New exoplanet too big for its stars

May 1, 2015
An artist's impression of HATS-6. Credit ANU

The Australian discovery of a strange exoplanet orbiting a small cool star 500 light years away is challenging ideas about how planets form.

"We have found a small star, with a giant planet the size of Jupiter, orbiting very closely," said researcher George Zhou from the Research School of Astrophysics and Astronomy.

"It must have formed further out and migrated in, but our theories can't explain how this happened."

In the past two decades more than 1,800 (or exoplanets) have been discovered outside our solar system orbiting around other stars.

The of the latest exoplanet, HATS-6, is classed as an M-dwarf, which is one of the most numerous types of stars in galaxy. Although they are common, M-dwarf are not well understood. Because they are cool they are also dim, making them difficult to study.

HATS-6 emits only one twentieth of the light of our sun. The giveaway that the had a planet circling it was a dip in its brightness caused as the planet passed in front of the star, observed by small robotic telescopes including telescopes at the ANU Siding Spring Observatory.

To confirm the signal was a planet and not a blip in the system, Dr Bayliss called in help from one of the world's largest telescopes, the Magellan Telescope in Chile, and an amateur astronomer, T G Tan, who operates from his backyard in Perth.

"T G Tan has been really helpful on our projects. He was able to catch the transit of the planet from Perth, after it had set over our horizon," Mr Zhou said.

New exoplanet too big for its stars
George Zhou at the Hawaiian Mauna Kea observatory. Credit: Daniel Bayliss

Subsequent observations from the Chilean telescope, and spectra taken from the ANU 2.3 metre telescope at Siding Spring, confirmed the planet had an orbit of just one-tenth that of mercury, and orbits its star every 3.3 days.

"The planet has a similar mass to Saturn, but its radius is similar to Jupiter, so it's quite a puffed up planet. Because its host star is so cool it's not heating the planet up so much, it's very different from the we have observed so far," Mr Zhou said.

"The atmosphere of this planet will be an interesting target for future study."

The research is published in the Astronomical Journal.

Explore further: Perth's planet hunter helps discover unusual exoplanet

More information: "HATS-6b: A Warm Saturn Transiting an Early M Dwarf Star, and a Set of Empirical Relations for Characterizing K and M Dwarf Planet Hosts," 2015. The Astronomical Journal 149 166. DOI: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/5/166

Related Stories

First exoplanet visible light spectrum

April 22, 2015

Astronomers using the HARPS planet-hunting machine at ESO's La Silla Observatory in Chile have made the first-ever direct detection of the spectrum of visible light reflected off an exoplanet. These observations also revealed ...

Robotically discovering Earth's nearest neighbors

April 28, 2015

A team of astronomers using ground-based telescopes in Hawaii, California, and Arizona recently discovered a planetary system orbiting a nearby star that is only 54 light-years away. All three planets orbit their star at ...

First planet found around solar twin in star cluster

January 15, 2014

Astronomers have used ESO's HARPS planet hunter in Chile, along with other telescopes around the world, to discover three planets orbiting stars in the cluster Messier 67. Although more than one thousand planets outside the ...

Recommended for you

NASA telescope studies quirky comet 45P

November 22, 2017

When comet 45P zipped past Earth early in 2017, researchers observing from NASA's Infrared Telescope Facility, or IRTF, in Hawai'i gave the long-time trekker a thorough astronomical checkup. The results help fill in crucial ...

Cassini image mosaic: A farewell to Saturn

November 21, 2017

In a fitting farewell to the planet that had been its home for over 13 years, the Cassini spacecraft took one last, lingering look at Saturn and its splendid rings during the final leg of its journey and snapped a series ...

Uncovering the origins of galaxies' halos

November 21, 2017

Using the Subaru Telescope atop Maunakea, researchers have identified 11 dwarf galaxies and two star-containing halos in the outer region of a large spiral galaxy 25 million light-years away from Earth. The findings, published ...

