| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/21/2010 11:34:39 PM · #1901 |
And let's not forget the original Kamikazes, or "Divine Winds", that saved Japan from not one, but TWO ruinous Mongol invasions way back when, in 1274 and 1281. THEY called it God's will... The Mongols thought it was *really* bad luck...
R. |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 11:46:43 PM · #1902 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
THEY called it God's will... The Mongols thought it was *really* bad luck...
R. |
You'll often see football teams huddle up for a group prayer before the game -- with both teams praying so hard and (I'm sure) sincerely, I wonder how God decides which team will win? Does it matter if the cheerleaders pray too?
Maybe this should be in the Grammar Police thread, but I wonder if sportscasters ever realize that, when they wish an athlete "Good Luck" at the end of the interview, they are automatically asking for misfortune to befall the opponent -- not very objective from a journalistic perspective ... |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 11:48:55 PM · #1903 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
THEY called it God's will... The Mongols thought it was *really* bad luck...
R. |
You'll often see football teams huddle up for a group prayer before the game -- with both teams praying so hard and (I'm sure) sincerely, I wonder how God decides which team will win? Does it matter if the cheerleaders pray too?
Maybe this should be in the Grammar Police thread, but I wonder if sportscasters ever realize that, when they wish an athlete "Good Luck" at the end of the interview, they are automatically asking for misfortune to befall the opponent -- not very objective from a journalistic perspective ... |
I've thought both those thoughts often...
ETA: I recall my son telling me that when the football team he was on prayed in the huddle, they weren't praying for victory, they were praying for strength, that nobody get hurt, that each of them would perform to the best of his abilities. I don't know if that's a universal thing though. His football team was a Parochial School's, though, a Catholic league...
R.
Message edited by author 2010-09-21 23:51:09. |
|
|
|
09/21/2010 11:53:20 PM · #1904 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I recall my son telling me that when the football team he was on prayed in the huddle, they weren't praying for victory, they were praying for strength, that nobody get hurt, that each of them would perform to the best of his abilities. |
That would be good, and may well be common; it even sounds vaguely familiar. I bet the coaches are praying for victory though ... |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 12:17:06 AM · #1905 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you take the story at face value, wouldn't you think the timing would be pretty suspicious? That right when the Egyptians are bearing down on the Israelites, a wind comes along to provide a land bridge? |
Nope... for two reasons: 1. As far as we know, it's JUST a story. Someone who witnessed winds opening up a land bridge might readily use that as a plot device to create an interesting story even if nobody actually crossed though it. 2. Timing is only suspicious if it coincides with an historic event. 100 other groups of Jews could have been backed against the same waters with no storm to save them, and only a chance event ends up making history (if indeed it was history). A massive storm that destroyed the fleet of Darius and another that destroyed the bridges of Xerxes before either could invade Greece are no less coincidental, but needn't be the handiwork of Poseidon. |
I think you missed we agreed on a lot of what you said. I know you aren't used to that... |
I think you missed that my second explanation is both HIGHLY plausible (if not expected) and neither of your two assumptions. ;-)
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would assume either the story was a total fabrication or divine intervention. The least likely is that they were saved by a fortuitous occurance. |
Message edited by author 2010-09-22 00:18:14. |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 01:35:48 AM · #1906 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you take the story at face value, wouldn't you think the timing would be pretty suspicious? That right when the Egyptians are bearing down on the Israelites, a wind comes along to provide a land bridge? |
Nope... for two reasons: 1. As far as we know, it's JUST a story. Someone who witnessed winds opening up a land bridge might readily use that as a plot device to create an interesting story even if nobody actually crossed though it. 2. Timing is only suspicious if it coincides with an historic event. 100 other groups of Jews could have been backed against the same waters with no storm to save them, and only a chance event ends up making history (if indeed it was history). A massive storm that destroyed the fleet of Darius and another that destroyed the bridges of Xerxes before either could invade Greece are no less coincidental, but needn't be the handiwork of Poseidon. |
I think you missed we agreed on a lot of what you said. I know you aren't used to that... |
I think you missed that my second explanation is both HIGHLY plausible (if not expected) and neither of your two assumptions. ;-)
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would assume either the story was a total fabrication or divine intervention. The least likely is that they were saved by a fortuitous occurance. |
|
Highly plausible that we've figured out that a 63 mph wind would cause a land bridge over a place where the Nile river may or may not have flowed at just the right time to save a bunch of escaped slaves? And that the storyteller, while recording something that really happened, but being thick enough to attribute it to God, failed to mention that God worked by using his breath to blow the waters apart (and, of course, be strong enough to blow everybody over at the same time)? I guess I'd personally rank that a little differently on the scale of probability and I'd certainly rank it below the whole story being made completely up.
