How to discuss religion with believers?

[Scientia]

TL;DR you are wrong. More specifically, your understanding of mass, density and mole are wrong. To me it's perfectly clear what you didn't understand and so we can correct this. But let's go with order

@Drich

here's the thing sport...

If all of what you posted is correct... where the F is your gold? I'm breathing plenty of air... so by your standard you should still be able to produce a city of Gold.

Have you considered the reason you can not turn air into gold is because you assume the above is correct and it hinders the process rather than helps?
I know this is what you believe, which gives you the arrogance of a King with out gold. But Again if all you say is correct and everything you assume about alchemy is correct then why not put up and shut me up show me the gold!

Ah, that's right you can't..

Where the F is my gold? That's for me to ask, as I was the first to ask your god to spawn gold. Did you already forget from where all  this discussion originated? The act of turning air to gold was the evidence I wanted to believe in God. Then you started trampling on chemistry, mocking me on how I didn’t understand equations when it was YOU who didn’t understand a thing, getting disconnected from your original thoughts.

The act of turning air into gold would indeed be a majestic feat worthy of a being called god because you would need to manually, surgically, rearrange electrons, protons and neutrons and absorb or redirect any energy deriving from this rearrangement. Basically you’d need something like subatomic tweezers, perfect control and eyes with resolutions of an electron coupled with an operational speed equating the speed of light OR some particularly tailored electromagnetic waves able to induce such changes OR magic powers that transcend this physical reality. No one can perform this feat right now, but we have enough technology to ascertain it happening. This is WHY I asked to be shown this specific feat.

When you say “Ah, that’s right, you can’t” or “if you knew how this all worked you would have done it” it’s like you were trying to prove that I am not god. The thing is, I never claimed to be god. That was what I wanted out of God. You are asking out of me the same evidence that I’m asking out of god. Do you hold me in this high regard?
 

This is like you an earth is flat-er shaming me a (If the earth is flat why not this-er) for not giving enough 'shites' about something as trivial as turning air into gold!

My point wasn't I know more about your idea of how this works my point was if you knew how this all worked you would have it done it, because you don't know there are indeed variables you are not smart enough to account for air air to mass conversion. I deal in chemistry so far as my need in the refrigeration systems call for. What I was trying to demonstrate is that a pound of refrigerant in a gaseous state by volume is about 35% of a pound of the same refrigerant in a liquid state, there is always an unknown variable here as pressure and temperature dictates the point of condensation. either way the conversion of a gas to a heavier state requires more volume of gas.

Me telling you there is not a 1:1 ration of air to gas was at the core of my warning. As people often foolishly think we have unlimited resources when it comes to air and water as we all have no way to truly understand it's finite nature. Me telling you there is not a 1:1 ratio of air to gas was at the core of my warning

And again, bad science. When you say the ratio is not 1:1 you are saying NOTHING, because you are not stating in regards to WHAT. Is that a volume ratio? A mass ratio? A molar ratio? Do you realize that these 3 things are different?

If I have 1 m3 of lead and 1 m3 of aluminium then:
1 m3 of lead has the same volume of 1 m3 of aluminium, so their volume ratio is 1:1
1 m3 of lead has a mass which is 4.2 times that of 1 m3 of aluminium, so their mass ratio is 4.2:1
1 m3 of lead contains 54.78 mols, 1 m3 of aluminium contains 207.7 mols, so their molar ratio is 1:3.8

If you don’t say in regards to WHAT, then your “ratio” holds no meaning.

Also, 1 pound of your gaseous refrigerant is equal to 1 pound of your liquid refrigerant. Here you are just confusing mass, volume, density and mole.

My argument or my warning to you was look for the hidden cost if you extrapolate 1 ton of gold that weights 196u per atom and you have a collective of 45 u atomic weight of a molecule of air you are using 4 times more air to generate the same mass, density, weight in gold

Your argument is wrong because your idea of mass or “quantity” in general is wrong. In a closed system, mass is constant and unchanging. If you have a box with 10 balls that weigh 1 Kg each, glued together to form one big agglomerate of balls weighing 10 Kg, and you rearrange them by making 5 sets of 2 balls each, or 10 sets of 1 ball each, the final mass will always be the same. You are just rearranging them.

This is the concept that is eluding you. When I ask god to transmute air to gold, I am asking him to rearrange balls at a subatomic level. Instead of one set of 10 balls, I want 10 sets of 1 ball. The mass is always the same. What confuses you are the concepts of density and mole.

Also, why do you keep warning and insisting on the “trade off”? Are you trying to attach some kind of morale to it like “you have to give up a large volume of air to get a small volume of gold”? Because if that’s the case, I personally don’t care. This is a demonstration. I’m not asking him to convert all air to gold, I want him to convert a finite volume of air, and 24.4 L (1 mol) for me is enough.

What you are doing here is just deflecting. You already said before that this is my version of god that doesn't exist, but you decided to arrogantly entangle yourself anyways in this hypothetic scenario where god is like that, by over-complicating a simple example I had made out of the tip of my brain and turning it into a tragedy. A tragedy where math and physics got murdered several times.

But you know, I get paid to simplify unnecessarily complicated things, it is part of my job and so I'm used to it. You really want to cling to such insignificant details? Fine, then I’ll redesign the experiment just for you: 
I want your god to convert 22.56 g of iridium (= 1 cm3 = 0.1174 moles) to 22.56 g of gold (= 1.99 cm3 = 0.1145 moles). 

