Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prove creationism...I'll shut up!
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Hubble doesn't have anything close to that sort of resolution. Pluto itself is a dot on the screen.
Really because they have spotted planets in other star systems. And they can even tell what can of atmosphere they have.
Originally posted by Beliver
Really because they have spotted planets in other star systems. And they can even tell what can of atmosphere they have.
Planets are spotted in other star systems based on how they effect the light emitted by the star they orbit. Atmosphere is probably determined the same way we used to figure out the composition of the sun.
Or if that's not good enough for you. Here's what Pluto and Charon looks like through Hubble.
A potential tea pot would be 2500 times smaller than that . . .
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosBroken image
Planets are spotted in other star systems based on how they effect the light emitted by the star they orbit. Atmosphere is probably determined the same way we used to figure out the composition of the sun.Or if that's not good enough for you. Here's what Pluto and Charon looks like through Hubble.
A potential tea pot would be 2500 times smaller than that . . .
Fixed 😄
It is also a different kind of resolution, Hubble can see far away but can't do squat really up close.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Planets are spotted in other star systems based on how they effect the light emitted by the star they orbit. Atmosphere is probably determined the same way we used to figure out the composition of the sun.Or if that's not good enough for you. Here's what Pluto and Charon looks like through Hubble.
A potential tea pot would be 2500 times smaller than that . . .
Okay then but man can send a probe to Pluto which would eventually send back data proving there is no tea pot orbitting Pluto.
Still waiting for the proof that God created Man and Woman.
Originally posted by Beliver
Okay then but man can send a probe to Pluto which would eventually send back data proving there is no tea pot orbitting Pluto.Still waiting for the proof that God created Man and Woman.
that probe wound NOT prove there is no tea pot
it would provide no data supporting the hypothesis that there is a tea pot is there.
there is a huge difference between the two, especially when the tea pot is symbolic for something which is, by definition, not measurable by science
Originally posted by inimalist
that probe wound NOT prove there is no tea potit would provide no data supporting the hypothesis that there is a tea pot is there.
there is a huge difference between the two, especially when the tea pot is symbolic for something which is, by definition, not measurable by science
What are you drivelling on about?!?
Given the data that would be sent back we would be able to say there is no tea pot.
So your saying God is symbolic. What is he symbolic for then? A teapot orbiting Pluto?
Originally posted by Beliver
What are you drivelling on about?!?Given the data that would be sent back we would be able to say there is no tea pot.
So your saying God is symbolic. What is he symbolic for then? A teapot orbiting Pluto?
But the teapot is ethereal and beyond all technology. Now do you get the point?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the teapot is ethereal and beyond all technology. Now do you get the point?
But given Man's thirst for knowledge and advancement would he eventually develope the technology to measure the ethereal? Or does simply the ethereal not exsist and is just a creation of the minds of men to explain his mortallity?
Originally posted by Beliver
What are you drivelling on about?!?
the scientific method and standards of evidence, scientific proofs, formal logic
Originally posted by Beliver
Given the data that would be sent back we would be able to say there is no tea pot.
no, we wouldn't.
We would be able to say there is no evidence of a teapot.
There is no evidence of something's absence, only no evidence of its presence.
To put it simply, we could miss the tea pot.
Originally posted by Beliver
So your saying God is symbolic. What is he symbolic for then? A teapot orbiting Pluto?
lol, no. I'm not using symbols. YOU are saying the TEAPOT is a SYMBOL for GOD.
lol, c'mon man, it was your own comparison.
I'm saying, you are using a teapot as a symbol for God. Well, the problem is, a teapot is a physical entity that humans could hope to build something capable of detecting. God is not. Therefore, God is not like the teapot, because even if we did send probes everywhere in the universe, we can't build them to detect him.
Originally posted by Beliver
But given Man's thirst for knowledge and advancement would he eventually develope the technology to measure the ethereal? Or does simply the ethereal not exsist and is just a creation of the minds of men to explain his mortallity?
Simply put, you cannot prove a negative.
Originally posted by inimalist
the scientific method and standards of evidence, scientific proofs, formal logicno, we wouldn't.
We would be able to say there is no evidence of a teapot.
There is no evidence of something's absence, only no evidence of its presence.
To put it simply, we could miss the tea pot.
lol, no. I'm not using symbols. YOU are saying the TEAPOT is a SYMBOL for GOD.
lol, c'mon man, it was your own comparison.
I'm saying, you are using a teapot as a symbol for God. Well, the problem is, a teapot is a physical entity that humans could hope to build something capable of detecting. God is not. Therefore, God is not like the teapot, because even if we did send probes everywhere in the universe, we can't build them to detect him.
No the teapot was not my symbol. It was someone elses.
If I show you a tree I have proven it exsists. If I show you a gerbil and tell you there is no tree, have I not proven there is no tree?
Yes we could miss the teapot. But given time and patience we would be able to map the entire orbit of the planet (can we still call Pluto a planet?) and thus PROVE there is no teapot.
Originally posted by Quark_666
Bertrand Russel 🙂So you're saying that God's existence can be disproven, which thus makes it provable? The whole conversation you're having with inimalist is clouding my observation a bit....
I belive that all things will in time be proven or disproven. Just a matter of time.
Look at the "world is flat theory". In time it was disproven even when many said it wouldn't be.
Of course those with "faith" will get out of it by claiming that God can't be proven or disproven, he just is. But I belive that for something to be it must exsist or it simple isnt.
Originally posted by Beliver
No the teapot was not my symbol. It was someone elses.
my mistake, I thought you brought that up
Originally posted by Beliver
If I show you a tree I have proven it exsists.
not to me you haven't. If you want to be as philosophical as possible, I don't trust my sensory systems, and would not be surprised at all if something I saw to be real was not.
However, you could run a large enough battery of tests, have it confirmed by other independent tests, and eventually convince me that something tree-like does exist.
Originally posted by Beliver
If I show you a gerbil and tell you there is no tree, have I not proven there is no tree?
no, you haven't even come close.
You have shown me a gerbil, then said there is no tree. You have proven nothing. Even if we assume that you are being truthful, I am relying on your ability to detect trees, and you aren't perfect, nor do I know that you have searched everywhere exhaustively.
you cannot "prove", using science or formal logic, that something does not exist.
Originally posted by Beliver
Yes we could miss the teapot. But given time and patience we would be able to map the entire orbit of the planet (can we still call Pluto a planet?) and thus PROVE there is no teapot.
so, to you, there is a time when scientists can say "We have looked hard enough and we now know what is 100% true"?
