How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[surreptitious57]

You are right in that if you want to know more about a subject then you should read up on it. But sometimes what you read is not true
or not accurate and if you start believing what you read is true and accurate when it is not then confusion is caused and can set in. And
when beliefs are in place and being held but the full and big picture has not yet been clearly seen then distorted views are formed. Then
confirmation bias can take place and this mixed with confusion disputes are inevitable

All that is true but if you do not read up on a subject then you will know nothing about it at all
So once again I suggest you do this if you want to learn more about this or indeed anything else

[ken]

Just how much of an ignorant layman or not I am is being shown, and will be seen. I have already admitted to being the most uneducated, simple and slow one. One reason I ask so many clarifying questions is so that you educated ones can teach Me what you actually do know. This knowledge is being shown here by "all" the answers I get to My questions.

The term "theory" does not mean the same thing in layman's and scientific uses. To the layman a theory is an unproven idea or hunch, definitely a speculation on a subject. In science a theory is an idea that explains most or all that is known about a subject, thus a scientific theory is better than facts and much more than a speculation or hunch.

So, is what you are saying here is in science a theory is an idea that explains only that what is known about a subject, and this idea is better than facts? Correct Me if I am wrong.

If this is true, then how do you explain the contradictory nature of the theory of general relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics? You are one of the ones who was saying that these two theories are incompatible with each other. If this were so, then how can one of them be better than facts and much more than a speculation or hunch.

By the way I have not had any answers to My clarifying questions regarding What can appear at two places at the one time, et cetera, et cetera. Until I get these answers I will not explain how the two theories are actually compatible. By showing how ALL theories are compatible, then the subject about the theory of Everything can also be known. (But we are a long way of showing that just yet).

Too many times in the past I have heard a layman use the phrase "It's only a theory" to discredit a scientific theory that they didn't like, evolution seems to be one of the favorites.

Why was it 'too' many times?

Scientific theories are the best explanation of a body of knowledge to date and will be altered or changed if new data comes available. Scientific theories are the ideas that are accepted by the majority of those studying the body of knowledge in question, and the thoughts of those outside the field of study have little or no bearing on the validity of the theory.

I just became aware, because of your logic here, that no matter what thoughts I provide, they will have little or no bearing on the validity of the theories. That is because I am not one of those study a body of knowledge. Therefore, there really is no use in Me providing any thing further. Is this right?

By the way, and I found this very helpful, just studying what others teach, that is a body of knowledge in question, is not really the best way to find, discover, see, and understand the really meaningful answers in Life. Anyway because I do not study the body of knowledge that "others" want Me to know and accept, then according to you the thoughts within this head have little or no bearing anyway. Also, you might not have noticed this yet, but while trying to study a body of knowledge that you do not accept nor understand, because it does not fit in with other bodies of knowledge or make not make sense, and you question this or bring to light the inaccuracies, contradictions, et cetera, and the "teachers" are not able to understand this or answer this, then some times you will not be given a "pass mark". Therefore, you will be the one seen as being not smart enough and/or not educated enough.

A majority of any thing, in of itself, does not make any thing accurate, true, right, and/or correct. However, ALL of any thing can make things accurate, true, right, and/or correct.

For myself, I do not own a large telescope or a any particle accelerator to study these subjects so I rely on the reports of those who do have access to the proper equipment.

So, no matter what is written down, you rely on those words?

If I recall correctly it was also you who said you believed in what you are told. Yet you have proven this wrong on a few occasions already.

I also base my knowledge on what the majority of scientists have to say on the topic, I do not give much credence to those in the lunatic fringe who propose outrageous ideas.

But you only base your knowledge on what the scientists are saying if they are saying what you already believe is true. It does not matter how many are saying some thing. Or, do you actually base ALL of your knowledge only on what the majority of scientists say? If so, then no matter what period of time you lived in you would still be basing your knowledge on what the majority of scientists are saying? What if there were no scientists, what would you base your knowledge on then? Would it be the majority of human beings, the majority of teachers, the majority of preachers, et cetera?

How many people do you think give much credence to those in the lunatic fringe who propose outrageous ideas?

Obviously, if you think or say the words, "those in the lunatic fringe who propose outrageous ideas", you are not going to give much credence to them at all. This applies to EVERY person who thinks or says those words. Of course they are not going to give much credence to the ones in the lunatic fringe and/or the ones who propose outrageous ideas.

