more to it regarding the planets.

Not according to those who believe in their respective religions and Gods.

Snoopy said:

3. We haven't proved there is life on the moons yet or life outside earth. Moons are more unlikely to have life compare to planets. It's all just speculation.

Science is looking for the answer, that is the ultimate difference here.

Snoopy said:

5. Yes, it is chance. If we go by what scientists believe. Remember the butterfly effect how one small change can change the future significantly. Meaning life could've been stopped very easily. Supposedly 99.9% of species went extinct.

And? Evolution and Natural Selection isn't describing anything is done by chance.
And even if it was, who ultimately cares?


Snoopy said:

I just don't want to spend money on useless wars or equipment that we don't need. If it's technology hell yeah.

...Yet you are proposing just that.

  

Snoopy said:

I want the ability to control the weather so we can stop natural disasters and I believe we might be able to control it with space technology.

And you believe a satellite can accomplish that?




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

Around the Network
Snoopy on 09 September 2018
Pemalite said:
Snoopy said:

7. I actually want a space force. We need equipment to protect our satellites and future projects.

No we don't.

Snoopy said:

Imagine if our satellites are destroyed then what? No uber, no internet and no porn.

I know you tend to be fairly lax in your understanding of technology from prior conversations we have had... However... The bulk of the worlds data transmissions is done via terrestrial means and does NOT rely on high latency, low-bandwidth satellite transmissions.

Uber and thus GPS will continue to work, but with far less accuracy as our Cell-phone towers are often used to triangulate locations when GPS navigation is not available.

Snoopy said:

2. Again, we have to have proof. It should decrease significantly because with all the technology we have we came up with 40 billion and no life. There is more to it regarding the planets.

Not according to those who believe in their respective religions and Gods.

Snoopy said:

3. We haven't proved there is life on the moons yet or life outside earth. Moons are more unlikely to have life compare to planets. It's all just speculation.

Science is looking for the answer, that is the ultimate difference here.

Snoopy said:

5. Yes, it is chance. If we go by what scientists believe. Remember the butterfly effect how one small change can change the future significantly. Meaning life could've been stopped very easily. Supposedly 99.9% of species went extinct.

And? Evolution and Natural Selection isn't describing anything is done by chance.
And even if it was, who ultimately cares?


Snoopy said:

I just don't want to spend money on useless wars or equipment that we don't need. If it's technology hell yeah.

...Yet you are proposing just that.

  

Snoopy said:

I want the ability to control the weather so we can stop natural disasters and I believe we might be able to control it with space technology.

And you believe a satellite can accomplish that?

1st. We never had that many conversations and nothing extensive about technology. So stop lying like you know me, son.

2nd. Here is what would happened if our satellites go bye bye. Yes, the internet and GPS will be affected greatly.  Source: https://io9.gizmodo.com/what-would-happen-if-all-our-satellites-were-suddenly-d-1709006681

"In remote areas, people dependent on satellite for television, Internet, and radio would practically lose all service." Hundreds of millions of Internet connections would vanish, or be severely overloaded."

"We would also lose the Global Positioning System. In the years since its inception, GPS has become ubiquitous, and a surprising number of systems have become reliant on it."

All quotes from the article son. Obviously, I was over exaggerating especially about the part of no porn. However, the Internet, GPS, and our military will be affected greatly.

Finally, Evolution states the fittest will survive and breed. However, that doesn't stop outside forces from stopping this. Look what happened to the dinosaurs son. So yes, we are lucky that something bad didn't happen to stop us especially from the beginning when we're completely reliant on nature.

 

Here is an interesting article from BBC if satellites stopped working. Internet and GPS will be effected a lot.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130609-the-day-without-satellites



Pemalite on 09 September 2018
Snoopy said:

1st. We never had that many conversations and nothing extensive about technology. So stop lying like you know me, son.

I am not your son. Do not call me that.

Snoopy said:

2nd. Here is what would happened if our satellites go bye bye. Yes, the internet and GPS will be affected greatly.  Source: https://io9.gizmodo.com/what-would-happen-if-all-our-satellites-were-suddenly-d-1709006681

You failed to appropriately read my post.
I never made the assertion that things wouldn't be affected.

The other issue is of course Bandwidth... A single Satellite (A modern one) has a top-end amount of bandwidth of around 1TB/s of bandwidth (ViaSat-2).
But guess what? That is a shared medium and doesn't account for data transmission losses, encoding overhead and so on.
A submarine cable can hit 160TB/s. Ouch.

