How does 0 + 0 = every thing!

Llama
Theist
Llama's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-06-05
User is offlineOffline
How does 0 + 0 = every thing!

For math I lerned that 0 + 0 = 0. The universe doesnt know math because it said 0 + 0 = every thing, lol. How did energies and mater be created with out a creator? I know this is tough question so its ok if you intellegent people dont know the answer. Give me a good guess?

Bleeeat!


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
You tell me theist -

You tell me theist - creation ex nihilo is your thing, not mine.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
The net energy of the

The net energy of the universe is zero.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
This was primarily the topic

This was primarily the topic I addressed in this thread:

Sapient and the "Eternal Universe"

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
It's gotta be the moon....

Has anyone done an analysis of the pattern by which these dumb assed theists choose to post these endless repetitions of the same pathetically lame questions?

Are they so stupid as to think they've posted some sort of 'stumper'? They all seem to be amazingly smug, thinking themselves to be sooooooo clever.

I for one am TIRED of explaning basic cosmology, biology, statistics and logic to these nit-wits....

Ok Theists... it's your turn.

Explain to me, step by step HOW your god did it.

I don't want to hear yet another 'evolution is just a theory' or 'look at the trees man' pile of bullshit....

I want one of you to tell me HOW you propose creationism (by your estimate, a theory equal to evolutionary theory) works...

Remember, a theory explains observed phenomina, so give me an example of an observed, verified case of special creation.

Remember, a theory is testable (falsifiable). So show me the experiments that have verified special creation.

Remember, a theory can be used to make predictions, which in turn can be used to verify or falsify the theory in question.

Remember, trashing evolution in NO WAY proves creationism. Unless you can PROVE creationism on it's own merits, then I would suggest you simply...

SHUT

the

Fuck

UP!

LC >;-]>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


entomophila
ScientistSuperfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
sPelink

Dear (insert name of deity here),

Please send us someone who can spell. I am getting tired of these retards.  I'm not asking for much. Am I?

Thank you.

Entomophila


Jiggles Vibe
Posts: 40
Joined: 2008-05-24
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:For math I

Llama wrote:

For math I lerned that 0 + 0 = 0. The universe doesnt know math because it said 0 + 0 = every thing, lol. How did energies and mater be created with out a creator? I know this is tough question so its ok if you intellegent people dont know the answer. Give me a good guess?

 

0+0=0.

really?

"The longer you live the higher you fly,
the smiles you'll give and the tears you'll cry,
all you touch and all you see,
is all your life will ever be."
-Pink Floyd, The Dark Side of the Moon.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:For math I

Llama wrote:

For math I lerned that 0 + 0 = 0. The universe doesnt know math because it said 0 + 0 = every thing, lol. How did energies and mater be created with out a creator? I know this is tough question so its ok if you intellegent people dont know the answer. Give me a good guess?

 

Can you describe to me, without using special pleading, how the magic man you propose to have created the universe came into existence?

 

I mean, given your brilliant argument that 0+0=0, and therefore "something can't come from nothing", how then does your god escape this condition?


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
LlamaI've curious. Are you a

Llama

I'm curious. Are you a home schooled elementary student?


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
You're right. We need

You're right. We need religion to tell us 0 + 0 = God.


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
0+0=0 just like earth way older the 6000 years old

well the question is what is the property of 0. with that being said even if this cant be explained it does not in one way prove creation at all. what it does is make more people mad at you cause you are trying to say they are stupid and you know the answer.

so lets start on you if you believe the earth is 6000 years old then i can not help you. if you believe this disproves evolution at all then i think you need to go do some research.

as for science i might not agree with it but that does not mean it is wrong because i disagree with a point or 2. because science is important but trust me when i say this. it is not the be all to end all. now it is equal in that it needs to be know alongside History Math and Languague to explain everything.

i know that it would be almost impossible to prove science or for that matter religion if they didnt have math and history. but both sides of this arguement seems like they think that its either science as most important thing to know or the exact opposite religion thinks it is the most important thing to the world.

now i dont think either side is right in acting like that. because i remember a study that sciencetists loved until a Dicator got hold of it and actually put it in use and while putting that exipermint to work he was also using religion to justify it from a book written a few centruies back that was a religious book. now if you mention that kind of science they realize they were wrong on the ones that care. now that is what happens when someone that is very smart but also a loose cannon as a leader will do it will use its sources of knowledge to do his will no matter how evil his will is.

but even though it gave science a black eye that is rarely mentioned from lectures i have heard. religion does not have a good track record to stand on from people preverting the original message which was probably peace not a fear and war tactic. but you can not over look the middle ages with the crusades. just like here in american we tried to stop it from taking over and showing its ugly head which the founding fathers tried to do. on probelm religion likes to stick its nose in government business to make laws to force people to do what that religion wants to do and believe is right.

now best example of these kind of religion trying to get involved with government nevemind the first amendent of freedom of speech freedom of religion freedom of expression and freedom of press. now the law i am talking about is simple which is motivated mainly by religion. and that is the laws that go up againest gay and lesibein groups. now although i dont agree with that lifestyle that i would live. that does not give me anyright whatsoever to act like im better then someone that agrees with that lifestyle or born that way to tell them that they cant be that way because i dont like it or agree with it. but if a support a constution amendment for marriage to be one man and one woman we can guess most of the people that would agree with a bill like that would be religious people. yet dont worry if a law is passed to take down the 10 commandments in a government building then it is good old lets start to make noise to keep these commandments up because thats invading on our freedom of religion. and notice how that group does not understand that concept one bit!

so yea 0+0= everything just like keep religion or beliefs or of government  seems to have history of wanting power and figting for it ensues sometimes. now religion does not want government to tell it what to do then the same people should understand not everyone believes what they believe and to keep it out of telling what the government to do for laws that effect everyone!

although i didnt use your math probelm you can understand llahama that it can be used to jump in other long conversations over science that might use that math probelm or history that could tell you why and what that math probelm is about.

 or better yet get a computer and you can have the computer show you how to make that math probelm work. considering a computer uses 0,1 to run stuff with can someone please tell this person about computer that use programs to use 0,1s. i remember right before 2000 hit that everyone was scared about when it hit what it would do to computers and that it might set us back.

but i got a math word probelm for you llahama since you like math. 2 planes hit 2 buildings and knockdown 3 buildings. what caused the third building being the furtherest away to fall and the two closest to the ones that fell did not fall much less every look like they would!!! i know you probalby think oh i just make nice story up and try to sell it knowing that if questioned or remembered the story would have logic questions needing to be answered! but this is related to your math probelm the best way i see.

its like creationism makes a nice allogory but has alot of flaws to it like Genesis 1 vs genesis 2 which says to different stories of how the earth was created. maybe i looked at those chapters wrong but i truely doubt it. now what it could me is the writer of genesis wrote the book more as metorphorically symbolically speaking then what a group wants to cling on too.

and if you cant admitt you are possibly wrong then why should someone opposite your belief have to admitt they are possibly wrong will you want them to give up there pride but you hold on to yours. i dont think so and i dont think sticking to im right your wrong and no matter what evidence you come up with i am going to deny it and call it cooked up or falsified which does not make sense but you think this little exercise was which it was not because i can tell no matter what you are probably going to believe the same idea that you stumped someone so that means you are right and that does not make you right but what it does make you is someone that wants to make someone that has giving ideas along with tests that back their hypthothis up the thing of having to go waste time on something that you yourself probably don't know how to answer much less go test your hypothis and see if it treads water but dont go test that 6000 year old belief as the world age which does not seem to shine any lite on its theory expect the book of genesis which maybe it is true but that is like a 0 percent chance of being correct so is that what you trying to say you done wasting peoples time on the belief of the earth 6000 years old?

oh yea even though evolution is neutral and was suppose to be neutral on religion it did help other scincitific theories along and the chance of abrahamic religion god being true is like .0001 percent which is no where good chance.

and ill leave you with this llaham from a teacher i asked is religion of any kind real and he said "religion is man made but you still cant disprove god" so just remember that i think what he was saying was religion if lived by the social justices is noble but this is we as your anncestors have come to the conclusion that this is how the earth is and we are leaving this too you to help you out!!!