49 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

viko_mx
May 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (21) May 01, 2015
God created the universe and all in it. But this simple explanation is disliked by many people.

...because it's not an explanation. It's just a statement (and an unfounded one at that). Learn the difference.
If you can't even see the difference between a claim and a theory then no wonder you fall for 'simple' stuff.
viko_mx
May 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
1.3 / 5 (16) May 01, 2015
The theory of biological evolution preaches that selfishness, personal interest and moral relativism are the engine for human development. But it actually create only chaos in society and driving its fast decline. We can see it without difficulty in modern society.
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (6) May 01, 2015
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your astronomy. Heed Kepler's method: guess again.
SoylentGrin
4.8 / 5 (20) May 01, 2015
This is the claim of God.


This is the claim of a book, written by humans, claiming a god told them what to write in a book.

Forget that 95% of all humans that have ever lived were illiterate, making books a lousy way to transmit a message to all humans...
Never mind that a god that could tell people what to put in a book could just tell everyone what would be in the book...
Leave out ever changing languages that make translations unreliable...

You're still taking a human created work and calling it the work of a god, simply based on what the book's human authors claim. No critical thought, questioning or skepticism whatsoever. And you want us to do the same? On a SCIENCE DISCUSSION SITE?!
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (20) May 01, 2015
This is the claim of God.

No. This is the claim of YOU that it is the claim of god. Important difference. (Notice the 'argument from authority' fallacy at it's most naive - you give youreslf authority by claiming the existence of a fictional, higher authority. That's pretty insane).

By the rest of your post -and the unintelligible way it is written- I am not surprised that you're a godder. simple minds can be confused in simple ways.

The theory of biological evolution preaches that selfishness, personal interest ...

It does no such thing.

But if you must moralize everything: If you cannot accept that there is stuff that doesn't fit into your naive view of morality then that's YOUR problem. If you reject demonstrable reality because it doesn't fit your model of a god (that you have made in YOUR image) then your model is wrong - not reality. Ever thought of that?

viko_mx
1.3 / 5 (14) May 01, 2015
This is the claim of God writen by the hands of several man with the help of Holy spirit.
No one man can write such a book. No one man have such moral standart and wisdom. No one man has been such a strong supporter of the truth of God on Earth except the God's son. If you research human folklor and feiry tales you will find that they are very different as style, spirit and wisdom from this unique book. If you do not understand this you do not read the Bible or do not love the truth.

Remembver that iliterate people do not mean stupid or dishonest people. In fact the wrong edication which is indocrination is aways the worst case.
viko_mx
1.3 / 5 (14) May 01, 2015
Your mind is enslaved by the indocrinational cliche the the fate in God is incompatible with science. But is there any logic to deny the Creator who create the universe and the laws that keep order in it and at the same time to hope to understand it? This is nonsence.
If science denies the Creator and creation, remains practicing modern shamanism or to deal with neighborhood gossip
bobbysius
4.7 / 5 (15) May 01, 2015
"If you research human folklor and feiry tales you will find that they are very different as style, spirit and wisdom from this unique book."

Asserting that the Bible is somehow superior to human folklore and fairy tales due to its cogency is invalid. The Bible as we know it was pieced together by editors in the early church, particularly the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon 300-400 years after Jesus' death. Any books that didn't perfectly support the same narrative were left out. If folklore was edited to remove inconsistencies, it would appear just as stylish, spiritual and wise.



viko_mx
1.3 / 5 (12) May 01, 2015
Why the Bible is the most hated book for all tyrants in human history and why are they trying to hide it from people? Why in spite of them this book has survived two millennia and passed succesfully the test of time? Why true Christians have always been the salt of society and the men of sin who want to do what they decide without moral judge to remind them the perpose of human life, the God's truth and God's judgment, which create for them strong mental discomfort?
This explains the confusion of many scientists who accepted imposed in universities theories, which are increasingly inadequate to the facts of observations.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (18) May 01, 2015
o one man can write such a book. No one man have such moral standart and wisdom.