There are hundreds of thousands of miles of said cables laid all around the world.
But don't take my word for it....

https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
http://2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33yj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/cable-map-full.jpg


The next issue of course is latency. The law of physics literally applies here...
A cable laid between the USA and Australia is a much shorter trip than the USA, 23,000 miles in space to a satellite, then back down to Australia.
Usually latency via Terrestrial means is around 200-250ms.
Satellite you are looking at 800-1,000ms. - Even 1,400ms wouldn't be unheard of.

Could you put up with clicking a mouse in Diable 3 and waiting 1 and a half seconds for an action to occur? No? Exactly.

Snoopy said:

"We would also lose the Global Positioning System. In the years since its inception, GPS has become ubiquitous, and a surprising number of systems have become reliant on it."

 

And many systems use triangulation of phone towers instead of GPS navigation due to various factors.
The more towers you have, the more accurate it becomes.

In-fact, for emergency service work, if someone is lost in the wilderness, we use mobile phone tower triangulation to pinpoint where the user is rather than GPS if they use their mobile phone.

So get educated: https://www.safetrax.in/2017/09/05/gps-cell-tower-triangulation-help-tracking-location/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_tracking

Snoopy said:

Finally, Evolution states the fittest will survive and breed. However, that doesn't stop outside forces from stopping this. Look what happened to the dinosaurs son. So yes, we are lucky that something bad didn't happen to stop us especially from the beginning when we're completely reliant on nature. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Snoopy said:

Here is an interesting article from BBC if satellites stopped working. Internet and GPS will be effected a lot.

 


The BBC mentions...
Satellite Television:
* Not an issue for a more Netflix switched-on world.

Radio:
* We have dedicated radio towers here fed with Microwave backhaul links. - Again. Not an issue.

GPS:
* Partially an issue for devices/vehicles that cannot do triangulation from mobile networks. (I.E. Planes.)
* However... BBC is scaremongering. The GPS network wasn't fully online untill 1995, with precision GPS active untill the year 2,000 the world survived fine before that date... Planes didn't fall out of the sky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

Our networks are simply extremely robust to any disruption.

And now we have gone off-topic. Let's steer it back shall we?




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

vivster on 10 September 2018

@snoopy
I'd be interested to know what kind of event will happen that will wipe out ALL of our satellites that could be prevented by a space force? If you're talking about asteroids, sure. Those could be dealt with, but it's not like they're a danger to our satellites anyway. They'll be lucky to hit even one satellite. Space is big, you know, and those satellites are far away from each other.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Oneeee-Chan!!! on 10 September 2018

I love Norse mythology.



Around the Network
WolfpackN64 on 10 September 2018
Alara317 said:
SpokenTruth said:

You make me sigh every time you post.

1. It's an extrapolation.  There are suspected to be 40 billion in Milky Way.  Why should we suspect drastic differences in other galaxies?  Certainly some will have less and some will have more.  More specifically, it would be against physics if they didn't. And you're still talking about Earth-like planets.  Why do you keep ignoring the fact life will most likely be found on an icy planet?

2. Why would it decrease?  Why can't it increase?  Until you provide a valid reason why it would decrease, I'm going to arbitrarily claim it will increase.  Icy planets, think about them.

3. Irrelevant.  Being classified a planet is not necessarily a requirement for creating and sustaining life.  Did you not read what I wrote a few posts ago about Titan and Europa possible having life?  Those are moons.

4. Do you not understand the difference between looking for Earth-like planets and looking for life?  That is a significantly different goal.  Using the transit detection methods (Kepler) is not going to tell us if single celled organisms are swimming around in a liquid methane ocean or not. 

But this is again an issue with you not understanding scope, scale and time.  Many of the planets and stars we are observing no longer even exist.  And many that do exist we can't observe yet (light hasn't reached us).  If you are expecting to receive radio signals from an alien life, you may get disappointed.  Humans have existed for nearly 2 million years but have only been capable of radio communications for a tiny fraction of it (little more than 100 years).  13.8 billion year old universe and only 100 years of it have our own radio communications.  Should we really expect that all intelligent alien life to exist on the same time frame as ourselves?  Do you not understand that a radio signal from a planet from another galaxy 5 billion light years away is going to take 5 billion years to get here? To say nothing about our ability to recognize it as an alien signal to being with. 

5. It's not chance, it's physics and chemistry.  Is it chance that gravity exists on Earth?  Is it chance that hydrogen and oxygen bond to form water? 

6. Again, Pluto was simply reclassified.  Had nothing to do with observing it or the surrounding region better.  We reclassified it because we changed our working definition of the word 'planet'.  The reclassification doesn't alter anything about Pluto.  It doesn't change whether think it could support life or not.

