How to discuss religion with believers?

[Scientia]

@Drich

Drich said: I seriously read everything you had to say. and you have been closedmindedly repeating yourself for like the last 4 posts.

You haven't read one single thing of what I said, which is evident by how you didn't address even one single point of my post. It's not like you failed to address my points, you straight out didn't address them at all. You simply ignored them.

Drich said: Again I completely understand your theortical approach and understand why you have stuck to your guns. But in doing so you have made no effort outside of labling what I have said as being wrong on the simple fact that what I said differs from your take.

So all I've done is labeling what you said as wrong? Did you perhaps skip the pages of explanations, links, references I posted? This is the evidence you straight out ignored 90% of what I wrote. This is why I believe you are mentally blind.

Drich said: What I then moved to do it point out that unknowingly one of your peers polymath who has indeed corrected you on occasion on his own saw I was speaking on an atomic level then took it upon himself to reword everything he had to say converting from mols to atoms and explaining his new conclusion.. but low and behold his new arguement his new numbers and his new conclusion.. were my numbers were my thoughts and my conclusion from the beginning... Then because he had only 1/2 of what I said I walked him through the rest of why I'm saying there is no 1:1 conversion

And this shows how you didn't understand what he was saying. But since you won't believe if I tell you this, let's wait for mr polymath response. There is a 1:1 mass conversion. All you are doing is displacing, rearranging, transforming. Not fucking deleting it from existence. And I've already said this in my previous answer, which I'll quote again:

Scientia said: Perhaps it has escaped your notice, but the ratio is indeed 1:1 in mass because you have gold + leftover neutrons. I don't know why you keep ignoring the latter. The fact that we don't use the leftover neutrons and they just get scattered or inplanted in some neutron absorbers doesn't mean they don't have mass or that they stopped existing.

Do you even understand what that number, 196, refers to? It's the number of protons + neutrons, which have a mass of circa 1.67*10-27 Kg each. If you expel 1 helium nucleus, you just parted ways with 4*1.67*10-27 Kg of your mass. Did this mass stop existing? No, it just wanders and hits some target. 

If I burn 100 g of wood and I'm left with, say, 10 g of ash, is the mass ratio of this transformation 1:1? Yes it is, because you have to consider all the constituents, such as Oxygen in the reactant sides, and CO2 and other volatile oxides on the Products side. Even though you don't bother to capture the volatile oxides that just go away, doesn't mean you suddenly destroyed matter. You just transformed it, but its constituents still retain their mass.

This is the concept that eludes you, and as long as it doesn't get in your head, all that you are saying is just a murder of the first principle of chemistry.

Drich said: Then I asked you to not address me and my work but to address his and explain to me how he is wrong.

What you didn't get is that he was saying the same things as me, this is why I don't need to explain that he's wrong. He's not wrong, it's your version of "facts" that collides.

Drich said: Aside from all of this, it to me is funny to see how God works here although you may deny it. but God gave me the frame work to my argument right from the beginning. I had no idea of the way things were calculated proper names names of units of measure nor anything proper/technical about any of it. even so he showed me how it would work and I described it simply.. apparently too simply for you to understand it, when you challenged it for the first time I did the research and found when lead/bismuth was turned to gold.. it wasn't done the way it is done in the little box you limited understanding of science allows for. Because again if despite how grand you think your understanding of turning any element into gold.. you have no examples of gold even on an atomic level. Yet in my ignorance of all the proper terms qualifiers pomp and flash that you have I was given the only real life example. given meaning I had never looked any of this up nor heard anything about this yet had an understand that trumps yours. To the extreme that one of your peers literally recreated 1/2 my original argument and fed it back to me. once I enlightened him to the other 1/2 of my argument... he has had nothing to say to me nor you in 2 or 3 days now.

This kinda thing shows the contrast between my limits and God's personal reinforcement.