Wow. Didi you even *read* the bible? The stuff in there is so f*cked up you could live a better life if you followed your diswasher manual.
(And it's full of internal contradictions, too. That 'holy spitrit' of yours must have some serious mental issues)

If you research human folklor and feiry tales you will find that they are very different as style, spirit and wisdom from this unique book.

Try what you preach sometime. You will find that most of the bible is just a (rather inept) rewrite of a plethora of prior religions of the time (pagan cults, judaism, persian, zororastrianims, egyptian,... )
The book is just a bad rip-off from start to finish.
TopherTO
5 / 5 (13) May 01, 2015
DANGER: Do not feed the trolls.
eachus
5 / 5 (10) May 01, 2015
I feel sorry for people who have been betrayed by charlatans, for the benefit of the charlatans of course. If God has a language, it is quantum mechanics. This means that there are no miracles. (Anything is possible, but some things are extremely unlikely.) Similarly, mathematics tells us that there are truths which cannot be proven true (or false). Oh, and there are some very powerful scientific/mathematical methods for studying manuscripts and documents.

What does all this tell us about the Bible? That in general it teaches much about the human condition, and truths about human nature. It also teaches lessons which generation after generation refuse to learn. One example? Hating people who are different from you makes you miserable. Not hating them may win you benefits in the afterlife--but both the Bible and science say that not hating means you will lead a happier and longer life.
Gigel
3.3 / 5 (6) May 01, 2015
viko, I see no problem in studying something that God created. Actually this may tell much about the way God creates things and why He does so.
viko_mx
1.4 / 5 (11) May 01, 2015
Are you sure that the physical laws allow everything to be possible? I do not thing so.

The Bible theaches as to the truth long ago the acceptanse of scietific methods.
The God created people unlike animals as moral being with a natural sense for write and wrong. The Bible defines God's moral lawsthat are base people to build a just and developed society. There God warns us for the consequences of sin. Not everything in the universe is possible and many dreamers speculators exploit the ideas of quantum mechanics without understand it. Actually there are not scientist that understand it in details?
In this universe there are absolutes and this absolutes defined the border between write and wrong, true and false, and possible and imposible. This is the reason why relativistic theories are so inadequate to reality.

Gigel
2.3 / 5 (8) May 01, 2015
Asserting that the Bible is somehow superior to human folklore and fairy tales due to its cogency is invalid.

Yet there is no way for humans to prove the nonexistence of God as an eternal being with a spiritual nature. There is simply no way in a 13.8 billion years old universe to measure such a being. And then if God, being omnipotent, wishes to inspire men to write down his thoughts for them, he can do so by his will alone, no reason to give definite and absolute proof. Actually absolute proof is something humans cannot perceive, they having mediate perceptions and not absolute knowledge.

Actually I'd say a lack of God as one supreme being would be extremely disturbing and unlikely. It would show a limit to intelligence which would bound it to the world of apparencies, where there is no absolute reference. Which then asks: if our world is only apparent, then whose dream is it? A dream without dreamer is far stranger than God's existence could ever seem. My opinion.
denglish
4.6 / 5 (9) May 01, 2015
Give me money, or you will go to hell.
SuperThunderRocketJockey
4.4 / 5 (8) May 01, 2015
There are tons of rogue stars and rogue planets, maybe this is an adopted solar system. Drummond Alpha and Planet Arnold.
reset
1.8 / 5 (12) May 01, 2015
Thessalonians - " And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,"

Having never read the bible, but having a good friend who quotes it frequently, I find this one particularily applicable to the current state of theoretical astrophysics, quantum mechanics, politics, world affairs in general. Everyone I know who truly believes in God doesn't have their faith rooted in religion, but experience.