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I recommend the following

EDIT: My bad.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 deludedgod means that in

 deludedgod means that in the nicest way, General Forrest. You're obviously welcome here, but it's a lot easier to take someone seriously when they take their writing seriously.

Chilling username, though. I take it you're aware of the early history of the Ku Klux Klan?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Guys, in another thread he

Guys, in another thread, General-Forrest says he has a Learning Disability/ Mental Disorder that is Attention Defiecit Hyperactivity Disorder and, to me, he seems to be possibly an atheist

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Guys, in another

aiia wrote:

Guys, in another thread he says he has a Learning Disability/ Mental Disorder that is Attention Defiecit Hyperactivity Disorder and, to me, he seems to be possibly an atheist

Perhaps. Posers abound as well.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:For math I

Llama wrote:

For math I lerned that 0 + 0 = 0. The universe doesnt know math because it said 0 + 0 = every thing, lol. How did energies and mater be created with out a creator? I know this is tough question so its ok if you intellegent people dont know the answer. Give me a good guess?

I will guess something about you instead.  I guess that you have either a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the universe and its beginnings or are stupid.

As an aside, 'energies and mater (sic)' aren't 'be created with out a creator (sic)'.  I believe you meant to ask us, 'How are energy and matter created without a creator?'  I can't answer that question, you are equivocating upon the word create and you erroneously believe the universe to be ex nihilo in origin.  Something did not come from nothing and the universe was not created in any sense that necessitates a creator.  If that is difficult to understand learn to use a dictionary, pick up a copy of Strunk and White, The Elements of Style and read some layman books on cosmology then come back and ask a question that actually makes sense.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
yes i wasnt thinking about them when i made the name.

 

 

well i am taking medicine for my a.d.h.d. which it helps me stay more focused and on task but i just restarted it so it might take a little bit of time before it works.  i will be truthful i don't know what i believe. but i am not trying to lie to anyone. i believe that if i treat people the way i want to be treated then i don't lie unless i want to be lied too. but the way i see life is if i do what is right and treat everyone the same then i cant get mad how i am being treated because i think life in someways is how you treat others and they treat you the way you treat them. the one thing i do know is i like history. i hope i can find out the truth and not have to listen to one opinion. but the main reason i choose the name is because i like the study of the civil war. so i hope i can make some friends here. sorry i didn't find the site until last week and then i was scared to post because i seem to get in trouble by question and being hyper and impulsive sometimes which i am trying to work on to keep it from being a problem and thanks for the open mind to allowing a site like this. My first name is Justin and it is nice to meet new people. thanks again if i am doing something wrong please let me know and i will try to fix it.


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
question wha is best way to know what i believe?

i am curious as to what i believe. what would best way i can find out what i believe or don't believe. i would appreciate the help i get and thank you i just trying to help out with ideas not trying to cause problems. well i am bout to head out to the college so everyone have a good day and ill be back later hopefully.


Llama
Theist
Llama's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You tell me theist -

Quote:
You tell me theist - creation ex nihilo is your thing, not mine.

Um there is evidence of creator but no evidence of eternal births and deaths of universe or imagined universes

Quote:
The net energy of the universe is zero.

what? Lol's! That is lie. I have energies it's tiny energy but net of my energy is not zero.

Quote:
Dear (insert name of deity here),

<quote>Please send us someone who can spell. I am getting tired of these retards.  I'm not asking for much. Am I?

Thank you.

Entomophila

Please dont make fun of my english, my english is not important as long as people understand what I say.

Quote:
Can you describe to me, without using special pleading, how the magic man you propose to have created the universe came into existence?

 I mean, given your brilliant argument that 0+0=0, and therefore "something can't come from nothing", how then does your god escape this condition?

that's a silly question because I can turn it around and ask you how does your universe escape same conditioner. Magic man is God? Lol that just something you made up to make fun of god.

Bleeeat!


entomophila
ScientistSuperfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
english not important

llama wrote:

...my english is not important as long as people understand what I say.

You are kidding...right?

 


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
The universe as we know it

The universe as we know it was created from the big bang from the singularity not the nothingness. 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Llama
Theist
Llama's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:The universe as

Magus wrote:

The universe as we know it was created from the big bang from the singularity not the nothingness. 

the universe was forged from the big bag but where did the singularity come from? I know it's not a fare question but if you take God away what answer can you put in his place?

Bleeeat!


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
The correct answer

Simply we don't know, since we don't know what occurred before the singularity, however saying god did it, doesn't answer anything at all, it opens up alot more questions with no answers. Where did god come from? God couldn't come from nothing, if you say god always existed, it doesn't answer the question really and if god could always existed, then energy always existed. Why can't energy always existed? It takes god out of the equation and gives a natural explanation to this universe and existance, to which everything so far has had a natural explanation, and since energy cannot be created or destroyed, god cannot have created energy. So we don't know, and we may never know, but saying god did it, doesn't answer the question, it's a cop-out answer.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:what? Lol's!

Llama wrote:

what? Lol's! That is lie. I have energies it's tiny energy but net of my energy is not zero.

 

Yes it is because it is cancelled out by Space-Time. The bend in space-time from the mass cancels out the energy.

 

 

and BTW, I agree that as long as the post is understandable you shouldn't rag on spelling/grammar. But that's only because mine is horrible.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
In the spirit of the

In the spirit of the original post, and taking into Cpt_pineapple's comment about nett energy:

0 = -1 + 1

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:the universe was

Llama wrote:
the universe was forged from the big bag but where did the singularity come from? I know it's not a fare question but if you take God away what answer can you put in his place?

I am sad it's the 21st century and people still can't "reason" better than this tripe above. Supernatural explanation is an oxymoron. You don't know the answer, so you take your ignorance, put a disgustingly self righteous halo on it, and call it "God". Then you parade your ignorance here, and you're probably proud of believing in nonsense! Fail. Epic fail.


Llama
Theist
Llama's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-06-05
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Simply we don't

 

Quote:
Simply we don't know, since we don't know what occurred before the singularity, however saying god did it, doesn't answer anything at all, it opens up alot more questions with no answers. Where did god come from? God couldn't come from nothing, if you say god always existed, it doesn't answer the question really and if god could always existed, then energy always existed. Why can't energy always existed? It takes god out of the equation and gives a natural explanation to this universe and existance, to which everything so far has had a natural explanation, and since energy cannot be created or destroyed, god cannot have created energy. So we don't know, and we may never know, but saying god did it, doesn't answer the question, it's a cop-out answer.

Well saying God did it answers the question what made the universe so it answers the biggest question we have. Hmm you can only answer the question of eternity with a simple answer, eternity always was and always is. I know us humans and Llamas think with starts and ends but maybe reality doesnt think like us. Eternity doesnt sound weird to me, ok I can't understand it all of it but I understand how it effects me. Like I know I'm not part of eternity in this body because I start and end but my soul is part of eternity because it always was with God and will never end!

We always say God is light and energy this is true but I think we are a little mistaken. Energy only exisits in space time because it needs a place to be occupy and it has time because time measures its movements and changes but God is not like that he is a different nature. God is a immaterial being that means we only know he is not mater or energies. Only clue we have is that God is light because he said so and so did Jesus. Is it the same light from stars and light bulsb? Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe a little of both visible light and super lite.