And to me it is funny to see how your god knows jackshit since he put you in the wrong framework. You had no idea how things worked and you still don't. You just copypasted numbers from wiki without knowing what you were talking about and that showed up clearly. You only take in whatever fuels your belief and downright ignore any negative feedback. I had already given an answer to this but for some reason you ignored it. Are you undergoing some kind of mental breakdown? Alzheimer? Here, refresh your memories:

Scientia said: Also, I had already noticed that you kept nitpicking at my thought experiment of air to gold and you started pulling out all sort of reasons and just overcomplicated something conceptually simple, and so I revised my experiment for you: iridum to gold. If my thought experiment still bothers you, then we can ask your god to trigger any random nuclear reaction that we know of. Since you've already read on that topic, then I ask your god to turn bismuth to gold + particles, without our assistance. We give him a nuclear reactor turned off, and we ask him to trigger the reaction. Is that ok for you?

Also, it's you who wanted to deeply delve in science. I asked God to turn air to gold, he can do it however he wants. Then you asked "how, do you even know how to measure it or something?" and so I proposed a mechanism which is the one we use and we know and tried to explain it to you in all ways. You did your side of research of topic while still neglecting the very first law of chemistry, and then as a final resort you pointed back at me, saying I'm putting him into a box. YOU forced him inside this box.

If I asked you "by tomorrow prepare me 1 cargo of refrigerant bottles and ship them to Canada. I don't give a shit how you do it, just make it happen", then you'll use your own methods and resources and carry out the deed. It's not something impossible. Perhaps difficult, but still reasonably in your human power. 

What I'm asking god is to perform some action that no human could reasonably do in this short time and with these little resources. He created the world in 7 days? Then he should know how to carry out my request. Do you get it now? I'm asking for something that could be possible given the time and resources, in a very short time and with all the restrictions. If he needs the same time and resources as we do to perform this feat, then he's not superior to man, he's just a man.

Drich said: The same kind thing happened in the engineers meeting. I had 6 men telling me how I was wrong and what could not happen. I did not have the education to refute them only break my concept down to the most simplistic level, which I can only assume because they did not fully understand the fundamentals what I said simply made no sense to them. The same seems to be true here because it seems you are not willing to question the foundations of your knoweledge base, you are not even willing to take on a peer's revision of what I had to say.

If 6 people tell you that you are wrong, shouldn't you at least wisely listen to their reasons? The peer's revision you are talking about probably refers to polymath's, in which case I again call him here because this is ridiculous. @polymath257

Drich said: You can put this off on me and claim I have closed my mind but in truth I can honestly say I understand your arguement and have given you reason why it is invalid. Primarly because we/science can turn one element into gold on an atomic level. because of this I know what you describe is wrong. because it did not happen this way there wasn't a 1:1 exchange ratio from base element to gold. how can I say this because even the gold created was not the 196U standard, they counted anything created from 190 to 200 in atomic weight as gold when technically 196u is gold. that means trillions of atoms fell below the cut off of 190u or fell above 200u  for ever one atom that fell in the 10u range that right there show a ration of 1,000,000,000,000 to 1

Now that is only the 1/2 the point I made.

You keep saying it wrong again and again. Don't you get it? We've been talking about a MASS balance since forever. MASS. What you talk about here is YIELD. It is DIFFERENT.

THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. DIFFERENT. Can you get this concept in your thick skull? I'll quote myself again, because I've already said this (and you ignored it ofc):

If I burn 100 g of wood and I'm left with, say, 10 g of ash, is the mass ratio of this transformation 1:1? Yes it is, because you have to consider all the constituents, such as Oxygen in the reactant sides, and CO2 and other volatile oxides on the Products side. Even though you don't bother to capture the volatile oxides that just go away, doesn't mean you suddenly destroyed matter. You just transformed it, but its constituents still retain their mass.

In the above example (random numbers), the yield of ash (please pay attention here, yield SPECIFICALLY of ash) relatively to the starting mass of wood is 10%. PLEASE, pay attention to the WORDING. The YIELD is 10% because out of 100g of wood you get only 10g of ash, which is the product I wanted. This doesn't mean that the mass ratio is 10:100. The total mass of reactants (wood + oxygen) is identical to the total mass of products (ash + volatile oxides). However, the YIELD is only 10%. The fact that I don't give a shit about the oxygen used or the oxides produced doesn't mean they stop existing.