I was an atheist. It is impossible for me to be one now.
To those of you who are all I can say is that if something ever causes you to doubt atheism, embrace it. And good luck to all you happy atheists out there....you're gonna need it.

Give me money, or you will go to hell.


How many kpc away is hell? Can a galactic merger shockwave reach it?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.8 / 5 (8) May 01, 2015
"It must have formed further out and migrated in, but our theories can't explain how this happened."

Well, there is still controversy. But this is not a new claim on hot Jupiters.

@STRJ: They could check that (likely already did) in individual cases by checking the star rotation axis (out of Doppler observations) with the orbital plane of the planet. Of course there isn't any guarantee, some hot Jupiters have eccentric or even retrograde orbits. But it is a start.

But in general, see above. There are many more of these systems than capture would predict.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (8) May 01, 2015
Re trolling, it is spouting falsehoods faster than anyone would want to analyse. Let us take the first claim and make that the test of falsehood:

"[Magic agency 'created'] the universe and all in it."

First, we have long known there isn't any magic agencies at work (literarily), from thermodynamics of closed systems and on. Magic, if it isn't physics and it does stuff, is asking for a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. That is dingbat. [ http://en.wikiped...dynamics ]

Second, we now know that the local universe emerged out of inflation. And that its energy and matter content is the remaining potential energy of that, while its structure formation is expanded quantum fluctuations. That is right, we are the result of genuine stochasticity (among other things). And anyone can see this. [ http://pla.esac.esa.int/pla/ ]

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (8) May 01, 2015
[ctd]

So magic is false. This also rejects the old theological sham of 'can't prove or disprove [magic agencies]', which Gigel repeats. Of course we can test for magic action, and depending on the type of creationism there are 5 basic tests that show the non-existence at the usual quality of tests.

Worse than the buffoonery is the idea that grownups should consider this. Magic agency thinking is no longer necessary to grok the universe, as per above. Its remaining function is to gift wrap the idea that certain behaviors would prolong an imaginary form of life indefinitely, or grant wishes.

[tbctd]
SuperThunderRocketJockey
5 / 5 (4) May 01, 2015
Torbjorn, that's an excellent point and my comment was more off the cuff than it should have been for the sake of making a Different Strokes joke (old American sitcom about a rich man who adopts poor kids). I try and make the jokes obvious so as not to be confused with the anti-intellectuals, and this time I kind of phoned it in.

As for trolls, I'm ready for a science site behind a paywall. This place is kind of ridiculous. I think this article makes a very compelling point.
http://www.popsci...comments
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (8) May 01, 2015
[ctd]

This is magic thinking, and its gift wrapping is what someone that passed its "best before" date at 7 years of age would come up with to protect its meeting reality.

"Magical thinking is the attribution of causal relationships between actions and events which cannot be justified by reason and observation. In religion, folk religion, and superstitious beliefs, the correlation posited is often between religious ritual, prayer, sacrifice, or the observance of a taboo, and an expected benefit or recompense." [ http://en.wikiped...thinking ]

@STRJ: Ah, yes. I surmised that it was a joke (but don't know the context that well), but I didn't think too much about the balance between the science and the "having of fun". Agreed.
Multivac jr_
4.6 / 5 (9) May 01, 2015

The Bible theaches as to the truth long ago the acceptanse of scietific methods.


You clearly don't know enough about science to be against it.

And the red lines (or dots) that appear under certain words as you type means those words are not spelled correctly. If your browser or text editor lacks that feature, you might want to look into using one that has it.
Multivac jr_
4.2 / 5 (6) May 01, 2015
Why the Bible is the most hated book for all tyrants in human history and why are they trying to hide it from people? Why in spite of them this book has survived two millennia and passed succesfully the test of time?