I know why energy didnt always exists and thats because my teachers and smart scientsist say so. They told me that energy began in bag bang that means it wasnt always there. Energy was created and big bang because energy wasnt born till bag bang make it be born. Its a violation of 2nd law but that law is universe law not preuniverse law. I think God created our energies or maybe he lended his energy to the big bang that I dont know but energy did that a start it science told me it did.

I dont think God did it is a copout answers because its a logical reasonable answer. Something super powerful made the univsers maybe you think the superpower was blind and stupid but I think the power was alive and brilliant! Also I disagree that natrualistic answers is all the answers even the answers we havent found yet. All it does is explain how car works it says NOTHING about how car was made and why it was made. I dont need Richardo Hawkins to tell me that I can go to a car mechanic!

If we have proof God made us and universe it will never stop us to learn more. Humans and Llamas and many other creatures are very curious especially cats. We will want to find out what God put into every thing how what he put makes it all work perfectly. He created ther book but we wont want to stop reading it because its so amazing! No im not talking about the bible lol

Quote:
Yes it is because it is cancelled out by Space-Time. The bend in space-time from the mass cancels out the energy.

But then why is energy every where and why do scientist who are smarter then you say that energy will still exist in universe even after all the stars died?



 

Bleeeat!


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Basically when I use the

Basically when I use the "god" word, it simply means the unknown, the AWE, "GAWED". So yeah. GAWED is why. How and what is this reality, is my science question.

Religious dogma about GAWED is the enemy and answers nothing, and causes terrible confusion, mental shut down, and unnecessary suffering. All religious people need healing. Religion is something we must get rid of .... Go Science , LOUDER .... Sue the Pope ....

Something from nothing ? As if nothing ever existed ? How could that be ? The bible starts, "When god began creating" ..... what a mistake in basic logic that is ....

Hey, I like some of that bible book tho. Yeah story atheistic Jesus, who said, I and God are ONE, ye are god(s) too , as all is god/heaven NOW ..... Right on old friend ..... me too, i god, what else could anything be ??? !!! .....    Religious gods, fuck you .....


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I know why energy

Quote:

I know why energy didnt always exists and thats because my teachers and smart scientsist say so. They told me that energy began in bag bang that means it wasnt always there. Energy was created and big bang because energy wasnt born till bag bang make it be born. Its a violation of 2nd law but that law is universe law not preuniverse law.

Quote:

But then why is energy every where and why do scientist who are smarter then you say that energy will still exist in universe even after all the stars died?

Well, I have posted the following multiple times before, but is this my fault, or the fault of my interlocutors who never come up with anything original?

Inaccurate. I think you need some education in basic physics. We must firstly understand the laws of thermodynamics in their proper context.

Let us imagine a box, a system closed off from the universe, with a cell inside it. The cell in a box is a closed system with a fixed amount of free energy. This system will have a total amount of Energy denoted E. Let us suppose the reaction A to B occurs in the box and releases a great deal of chemical bond energy as heat. This energy will increase the rate of molecular motions (transitional, vibrational and rotational) in the system. In other words it will raise the temperature.

However, the energy for these motions will soon transfer out of the system as the molecular motions heat up the wall of the box and then the outside world, which is denoted sea. Eventually, the cell in a box system returns to it’s initial temperature, and all the chemical bond energy released has been transferred to the surroundings. According to the first law of thermodynamics, the change in energy in the box (denoted ∆Ebox or just ∆E) must be equal and opposite to the amount of heat energy transferred out, denoted as h. Therefore ∆E=-h.

E in the box can also change during a reaction due to work done in the outside world. Suppose there is a small volume increase in the box (∆V) which must decrease the energy in the box (∆E) by the same amount. In most reactions, chemical bond energy is converted to work and heat. Enthalpy(H) is a composite function of work and heat, (H=mc∆T). Technically it is the Enthalpy change (∆H) is equal to the heat transferred to the outside world during a reaction, since Enthalpy is the composite function in question. In the equation above “c” simply refers to the specific Heat Capacity of the Material in question, such that the SHC is the amount of energy required to be inputted into the system to raise the temperature of one gram of the substance in question by one Kelvin (note that we can also measure this in terms of moles instead of mass, termed molar heat capacity). In the language of the First Law of Thermodynamics, we would express such like this:

Where Q=∆U-Wo, Q=mc∆t or (for molar heat capacity) Q=nc∆T

So, ∆H is a quantity expressing the SHC multiplied by the temperature change and by the mass of the substance in question. Since SHC is simply a measure of Energy change per Kelvin per Gram (or per mole), ∆H is simply a quantity expressing the change in energy of a system in question, where ∆H is roughly equivalent to the heat energy lost in a reaction.

Reactions with a +∆H are endothermic, and ones with -∆H are exothermic. Therefore –h=∆H. The volume change in reactions is so negligible that this is a good approximation.

-h≈∆H≈∆E

The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows us to predict the course of a reaction.

Let us consider 1000 coins in a box, all facing heads. It is a closed system, which, by definition, does not exchange energy input or output with the rest of the universe. States of high order have low probability. For instance, if we imagine a box with 1000 coins lying heads up, and we shake it twice, it is vastly more probable that we will end up with a chaotic arrangement of coins than the arrangement that we had previously. Thus, the law can be restated closed systems tend to progress from states of low probability to high probability. This movement towards high probability in a system where the energy is E, is progressive. In order for the entropy (the progression towards high probability) to be corrected, there must be periodic bursts of energy input, which would break the closed nature of the system. In this case, it would require someone to open the box and rearrange the coins. The second Law of thermodynamics is a probability function dictating that energy, regardless of how hard we try, always “spreads out” by which we mean that it becomes converted into less useful forms that are probabilistically very, very difficult to retrieve back into ordered states. This governs our lives. Eggs do not unbreak, glasses do not unshatter, entropy is highly directional, for it predicts, in any given system, there to be only one ordered state and a vast amount of disordered states, such that the probability of a disordered state is logarithmically greater than those of ordered states. Specifically, heat, being random hubbub of molecular motion, is the most singularly chaotic and disordered form of energy, and ultimately, therefore, almost impossible to retrieve into ordered states. There is a critical equation governing this to be described below.

 

We need a quantitative unit to measure entropy, and to measure the degree of disorder or probability for a given state (recall the coins in a box analogy). This function is entropy (denoted S) The change in entropy that occurs when the reaction A to B converts one mole A to one mole B is

∆S= K log10 PB/PA

PA and PB are probabilities of states A and B. k is Boltzmann's constant. But that equation is normally used for chemical reactions which change the entropy of a system because they change the energy distribution, from highly ordered packets of free energy in reactive chemical bonds to vastly more disordered, improbable heat energy released. On Boltzmann’s tomb there is a famous epitpath:

S=klog10W

This, as you can see, is my signature and tribute. That equation is simply a rewording of the one above, where the entropy of a system is the gas constant multiplied by the natural logarithm multiplied by W, the number of possible microstates in question.

Once we begin to consider the nature of ordered systems, the probabilities in question become mind boggling. Consider a book with 500 pages, if unbound, and tossed into the air, what is the entropy change associated? The 500 pages all in correct order represent a single ordered state. 1/W. The number of disordered states is vast, truly and utterly beyond comprehsion, for the number in question is (500!) or 500 factorial, which means 500 x 499 x 498 x 497....x 1, where n! is expressed as n x (n-1) x (n-2) x (n-3)...This number is 1.2 x 10^1134.