Please, try to understand that you are talking about a different thing. Yield is just a practical way of saying how efficient some transformation is. This doesn't mean that the actual mass balance doesn't work anymore. Let's make one more example:

I take 1 mol (12g) of carbon and react it with 1 mol of oxygen (32g) and I should obtain 44 g of CO2:
C + O2 --> CO2
12 + 32 --> 44

However, if I actually carry out this experiment in reality and measure the CO2 produced, it won't be exactly 44g but less. Does this mean that the first principle of chemistry is invalid? Does this mean that I started from 44g of reactants and ended up with 43g of products, destroying 1g of matter in the process? No. There are many reasons as to why the real yield is lower. Taken straight out of wiki (but I can confirm that any general chemistry textbook has this info):
- Many reactions are incomplete and the reactants are not completely converted to products. If a reverse reaction occurs, the final state contains both reactants and products in a state of chemical equilibrium. (in our example, it means that you have some leftover unreacted carbon that you didn't account for)
- Two or more reactions may occur simultaneously, so that some reactant is converted to undesired side products. (in our example, C may produce CO instead of CO2, screwing the yield)
- Losses occur in the separation and purification of the desired product from the reaction mixture. (to measure the CO2 you need to absorb it on "something" and that "something" may retain some CO2)
- Impurities are present in the starting material which do not react to give desired product (eg you have metal impurities in the starting reactants).

Do you get it now? What you've been talking all this time about is the yield. The mass is always conserved. You've been clinging all this time to a wrong concept.

Drich said: The second 1/2 says if God truly was to make air into gold and only used air, then the 'fission' process you describe must also be created from air. so EVEN IF there is a 1:1 in your process, how much air will be used to create this air to gold fission? After all if air does not condense or warm up and rain gold, then there will need be some sort of external process that breaks the molecules and even atoms down and reassembles them to create a stable gold atom.

Because with the bismuth conversion helium was used to literally carve gold out of the bismuth. in your demand God is to make gold out of air and nothing but air can be used, therefore whatever processed used to turn air into gold must also be fueled by said air and not a Tertiary source like with the helium. So my question to you while you were trying to caculate any moral implications about stealing air, rather than simply following along with my simple question was. two fold, one how can you be certain air was converted to gold as even I can literally produce a gold coin out of thin air via slight of hand. 2 how can you possible count the cost of air expenditure to gold? Eg how much air would it take to make a ton of gold.

This is the same delirium you posted above, for which I'll quote myself again, as I've already addressed it:

Scientia said: Also, I had already noticed that you kept nitpicking at my thought experiment of air to gold and you started pulling out all sort of reasons and just overcomplicated something conceptually simple, and so I revised my experiment for you: iridum to gold. If my thought experiment still bothers you, then we can ask your god to trigger any random nuclear reaction that we know of. Since you've already read on that topic, then I ask your god to turn bismuth to gold + particles, without our assistance. We give him a nuclear reactor turned off, and we ask him to trigger the reaction. Is that ok for you?

Also, it's you who wanted to deeply delve in science. I asked God to turn air to gold, he can do it however he wants. Then you asked "how, do you even know how to measure it or something?" and so I proposed a mechanism which is the one we use and we know and tried to explain it to you in all ways. You did your side of research of topic while still neglecting the very first law of chemistry, and then as a final resort you pointed back at me, saying I'm putting him into a box. YOU forced him inside this box.

If I asked you "by tomorrow prepare me 1 cargo of refrigerant bottles and ship them to Canada. I don't give a shit how you do it, just make it happen", then you'll use your own methods and resources and carry out the deed. It's not something impossible. Perhaps difficult, but still reasonably in your human power. 

What I'm asking god is to perform some action that no human could reasonably do in this short time and with these little resources. He created the world in 7 days? Then he should know how to carry out my request. Do you get it now? I'm asking for something that could be possible given the time and resources, in a very short time and with all the restrictions. If he needs the same time and resources as we do to perform this feat, then he's not superior to man, he's just a man.