This way I am not depriving you of any precious air and you can keep breathing normally. Moreover the change in volume is insignificant, so you are not creating any dangerous vacuum or an explosion, while the disappearance of this small shitlet of iridium won’t change your life. 

Are you happy with this setup? Are you satisfied now that the transmutation is moral and safe? No, you aren't, because your next response will be "Ah, but this is your version of God which doesn't exist, so it doesn't matter anyways". I saw it coming from a mile, but your arrogance coupled with your bad math and attempt to lecture me triggered me.

if the mass is the same why is the weight different? because one has more atomic weight that the other albeit on atomic level consisting of no more than atomic particles, even if by density.. so where do those extra particles come from, how can air match the density of Gold even on the atomic level? more air. 

If it takes 200 if it takes subatomic particles to make one gold atom, and a whole molecule of air containing 3 atoms has a total number of say 50 particles then 4 molecules of air containing 12 atoms will be needed to create one atom of Gold.

My point is gold requires more than a 1:1 exchange if it were to be converted to gold. 

For example we can turn lead (or bismuth) into gold albeit in near microscopic quantities. how by putting the core element into an accelerator and shearing off neutrons,

OH, I finally identified the source of your misunderstanding. 

The mass of a single unit of a substance is the sum of its protons, neutrons and electrons (so its atomic weight).

But it's difficult to discuss the properties of a single atom, we can't really handle a single atom. At best we can handle a bunch of atoms. Cool, then let's decide a standard to discuss this bunch of atoms. Let's call it mole and let's state that a mole of a substance is equal to 602,300,000,000,000,000,000,000 units of that substance. But saying that a mole is equal to 602 thousands of billions of billions of units is unpractical, so let's shorten it to 6.023*10^23. But even this number is a hassle to drag around, let's just call it NA (Avogadro's number).

So from now on, let's not compare single atoms between each other. Instead, let's compare a finite number of these atoms, an amount that we can practically handle. Now, this bunch of atoms has a mass and depending on the element, the protons, neutrons and electrons are arranged differently from atom to atom. Some have more of these particles and so they weigh more, some have less and so they weigh less... but some have almost identical mass! Whatever, they'll weigh similarly.

Up to this point, I assume it's all clear. Now we get at the nasty part: how much volume do these single units occupy? The answer is: it depends how they are arranged. That's right. You would be inclined to think that an element with more protons/neutrons/electrons has a higher density, right? That's the intuitive answer. The problem is, it doesn't work like that. This is the trend of density with the atomic weight:
https://www.ptable.com/#Property/Density/STP
Can you see how "weird" the trend is? For example, an atom of iridium has less protons/neutrons/electrons than 1 atom of gold, yet it is more dense. Why? The reason behind this is electro-magnetic in nature. Having more particles doesn't always equate to having higher density, because some particles, despite being less in number, may actually be held tightly closer because of how they are arranged. Can you see the recurring theme here? Arrangement, arranged?


Please, do ask questions if this isn't clear. I want to make sure you understand this part. You aren't stupid or limited, you just learnt something wrong. If you assimilate this, everything else will suddenly come flowing through you. You know, the first version of the post I had written was much harsher and caustic because you had pissed me off, but now that I have identified where the misunderstanding was, I kind of understood what misled you all this time.

PS: I may reply tomorrow to other queries. Till then, go ahead
EDIT: I had forgotten one piece of your post:

For example we can turn lead (or bismuth) into gold albeit in near microscopic quantities. how by putting the core element into an accelerator and shearing off neutrons, 
Quote:
 Along with the four protons, the collision-induced reactions had removed anywhere from six to 15 neutrons, producing a range of gold isotopes from gold 190 (79 protons and 111 neutrons) to gold 199 (79 protons, 120 neutrons), the researchers reported in the March 1981 issue of Physical Review C.


I know you guys want to talk in mols of Gas but the reason I have been speaking of atoms is because the only changes we have ever made have been on this level. I know it is easier for you to speak and assume conversions rates in moles but again this is not the topic. the 'proof of god being discussed is to witness God changing air into gold on a atomic level.

We have done this! But when we did we had to take a heavier than gold element and knock mass off the core material to reduce it down to a range of 190u to 199u where as 196u is considered pure gold. To obtain this same atomic mass from a starting point of air the heaviest/most easily neutron accepting element would have to be isolated and it be forced to take on more mass (from 15 or 16 u) to gain 184u in atomic mass which would demand far more of the core material in volume than would yield gold.

Look at the article below when we successfully  changed bismuth to gold a large core of bismuth was used and even so we only got atoms of gold in return.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...into-gold/

You can not tell me if we used air instead of the heavier than gold element bismuth, it would be a 1:1 exchange air to gold. 

If you understood what I said above, then all what followed should unfold naturally. But just to address your point about nuclear fission:
I had already said in one of my very first replies that we can already do this to some extent. Want me to remind you? Here it is: https://atheistforums.org/thread-57748-p...pid1875841 

I'm asking to see something that no one can currently do but that isn't physically impossible. Basically play by his own rules. If he created everything, if he was the source of the big bang, then it shouldn't be so difficult to replicate a small scale big bang experiment. It shouldn't be so fantasy to transform matter into energy and viceversa. I mean, we can already do that to a certain extent, roughly, but we don't have that much precision.

We can already mess with atoms but, as I specified in my post, we can do that only to a certain "simple" extent and with limited precision. What I'm asking out of God is something that man can't currently do. What would be the point of asking him to do something we already can? That wouldn't prove that he's superior, would it?