7. Pennies on the dollar.  Currently 0.47% of the federal budget. The lowest percentage since year 3 of NASA's history (1960).  $568 billion total spent since 1958 (60 years).  Our military budget is higher than that each year.

You are clearly wasting your time. The theists in this thread are only interested in anecdotal evidence and logical fallacies to prove their point while ineptly failing to counter yours. (You, pemalite, and a few others). They have not succeeded in disproving your stance and have done a poor job explaining/justifying theirs; at this point they might as well be trolling because they seem to only be interested in wasting your time and are succeeding. 

I once had a 6 month long debate with a very intelligent friend of mine about religion with essay-long rebuttals shared every week and what it boiled down to was her saying she 'believes that God is real because the bible says so and since the bible has some elements that match with real world history and it was written by God himself, it must be infallible'. Very disappointing, because she was in the medical field and was otherwise very intelligent but utterly failed at utilizing logic to justify her stance. 

My point is, once someone has decided they believe in a God, there's very little you can do to shake that faith. No amount of logic, reason, philosophy, or science will make them waver when their own mytholgy has a built-in catch-all argument in "God works in mysterious ways and is infallible". Needless to say, there's a reason I don't bother debating with them any longer. I ask questions hoping for them to maybe come to terms with their fallacious viewpoints, but that clearly doesn't work. Point is, actively debating with theists is a waste of time and will only serve to frustrate you. 

The logic works perfectly fine, it's mostly you guys who read some logical fallacies on wikipedia and are using them on everything you deem applicable even when it's not. Stop trying to claim the rational high ground, you left it a long time ago.



Pemalite on 10 September 2018
WolfpackN64 said:

The logic works perfectly fine, it's mostly you guys who read some logical fallacies on wikipedia and are using them on everything you deem applicable even when it's not. Stop trying to claim the rational high ground, you left it a long time ago.

Feel free to quote instances where logical fallacies have been pointed out, that have actually been erroneous.

The rational high-ground is to be blunt... Believing what the evidence presents. That is... Evolution, Natural selection, Big Bang and so on... As there is no evidence of any kind of deity.




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

Peh on 10 September 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
Alara317 said:

You are clearly wasting your time. The theists in this thread are only interested in anecdotal evidence and logical fallacies to prove their point while ineptly failing to counter yours. (You, pemalite, and a few others). They have not succeeded in disproving your stance and have done a poor job explaining/justifying theirs; at this point they might as well be trolling because they seem to only be interested in wasting your time and are succeeding. 

I once had a 6 month long debate with a very intelligent friend of mine about religion with essay-long rebuttals shared every week and what it boiled down to was her saying she 'believes that God is real because the bible says so and since the bible has some elements that match with real world history and it was written by God himself, it must be infallible'. Very disappointing, because she was in the medical field and was otherwise very intelligent but utterly failed at utilizing logic to justify her stance. 

My point is, once someone has decided they believe in a God, there's very little you can do to shake that faith. No amount of logic, reason, philosophy, or science will make them waver when their own mytholgy has a built-in catch-all argument in "God works in mysterious ways and is infallible". Needless to say, there's a reason I don't bother debating with them any longer. I ask questions hoping for them to maybe come to terms with their fallacious viewpoints, but that clearly doesn't work. Point is, actively debating with theists is a waste of time and will only serve to frustrate you. 

The logic works perfectly fine, it's mostly you guys who read some logical fallacies on wikipedia and are using them on everything you deem applicable even when it's not. Stop trying to claim the rational high ground, you left it a long time ago.

You are going for ad hominem, now.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

WolfpackN64 on 10 September 2018
Peh said:
WolfpackN64 said:

The logic works perfectly fine, it's mostly you guys who read some logical fallacies on wikipedia and are using them on everything you deem applicable even when it's not. Stop trying to claim the rational high ground, you left it a long time ago.

You are going for ad hominem, now.

It was meant as such. I've stopped laying down my arguments since I've seen people using circular reasoning, flatout ignoring my arguments, re-arranging my argumens or throwing fallacy accusations at me while they clearly lack any advanced notion of logic.

And so many threads later I still see these people throwing down the same mistakes while lacking any form of epistemological modesty whatsoever.



vivster on 10 September 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
Peh said:

You are going for ad hominem, now.

It was meant as such. I've stopped laying down my arguments since I've seen people using circular reasoning, flatout ignoring my arguments, re-arranging my argumens or throwing fallacy accusations at me while they clearly lack any advanced notion of logic.

And so many threads later I still see these people throwing down the same mistakes while lacking any form of epistemological modesty whatsoever.

I hope that last part was a joke. And if you cannot see the irony of this then maybe you really shouldn't be part in discussions about logic.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.