By the way you do realize that some of the ideas that you propose are seen by others as being outrageous and so you, yourself, are seen as one of those in the lunatic fringe also?

[surreptitious57]

A theory defined scientifically or in another way is not that much different really. But then again Every thing is relative to the observer. I just find it amusing now that you say that some theories are incomplete and inaccurate but now are trying to say that in science nothing is above a theory

The scientific definition of theory is completely different to the lay definition. And nothing in science is above a theory even if some like General Relativity are incomplete or inaccurate. Gravity is still a theory even though it has been replaced by General Relativity. And so General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics will still be theories after they have been replaced by Quantum Gravity at some point in time for it is how science works

[ken]

A layman generates a theory to account for the phenomena that they are familiar with. So do scientists.

No. a layman develops a theory to explain something they do not understand, a scientist develops a theory to explain what the do understand.

Do you really believe that?

Do you label yourself as a "layman" or a "scientist"? If you call yourself a "layman", then do you really develop theories to explain things that you do not understand? I do not know any other person who does this. How does one actually develop a theory about some thing that they really do not understand? I know people develop theories about what they speculate about, like some of those labeled "scientists" do. Do you have any examples of how, where, or when people have actually developed a theory to explain some thing that they do not understand.

By the way can the theory a "scientist" develops be inaccurate, wrong, false, and/or incorrect? Or, that could not happen?

[ken]

If rock is a non-living part of earth, then what part of the earth is living?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Just for you,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p51FiPO2_kQ

You claim that earth is living but there is a non-living part of earth. I ask a VERY simple question like what part of earth is living, but you can not answer it?

That link did not give much insight into your views.

What I see is that earth is alive and living. For this living organism to evolve/change like ALL living things do, then the earth has to change in shape and form. Part of this changing in shape and form is done by rocks being melted, exploding out from towards the center through volcanoes, cooling down, hardening, shifting and grinding through earthquakes, and decaying, with air, wind, and water. Rocks are always changing in shape and for, and thus are always evolving. Just like EVERY other physical thing in the Universe. I see life with-in ALL things. If you do not see rocks as life, then so be it. But just because you observe, see and understand some thing does not make it absolutely true, right, and correct.

[surreptitious57]

Usually just the bare minimum is really all that is needed to understand any thing meaningful fully

This is definitely not true in relation to certain subjects such as quantum mechanics that we are discussing here
But I do not think that it is true anyway and so can you give the most obvious example where you think it is true

[ken]

The fundamental structure of DNA is the same in all organisms but the order or sequence and complexity
of DNA in them does vary. Anything non biological is DNA free and so that would be all inanimate objects

Do you have any examples of non biological dna free things that are inanimate objects
I ask this because I see all physical things as being alive and just as much a part of Life

Not all physical things are alive only biological life forms because they have sense organs and a nervous system. Inanimate objects do not have
these so are not alive. A rock is an example of this. There is a clear distinction between alive and dead. So not everything is alive as you claim

Okay, I am wrong once again.

[ken]

So you KNOW that things that be beyond human knowledge and imagination can not be known. Therefore in a particular way
ALL things can be known. Also how do you KNOW that there are / will be things beyond human knowledge and imagination

The human brain is a physical organ which means that there is a limitation to how much knowledge it can acquire
It does not have infinite capability so therefore cannot know or imagine everything that can be known or imagined

Again, self-centerdness shines through and thinks this is about itself, that is one brain only. Human brains really need to go back to the start and begin looking from where they once looked from, that is a completely open perspective.

Human knowledge and imagination IS about the knowledge and imagination from ALL human beings, not just one of them. Human beings may live forever more, so there may in fact be no things beyond human knowledge and imagination. If this does happen, then ALL things can be known.

[ken]

Is there going to be human extinction? Do you KNOW this for sure?

Yes I do because of the Second Law Of Thermodynamics and the Sun going red giant in five billion years
So even if a suitable exo planet is discovered before then the Second Law will still guarantee extinction

Just how big do you think the Universe is?

You do not think that a suitable "exo planet" could be found beyond this solar system within the next five billion years?

Have you ever thought about what human beings have actually created, done, and achieved just in the last 200 years let alone what they could create, do, and achieve in the next five billion or so years?