So human history is ~2000 years? Or were there no tyrants before then? And have you heard of the Vedas? The Upanishads? The REALLY old Maxims of Ptahhotep (celebrating it's 4365th year in print this June!)? Dianetics? I'm OK, You're OK? I'm just kidding about the last two... for now. But in a few thousand years they might just make the list, too.
SoylentGrin
4.1 / 5 (7) May 01, 2015
Thessalonians - " And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,"


You believe in a god that intentionally misleads people? From that point on, all bets are off.
If there exists an all-powerful entity that actively deceives people, you can never be sure that you yourself are on the right side of delusional. In fact, the more certain you are of your beliefs, the more likely you yourself are being deceived.

Narrow is the path, and all that. Many are called, few are chosen. Which means that even if the bible is true, most of your fellow believers are also believing the wrong things. If the majority of believers (!) are on the wrong side of a narrow path, how certain are you that you're not among them? And if you are certain, see above.

As I said, once you put an all powerful lying entity into play, and the bible certainly does that, all bets are off. No one can ever be sure they know anything, even if they happen to be right!
RealityCheck
3.5 / 5 (6) May 01, 2015
Hi viko_mx. :)

Give your god a rest, please mate. Whatever the *ultimate truth* of the universe's physical manifestation and its dynamical processes/features, it nevertheless *is* and remains in eternal flux of diverse process at all scales. That is the point; and the subject of scientific study and exploration/interpretation etc. All other personal/religious/superstitious 'overlays' are irrelevant in this context of looking at reality and explaining its mechanisms and causes and 'physical truths'. Ok, mate? No need to keep banging the god drum on a science site.

I for one would be very interested in the further study of such systems as this one, for its own sake, and for the sake of satisfying my own curiosity as to the the full gamut of possible 'capture' and 'migration' etc possibilities which the universe realizes over the vast gulfs of time and distance, at all scales. No need to clutter up such objective scientific discussions with subjective gods and demons etc. Thanks. :)
DonGateley
5 / 5 (2) May 01, 2015
Feeding these trolls totally defeats the "Ignore user" button. Doing so may well cause you to be ignored too because you are little better and at least as annoying.
SuperThunderRocketJockey
5 / 5 (5) May 01, 2015
Feeding these trolls totally defeats the "Ignore user" button. Doing so may well cause you to be ignored too because you are little better and at least as annoying.


Ergo Decedo fallacy.

Sorry, man, you walked right into that one.
AZWarrior
4.5 / 5 (2) May 01, 2015
Could it be a rogue planet captured by this star? We are finding planets without stars are numerous.
SuperThunderRocketJockey
4.3 / 5 (4) May 01, 2015
AZWarrior, I made the same comment above kind of in jest, but it seems what it looks like is a planet that formed by known means is instead just moving inward towards its star. Torbjorn explained it better than I did in response to my comment above. You can be forgiven for missing it, this place is a laugh riot.
katesisco
1 / 5 (5) May 02, 2015
well, if we have it backwards, and the red giant phase is first instead of last, then it would makes sense. If a red giant collapsed after it had planets, say if our Sol was a sun as large as Betelgeuse, let's call it the Beetle Sun, had planets like Jupiter, Saturn, etc, and collapsed on itself, creating a sun like Sol, and making new planets from the rejected metalized gas in the former space like Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars and the exploded planet Aztec (after S W Carey), then it would explain why our sun is losing luminosity. Perhaps it is becoming a cool red dwarf to join the millions of red dwarfs proposed to exist.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (8) May 02, 2015
"[Magic agency 'created'] the universe and all in it."

God is wonderfull person. Not magic agency. Your irony is out of place because you warship (you do not have evidence for self created uneiverse from nothingness) to happy chance qnd the self creation of universe without idea and perpose. So your fate is more close to magic agency. Yes, you can use scientificaly sounding terminology for more authority over the the laymans, as quantum foam, hidden dimensions, multiverse and other ideas of science fiction that may sound logical to them without to have any sense in these ideas.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (7) May 02, 2015
Scintifically sounding therminology do not make true sciense. Nor pride and vanity. True science is make by honest and not selfish people who see sense merely to seek the truth and make it available to all people.
malapropism
5 / 5 (5) May 02, 2015
Feeding these trolls totally defeats the "Ignore user" button. Doing so may well cause you to be ignored too because you are little better and at least as annoying.