Entropy therefore is a measure of the probability associated with a system, and an increase in entropy in invariably a tend towards more probable states, by which we mean less ordered states. When we consider entropy in relation to Enthalpy, we realize that highly disorderd states are vastly more probable than highly ordered states, since there are simply so many more than there are ordered states. At any rate, when we consider that it is the nature of all things to head probabilistically towards the lowest energy state, one might ask why, in fact, all things do not immediately do so. Why does paper not spontaneously combust? Paper is an ordered state. Ash and gas, disorded and vastly more probable. The oxidized ash and the escaping carbon dioxide never reconstitute themselves into paper. Clearly, there is vast favorability associated with this combustion? So why do we not all spontaneously combust. The answer is activation energy, for a reaction to occur requires a certain energy level be reached that systems in their stable state normally do not attain unless prompted to do so, such as by being supplied by a fire, in this case. Activation energies are the principles upon which enzymes work. Most reactions in the body could only take place inside an oven without catalysis. Occurances into lower-probability states still need energy inputs into the system in order to coax the reaction to fall towards the lower probability state. In the case with a bound book, the book will not spontaneously disorder itself, but once given the necessary energy (unbind it and toss it into the air). For any reaction where the Free-energy change is positive, which thence cannot proceed with spontaneity, not only a vault over an energy barrier required, but also then, state B is less probable than state A, as opposed to a favourable reaction, where upon the completion of an energy barrier, the free energy drops such that the reaction proceeds spontaneously, hence, if I toss a book, unbound, into the air, I have provided the activation energy, and the rest proceeds spontaneously. If I drop an egg off a table, I have provided that activation energy such that the reaction may proceed spontaneously, but I cannot do the same for attempting to reconstruct the shattered egg, for such is expressly forbidden by the laws of probability.

Heat energy causes random molecular commotion, the transfer of heat from the cell in a box to the outside increases the number of arrangements the molecules could have, therefore increasing the entropy (analogous to the 1000 coins a box).The release of X amount of heat energy has a greater disordering effect at low temp. than at high temp. therefore the value of ∆S for the surroundings of the cell in a box denoted ∆Ssea is equal to the amount of heat transferred divided by absolute temperature or

∆Ssea =h/T

So, now we know what entropy is. Now we understand why entropy is a function of temperature and of number of particles, hence probability states. Hopefully,  this graph should make sense to you:

All this means is that the probability distribution for a set of particles in a system is given as that most particles do not have enough energy to complete a chemical reaction. This graph, called the Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution, is central to chemistry and statistical mechanics. The number of particles that have a certain range of energies is given by integrating the area between the two values we want to measure. That's it. This is thermodynamics in a nutshell. I hope with all of this, that the above post now makes sense. If you need more, please ask.

Now that we understand this we can consider it in the context of the BB:

All the Big Bang describes is a transition event in which the mass-energy equivalence produced matter-antimatter pairs from energy, which annihlated, leaving a small excess of matter and the energy of annihlation. That is the universe. he Big Bang describes a transition event from a state of energy to one of matter. The interconversion of energy to matter produced annihlating pairs which left a small amount of matter and the energy from annihlation. At the point of transition, we can now speak of entropy since we can now speak in terms of probability states. That is not possible when there is no matter. Please read the above post again, carefully. I told you precisely why entropy increase has only been occuring since the Big Bang, because entropy is a description of matter, and there was no matter until 13.7 billion years ago. Entropy is not a function of energy by itself, because energy does not have temperature. As such, whatever state before the transition event occured would not have had entropy.

In simple terms, FLOT refers to the nature of matter and energy as interchangeable between states, but indestructible. Since energy, in essence, refers to a scalar unit of the potential of a material body, it can only be transited between different forms. SLOT in essence (there are an uncountable number of ways to state it) refers to the fact that regardless of how hard we try, all things fall towards their lowest energy states, where the inequalities in the potential of material bodies necessary to generate any process begins to dissipate, as energy is virtually unable to be recaptured once converted into the irretrievable form of heat, as a result, energy, over time, becomes more equally distributed and in a lower state. The result is that all things become more disordered. the ashes of a burned piece of paper, after all, do not reconstitute themselves into paper. Here is the supposed contradiction. While FLOT implies that there is an infinity associated with matter and energy (that it was always here), SLOT and our empirical knowledge imply that the universe necessarily had a moment of creation. And hence, theists postulate that a "God" who can violate such laws created matter and energy from a supernatural origin. This reflects ignorance on modern cosmology and the Big Bang. We don't consider the universe to have "come from nothing" in the literal sense. In fact, science regards the term "nothing" as generally incoherent.

 All the Big Bang theory states is that the universe expanded outwards 13.7 billion years ago from what we now believe to be a symmetrical state. Many theists miscontrue the Big Bang as ex nihilo, "out of nothing". It is not the case. There are certain models postulating pre-Big Bang occurances, the boundary condition in Hartele-Hawking, brane cosmology, etc. But the BB itself says nothing about the creation of the universe. It simply describes an expansion occurance 13.7 billion years ago from a prior state, and the model describes occurances from the Planck time onwards from this prior state, that we can describe events from the Planck Time until the end of BB nucleosynthesis.

To understand this, it is necessary to be familiar with the mass-energy equivalence: E=mc^2, which is more accurately stated: (Delta)E=c^2(delta)m

Now, with respect to the mass-energy equivalence, it is inaccurate to say that energy is conserved. Only mass-energy is conserved. Consider fusion. At the point where the internal gravity of a protostar is such that the kinetic energy of protons in the proton-proton cycle is enough to overcome the mutual repulsion of protons, the nuclei fuse. At this point, they lose kinetic energy, at which point they gain potential energy from the transfer, and a small amount of mass is interconverted into energy when the nuclei fuse, called the mass deficit. The opposite effect occurs when the binding energy is input into a nucleus to break it into its constituency. Part of the work is converted into mass, and at the point where the strong nuclear force is broken, the protons have zero potential energy (which means they had a negative potential after fusing. This is called a well in physics). This means the sum of the constituents per se of any nucleus will always have more mass than the nucleus, which leaves us with a more accurate restatement of Einstein's equations:

The energy required to break every bond in the nucleus=[(Mass of sum of constituents)-(Mass of nucleus)]x(c^2)

So, the first principle we must understand is this: The Big Bang describes a transition event. The sum entropy of all the matter that formed from energy interconversion at the moment of the Big Bang was the lowest entropy, and hereafter has been steadily increasing. This has several consequences for the prior state of the Big Bang. Firstly, it has no entropy. How could it? Entropy is always with respect to temperature, by this formula: delta(G)=(delta)H-T(delta)S.

According to this formula: Tp=mpc^2/k=r(hr)c^5/Gk^2, matter breaks down at the Planck Temperature, 10^32K. It is nonsense to speak of matter being "hotter" since temperature is a measure of particle kinetics. In the low-entropy state, there wasn't any matter, it becomes interchangeable with energy. And energy does not have temperature. We speak of probability in thermodynamics always in terms of matter, firstly because of temperature, and secondly because equations in statistical mechanics is always given as a function of the probability of certain states occuring, and that is always with respect to particles. Thermodynamics literally means "movement of heat". It does not apply to energy per se. It is a study of matter. Matter did not exist until 13.7 billion years ago.

At the moment of transition, the interconversion of energy to mass spawned both matter and antimatter. As Einsten explained, there was an infintesmally larger amount of matter which, when the matter-antimatter pairs annihlated, was left, forming everything we see around us. The energy released by the annihlation is what is left today, and as explained, the sum entropy of the matter in the universe at the point where the annihlation released the energy in question would have been the lowest point in the history of the known universe.

