bruh this facebook-ass meme
Maybe they just haven’t cooled him down enough
God is so hot right now.
Fun fact: this is how they separate oxygen, nitrogen, and argon from air. You cool it to a liquid, and the. Slowly heat it back up. Nitrogen boils off first around 77K, then Argon around 83K, then Oxygen at 90K.
I find this so cool, even though it’s like “oh yeah. Just like distilling alcohol or petroleum”… But… Like super cold…
deleted by creator
Right?! How cool is it that we can literally chill the atmospheric soup that we all stroll around in, then separate that into its components.
We can also prove its existence scientifically. We can detect by testing for it. We can chemically react it with other elements. There are lots of things we can’t see with our eyes but we know exist through scientific study.
So far no test for god has been developed. We just have an old book that claims bats are birds to go by.
I thought god was discovered to be a particle in 2012 and he wasn’t very happy with being seen, since he disappeared immediately and turned a lot of his followers into fascists.
I almost buy the philosophical argument that there must be a first mover, but I can’t understand the incredible leap of faith people make to have such specific beliefs. Like how did we get to the point of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” and prosperity doctrine wackiness?
Honestly, the first mover argument just looks like “turtles all the way down” to me. It explains nothing, because it doesn’t even care to explain this first mover. It’s just one more turtle.
Hence, if the correct answer is “we don’t know”, we don’t need the leap of faith to a first mover we know nothing about, we can just say “we don’t know” and they don’t either.
Same issue with the big bang, since we don’t know what created it. I personally believe that God is the universe. The universe manifested itself…somehow…and to me that makes it as close to God as we can get. I hope that the universe is conscious, and that our consciousnesses goes back into the big thing at the end. My evidence is experiential; an excellent acid trip 😉. I do wonder what atheists experience when they trip…
I do wonder what atheists experience when they trip…
I see patterns and have hallucinations when tripping. I’ve seen doritos logos cover my wall and noticed the patterns in mountains. No you are not talking to God, you are having essentially a waking dream and I don’t attribute dreams, which are your subconscious trying to interpret your daily actions, to supernatural beings. That would be stupid.
“I’ve begun worshipping the sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the sun. It’s there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, and a lovely day. There’s no mystery, no one asks for money, I don’t have to dress up, and there’s no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to ‘God’ are all answered at about the same 50% rate.”
Joe bless you.
I really like that scene in DS9 where someone is getting indignant that a race worships some aliens who live in a wormhole and they point out that they know they exist. What use is a god that you can’t see?
God is everything in this photo, everything.
Therefore, I am God
Indeed
I am at your mercy, my Lord!
Pretty sure god likes negative temperatures about as much as you do?
high concentrations of it makes nearly anything in its presence catch fire.
The Bible attributes the same property to the abrahamic god. Maybe someone confused oxygen with a deity?
Maybe but it seems unlikely that people 2000+ years ago would have a way to refine pure oxygen.
I saw an article a while back talking about how Yahweh was originally a volcano god. A lot of interesting comparisons- like pillar of fire, lightning, dark clouds…
deleted by creator
I don’t think oxygen makes stuff auto-combust. It’s very flammable and might corrode stuff, but still needs a flame.
Increased presence of oxygen does lower the auto ignition temperature, for some substances to room temperature, so, yes and no I guess.
Right on. I know that I don’t know much chemistry.
The funny thing is that we actually see oxygen, but as a gas it’s so dispersed that it’s almost fully transparent.
In theory, if you could press enough air into a tight enough volume (like, say, 1 cubic meter of air into a 1 cubic centimeter), you’d get a similar result.
I mean, the reason the sky is blue is due to the atmosphere’s effects on light and the fact that it’s not fully transparent.
The fact that blue light gets scattered by the atmosphere is due to the fact that there’s just so much of it and not bcoz the atmosphere inherently is non-transparent
I love when people are both nitpicky AND wrong
So the atmosphere interacts with light because it’s there, not because it interacts with light??
I’m saying if the atmosphere was smaller, scattering would be less and blue colour may not appear. So the blue colour is not because the atmosphere is “not entirely transparent” like the commenter said, but because there is enough of the atmosphere that the scattering effect is prominent.
And yet, if the atmosphere was fully transparent, there would be no scattering of light. The blue colour is an effect of the amount of air, but there would be no colour at all if air was fully transparent.
That is funny. According to you, for a medium to be called “fully transparent” there has to be no scattering of light. By that definition, water and air are not “fully transparent”. I’m not sure if such a material exists that doesn’t scatter any amount of light.
By that definition, water and air are not “fully transparent”. I’m not sure if such a material exists that doesn’t scatter any amount of light.
That seems to be the scientific consensus, yes. It’s like friction, no material is truly frictionless just like no material is truly completely transparent. The ocean gets real dark once you get deep enough which does seem to suggest that water is not fully transparent.
