Delano

We aren't even in the same book. Steady State is no longer a credible theory. Perhaps @Troycan explain that to you. We aren't even in the same book. Steady State is no longer a credible theory. Perhaps @Troycan explain that to you. Or one of the voices in your head☺

@Mel is that a redirect. Or a cover for you trying to define theory that has been discredited.

I used to say your logic was impeccable even when I disagreed with you. That time has past.

That is a very tasty morsel. The reason I do that is to make certain we are starting from the same page. So while you may find it annoying I am tryin to ascertain your position. I didn't think it required any explanation. Steady State Theory is not a position being held because of Background Microwave Radiation. So to say that the Steady State and The Big Bang Theory are two theories is not correct. So I am not certain why you are asking why I am saying Mel is wrong. Since to me it is obvious. And I thought you knew that Steady State is no longer a credible theory. This is also why I post definitions. It is not about saying that is the only defintion, it demonstrates explicitly what I am trying to communicate. So that the conversant can see the fundamental difference in our position. Which is also why I argue usage and seemingly minor points. I want to understand precisely what someone is saying. Or close enough to feel that we can have a discussion. However I think I will jettison that approach. Based on the failure of said technique. I will be parsimonius going forward.

@Troy is the Steady State Theory still in consideration with the Big Bang Theory?

@Mel Hopkins you are arguing a point from ignorance and you are wrong. Instead of trying to inform you or rather asking you to inform yourself, I will post the reasoning why. @Cynique @Troy @Pioneer1 @zaji When Einstein created his theory of general relativity, early analysis showed that it created a universe that was unstable — expanding or contracting — rather than the static universe that had always been assumed. Einstein also held this assumption about a static universe, so he introduded a term into his general relativity field equations called the cosmological constant, which served the purpose of holding the universe in a static state. However, when Edwin Hubble discovered evidence that distant galaxies were, in fact, expanding away from the Earth in all directions, scientists (including Einstein) realized that the universe didn't seem to be static and the term was removed. (There is an apocryphal story that they came up with the theory after watching the film Dead of Night, which ends exactly as it began.) Hoyle particularly became a major proponent of the theory, especially in opposition to the big bang theory. In fact, in a British radio broadcast, Hoyle coined the term "big bang" somewhat derisively to explain the opposing theory. So it is not a theory that any reasonable person would hold since it runs counter to the known facts. The other bit is the Steady State Theorist called the opposition the Big Bang in order to ridicule the opposition. The irony is that the Steady State theorist were wrong. So they were name calling and wrong.

@Mel Hopkins that's not the point I am arguing. I am a bit surprised because you haven't understood my statement. Look up how the Big Bang got its name. @Troy also that's flat out dumb on his part. If something can be proven there's no need for faith. @Mel Hopkins a lot of scientist would agree with you. They also felt his studies of alchemy were a waste of time. He had a religious motivation and he was using occult techniques which informed his work.

What's my confusion?

You can't prove an opinion, you have to decide if it is valid or logical. I have to look up espouse. Yes to the remaining questions

He reminds me of Darius James.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/08/19/5-pioneering-scientists-who-were-spiritual-mystics-most-of-them-were/ https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/611905 https://www.speakingtree.in/article/partnership-between-science-spirituality https://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_us_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5

It was an observation of events. You may have a different opinion. De Nada.

The founder of the scientific method was not only religious. He sought to use science to increase faith in God. You can say the are mutually exclusive and religion/spiritual belief doesn't enforce science. There are scientists that disagree. Isaac Newton (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727)[1] was considered an insightful and erudite theologian by his contemporaries.[2][3][4] He wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies and religious tractsdealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible.[5] During 1667 Newton was a Fellow at Cambridge,[12] making necessary the commitment to taking Holy Orderswithin seven years of completion of his studies. Prior to commencing studies he was required to take a vow of celibacy and recognize the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.[ matter.[14] Of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica he stated:[15] When I wrote my treatise about our Systeme I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the beliefe of a Deity and nothing can rejoyce me more then to find it useful for that purpose.

My mistake. Statistics is the God science worships. And proof is the religion of science. You said to Pioneer that you wouldn't discuss a topic because he didn't read the source material.

Not for me. It is to demonstrate their similarities.