 

PS, the fellow in question is named Stephen Hawking.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Llama
Theist
Llama's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-06-05
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:I

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

I know why energy didnt always exists and thats because my teachers and smart scientsist say so. They told me that energy began in bag bang that means it wasnt always there. Energy was created and big bang because energy wasnt born till bag bang make it be born. Its a violation of 2nd law but that law is universe law not preuniverse law.

Quote:

But then why is energy every where and why do scientist who are smarter then you say that energy will still exist in universe even after all the stars died?

Well, I have posted the following multiple times before, but is this my fault, or the fault of my interlocutors who never come up with anything original?

Inaccurate. I think you need some education in basic physics. We must firstly understand the laws of thermodynamics in their proper context.

Let us imagine a box, a system closed off from the universe, with a cell inside it. The cell in a box is a closed system with a fixed amount of free energy. This system will have a total amount of Energy denoted E. Let us suppose the reaction A to B occurs in the box and releases a great deal of chemical bond energy as heat. This energy will increase the rate of molecular motions (transitional, vibrational and rotational) in the system. In other words it will raise the temperature.

However, the energy for these motions will soon transfer out of the system as the molecular motions heat up the wall of the box and then the outside world, which is denoted sea. Eventually, the cell in a box system returns to it’s initial temperature, and all the chemical bond energy released has been transferred to the surroundings. According to the first law of thermodynamics, the change in energy in the box (denoted ∆Ebox or just ∆E) must be equal and opposite to the amount of heat energy transferred out, denoted as h. Therefore ∆E=-h.

E in the box can also change during a reaction due to work done in the outside world. Suppose there is a small volume increase in the box (∆V) which must decrease the energy in the box (∆E) by the same amount. In most reactions, chemical bond energy is converted to work and heat. Enthalpy(H) is a composite function of work and heat, (H=mc∆T). Technically it is the Enthalpy change (∆H) is equal to the heat transferred to the outside world during a reaction, since Enthalpy is the composite function in question. In the equation above “c” simply refers to the specific Heat Capacity of the Material in question, such that the SHC is the amount of energy required to be inputted into the system to raise the temperature of one gram of the substance in question by one Kelvin (note that we can also measure this in terms of moles instead of mass, termed molar heat capacity). In the language of the First Law of Thermodynamics, we would express such like this:

Where Q=∆U-Wo, Q=mc∆t or (for molar heat capacity) Q=nc∆T

So, ∆H is a quantity expressing the SHC multiplied by the temperature change and by the mass of the substance in question. Since SHC is simply a measure of Energy change per Kelvin per Gram (or per mole), ∆H is simply a quantity expressing the change in energy of a system in question, where ∆H is roughly equivalent to the heat energy lost in a reaction.

Reactions with a +∆H are endothermic, and ones with -∆H are exothermic. Therefore –h=∆H. The volume change in reactions is so negligible that this is a good approximation.

-h≈∆H≈∆E

The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows us to predict the course of a reaction.

Let us consider 1000 coins in a box, all facing heads. It is a closed system, which, by definition, does not exchange energy input or output with the rest of the universe. States of high order have low probability. For instance, if we imagine a box with 1000 coins lying heads up, and we shake it twice, it is vastly more probable that we will end up with a chaotic arrangement of coins than the arrangement that we had previously. Thus, the law can be restated closed systems tend to progress from states of low probability to high probability. This movement towards high probability in a system where the energy is E, is progressive. In order for the entropy (the progression towards high probability) to be corrected, there must be periodic bursts of energy input, which would break the closed nature of the system. In this case, it would require someone to open the box and rearrange the coins. The second Law of thermodynamics is a probability function dictating that energy, regardless of how hard we try, always “spreads out” by which we mean that it becomes converted into less useful forms that are probabilistically very, very difficult to retrieve back into ordered states. This governs our lives. Eggs do not unbreak, glasses do not unshatter, entropy is highly directional, for it predicts, in any given system, there to be only one ordered state and a vast amount of disordered states, such that the probability of a disordered state is logarithmically greater than those of ordered states. Specifically, heat, being random hubbub of molecular motion, is the most singularly chaotic and disordered form of energy, and ultimately, therefore, almost impossible to retrieve into ordered states. There is a critical equation governing this to be described below.

 

We need a quantitative unit to measure entropy, and to measure the degree of disorder or probability for a given state (recall the coins in a box analogy). This function is entropy (denoted S) The change in entropy that occurs when the reaction A to B converts one mole A to one mole B is

∆S= R log PB/PA

PA and PB are probabilities of states A and B. R is the gas constant ∆S is measured in entropy units (eu). But that equation is normally used for chemical reactions which change the entropy of a system because they change the energy distribution, from highly ordered packets of free energy in reactive chemical bonds to vastly more disordered, improbable heat energy released. On Boltzmann’s tomb there is a famous epitpath:

S=Rlog10W

This, as you can see, is my signature and tribute. That equation is simply a rewording of the one above, where the entropy of a system is the gas constant multiplied by the natural logarithm multiplied by W, the number of possible microstates in question.

Once we begin to consider the nature of ordered systems, the probabilities in question become mind boggling. Consider a book with 500 pages, if unbound, and tossed into the air, what is the entropy change associated? The 500 pages all in correct order represent a single ordered state. 1/W. The number of disordered states is vast, truly and utterly beyond comprehsion, for the number in question is (500!) or 500 factorial, which means 500 x 499 x 498 x 497....x 1, where n! is expressed as n x (n-1) x (n-2) x (n-3)...This number is 1.2 x 10^1134.

Entropy therefore is a measure of the probability associated with a system, and an increase in entropy in invariably a tend towards more probable states, by which we mean less ordered states. When we consider entropy in relation to Enthalpy, we realize that highly disorderd states are vastly more probable than highly ordered states, since there are simply so many more than there are ordered states. At any rate, when we consider that it is the nature of all things to head probabilistically towards the lowest energy state, one might ask why, in fact, all things do not immediately do so. Why does paper not spontaneously combust? Paper is an ordered state. Ash and gas, disorded and vastly more probable. The oxidized ash and the escaping carbon dioxide never reconstitute themselves into paper. Clearly, there is vast favorability associated with this combustion? So why do we not all spontaneously combust. The answer is activation energy, for a reaction to occur requires a certain energy level be reached that systems in their stable state normally do not attain unless prompted to do so, such as by being supplied by a fire, in this case. Activation energies are the principles upon which enzymes work. Most reactions in the body could only take place inside an oven without catalysis. Occurances into lower-probability states still need energy inputs into the system in order to coax the reaction to fall towards the lower probability state. In the case with a bound book, the book will not spontaneously disorder itself, but once given the necessary energy (unbind it and toss it into the air). For any reaction where the Free-energy change is positive, which thence cannot proceed with spontaneity, not only a vault over an energy barrier required, but also then, state B is less probable than state A, as opposed to a favourable reaction, where upon the completion of an energy barrier, the free energy drops such that the reaction proceeds spontaneously, hence, if I toss a book, unbound, into the air, I have provided the activation energy, and the rest proceeds spontaneously. If I drop an egg off a table, I have provided that activation energy such that the reaction may proceed spontaneously, but I cannot do the same for attempting to reconstruct the shattered egg, for such is expressly forbidden by the laws of probability.

Heat energy causes random molecular commotion, the transfer of heat from the cell in a box to the outside increases the number of arrangements the molecules could have, therefore increasing the entropy (analogous to the 1000 coins a box).The release of X amount of heat energy has a greater disordering effect at low temp. than at high temp. therefore the value of ∆S for the surroundings of the cell in a box denoted ∆Ssea is equal to the amount of heat transferred divided by absolute temperature or

∆Ssea =h/T

So, now we know what entropy is. Now we understand why entropy is a function of temperature and of number of particles, hence probability states. Hopefully,  this graph should make sense to you:

All this means is that the probability distribution for a set of particles in a system is given as that most particles do not have enough energy to complete a chemical reaction. This graph, called the Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution, is central to chemistry and statistical mechanics. The number of particles that have a certain range of energies is given by integrating the area between the two values we want to measure. That's it. This is thermodynamics in a nutshell. I hope with all of this, that the above post now makes sense. If you need more, please ask.