The problem is that what they write about their delusions is so hilarious that it seems a bit of a waste not to read and mock them - there's not enough to laugh at in the world as it is and they give us a big, fat, easy target!
Osiris1
1 / 5 (3) May 03, 2015
Suppose this 'Jupiter' was 'wandering by' and got captured. Not yet in stable orbit, it then wandered in, eating every smaller planet or 'dwarf planet' (for the sellers out of Pluto) on its way in. With all this 'debate', really we would be better served by restoring Pluto as a 'full planet''; and terminating the careers of all Pluto's opponents who obviously have their heads in the sand as to what the people want.
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (1) May 03, 2015
I'll keep my personal beliefs to myself however i will say this: Science has intrigued me since the day i was born and i will always find it very interesting as it is all we have to physically explain our surroundings, but nothing would ever be able to convince me that something could exist without something causing/creating it, there is always....always something that must be done in order for something to exist, things don't magically pop into existence from thin air that would be pure magic, if so science in its root would be flawed as science itself are set out to provide all the evidence it can to show the processes that takes place to produce what we see. However science is created by humans with human sensory that evolved to live on earth. Nothing would ever be able to prove that matter and everything that exists simply popped into existence, not now not in a billion years, not ever..
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.8 / 5 (4) May 03, 2015
@viko:

"[Meaningless personification of a magic agency]. Not magic agency. Your irony is out of place because you warship ...".

I obviously wasn't ironic since I showed how religious belief is dressed up magic belief for most individuals. A good term for expecting magic to work would be "magic mechanisms", but since religious beliefs insist in personification of mechanisms, "magic agency" is more descriptive. If you want to talk to non-sectarian people and not sound arrogant and debasing, you should provide evidence of the existence of such a magic agency before you talk about it as actually existing.

And by the same token I am not 'warshipping' or worshipping anything, another arrogant and debasing delusion of yours. I have evidence for what I note.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (4) May 03, 2015
[ctd]

"the self creation of universe without idea and perpose."

The universe can't be "self created", that implies some sort of exact iterative mapping that loop in time. (Not a bouncing universe but a hyperspatially connected one.) It is inflation that results in local universes when it stops locally.

Idea and purpose are relative traits expressed by some organisms such as humans, usually each individual differing in expression. (The purpose I made for myself is to have fun; learning is part of that - but so is dancing.) Of course the universe has nothing of it as such. No one expects it to have, and there is very little effort involved in observing that it hasn't. (What idea and purpose has a grain of sand?)
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (4) May 03, 2015
@HeloMenelo: "but nothing would ever be able to convince me that something could exist without something causing/creating it,".

That is either wrong or meaningless, depending on your definition of "causing". Moreover, it is meaningless if you want to do cosmology (or astrobiology).

Let me explain:

- "Cause" is a pre-scientific philosophic/theological deceit.

Relativity showed that physics obeys causality, which is more about lightcone physics and its time-ordering of a class of dependent correlations than philosophical ad hoc "cause-effect".

Specifically quantum field theory, which obeys relativity, advances states deterministically but have observations result stochastically. Can a stochastic quantum fluctuation be said to be "caused" by something? Perhaps, but it is definitely not what you commonly mean by "caused".

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (4) May 03, 2015
[ctd]

- "Nothing" is a pre-scientific philosophic/theological deceit.

If you want to observe the emergence of life, or the universe, you have to constrain your observations so that they look back in time from where we are today. We can see that life emerged out of geophysical systems, and the universe out of the ending of inflation. In neither case do we see, or expect, a non-testable 'nothing'. All we know is 'something', and 'nothing' isn't part of possible statistical outcomes, so meaningless.

