I Don't Believe in Gravity!

[SalixIncendium]

Sure. There are two different points in your question:

1) Why do I believe in a creator?

I didn’t start believing in the existence of God because some religion said so. What made me a believer was my study of science. The more I learned about how the universe works, specially life forms, the more I realized how incredibly connected and complex everything is. There is so much intelligence, so much creativity and so much purpose behind everything that I couldn’t believe it happened without someone designing it.
That's the base of it. I could develop this subject but there is so much material I would rather do it on a separate post.

I am really curious how some who has studied evolution would find it more plausible that someone designed life forms because of their complexity than a gradual process through natural selection. You state that you could expound on this, so if I started a thread with the above statement, would you be game to participating in it?

2) Why I became a Jehovah’s Witness:

During my early twenties I had already looked into the main religions of the world, mostly out of curiosity, but I saw so much hypocrisy that I wasn’t able to take them seriously (no offense to any of their individual members, I’m talking about their teachings and the behavior of the leaders).

Then a few years ago I saw a form on JW.org offering a free bible study so I filled it and a few days later someone called me and we met. During the next two years that lady came to meet me about once a week to teach me about the bible. She did that for free, investing her own time and let me tell you, I wasn’t an easy student. I asked a lot of questions, many of them difficult.

We addressed all the usual questions people ask: Why does God allow so much suffering? Is there a hope for the future? What is God’s purpose for humans? What happens when we die, etc. She always answered with the bible. Even when I criticized all the bizarre accounts of the Old Testament she managed to give me the historical context so I could understand the mentally of that time. I learned a lot.

When I started going to meetings those people that had never met me before welcomed me like a member of their family. Their kindness and hospitality was outstanding. I’ve been a witness for 7 years and so far that hasn’t changed. They take the concept of brotherly love very seriously.

I was also very attracted to their high moral standards. They actually practice what they preach and I found that very refreshing. There are no smokers, no heavy drinkers, no drug use, no promiscuity. People dress nicely, they are polite and they are extremely respectful. In the beginning, sometimes I said things they didn’t agree with but they were never aggressive or rude. They always replied in a calm, kind way.

Witnesses are not perfect, far from that. I don’t want to give that idea to anyone. We have issues like everyone else, but over the years I made amazing friends and I met some of the nicest human beings I could ever imagine among JW. It is a very difficult religion to belong to because Witnesses commit to certain standards of behavior that are hard to follow in today’s world but for me it is more than worth it.

Thank you for sharing this.

When you say "witnesses aren't perfect," are you speaking with respect to their dogma or their general behaviors as people.

 

[SalixIncendium]

In other words, an actual experiment at a museum which is supposed to show proof that Earth is spinning by using nothing other than gravity.... uses electromagnetism and a force to start it?

If it were not for resistance caused by air, the pendulum would continue to swing in perpetual motion.

"Air resistance damps the oscillation, so some Foucault pendulums in museums incorporate an electromagnetic or other drive to keep the bob swinging; others are restarted regularly, sometimes with a launching ceremony as an added attraction."

Foucault pendulum - Wikipedia

The comical irony is, that when it's stopped it's doing what it is supposed to be doing... absolutely nothing. Allegedly moving relative 1000 mph with the Earth and the atmosphere. The only places in existence that could validate this experiment are at the precise locations of the North Pole and/or South Pole.

Excluding any electromagnetism in model or that comes from the Earth and its environment, this experiment fails in so many ways... even ignoring the laws of inertia. I can suspend a weight, give it force to start it which I shouldn't have to do in the first place, since it is supposed to be pure gravity based with no other forces involved and watch it unfold with the result being the opposite amount of degrees in the opposite direction 1 hour as it should be. I can suspend a weight from a high elevation and watch it do all sorts of things. I've seen many better magicians tricks than this.

Perhaps if you read the linked article and educate yourself, you'd realize there is no 'Foucault conspiracy' and have a complete understanding on how the Foucault pendulum actually works...

 

[SalixIncendium]

Very interesting. It almost sounds like you have an agenda--science is wonderful because it disproves the Holy Bible, the same Bible which is the last hope of our rapidly degenerating world.

Science is wonderful because it seeks to pave the road of explanation of all that is. If you leave your Holy Bible lying in its path, that's on you. *shrugs*

Meanwhile, once you prove you exist, we can decide whether science, creationism or anything else exists.

Perhaps I have some hope for you after all.

 

[Onyx]

In other words, an actual experiment at a museum which is supposed to show proof that Earth is spinning by using nothing other than gravity.... uses electromagnetism and a force to start it?

No. The PDF you linked describes a museum display. In the real experiment, the pendulum is held up by a cord, which is burnt through in order to allow gravity to set the pendulum in motion without too much external interference. There doesn't seem to be much point in continuing this discussion though.

