Whenever people confuse science as a religion (treating their religious belief as if it were science), I typically note their religion as The Science™. I do that most often nowadays with the Cult of the Mask rhetoric.
I was under the impression that the flow of thermal temperature is a determinant of thermal energy (heat). That of course is purely an amateur's reading. However my point was that there were two extremes of the same "thing".
Hmmm...no self respecting scientist would dare to propose a theory or indeed a fact without SERIOUS proof and being reviewed by many of his/her peers. The change in the environment isn't the sun, it is the atmosphere. More of the same amount of heat is getting trapped under the atmosphere and cannot escape due to Co2.
I just like to make that correction when that sort of thing comes up... Otherwise, reading how you concluded the rest of that comment (with regard to "reference points"), I tend to agree with how you describe "not knowing one without the other". It's not possible to truly know or fully realize what "good" is without also likewise knowing what "bad" is.
There's so much to unpack in your response here, as you make use of numerous words that people tend to "get it wrong on". First is the word 'theory'. Many people have this idea, and this goes back to the "scientific method" wording that I am not a fan of, as there is no "official method" that science follows in which one: [1] asks a question [2] does background research [3] constructs a hypothesis [4] conducts experiments to test the hypothesis [5] analyzes data from the experiment, draws conclusions [6] communicates the results (if the results align with the hypothesis, and are peer reviewed and published in a journal and whatever else, then a theory is now formed) That's not how science actually works. The first step that occurs in science is actually the formation of a theory. A theory is defined as "an explanatory argument", meaning "a predicate and a conclusion, but one that explains something". A theory may be inspired by anything...an observation...a thought experiment...analyzing an equation in a new way...watching an episode of Sponge Bob...anything. All theories initially start out as "circular arguments" (iow, an "argument of faith"). That is not a fallacy, but rather it is "the failure to recognize a circular argument for what it is" that is a fallacy. --- This is the common "beginning point" for both science and religion. However, while religion cannot move beyond this "beginning point" (since the theory being formed is NOT falsifiable), science CAN move beyond it (since the theory being formed IS falsifiable). The first step towards making a theory into a scientific one is to find the null hypothesis stemming from the theory itself. An example of this is the theory that "thermal energy flows from hot to cold" (2nd LoT). The null hypothesis of this theory is thermal energy that instead flows from cold to hot. Here, one is attempting to falsify one's own theory by showing some other direction of thermal energy flow. From here, one can formalize the theory into mathematics and then predict how the thermal energy will flow. One has just created a theory that has become part of the body of science. Note that absolutely no peer review was required, no publication into a "scientific journal" was required, no "consensus" was required, no "blessing" of any sort by some "elite gatekeeper" was required. Next is the word 'fact'. Many people think that a 'fact' is a synonym for the words "proof" or "universal truth". That's not actually the case. A 'fact' is actually "an assumed predicate in a conversation". So long as both interlocutors agree on something, then that something is established fact between them. If there is disagreement at any point, then that fact reverts back to being an argument. Facts are useful for speeding up conversations -- they are a form of shorthand. Next is the word 'proof'. Proofs only exist in closed functional systems, NOT in open functional systems. A closed functional system is a system with foundational axioms (iow, an agreed upon set of rules). Two such systems are Logic and Mathematics. Science, on the other hand, is an open functional system. Proofs, once this is understood, are simply extensions of those foundational axioms. To increase the temperature of the Earth, additional energy is required. Without an increase in the sun's intensity, where is this additional energy coming from? --- What you are describing here is a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (you are attempting to create energy out of nothing). Heat (the flow of thermal energy) can only be increased or reduced; it cannot be trapped or slowed (iow, there is no such thing as a perfect insulator). --- What you are describing here, besides a "Magick One-Way Blanket" in which thermal energy can flow in through the atmosphere from the outside but somehow cannot flow out through the same atmosphere from the inside, is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (you are attempting to have heat flow from cold [atmospheric CO2] to hot [Earth's surface]) and of the Stefan Boltzmann Law (you are attempting to decrease the radiance of Earth ["trapped" heat] while simultaneously increasing the temperature of Earth). The Global Warming religion is a complete and utter bogus religion that rejects logic, science, and mathematics.