I've been in strong winds. This picture? Not even close to 63 mph and I was having some trouble standing still...
Message edited by author 2010-09-22 01:37:47. |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 10:38:01 AM · #1907 |
| Well, big surprise. Atheists know more about religion that religious people. |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 10:41:15 AM · #1908 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Well, big surprise. Atheists know more about religion that religious people. |
Shouldn't this be in the America the Ignorant thread? That's where I was going to post it :-p |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 10:42:51 AM · #1909 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Louis:
Well, big surprise. Atheists know more about religion that religious people. |
Shouldn't this be in the America the Ignorant thread? That's where I was going to post it :-p |
Oops. Double post, here we come. |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 10:49:34 AM · #1910 |
| Well, since you woke this thread back up -- I read Hawking's new book last week. I'm still digesting it and will likely need to read it again to get the full gist of it, but overall I was unimpressed. The ultimate conclusion was presented in one short paragraph that basically says that since gravity is a negative energy, it can cause the spontaneous creation of the universe (i.e., the math allows for it). It makes no attempt to really discuss the framework within which gravity exists outside of the universe except to punt that explanaition to M-theory, which is really just glossed over. I guess I'll need to find some good, accessible books on M-theory to better understand where he is coming from. |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 11:23:00 AM · #1911 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Well, since you woke this thread back up -- I read Hawking's new book last week. I'm still digesting it and will likely need to read it again to get the full gist of it, but overall I was unimpressed. The ultimate conclusion was presented in one short paragraph that basically says that since gravity is a negative energy, it can cause the spontaneous creation of the universe (i.e., the math allows for it). It makes no attempt to really discuss the framework within which gravity exists outside of the universe except to punt that explanaition to M-theory, which is really just glossed over. I guess I'll need to find some good, accessible books on M-theory to better understand where he is coming from. |
So energy is allowed to pre-exist but God isn't? Did I get that right? |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 11:23:44 AM · #1912 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Well, since you woke this thread back up -- I read Hawking's new book last week. I'm still digesting it and will likely need to read it again to get the full gist of it, but overall I was unimpressed. The ultimate conclusion was presented in one short paragraph that basically says that since gravity is a negative energy, it can cause the spontaneous creation of the universe (i.e., the math allows for it). It makes no attempt to really discuss the framework within which gravity exists outside of the universe except to punt that explanaition to M-theory, which is really just glossed over. I guess I'll need to find some good, accessible books on M-theory to better understand where he is coming from. |
So energy is allowed to pre-exist but God isn't? Did I get that right? |
Got me. That was my disappointment - he didnt speculate much on that.
ETA: He's not saying that god doesn't exist, just that god is not a prerequisite for a universe to spontaneously be created. The math allows for it on its own.
Message edited by author 2010-09-28 11:24:44. |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 11:30:30 AM · #1913 |
| I'm having trouble with the negetive energy part. |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 11:33:38 AM · #1914 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
I'm having trouble with the negetive energy part. |
Think positively. |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 11:39:15 AM · #1915 |
| My understanding (very superficial): repulsive forces are positive, attractive forces are negative. All forces except for gravity balance positive and negative forces to cancel out. However the total energy in the universe is positive, so the universe can only form spontaneously if there is a negative force to balance out the positive overall energy that we see in the universe. Because gravity is a negative force, Hawking claims that this zeros out the equation, thereby allowing the universe to be created spontaneously. Got it??? :-D |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 12:38:03 PM · #1916 |
Negetive horsepower? Light?