[surreptitious57]

Theories are just human made speculations about what is the truth

Gravity is a theory
Evolution is a theory
Special Relativity is a theory
Electromagnetism is a theory
General Relativity is a theory
Quantum Mechanics is a theory

They are more than just speculations

Would

A theory of gravity is a theory
A theory of evolution is a theory
A theory of special relativity is a theory
A theory of electromagnetism is a theory
A theory of general relativity is a theory
A theory of quantum mechanics is a theory

be more correct it would be more correct but they are all tautological so trivially true

The label / name gravity is given to what is generally known as gravity. Gravity itself is not a theory
The label / name evolution is given to what is generally known as evolution. Evolution itself is not a theory
The label / name special relativity is given to what is generally known as special relativity. Special relativity itself is not a theory
The label / name electromagnetism is given to what is generally known as electromagnetism. Electromagnetism itself is not a theory
The label / name general relativity is given to what is generally known as general relativity. General relativity itself is not a theory
The label / name quantum mechanics is given to what is generally known as quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics itself is not a theory

One should always avoid confusing the map with the territory for they are not the same

[surreptitious57]

So you KNOW that things that be beyond human knowledge and imagination can not be known. Therefore in a particular way
ALL things can be known. Also how do you KNOW that there are / will be things beyond human knowledge and imagination

The human brain is a physical organ which means that there is a limitation to how much knowledge it can acquire
It does not have infinite capability so therefore cannot know or imagine everything that can be known or imagined

Again self centeredness shines through and thinks this is about itself that is one brain only. Human brains really
need to go back to the start and begin looking from where they once looked from that is a completely open perspective

Human knowledge and imagination IS about the knowledge and imagination from ALL human beings not just one of them. Human beings may
live forever more so there may in fact be no things beyond human knowledge and imagination. If this does happen then ALL things can be known

I did not mention that this is about myself or my brain only and nor was I thinking it either so you are completely wrong there
And can you explain how biological entropy and the heat death of the universe would allow human beings to live forever more

[ken]

I have never understood the word flat in relation to space. There might be an easy explanation for this but I have yet to see it. To Me space is
just the distance between objects or particles of matter. This applies from the smallest of objects to the largest of objects. Unless they mean
the space between two objects being measured in a flats or straight line

Space is indeed the distance between objects but it is also flat and smooth at the classical level while distorted and jagged at the quantum level

Space is NOT, and I repeat NOT, necessarily smooth at some defined level while distorted and jagged at another human defined supposed level. The theory of one thing at some supposed level says that space is flat and smooth and the theory of another thing at some other supposed level says that space is distorted and jagged. It is the actual theory of these things that predicts what happens. But if space is actually like this is not necessarily so. It is theorized that space is either of the two, or some thing else, which may or may not be discovered in some time in the future. But as I continually say, what is actually true can be seen and known already.

This may be because of the extra dimensions predicted by string theory that supposedly exist at the latter but are not experienced at the former

Did you just say, "predicted by string theory" here?

Are scientific theories based on what is known only, or can theories be based on what is already known to predict other things also? A scientific theory that predicts what supposedly exists, seems to be a bit different from what you were implying before. A theory that predicts what supposedly exists, would fall into the "layman" category and not into the "scientific" category that you and another were alleging how theories are made.

Just some thing to think about.

[surreptitious57]

You do not think that a suitable exo planet could be found beyond this solar system within the next five billion years

I have absolutely no idea and so I am not ruling out the possibility of one being discovered as it is entirely possible

[ken]

saying something similar to Experiments have shown this to happen is NOT actually providing evidence

Experiments conducted with the rigour of the scientific method eventually provide reliable evidence

They might do, if, and only if, that "reliable evidence" is actually provided and shown. Otherwise I am not just going to accept some thing because it is said and/or written in a book. I do not accept things on these circumstances for three reasons;
1. The people doing the "scientific method" can have biases.
2. The premises on which the "scientific method" began might be inaccurate, wrong, false, incorrect, incomplete, and/or just be. Besides that the whole starting point might just be wrong in the first place.
3. What is said and/or written in a book can get so misinterpreted from it's original that was once meant could be so far from what is being conveyed now. You just need to look at the bible for reliable evidence of this occurrence happening.

I also noticed that you did not provide what the actual thing was that was supposedly in two places at the one time, where this was meant to have taken place, nor when did this supposedly happen, nor has any else been provided on any of the other clarifying questions similar to this one.

[surreptitious57]

But as I continually say what is actually true can be seen and known already

Not everything true is known but can you give an example of something that is