Again, you can obfuscate the meaning of Hadean geophysics ('non-life') or inflation ('non-universe'), but it is definitely not what you commonly mean by "nothing".

For all we know, inflation appears eternal forwards seen from our frame of reference (our place and time; but is obviously not a worldline within our universe as it stopped here) and could be eternal backwards from it. If not, some other process is causally tied to it, physics guarantee us that. Et cetera.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (4) May 03, 2015
To expand on "cause-effect" I would say that quantum physics showed that it was the wrong way to understand physics, in the same way that relativity showed that simultaneity was the wrong way to understand it.

When people model quantum statistics, the simplest toy models that incorporates qubits are 2D while those who incorporates classical bits are of course 1D. That is curious, but more pertinent here quantum statistics has as a result curiously _a diffeomorphism_ that takes states seamlessly into other states. (Mirroring how you can go partway into decoherence/coherence and then back off.) The instate-outstate formalism breaks down, and hence do "cause" (instate) and "effect" (outstate).

"Cause-effect" was useful toys for common sense folk physics, but now they are in the way to understand actual physics. Especially cosmology, where exotic quantum physics is dominant.

Causality on the other hand is obviously hip with this "non-state" of affairs. =D
malapropism
5 / 5 (5) May 03, 2015
"[Magic agency 'created'] the universe and all in it."


God is wonderfull person. Not magic agency.

By your definition, as given above (1st sentence of your reply), your statement (2nd sentence of your reply) is indeed true and correct.

However, a significant problem with this appears to be that you have now defined your god to be a human being ("a person" - if you disbelieve this please look up the definition of 'person' in a reputable dictionary). Unless you wish to convince us that humans are capable of the sort of creation acts which you attribute to your god then I suggest that you try to think more carefully and logically about how you define your predicates and also about how you use language in your arguments.

If you can do both of these things, however, I venture that you'd likely start thinking more critically and rationally; a warning though - this way leads to disbelief in religion and similar supernatural phenomena. Difficult situation, I know...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) May 04, 2015
Asserting that the Bible is not true merely because you used some fancy words is not valid.

Um - I think you're making a pretty big logical fallacy here. You're saying "X is true (by my claim) - prove me wrong. If you can't prove me wrong then X is true"
See how you are doing EXACTLY what YOU YOURSELF claim is invalid?

So before you accuse someone of being stupid - be very careful. You just contradicted yourself in the space of one sentence without noticing. That takes some pretty high level of stupidity.

(And anyhow: The one making a claim must first suzbstantiate it. And the claim "the bible is a fantasy" comes AFTER someone claimed "the bible was the truth" (because if no one claimed the latter no one would have to retort with the former))
setnom
not rated yet May 04, 2015
Am I in the right website? I think I took a left turn instead of the right turn.
fgordon2
5 / 5 (2) May 04, 2015
...If you do not understand this you do not read the Bible or do not love the truth...

Sir, you seem to not like reality as it unfolds to our curious eyes and therefore you prefer to call "truth" some other thing which nature is not. Unfortunately, nature does not care whether we like it or not. It is what it is. You don't like it? Tough cookies :-)
eachus
5 / 5 (1) May 05, 2015
Are you sure that the physical laws allow everything to be possible?


This is a fascinating subject, somewhat related to the topic here, but definitely physics. The first shoe: If you study the math behind quantum mechanics, the first approximation is that you do an experiment, and the QM math tells you the possible results, and the probabilities of all the final outcomes. To do the calculations, you find lots of ridiculous seeming things, like the momentary existence of particles that scientists have never observed.

Tne next shoe, and a lot harder to accept, is that experiments have shown that the most ridiculous seeming things are real. Something can be in two places at once until things collapse to a single state.

The third shoe, though, is the real zinger. Your body--and everything--is constantly bombarded by very high energy particles. Many of them are atoms, but anything is possible, including a shoe. And these particles show up with no notice.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.