Statistics and proof. @Cynique @Mel Hopkins @Pioneer1 @Troy @zaji

The days of the week are named after God's in 70% of languages spoken. The rest are ordinal significations If a child grows up in a religious environment this will have an effect. The same could be said for a university a city or a culture. That doesn't mean the recipients of religious indoctrination will be better people. Yet religious exposure will effect them. Some scientists or thinkers had religious beliefs. Some scientist were persecuted for the scientific positions by religion.

You could have saved a lot of time by @Cynique @Troy @Pioneer1I said I am not a spokesperson five times in the last 24 hours. So I don't know how you can say it's easy.

That would behelpful in the discussion. I have no idea what you are referring to Cynique. Can you provide a quote to give some context.

I just did

I have no opinion on what would work for other people. I am in a monogamous relationship.

Cynique you have me confused with someone else. How many ways can I say I am not a spokesperson. There may be other participants that have the answer to your query.

Do you have knowledge of the video. No you are ignorant. So you are arguing from an ignorant position. You can agree or disagree at this point. https://thehumanist.com/magazine/may-june-2016/features/science-not-conflict-religion My contention is that, ultimately, the existence of a deity is a question of science. Some may be surprised by this because they recognize that science is the systematic study of phenomena in the natural world while religious belief deals with the supernatural, or powers and entities outside the spectrum of what we would consider our natural reality. Yet this is not the case. All religions, particularly the “big three” Abrahamic religions, make claims about the natural world that clearly fall under the purview of one or more fields of science

This is what I am questioning. How many of these people do you know that youkeep mentioning. You are talking about what women want and what men can't handle. I would say there are probably people in your own family that have various arrangements. People are smart enough to not say this publicly. Lest some uninvolved party judge them. I was on the bus and the guy next to me told me who he was a salesmen in a small town and he got introduced into swinging. A few friends and people known to me have said they had non monogamous relationships. Another time a guy told me he felt bad about his relationship with a couple. One of whom was his best friend. Interestingly most of the people involved in non vanilla sex appeared normal. There is a huge difference between what people say and what they do. The Down Low indeed.

Very good points Pioneer. The days of the week and even the calendar are a product of keeping religious rituals. John Dee (13 July 1527 – 1608 or 1609) was an English mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, occult philosopher,[5] and advisor to Queen Elizabeth I. He devoted much of his life to the study of alchemy, divination, and Hermetic philosophy. He was also an advocate of England's imperial expansion into a "British Empire", a term he is generally credited with coining.[6] Dee straddled the worlds of modern science and magic just as the former was emerging. One of the most learned men of his age, he had been invited to lecture on the geometry of Euclid at the University of Paris while still in his early twenties. Dee was an ardent promoter of mathematics and a respected astronomer, as well as a leading expert in navigation, having trained many of those who would conduct England's voyages of discovery. In antiquity, Pythagoras was credited with many mathematical and scientific discoveries, including the Pythagorean theorem, Pythagorean tuning, the five regular solids, the Theory of Proportions, the sphericity of the Earth, and the identity of the morning and evening stars as the planet Venus. It was said that he was the first man to call himself a philosopher ("lover of wisdom")[Notes 2] and that he was the first to divide the globe into five climatic zones. Classical historians debate whether Pythagoras made these discoveries, and many of the accomplishments credited to him likely originated earlier or were made by his colleagues or successors. Some accounts mention that the philosophy associated with Pythagoras was related to mathematics and that numbers were important, but it is debated to what extent, if at all, he actually contributed to mathematics or natural philosophy. Mystical teachings Another belief attributed to Pythagoras was that of the "harmony of the spheres",[90] which maintained that the planets and stars move according to mathematical equations, which correspond to musical notes and thus produce an inaudible symphony.[90] According to Porphyry, Pythagoras taught that the seven Muses were actually the seven planets singing together.[91] In his philosophical dialogue Protrepticus, Aristotle has his literary double say: When Pythagoras was asked [why humans exist], he said, "to observe the heavens," and he used to claim that he himself was an observer of nature, and it was for the sake of this that he had passed over into life.[92] Isaac Newton's occult studies English physicist and mathematician Isaac Newton produced many works that would now be classified as occult studies. These works explored chronology, alchemy, and Biblical interpretation (especially of the Apocalypse). Newton's scientific work may have been of lesser personal importance to him, as he placed emphasis on rediscovering the occult wisdom of the ancients. In this sense, some[1] believe that any reference to a "Newtonian Worldview" as being purely mechanical in nature is somewhat inaccurate. @Pioneer1