Correct. The only substance I can imagine being completely transparent would be some kind of dark matter. Everything else still interacts with light, no matter how little. Even deep space isn’t completely transparent, as we can tell what elements exists as interstellar and intergalactic dust from spectrographs.
Atmospheric absorption spectrum - We can see (heh) that the atmosphere is completely opaque to most electromagnetic radiation before scattering. Only some microwaves and short radio waves can pass without any absorption.
Atmospheric transmission spectrum - We can see that not even 60% of visible light is transmitted to the surface directly due primarily to scattering losses. That scattered light is why our sky is blue during the day and orange at sunset/sunrise. Mars’ atmosphere is orange during the day and blue at sunset/sunrise for the same reason.
The physics of light scattering doesn’t change based on how much atmosphere you have, even a single particle can scatter light. In fact, the physics of scattering is based on single particles, and the particle size is what differentiates Rayleigh scattering from Mie scattering. Other interactions with the incident particle can cause Raman and Compton scattering too. None of these need multiple particles.
deleted by creator
Earth’s atmosphere is also the reason why we see some stars flickering. The light of the star is constant, but our atmosphere creates diffusion, so some of the photons don’t reach our retinas. Technically, if you and your next door neighbor look at the same star, it’s flickering for both of you, but the flickering is not synchronous since position of observation matters.
Its blue because of Nitrogen more than Oxygen, considering the relative densities.
And also, ofc, because of Avagadro’s Number.
Yeah, should have mentioned that myself as well. Was not my intention to imply that the colour of the sky is the colour of oxygen.
If you did pack all that oxygen that right, wouldn’t the temperature also drop to about a similar level?
If i’m not mistaken, that much pressure would actually increase the temperature, something about the same amount of energy being more densely packed. Someone who actually knows physics can certainly explain it better
Yes. pV=nRT. If you keep n constant (same number of particles), drop the volume (V) and crank the pressure (p) proportionally, then the only variable left is T, which would have to rise. This is called adiabatic compression. What’s being described is an engine piston the size of the atmosphere and a compression ratio thousands of times higher than what we can normally make.
This guy chemistries. Also, oh the memories of yester year suffering two semesters only to remember none of it 🥲
deleted by creator
Okay, but if you press god into a tight enough volume (like, say 1 cubic metre …
!lol kidding!<
Could God make a burrito so hot that he couldn’t eat it?
Could God make himself so visible that he couldn’t be denied to exist?
deleted by creator
Could God drop a fart so rank even He can’t stand the smell?
Thioacetone
Lord, please deliver a Dallas victory over Philly. For the lawls. In Mike Ditkas name I pray, hut hut.
God is all around you, he created everything! So you can witness him by his works!
– some religious, science denying person… Probably.
I feel like it’s quite the strawman or misunderstanding when people ask for material proof of God. Can you prove math using empirical verification? No. because math is not something you can empirically verify as it does not exist materially.
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see the terrible consequences of America’s opiate epidemic.
You can empirically prove math like you’d empirically prove other things - make predictions based on math and test these predictions. But it seems like you are expecting these proofs to be like mathematical proofs - uncompromising logic that leaves no room for getting false positives by chance. They won’t. They’ll be like all other empirical proofs - “mere” scientific theories that must forever live with the possibility - however improbable - that the universe somehow aligned to make all the predictions come true even though the hypothesis they were derived from is wrong.
But this is not a property of the math we were trying to prove. This is just the nature of the empirical proofs. Implying, based on that, that math is less verifiable than all the physical observable things (like frozen oxygen) is ridiculous - the proofs for these things suffer from the exact same problem!
The (poorly) argued point they are trying to make is the distinction between the empirically identified congruences between the math and the internally consistent tautological truth of the math itself.
The reason I bring this up is your point about math modeling empirical evidence is an important distinction. Where their argument truly breaks down is the idea that all internally consistent tautologies are of equal value to us as humans. This is obviously false.
And frankly, their other argument about this showing that true things exist without empirical proof is offensively stupid since we already have much better proofs demonstrating that true things exist without proof.
we already have much better proofs demonstrating that true things exist without proof.
Isn’t this a contradiction? These “much better proofs” are proofs - which means that these “true things” are not “without proof”.
Also, I’m not sure what “things” you have in mind here, but I’m fairly certain they don’t “exist” in the same sense math does. Math exists in the same hard sciences do - any mathematical discovery, just like discoveries, is a rule that reality follows. Of course, I’m not implying that the mere formulation of this rule by human researchers is what gives it the power to govern the universe - we are just discovering laws that were already there.
Other things that are derived from human thought (rather than empirical evidence) and do not fall under the wide umbrella of math, don’t exist the same sense. You may claim that justice exists, but it’d be silly to expect the universe to obey to principles of justice. It won’t be silly to expect it to obey to mathematical principles.
