Only two different types of belief

[atheist buddy]

In my opinion there are only two types of beliefs.

Examples of type 1 beliefs
Planet earth is approximately globe shaped, 2+2=4, my mother loves me, Los Angeles is west of Chicago, I have a million dollars in my bank account, humans have 23 chromosome pairs, Napoleon was born on August 15th 1769, Bradd Pitt is married to Angelina Jolie


Examples of type 2 beliefs
Jesus was born of a virgin, Mohammed flew into heaven on the back of a winged white horse, there is an alien space ship hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet which you can teleport to by committing suicide, Apollo causes the sun to rise eveyr morning by carrying it up into the sky on a charriot, the Lock Ness monster exists, Frosty the Snow man occasionally comes to life, Santa delivers gifts from his invisible North Pole factory to millions of homes every Christmas night.

What do all type 1 beliefs have in common? They are all supported by empirical evidence.

What do all type 2 beliefs have in common? They are all NOT supported by empirical evidence, and in many cases contradicted by empirical evidence


If you are religious, which type do your religious beliefs fall into?

If type 1, can you please spell out what your beliefs are, and what the empirical evidence for them is?

If type 2, can you please outline what justification there is for believing your specific type 2 belief and not any other type 2 belief?

If you agree that they are not type 1, but assert that they don't belong in type 2 either, could you please outline what attributes your beliefs have that differentiate them from type 2 beliefs?

[1213]

...I will presume that your objection to the heliocentric model lies in the determination of the density and/or the mass of the sun.

Yes, density of Sun is the biggest problem in that, but I think Earths mass and the distance between Sun and Earth may be wrong also.

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 66 by atheist buddy]

First, I believe you have mistaken me with someone who does not believe the earth rotates or spins. I am not that guy! At any rate you seem to be stuck on, "empirical," evidence, and you say there is a lot of, "empirical," evidence against the existence of God! Could you please share some of this, "empirical," evidence with me? Just so we are clear on the definition,

1.
derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2.
depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3.
provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

So could you now explain to me what experience you have had, or what experiment you have conducted that proves, or verifies there is no God?

I have on occasion stated that there is no empirical evidence for, and plenty of empirical evidence against several claims of the Bible such as the great flood, the ark story, the talking donkey, the rain of frogs, the zombie invasion, the virgin birth and more. I have presented that evidence in other threads of mine.

Before we can discuss empirical evidence against the existence of God, you need to define God. Would you like to define God as the entity described in the Bible, with every word taken literally? If not, please tell me how you would like to define God, and then I'll tell you what I got in the way of empirical evidence against that definition of God.

[Zzyzx]

.

Yes, density of Sun is the biggest problem in that, but I think Earths mass and the distance between Sun and Earth may be wrong also.

It is not surprising that you think that the Earth's mass and its distance from the sun "may be wrong."

Upon what do you base this doubt? Have you studied the subject, done some research, consulted credible sources? Or, is it just something off the top of your head -- a personal opinion that has no merit in debate?

What are YOUR calculations for mass of the sun and distance from it to Earth? How were they derived?

[McCulloch]

Yes, density of Sun is the biggest problem in that, but I think Earths mass and the distance between Sun and Earth may be wrong also.

So let's look at each of these factors.

• Density of the sun
  The density of the sun has been calculated by those who know about fission, fusion and such like. I believe that they know what they are doing. However, for the sake of argument let us go way out on a limb and assume that they are wrong by a factor of ten. That is, the sun is one tenth the density that the leading scientists calculate.
• Earth's Mass
  If the earth's mass was significantly larger than what we have calculated, the the force of gravity would be significantly stronger than it is. Either that or our calculations of the gravitational constant is way off. However, again for the sake of argument, let us assume that the earth's mass is five times larger than is currently estimated.
• Distance from earth to sun
  This is calculated using ordinary geometry and careful measurements of distances and angles. It is also based on the presumption that light does travel in a straight line. Since there are no known causes of refraction and no massive body near enough and large enough to bend the path of light, this is a reasonable presumption. So, for the sake of argument, let us assume that our measurement are so far off that the sun is in fact only 80% of the distance from us than we have calculated. If this is so, then the diameter of the sun would also be only 80% of its current estimate. The volume and therefore the mass of the sun would therefore be just over half.

Taking these three rather generous assumptions in favor of a non heliocentric model together, the ratio of the mass of the sun to the earth would have to be divided by 10 times 5 times 2 or 100. So, instead of the sun being 333,000 times the mass of the earth, it would only be 3,330 times the mass of the earth. Our understanding of the laws of physics still does not allow for an object to be in orbit when it has a mass of more than three thousand times that which it is orbiting.

[1213]

...This is calculated using ordinary geometry and careful measurements of distances and angles. It is also based on the presumption that light does travel in a straight line. Since there are no known causes of refraction and no massive body near enough and large enough to bend the path of light, this is a reasonable presumption. ...

Actually, when I have tried to prove something about positions of Earth, Moon and Sun, some people (atheists) claimed that I cant assume that light travels straight, because of the atmosphere. According to them atmosphere bends light so that the measurements cant be trusted.

[McCulloch]

...This is calculated using ordinary geometry and careful measurements of distances and angles. It is also based on the presumption that light does travel in a straight line. Since there are no known causes of refraction and no massive body near enough and large enough to bend the path of light, this is a reasonable presumption. ...

Actually, when I have tried to prove something about positions of Earth, Moon and Sun, some people (atheists) claimed that I cant assume that light travels straight, because of the atmosphere. According to them atmosphere bends light so that the measurements cant be trusted.

Refraction due to the atmosphere is well understood and must be taken into account. The accuracy of our measure of the sun's size and position have improved since using data from satellites. There is still no evidence that the distances are off significantly.

[Zzyzx]

.

...This is calculated using ordinary geometry and careful measurements of distances and angles. It is also based on the presumption that light does travel in a straight line. Since there are no known causes of refraction and no massive body near enough and large enough to bend the path of light, this is a reasonable presumption. ...

Actually, when I have tried to prove something about positions of Earth, Moon and Sun, some people (atheists) claimed that I cant assume that light travels straight, because of the atmosphere. According to them atmosphere bends light so that the measurements cant be trusted.

Were you NOT aware of atmospheric refraction before those <shudder> Atheists informed you?

Such topics are generally taught in high school here in the US. Does Finland's highly regarded school system NOT teach such things?

As McCulloch indicates, when one is aware that refraction occurs it's effects can be determined with great precision and applied to calculations. It is not surprising that someone who has not mastered such basic concepts would come to strange conclusions regarding the Earth and the Solar System