Now that we understand this we can consider it in the context of the BB:

All the Big Bang describes is a transition event in which the mass-energy equivalence produced matter-antimatter pairs from energy, which annihlated, leaving a small excess of matter and the energy of annihlation. That is the universe. he Big Bang describes a transition event from a state of energy to one of matter. The interconversion of energy to matter produced annihlating pairs which left a small amount of matter and the energy from annihlation. At the point of transition, we can now speak of entropy since we can now speak in terms of probability states. That is not possible when there is no matter. Please read the above post again, carefully. I told you precisely why entropy increase has only been occuring since the Big Bang, because entropy is a description of matter, and there was no matter until 13.7 billion years ago. Entropy is not a function of energy by itself, because energy does not have temperature. As such, whatever state before the transition event occured would not have had entropy.

In simple terms, FLOT refers to the nature of matter and energy as interchangeable between states, but indestructible. Since energy, in essence, refers to a scalar unit of the potential of a material body, it can only be transited between different forms. SLOT in essence (there are an uncountable number of ways to state it) refers to the fact that regardless of how hard we try, all things fall towards their lowest energy states, where the inequalities in the potential of material bodies necessary to generate any process begins to dissipate, as energy is virtually unable to be recaptured once converted into the irretrievable form of heat, as a result, energy, over time, becomes more equally distributed and in a lower state. The result is that all things become more disordered. the ashes of a burned piece of paper, after all, do not reconstitute themselves into paper. Here is the supposed contradiction. While FLOT implies that there is an infinity associated with matter and energy (that it was always here), SLOT and our empirical knowledge imply that the universe necessarily had a moment of creation. And hence, theists postulate that a "God" who can violate such laws created matter and energy from a supernatural origin. This reflects ignorance on modern cosmology and the Big Bang. We don't consider the universe to have "come from nothing" in the literal sense. In fact, science regards the term "nothing" as generally incoherent.

 All the Big Bang theory states is that the universe expanded outwards 13.7 billion years ago from what we now believe to be a symmetrical state. Many theists miscontrue the Big Bang as ex nihilo, "out of nothing". It is not the case. There are certain models postulating pre-Big Bang occurances, the boundary condition in Hartele-Hawking, brane cosmology, etc. But the BB itself says nothing about the creation of the universe. It simply describes an expansion occurance 13.7 billion years ago from a prior state, and the model describes occurances from the Planck time onwards from this prior state, that we can describe events from the Planck Time until the end of BB nucleosynthesis.

To understand this, it is necessary to be familiar with the mass-energy equivalence: E=mc^2, which is more accurately stated: (Delta)E=c^2(delta)m

Now, with respect to the mass-energy equivalence, it is inaccurate to say that energy is conserved. Only mass-energy is conserved. Consider fusion. At the point where the internal gravity of a protostar is such that the kinetic energy of protons in the proton-proton cycle is enough to overcome the mutual repulsion of protons, the nuclei fuse. At this point, they lose kinetic energy, at which point they gain potential energy from the transfer, and a small amount of mass is interconverted into energy when the nuclei fuse, called the mass deficit. The opposite effect occurs when the binding energy is input into a nucleus to break it into its constituency. Part of the work is converted into mass, and at the point where the strong nuclear force is broken, the protons have zero potential energy (which means they had a negative potential after fusing. This is called a well in physics). This means the sum of the constituents per se of any nucleus will always have more mass than the nucleus, which leaves us with a more accurate restatement of Einstein's equations:

The energy required to break every bond in the nucleus=[(Mass of sum of constituents)-(Mass of nucleus)]x(c^2)

So, the first principle we must understand is this: The Big Bang describes a transition event. The sum entropy of all the matter that formed from energy interconversion at the moment of the Big Bang was the lowest entropy, and hereafter has been steadily increasing. This has several consequences for the prior state of the Big Bang. Firstly, it has no entropy. How could it? Entropy is always with respect to temperature, by this formula: delta(G)=(delta)H-T(delta)S.

According to this formula: Tp=mpc^2/k=r(hr)c^5/Gk^2, matter breaks down at the Planck Temperature, 10^32K. It is nonsense to speak of matter being "hotter" since temperature is a measure of particle kinetics. In the low-entropy state, there wasn't any matter, it becomes interchangeable with energy. And energy does not have temperature. We speak of probability in thermodynamics always in terms of matter, firstly because of temperature, and secondly because equations in statistical mechanics is always given as a function of the probability of certain states occuring, and that is always with respect to particles. Thermodynamics literally means "movement of heat". It does not apply to energy per se. It is a study of matter. Matter did not exist until 13.7 billion years ago.

At the moment of transition, the interconversion of energy to mass spawned both matter and antimatter. As Einsten explained, there was an infintesmally larger amount of matter which, when the matter-antimatter pairs annihlated, was left, forming everything we see around us. The energy released by the annihlation is what is left today, and as explained, the sum entropy of the matter in the universe at the point where the annihlation released the energy in question would have been the lowest point in the history of the known universe.


 

PS You are without doubt the most uneducated, brain-dead, inarticulate, confused, irritating, mendacious prick ever to grace this site.

PPS, the fellow in question is named Stephen Hawking.

 

I have to read this more cloesly but I think all you did was to tell me how my car engine works. Like saying a ball will role down the hill because of gravity and here let me show you the math for it. Fantasitic but that's not the question I asked. I didnt ask why the ball rolled down the hill, I asked who created that ball, why was it put there and why did the creator want to see it roll down the hill.

Also mr smarty pants I dont know if you just copy and pasted that long article or its some thesis your working on but please understnad your speaking to a Llama here Im not as smart as you and neither are most of the people here. Just use simple eglish words please.

Bleeeat!


Llama
Theist
Llama's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-06-05
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:I

double post


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I dont know if you

Quote:

I dont know if you just copy and pasted that long article or its some thesis

It's been quite some time since I wrote a thesis. I did not just copy and paste the article. I wrote it myself. I wrote it for educational purposes. The material is far too simplistic to be thesis-grade material.

Quote:

I didnt ask why the ball rolled down the hill, I asked who created that ball, why was it put there and why did the creator want to see it roll down the hill.

But don't you understand? You obviously didn't read very clearly. Your statement was false. Inaccurate. Your statement about energy was wrong, so was your statement about the Big Bang. That was what I demonstrated. Hence the whole premise upon which your argument is based is fundamentally flawed.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
DG cares and is a scientist.

DG cares and is a scientist. You should thank him.

Asking why, as you seem to do, is silly. All you can do is make shit up, as is all religion. As is all dogma.  Ask How and learn about what we are, as is SCIENCE. Fuck all religion. Heal you dogma freaks ..... read a fucking science book ..... Damn you hypocrites said story atheist Jesus. Ever even read the Bibles, all by your self ?????????    Fucking dumb asses , all you witch burning, idol worshiping religious loons, FUCK YOU hypocrites ...... ( said a Jesus too )


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Just use simple

Quote:
Just use simple eglish words please.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure DG is familiar with the eglish language. It must be a rare dialect - I haven't even heard of it before.