First, the questions you demand come from answers already found. All accepted science is thoroughly peer reviewed. There are specific journals that are there to do this, to debate the issues and compare the "truth" of the conclusion. That is where the facts are created. The proof is knitted into the proposition to be peer reviewed. As I said, the sun is not hotter...the constitution of the atmosphere which protects us from the sun has, by or sending up gases and pollution since the 1850's trapped the sun's heat which has changed the movement of the gulf stream because the oceans are heating up. The latter affects the former. Consider a greenhouse which forms a blanket against heat and contains it. Since the heat cannot escape, it grows. I am attempting to do nothing. I merely sit in my own glassed in veranda as it gets warmer and warmer when the windows are closed. I really don't want to go over your post piece by piece...I want to close down for the evening.
Great! Then it should be easy as pie for you to provide them... Irrelevant. Peer review is not science nor does it elevate any theory into being a theory of science. It is just other people attempting to falsify the theory in question. Journals do not debate, and science does not find anything to be "true"... Rather, it finds theories to be "still standing, as of now". IOW, "not yet falsified". It is now very apparent that you didn't read through or consider any of the arguments that I presented in my prior post to you. If you did, you wouldn't be continuing your abuse of the word 'fact'. What are you even talking about?? It is now doubly apparent that you didn't read through or consider any of the arguments that I presented in my prior post to you. Repeating the same incorrect argumentation over and over does not somehow make it correct. That is actually a logical fallacy called the 'argument by repetition fallacy'. --- Thus, if you're going to make the same argument in response to my counter argument, then you're going to hear the same counter argument over again... Additional energy is required in order to raise the temperature of some bit of matter (such as the Earth). Where is this additional energy coming from, if not from the sun?? --- Your argumentation is based upon the creation of energy out of nothing, which is a violation of the 1st LoT. Continued violations of the 2nd LoT and the SB Law, as mentioned in my prior response. I will also add that when you claim that "the change in the environment" is "the atmosphere", you are not describing the environment of Earth, but rather the Earth itself (as the atmosphere IS the Earth, in part). Ergo, the question remains: What specifically, in Earth's environment, has changed in order to cause an increase in Earth's temperature? Where is this additional energy coming from, if not from the sun?? Pollution is another word that gets used and abused. Before it means anything to me, you will need to define the word for me as you are using it. CO2 is not a pollutant, btw... it is a life essential gas. Is oxygen a pollutant?? Is nitrogen a pollutant?? All substances are harmful in some sufficient quantity, therefore any definition involving a sufficient quantity makes ALL substances into pollutants/poisons, which makes NOTHING into pollutants/poisons (as the word at that point holds no distinction/meaning). Continued ignoring of my arguments in my prior post to you... Heat is not thermal energy, and heat cannot be trapped. It is not possible to measure the temperature of any ocean (not enough thermometers). This is where we start getting into the Global Warming Cult's rejection of the rules of mathematics, namely statistical mathematics. Ahhhh, the good ol' "greenhouse argument"... Never heard THAT one before...... This argument involves numerous false equivalencies and erroneous understanding of things such as heat. Heat cannot be contained. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator. There is ALWAYS heat. Heat does not grow; it is a flow. That flow can be increased or reduced, but never stopped or slowed. Greenhouses work NOT by "trapping heat", but by REDUCING heat. The clear walls of the greenhouse act as a coupling reducer between the air inside of the greenhouse and the colder outside air. Exactly... Those clear windows (which the sun can shine through) are acting as a coupling reducer between the air inside of your veranda and the colder outside air. There is a REDUCTION of heat between the two things (thanks to the glass windows). --- The Earth is not a greenhouse. That's fine. I'm just going over your posts piece by piece and correcting the errors within them along the way so that people who are interested in learning can learn. You don't seem to be interested in learning about this topic.
Well, I am not a Bible researcher, but I speak Hebrew. I am aware that the meaning of words maybe changed, but in todays spoken Hebrew בָּרָא means created. I copied the Hebrew text from: https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.1.6?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en And '“spatially separate” - there is another sentence in Genesis: וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים יְהִ֥י רָקִ֖יעַ בְּת֣וֹךְ הַמָּ֑יִם וִיהִ֣י מַבְדִּ֔יל בֵּ֥ין מַ֖יִם לָמָֽיִם׃ "God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the water, that it may separate water from water.”. According to google translate it means: "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." In todays Hebrew רָקִ֖יעַ means firmament and not expanse. But as I said - I am not researcher, I only translated the words from the modern Hebrew.
I agree with it. I also would add that this God which you describe has no connection with to existing religion.
God can be all powerful, but wicked as Sfinx, who was giving to passes by a riddle and killing anyone who could not solve it. Actually according to Christian religion He behaves like Sfinx - He gave us few religions and if you chose the wrong one - you go to hell for eternity!