 

[blü 2]

Very interesting. It almost sounds like you have an agenda--science is wonderful because it disproves the Holy Bible

Not at all. I've already told you my agenda: what's true in reality? And the bible, along with a great many other things, is in the basket marked, 'not very true'.

, the same Bible which is the last hope of our rapidly degenerating world.

Reason has always done, and will continue to do, a great deal more than religion to save the world. And incidentally, the world is getting better, not worse (the principal threat to that proposition being those cretins and cynical contemptibles who promote the notion that man has nothing to do with global warming).

Meanwhile, once you prove you exist, we can decide whether science, creationism or anything else exists.

Since I haven't claimed to exist, I have nothing to prove. But you've claimed to have an irrefutable demonstration of the reality of God, and at the same rate as you keep devising excuses not to show it, your cred continues to erode towards zero.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I am really curious how some who has studied evolution would find it more plausible that someone designed life forms because of their complexity than a gradual process through natural selection. You state that you could expound on this, so I started a thread with the above statement, would you be game to participating in it?



Thank you for sharing this.

When you say "witnesses aren't perfect," are you speaking with respect to their dogma or their general behaviors as people.

Did you start the thread?
I couldn't find it if so.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Did you start the thread?
I couldn't find it if so.

No. I was waiting for @Vee to respond. I didn't want her to feel as though I was calling her out.

ETA: I see I left out the word 'if' in my post. I fixed it above. I was asking her if she would participate if I started a thread.

Salix,
Needs to start proofreading his posts

 

[Vee]

I am really curious how some who has studied evolution would find it more plausible that someone designed life forms because of their complexity than a gradual process through natural selection. You state that you could expound on this, so if I started a thread with the above statement, would you be game to participating in it?

Thank you for sharing this.

When you say "witnesses aren't perfect," are you speaking with respect to their dogma or their general behaviors as people.

I would participate, sure.

In regards to the Witnesses I was talking about the people. There are no perfect humans no matter what they believe.

 

[Profound Realization]

If it were not for resistance caused by air, the pendulum would continue to swing in perpetual motion.

"Air resistance damps the oscillation, so some Foucault pendulums in museums incorporate an electromagnetic or other drive to keep the bob swinging; others are restarted regularly, sometimes with a launching ceremony as an added attraction."

Foucault pendulum - Wikipedia



Perhaps if you read the linked article and educate yourself, you'd realize there is no 'Foucault conspiracy' and have a complete understanding on how the Foucault pendulum actually works...

You've just admitted that it's nothing more than an attraction. You choose to believe that that is infallible proof that the Earth and its atmosphere are spinning 1000 mph when it's not even scientifically possible to do this experiment unless it were at the precise location at either the North or South Poles. I am less naive. As stated, the entire understanding that it works as it's supposed to is already flawed because it doesn't use only gravity. There is an initial biased startup force, gravity doesn't start it. There is electromagnetism and air resistance.... also not only gravity. And it completely ignores the laws of inertia. Laws disappear in order to make it work out. The behavior of the pendulum can be concocted to do anything or act eradicate naturally on its own.

I do know fully how it works. There is no conspiracy because it's nothing more than a glorified attraction which you've acknowledged. Indeed, nothing more to be said about it.

 

[Polymath257]

You've just admitted that it's nothing more than an attraction. You choose to believe that that is infallible proof that the Earth and its atmosphere are spinning 1000 mph when it's not even scientifically possible to do this experiment unless it were at the precise location at either the North or South Poles. I am less naive. As stated, the entire understanding that it works as it's supposed to is already flawed because it doesn't use only gravity. There is an initial biased startup force, gravity doesn't start it. There is electromagnetism and air resistance.... also not only gravity. And it completely ignores the laws of inertia. Laws disappear in order to make it work out. The behavior of the pendulum can be concocted to do anything or act eradicate naturally on its own.

I do know fully how it works. There is no conspiracy because it's nothing more than a glorified attraction which you've acknowledged. Indeed, nothing more to be said about it.

What law of inertia is violated?

 

[Vancouversailor]

Sounds like a silly statement, doesn't it?

So why do we buy into gravity? Is it because we buy into Newton's mathematical equation? Is it because of evidence presented through scientific method? Or is it because we know the earth spins at 1000 miles per hour (at the equator) and we have an understanding that without it, we would be flung into space like fleas being shaken off of a dog (until they hit the ground because of gravity)?

So is it fair to say that we buy into this scientific theory because we have subjective experience, and not because of evidence presented through scientific method?

Another scientific theory is Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection. Like gravity, it is a scientific theory arrived at through use of the scientific method. Yet 42% of the population (according to a poll I made up for this thread) does not buy into evolution or natural selection even though it uses the same scientific method used to arrive at the theory of gravity (systematic observation, measurement, experimentation, formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses). One can hypothesize (as I do) that the only reason that one would not believe in evolution is because s/he lacks subjective experience.