 

At least this explains how it is you've failed to comprehend anything being said thus far. For a few moments there I thought you must've been a victim of some terrible microwaving accident as a child. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
So can you tell me what

So can you tell me what created god yet


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
you very smart at this llama so here is your reward to do

actually i saw this move coming a mile a way but just like i think i said earlier because something couldn't be explained right a way unless you have properties of numbers and i told you this question was not really proof creation but i see ignorance because of course what did you send me here that "no one could answer the question that means god created the universe" good job on going were i think i said something in my first post here that whether or not someone could answer the question it by no way disproved evolution and or proved creationism

but what it did was make people waste TIME on something that didn't mean anything. it is like just being lazy and hoping all don't catch on then it seems like you made a good point when you know all it was a waste of time!

 now since it proved god and proved god created universe please go get me some evidence and DO NOT USE THAT BIBLE TO BACK YOUR EVIDENCE IN PROOF BECAUSE YOU PROVED YOU LIKE TO WAS OTHER PEOPLES IQ ON SOMETHING IRRELEVANT AND YOU THOUGHT YOU PULLED A FAST ONE! i DON'T THINK SO NOW PROVE BOTH THINGS WITH OUT THE BIBLE especially GOD from this problem which you stated did three things so now prove it!!!!!!

 because this ought to be good proof and oh yes if the bible is used to make this proof when you said that question proved God and him Creating this universe then you can prove it or stop trying to hype your self up as doing something that would change the world because you found something that meant nothing and tried to use it to your advantage!!!! which you still haven't proving evolution wrong or proved why God or Creationism are real now lets see this 0+0=0 and 0+0= everything math problem/science problem you have what you need now lets see this proof form this problem!!!remember you have to prove with what you said proved your point which you didn't but that's what you claimed so lets see this problem prove evolution wrong and prove god and creationism because you only need the problem to prove your point!! Remember No Bible is acceptable for your proof of god or creationism or disproving evolution!!! good luck

 

General


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Wait! I got it... 0+0=

Wait!

 

I got it...

 

0+0= 00

 

or what 00 is meant to represent

^symbol for infinity btw

 

Thinking while high... man... i swear it almost makes sense

What Would Kharn Do?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
General-Forrest ,  that was

General-Forrest ,

 that was godly ,   


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
i tried to make it understandable so he understood

he wants to open and come bragging look you cant answer the question i am ultimately right which is funny if you are in grade school in my opinion. as for him he might wish we were at grade school so he can make any claim and no one hold him to what he said! and when i commented on it yesterday i saw his plan and thought exposing that it was not very credible he would realize not to try the one upsman card but i dont even think he read any posts. i think he said to himself someone told me no one could answer this question i will come back a day half to 2 days after i post and act like i proved something that would convert me on spot to his belief!

maybe he will realize that this agruement means nothing and if it makes anyone look like an idiot it would be him because he did not think his actions out. so i wanted someone to realizing he is braging but why. i told him with that being said even if this cant be explained it does not in one way prove creation at all. what it does is make more people mad at you cause you are trying to say they are stupid and you know the answer. which he tried i forgot to put in god cept that is a given if mentioning creation i would assume

 

thank you


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yep General-Forest, people

Yep General-Forest, people of religions who say they know it all, who then say my "God done it" are fucking stupid. To say a religious God did it, means nothing that I can much  value .... to any good use,  .... except to understand what the DEVIL is, as meaning wrong thinking ....  KILL RELIGION        .....  let's move forward !


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
well i dont think he understands

Loc wrote:

So can you tell me what created god yet

i think he thought he was going to say hey look here and hope you forgot any questions to what created that creator. but if i had to guess he will duck out loc of your question and his dumbass claim he proved 2 things and disproved something! which if he actually fucking did that why dont i understand the notion of creation and this world only 6000 years old nope still can't see that fucking claim i dont even think the bible was stupid enough to make the claim of how old this earth is! i heard a pastor the other day talking about something like the earth is having 3 earth ages and the first one was the fall of satan and we are living in the second earth age then he allude that the third earth age was Jesus's 1000 year reign in revealation which sounds more plausable then the 6000 arguement to me not saying he sold me on it but he said also the first earth was erased from human knowledge but i really not surprized because i still dont think it even has a % point of being right i might say this one would be like .07 and the 6000 bull shit which is not proven of even been perfectly researched to even show what the belief is or idea is

so keep trying theist BECAUSE YOU ARE THE SMARTEST PERSON NEXT TO YOUR GOD THAT IS MAKES QUESTION IF HE IS SECURE OR NOT SO THAT IS WHY HE NEEDS ALL MAKING HIM LOOK GOD BECAUSE HE MAKES YOU QUESTION HIM OR THE BIBLE WHICH I AM SURE MISSING TEXT THAT MADE THE CHRISTIAN RULERS ACCOUNTABLE MUCH LESS EXPLAIN WHAT REALLY WENT ON NOT WHAT THE LEADERS WANTED TO RIGHT! SO YOUR BEST BET THEIST IS ACTUALLY ANSWER QUESTION OF WHO CREATED HIM AND WHY DOES HE NEED ANYONE THAT BELIEVES IN HIM TO GLORIFY HIS ASTROMORPHIAC FEELINGS AND SAVE HIS EGO I WOULD GUESS TOO! AND ALSO IF LLAMA YOU NEED TO PROVE YOUR POINT OF 0+0=0 0+0=EVERYTHING HOW IT DOES ALL YOU SAID IT DID NEXT TIME DAMN DUMBASS THINK BEFORE TALKING IT WOULD HELP YOU SAVE AND RETAIN KNOWLEDGE!!

 


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
hi guys my name is Llama and

sorry but i cant resit this because maybe he might understand i am pointing out in his arguement where it is fucking weak that he completely wants his belief but cant be wrong on it but you are wrong is what i mainly seeing happing but you can try to help out but dont oever sxtend your self!!!!!!!!

hi guys my name is Llama and i believe in a creator and creation but you know what i cant believe is the bag bang theory or big bang theory so ill give credit to something devined and even more less likely to prove! well Llama i know it is hard for you to tell your idiot mind to stop screwing you over in the knowledge and sense department and logical department.

now i will tell you this Llama my shirt that says C.S.I.= CAN'T STAND IDIOTS must have to be on when i am around you. here is why i know i have knowledge on science but i cant explain it because to me it after awhile of it makes me feel like i am never going to know what other people know on the subject so i understand it is important to teach and have along side math languague and history which all work together and if you take one part  away then there is no since of learning!

but what you propose llama that i did allude to you doing before you did it was going to take a weakass and worthless to helping learning out question that you would try to do and you did and here is what it seems like you want me to do is everything that i was taught to learn something was have evidence and try to use other subject to help explain the reason behind its culture. and reject that and anyother that does not agree with the Bible which i guessing had a safe guess of 14 books + turned away the bible!!! but this belief will win out in the end because it tells me it will and so many people on tv saying we need money to spread the word(ps they forgot somewhere in that bible god said i will provide for if i want it to happen!) but they need people that dont think what they were doing in the first place expect extracting money to by nice white expensive suits! and oh yea i heal people yep he is at opitical illusion because the person had their beliefs firmly but still does really heal anyone unless they majority of the people believed he was healing which might be one time out of 50 crusades ifyou not more then that.

later all i will be back tomorrow sometime sorry got to get some sleep because i think i have had about 3 hours of sleep in the past 3 days


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
LLama

It's like saying a boulder fell down the mountain, , now your going to ask who created the boulder, yet no one created the boulder. The boulder is a natural phenomena of this envoiroment. As such everything has had a natural explaination to it so far, but your adding a supernatural explaination to a natural explaination. That's the part you don't seem to be getting. So the question isn't WHO created the universe, but how it was created. The who isn't even part of the question.


