In your opinion what causes christians to believe in Jesus

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well, that was incoherent and stupid.

I'll slow it down a bit for you: If changing form redefines Earth, then I unmade Earth yesterday by digging a hole. Congrats on the metaphysics.

But you didn’t change the form of the Earth in a manner consistent with your earlier claims about the Earth. Stupid, desperate, failed analogy.

Boru

[Paleophyte]

If a bacteirum shits on the surface of a day-old vase how old is the vase?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Stupid, desperate, failed analogy.

It's your analogy, bro. You argued that identity depends on form. How old is the universe, for example? In what sense is the universe approximately 14 billion years old, when it did not have the same form back then that it does today?

[Paleophyte]

The problem with sourceless-light is that it will kill you and it'll do it very quickly.

We survive our sun because it's a finite source that occupies a relatively small chunk of the sky. Light comes in, light goes out, and everything cooks along a smidge above the freezing point of water.

By contrast, sourceless light would come from everywhere and wouldn't be able to go anywhere. Well, not until enough of it accumulated anyway. It would come in and pile up in big drifts. Energy in, no energy out. That would stop once we got hot enough to re-radiate the light, which would happen faster than you might expect. That involves heating the Earth up enough to make it glow like a star though, and that'll have unfortunate side-effects.

But please, continue this hilarious attempt at marrying Bronze Age myth and modern science.

[John 6IX Breezy]

The problem with sourceless-light is that it will kill you and it'll do it very quickly.

One second you argue light can't exist without a source, and the next you're arguing that sourceless-light can actually kill you. Which one is it?

[Paleophyte]

The problem with sourceless-light is that it will kill you and it'll do it very quickly.

One second you argue light can't exist without a source, and the next you're arguing  that sourceless-light can actually kill you. Which one is it?

Both. Light has a source. If it didn't then it'd kill you. Reduction to absurdity.

[Sheldon]

The problem with sourceless-light is that it will kill you and it'll do it very quickly.

One second you argue light can't exist without a source, and the next you're arguing  that sourceless-light can actually kill you. Which one is it?

Existing after the source has gone, and not having a source at all, or having a magic source, are clearly not the same, and for context, the light that reaches our planet from other solar systems, regardless of whether those stars still exist, would not be sufficient to sustain vegetation on this planet...

More pointedly, your creation myth states that "all the stars" were created after our planet existed with vegetation on it, so a double fail...

[John 6IX Breezy]

Both. Light has a source. If it didn't then it'd kill you. Reduction to absurdity.

In cosmology, did photons exist before stars?

[Paleophyte]

Both. Light has a source. If it didn't then it'd kill you. Reduction to absurdity.

In cosmology, did photons exist before stars?

Equivocation. Stars aren't the only light source.

In cosmology, the early universe isn't exactly habitable.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Equivocation. Stars aren't the only light source.

In cosmology, the early universe isn't exactly habitable.

Good, we've disassociated photons from stars, that's progress. What's funny is I think you know exactly how wrong this idea is, that's why you've pivoted to the It-will-kill-you argument. Because I think you know that photons are basically what created the universe in Big Bang cosmology. You don't get to have stars, or any other light source, without photons turning into all sorts of particles.

And lucky us, there are plenty of free traveling photons all around us right now, and no one's dropping dead.