I can't see antimatter either. |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 12:46:30 PM · #1917 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
I can't see antimatter either. |
The only reasons you can't see antimatter is because it exists in either very small quanities or is too far away. Antimatter exists, though usually not for long, since unrestrained it will combine with ordinary matter to yield energy according to Einstein's famous formula. |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 01:07:21 PM · #1918 |
| Gary, try reading Brian Greene (if you haven't already). I bet you could find it at your library and I bet it will be much meatier than Hawking's book. (Maybe Hawking was redoing his kitchen or something and needed the cash. :)) |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 01:23:06 PM · #1919 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
My understanding (very superficial): repulsive forces are positive, attractive forces are negative... |
Sort of. If you bring two positive electrical or magnetic charges together, you'll double the charge, but quadruple the electromagnetic field strength. The extra energy comes from the force required to bring the charges together since they naturally repel each other. Gravity is negative energy in the sense that this phenomenon is reversed. Bringing two positive masses together releases energy because the masses naturally attract each other, so the gravitational field strength quadruples, but the energy state is lower. A star gives up massive amounts of electromagnetic energy as it progresses through denser states (normal star, neutron star, black hole...). So the energy state of a supermassive black hole is actually very low because the energy required to keep its mass separated has been exhausted, but its gravitational field strength becomes enormous. Fun stuff to ponder even if the conclusions are unsatisfying. |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 01:32:34 PM · #1920 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Gary, try reading Brian Greene (if you haven't already). I bet you could find it at your library and I bet it will be much meatier than Hawking's book. (Maybe Hawking was redoing his kitchen or something and needed the cash. :)) |
I've been avoiding his writings since seeing his PBS special. He just came across as more of a media-hound than a scientist. Of course that's a completely unjustafiable reason to discount his science -- I'm sure he's very accomplished. I'll see if I can get over the gag reflex ;-) |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 01:50:53 PM · #1921 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Gary, try reading Brian Greene (if you haven't already). I bet you could find it at your library and I bet it will be much meatier than Hawking's book. (Maybe Hawking was redoing his kitchen or something and needed the cash. :)) |
I've been avoiding his writings since seeing his PBS special. He just came across as more of a media-hound than a scientist. Of course that's a completely unjustafiable reason to discount his science -- I'm sure he's very accomplished. I'll see if I can get over the gag reflex ;-) |
Elegant Universe was pretty heavy stuff. He really gets into it rather than just giving us a general overview (which I have always thought Hawking's popular books did). I haven't read Greene's second book which is probably more up to date.
Message edited by author 2010-09-28 13:51:16. |
|
|
|
09/28/2010 02:22:01 PM · #1922 |
No need to search out pirated video -- many programs are available to view directly at the new PBS video site.
Elegant Universe -- Parts 1-3 |
|
|
|
10/05/2010 12:29:41 PM · #1923 |
Originally posted by KQED-FM Public Radio:
What does it all mean?
Tomorrow (10/6/10), Michael Krasny will discuss his new book, Spiritual Envy: An Agnostic's Quest with Neal Conan on Talk of the Nation, broadcast live from the KQED Public Radio studios. "I have often found myself yearning to have some kind of undergirding of faith in my life, and a moral code," Krasny says. "I think a lot of people like me envy people who do have a strong faith. It can give them a purpose, a sense of order." |
You can stream the program from the KQED website or most other NPR stations between 11am-1pm Pacific Time -- but I don't know what time slot this will occupy. I Think NPR makes most programs available for download or streaming within a day of broadcast, if you can't listen live.
Mr. Krasny is also the host of the Forum interview program which airs daily 9-11 am.
Message edited by author 2010-10-05 12:30:34. |
|
|
|
10/05/2010 10:31:26 PM · #1924 |
| Thanks for the link Paul. Could be interesting. |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 03:59:04 PM · #1925 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Well, big surprise. Atheists know more about religion that religious people. |
You can take an abbreviated form of the quiz here. I won't tell you what I got... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 05:36:48 PM EDT.