Had @[email protected] brought something like justice as their example, we could have talked about the meaning of existence and what does it mean for God to exist in the same way justice exists. But they didn’t - and I really try to avoid formulating other people’s claims for them, because even if I get it right they may still find (or invent) some nuance I got slightly wrong, leverage that to claim I understand nothing about their philosophy, and derail the entire conversation to revolve around that.
They didn’t mention these other “true things” that “exist without empirical proof”. They mentioned math. And math can be proven empirically using material evidence and the scientific method (of course, you need to make sure you are not trying to prove the parts of math that are crucial for the scientific method itself, because then your proof will be circular…)
Godels proof is quite clear. There are infinitely many assertions that are true but have no proof. Those assertions can be mapped to extant things. This is not an area that requires deliberation. If you are unfamiliar with the incompleteness theorum we can discuss it more. The fantastically great thing about this work is that it was the pursuit of a “complete” purely philosophical logic derivation of mathematical principles (the continuation of the work by Bertrand in the Principia Mathematica).
The thing here is we are arguing two different points… You are arguing that empirical evidence can demonstrate the usefulness of models to explain more empirical evidence… Which is true. I am arguing that philosophy builds models. You aren’t wrong(except that part about not trying to prove the parts that are crucial for the scientific method… You are just wrong about that) and I am not wrong. We are arguing different things.
deleted by creator
I’m going to hazard a guess that you weren’t a math or a philosophy major.
You’re telling me you have a way to scientifically prove math? Please show me how you can use the scientific method to prove math.
Math is a language describing the fundamentals of our world and nature. God is a completely fabricated fairytale. You don’t need a proof of English to see it exists, you do need evidence to proof that the big bad wolf is real. That’s the difference, fuck you people need actual education…
Math is based on logic, we can’t prove it scientifically because it’s not something which is empirically verifiable but provable through deduction. If we are happy with logic to prove math what is wrong with logical arguments for God? I’m not against science or needing to prove your theories. I’m only against the notion that if you don’t have empirical proof for God then God doesn’t exist.
No, I’m saying that you’ve boldly gone into the territory that physicist and Nobel laureate Wolfgang Pauli called “Not right, and not even wrong.”
So, what would you expect a “proof of math” to look like?
So, what would you expect a “proof of math” to look like?
In a jar, distilled to a bright colourful liquid at -218°C
Geometry is not a thing?
I give you an orange and then i give you another orange, how many oranges do you have empirically.
I will need a research grant and 3 interns.
After extensive testing we have a 95% confidence of mean of 2.
Sure. I observe 2 oranges. I can also observe the world around me. Although observation is a part of the scientific method it is not the scientific method it self. Perhaps what I said can use more clarification, take Pythagorean theorem. This is not something which is proverable through science or observation but rather mathematically through logic. Its not something which you can put under a microscope.
Not directly since there are no perfect triangles but it ties into sine and cosine which ties into the equations that govern light. Which are always true no matter how often we measure them.
Right, so in Math we have axioms and we build upon those axioms and construct theorems which are deductively true. They are not true in the same way a scientific theory is. My point is, not everything that can be true needs empirical verification. Math is one example.
While what you say is true, tautological arguments are not useful in and of themselves. Internally consistent mathematics is not a useful construct unless we can empirically discover structures that those mathematical systems model. Einsteins theory of relativity is not impressive without the empirical discovery that the it is/was a better model than the existing Newtonian models that proceeded it.
To argue that internally consistent tautologies are true and are of equivalent usefulness is a bad faith argument that inappropriately equates two logical constructs.
I mean, math is more bunch of agreements and consequences, that come from that.
I agree
It’s a small jar of the sky.
someone find God and freeze him at -218°C then finally some mysteries of the universe can be settled.
This got me an idea. Maybe oxygen is god.
Assuming that God isn’t physical and is only real, since we create it in our minds.
Than god can be oxygen since it is necessary for us to live and therefore create god.
This is a very weird way to explain god.
Hydrogen, more likely. After all that was the first macroscopic atom in this universe, and on a long enough timeline, hydrogen starts to philosophize about itself. That’s literally what we are doing.
🎶 you are the air I breathe🎶 -hillsong united
If God was unmeasurable, then God could exist.
That’s why I am technically Agnostic. But in my heart I know, God was invented by humanity because we are scared and don’t like to not have an answers.
That is clearly God’s cum. You can’t trick me.
If God would cum oxygen, Jesus would have never existed.
Odin promised to eliminate all ice giants.
Jesus promised to eliminate all sin.
There is still sin in the world, but there are no ice giants.
You best put your finest Viking helmet on and bow down in worship. Not the one with horns either because that’s not historically accurate and Odin will absolutely smite you for that.
.jpg){kind=link}