That may be. Over time, religions become distorted and polluted. We are fallible and see things as in a mirror dimly.
You also said: "That’s the best we can do since God is ineffable. We literally cannot conceive of the nature of God, His form or essence. So we describe Him in terms our minds CAN conceive, the way we experience him in nature and in our lives: as father, as creator, as judge and ruler of the universe." Since God is ineffable and we literally cannot conceive of the nature of God, we don't know what He wants from us, He loves us or hates us, and if we "experience him in nature and in our lives", the only LOGICAL conclusion is He hate us - now we can blame Him for earthquakes, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, global warming, pandemics, mosquitos or forest fires.
Oh, I don’t think that follows. We live in a beautiful world, and life itself is a blessing. We have free will to decide how we respond to challenges, a chance to grow.
I refuse to repeat myself. I have better things to do than be concerned as to whether you understand how science works . Or how the atmosphere works. It really doesn't matter to me...what matters is that scientists understand how it works.
The Muslims of the Middle Ages thought the same way, while medieval Christians did see science more as a competitor, wanting to explain a world without God. Not necessarily. There may be a force in nature that seeks to reduce entropy, create, maintain, and perfect systems and structures. This force of nature doesn't need to have intelligence or morals.
Maybe you should argue with NASA. https://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/ "The greenhouse effect is a process that occurs when gases in Earth's atmosphere trap the Sun's heat. This process makes Earth much warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is one of the things that makes Earth a comfortable place to live." How about National Geographic? https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/greenhouse-effect-our-planet/ "Greenhouse gases allow the sun’s light to shine onto Earth’s surface, and then the gases, such as ozone, trap the heat that reflects back from the surface inside Earth’s atmosphere. The gases act like the glass walls of a greenhouse—thus the name, greenhouse gas." Please don't play word games with me. As for peer reviews, it is clear you have little idea how it works. https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-peer-review.htm "At the heart of that process is scientific peer review, a quality-control system that requires all new scientific discoveries, ideas and implications to be scrutinized and critiqued by expert scientists before they become widely accepted. Peer review has been around for nearly 300 years, so it is not new." It is worth your while to read this.
As long as we don't know the answers to the questions that trigger people like Penrose to try to find out, god isn't a bad explanation. Some god or other is always been the "final answer" to the questions people have been asking for thousands of years. The NATURE of god has changed .We don't sacrifice and eat the hearts of our enemies for example, in order to ensure man's best interests, and the eating of something as allied to such a sacrifice (the body of Christ as the ultimate provider of the survival of and benefits in order to create a sinless human and the salvation of the world) has been reduced to a cracker. It is when god is codified and turned into a business that I have to bow out.
The story of Galileo was a prime example of the Church's suppression of the free spirit. I said Church, not Christianity. They're not the same!
Not today but in Medieval Europe, they were the same. Until the Reformation. Before the 16th century, church was all christianity. Protestantism began at its earliest roughly around the end of the 15th century with Luther and the Reformation (which is what it means...the reform of the Catholic church) and Henry VIII in the UK used it to divorce Catherine of Aragon. These helped to bring an end to the "medieval period" in Europe. It created the "new church", the Protestant church, now the "Church/Christianity " meant two definitions. It is no accident that the Reformation was a crucial part of the Renaissance and a flourishing growth of interest in science as accepted principally by the Protestant church. It freed that church from the suppression of science and one of the more interesting early "sciences" was alchemy (mentioned by Shakespeare and the subject of the Play The Alchemist by Ben Jonson, first performed in 1610 where alchemy is a debate about whether science is magic or morally threatening to God's power. Sorry. I do go on. Suffice it to say, The Church/Christianity before the 16th century was decidedly anti science and saw it as heresy.
Equating the medieval church with Christianity is as wrong as saying ISIS is Islam. Only radical atheists who hate any religion do that.
The medieval church was the ONLY Christianity around at the time. Until the 16th century. I just explained that.
The problem is that the "medieval church" exists only in comic books. We're talking about an aspect (religion?) of a place (Europe?) in a time (500AD to 1400AD?) and we find ourselves in a soup of evolving diversity. Jews, Christians, Muslims, through in a few diehard pagans and Buddhist missionaries, from the Mediterranean (which includes Africa and Asia along w/ Europe and extends to the North Atlantic w/ Greenland & Canada? Real life get very interesting...