So In this thread, I would like to hear from those that believe in gravity and do not believe in evolution through natural selection. Why is gravity more valid to you than evolution?Edited for typos

I am a firm believer in gravity after numerous encounters with the ground after my bike tipped over, I tipped over after a visit to the pub, or I fell into a hole in the ground while talking on my cell phone while walking past a construction site. I don't care about Newton's equations or theories but I do care about the bumps and bruises incurred during the above experiences.
I also am a firm believer in Darwinism and can't see any contradictions with what I have written above. Both involve very observable phenomena and facts. Unlike creationism which Is based on a pile of mumbo jumbo assumptions and unproveable and undocumented BS..

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not at all. I've already told you my agenda: what's true in reality? And the bible, along with a great many other things, is in the basket marked, 'not very true'.
Reason has always done, and will continue to do, a great deal more than religion to save the world. And incidentally, the world is getting better, not worse (the principal threat to that proposition being those cretins and cynical contemptibles who promote the notion that man has nothing to do with global warming).
Since I haven't claimed to exist, I have nothing to prove. But you've claimed to have an irrefutable demonstration of the reality of God, and at the same rate as you keep devising excuses not to show it, your cred continues to erode towards zero.

Has God claimed to exist? Then He has nothing to prove per your words.

The Bible begins, "In the beginning, God . . . " without any God-apologetic.

Be consistent.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Science is wonderful because it seeks to pave the road of explanation of all that is. If you leave your Holy Bible lying in its path, that's on you. *shrugs*



Perhaps I have some hope for you after all.

I neither reject science nor do I accept your statement that science will explain all that is. Science does not explain metaphysics and is mainly inductive observation and hypotheses re: creation!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Has God claimed to exist?

In a million different ways, according to the millions of different people who claim god claimed to exist.

 

[blü 2]

Has God claimed to exist? Then He has nothing to prove per your words.

God didn't say [he] had an irrefutable demonstration of [his] own reality. You said you had that demonstration. Don't try to pass the buck.

The Bible begins, "In the beginning, God . . . " without any God-apologetic.

But were it being written now, it'd begin, Unfortunately God is unable to be here with us today.

Be consistent.

The inconsistency here is between your claim to have an irrefutable demonstration of the reality of God, and your total failure to have such a thing.

 

[SalixIncendium]

...nor do I accept your statement that science will explain all that is.

Oh good. Because I never said that.

 

[Profound Realization]

What law of inertia is violated?

Inertia: a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force.

The pendulum doesn't move in a uniform straight line, it has angular/circular momentum.

The theory of general relativity is built on the principle of the equivalence of gravitation and inertia. This means that it is impossible to distinguish through any local measurement whether one is in a gravitational field or being accelerated. The entire assembly of any experiment and what it does would be moving to the alleged relativity of the Earth and its atmosphere at speeds of roughly 1000MPH.

Whether the acceleration is from motion or from gravity makes no difference in the laws of physics.

An accelerated charge radiates, per Maxwell's equation of electrodynamics.
This radiation electric field has an accompanying magnetic field, and the whole oscillating electromagnetic radiation field propagates independently of the accelerated charge, carrying away momentum and energy. The energy in the radiation is provided by the work that accelerates the charge.

The conclusion is that from the Foucault Pendelum: it is not possible to show what it says it does, using gravity and inertia.

 

[Profound Realization]

I am a firm believer in gravity after numerous encounters with the ground after my bike tipped over, I tipped over after a visit to the pub, or I fell into a hole in the ground while talking on my cell phone while walking past a construction site. I don't care about Newton's equations or theories but I do care about the bumps and bruises incurred during the above experiences.
I also am a firm believer in Darwinism and can't see any contradictions with what I have written above. Both involve very observable phenomena and facts. Unlike creationism which Is based on a pile of mumbo jumbo assumptions and unproveable and undocumented BS..

An exercise of simple volition: raise your hand in the air. Where is the powerful effects of gravity at? Fall to the ground and get a bruise... the definition of weight is already sufficient. Your body will seek in the readiest manner of its level of stability.

No gravity required.

 

[BilliardsBall]

God didn't say [he] had an irrefutable demonstration of [his] own reality. You said you had that demonstration. Don't try to pass the buck.

But were it being written now, it'd begin, Unfortunately God is unable to be here with us today.

The inconsistency here is between your claim to have an irrefutable demonstration of the reality of God, and your total failure to have such a thing.

Since you keep waffling and goalpost shifting, I must presume your sole defense for your existence is (as you've said) it's self-evident to you that you exist.

It's self-evident to me that God exists. I'm not sure why you need more evidence than the evidence you yourself use. Otherwise you have a double standard.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In a million different ways, according to the millions of different people who claim god claimed to exist.

I don't see that as restricting belief in God but enhancing it. Why are you desiring a non-personal, non-individuating God?