Llama
Theist
Llama's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-06-05
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:But don't you

 

Quote:
But don't you understand? You obviously didn't read very clearly. Your statement was false. Inaccurate. Your statement about energy was wrong, so was your statement about the Big Bang. That was what I demonstrated. Hence the whole premise upon which your argument is based is fundamentally flawed.

ok can you explain what excatly was false about it? What you wrote must be personal opinion because if you say you found out how the universe was born and therefor pushed god out of the way then you deserve a prize and be hailed as the guy who solved the biggest question ever. So is what you wrote your personal view on things or actual science that did away with God?

Quote:
DG cares and is a scientist. You should thank him.

Asking why, as you seem to do, is silly. All you can do is make shit up, as is all religion. As is all dogma.  Ask How and learn about what we are, as is SCIENCE. Fuck all religion. Go away you dogma freaks ..... read a fucking science book ..... Damn you hypocrites said story atheist Jesus. Ever even read the Bibles, all by your self ?????????    Fucking dumb asses , all you religious loons, FUCK YOU ......

calm down mean man no one cares how angry you are, go punch a brick wall or better yet smash your head through one, thank you

Quote:
At least this explains how it is you've failed to comprehend anything being said thus far. For a few moments there I thought you must've been a victim of some terrible microwaving accident as a child.

ok mr smarty pants then you summarize and use simple words do describe what the scientist guy said. Ima waiting...

Quote:
So can you tell me what created god yet

ok tell you what, I tell you what created god when you tell me what created your godless universe. Fair enough? Bleeeat! And no no the big bang was the universe when it was very young and hot the big bang didnt create the universe

Quote:
actually i saw this move coming a mile a way but just like i think i said earlier because something couldn't be explained right a way unless you have properties of numbers and i told you this question was not really proof creation but i see ignorance because of course what did you send me here that "no one could answer the question that means god created the universe" good job on going were i think i said something in my first post here that whether or not someone could answer the question it by no way disproved evolution and or proved creationism

well fair enough but I think there is actual evidence for a creator god and zero evidence for a godless universe thats why I favor god did it. Science use science fiction to say why the big bang happen and science fiction is fiction. But we have sources that God revealed himself to man mainly through Jesus and through other ways and God himself said he made the Universe. If you follow the evidence then it takes you to God but there no breadcrums to follow to a godless universe just fancy ideas and science fiction.

Quote:
but what it did was make people waste TIME on something that didn't mean anything. it is like just being lazy and hoping all don't catch on then it seems like you made a good point when you know all it was a waste of time!

 now since it proved god and proved god created universe please go get me some evidence and DO NOT USE THAT BIBLE TO BACK YOUR EVIDENCE IN PROOF BECAUSE YOU PROVED YOU LIKE TO WAS OTHER PEOPLES IQ ON SOMETHING IRRELEVANT AND YOU THOUGHT YOU PULLED A FAST ONE! i DON'T THINK SO NOW PROVE BOTH THINGS WITH OUT THE BIBLE especially GOD from this problem which you stated did three things so now prove it!!!!!!

Well I think talkimg about God is not a waste of time. There is evidence for creator god outside the bible maybe I make a short list for you?

The created universe – science evidence shows us the universe was born or it began which means it was created. What created is still at debate but God is a logical choice.

Finely tuned Universe – the universe is perfectly tuned to find tolerances to allow life, science invents multiverse science fiction but god came first to us and god said he created the universe and it was created in a way for us to live in it.

Near Death Experiences – Every one who has it including atheists become immediate believers.. ok more like 99% of people. People say dying brain gives you visions but dying brains are dysfunctional abnormal brain but NDE are very lucid, rational, orderly, profound and convincing. I believe its the soul leaving the body for a while.

The Mind is immaterial – There are no logic molecules or I feel like eating a cheeseburher molecule and atoms. Mind is also impossile to predict its undetermined. So where is the mind? Some people have crazy ideas that mind is an illusion if its an illusion then so is atheism because its a product of the mind.

Ghosts – Ghosts have been documented and studied in limited ways. Ive seen lots of real evidence of ghosts. Ghost only prove we are immortal souls but I think it lends credence to God too.

Mediums – Mediums can communicate with dead people. Some say they are frauds but some mediums took university studies and got over 85% accuracy and higher in triple blind tests...not bad for fake people. Non mediums get 30% accuracy in same studies.

Photons – Photons are real science but photons are purelu immaterial. They have no mass and no volume they are like ghosts but they are real. Weird a universe of pure materiliasm has immateral things in it.. doesnt make sense.

I think I can go on but thats enough. I have plenty of evidence and I think when you combined evidence it makes for a good case of God all those evidences are PROOF for ME that God is real.

Quote:
he wants to open and come bragging look you cant answer the question i am ultimately right which is funny if you are in grade school in my opinion. as for him he might wish we were at grade school so he can make any claim and no one hold him to what he said! and when i commented on it yesterday i saw his plan and thought exposing that it was not very credible he would realize not to try the one upsman card but i dont even think he read any posts. i think he said to himself someone told me no one could answer this question i will come back a day half to 2 days after i post and act like i proved something that would convert me on spot to his belief!

maybe he will realize that this agruement means nothing and if it makes anyone look like an idiot it would be him because he did not think his actions out. so i wanted someone to realizing he is braging but why. i told him with that being said even if this cant be explained it does not in one way prove creation at all. what it does is make more people mad at you cause you are trying to say they are stupid and you know the answer. which he tried i forgot to put in god cept that is a given if mentioning creation i would assume

This sounds like a big ad hominem rant im not going to debate my character to you. I debate facts not opinions of people unless it has to do with revelance of topic like topics of morality and things like that.

Quote:
It's like saying a boulder fell down the mountain, , now your going to ask who created the boulder, yet no one created the boulder. The boulder is a natural phenomena of this envoiroment. As such everything has had a natural explaination to it so far, but your adding a supernatural explaination to a natural explaination. That's the part you don't seem to be getting. So the question isn't WHO created the universe, but how it was created. The who isn't even part of the question.

ok this is good thank you for being reasonable and having something intellegent to say rather then ranting like a lunatic.

Well we know how the boulder got here so it cant be compared to the universe or life because we don't know how either one got here. We can explain the mechanics of the universe and of life but science cant explain its origins. I think many Atheists confuse explanations of mechanics as explanations for every thing. I believe in science in a big way but I know science is limited by us humans and our little minds and little instruments. Thats why our brains fart or melt when we try to understand quantum science.. we can never understand it, it will never make sense to us but we can observe it at work.

Your right but I dont think I asked who created the universe I asked how it was created. Its possible that the universe was created by blind dead forces but I see no evidence for this at all. Explaning to me how the mechanics of the universe work gives me no clues at all how it was created in the first place. But when I turn my attention to religion and god it provides with me perefeclt logical answer. Only God has the power and wisdom to make the universe. Ok now how he did it? What was the way he did it in I dont know and thats the job of science to understand but only thing science has with out god is science fiction and impossible things that need to masked in word plays, redefined definitions and bizarro philosophy or ideas.

Bleeeat!


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Ummmmmm  Hahahahahahahahaha

Ummmmmm

 

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! That was the funniest thing I've read in a long time.

 

By the way has anyone else noticed how  Llama's avatar resembles the "asshat" avatar? Coincidence?Seriously that post was utterly ridiculous. There is absolutely no evidence for mediums, ghosts, NDE's - they are pseudoscientific garbage. The "mind" is simply a way to explain the very physical processes of the brain. Wow. I have a headache now.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:ok can you explain

Quote:
ok can you explain what excatly was false about it? What you wrote must be personal opinion because if you say you found out how the universe was born and therefor pushed god out of the way then you deserve a prize and be hailed as the guy who solved the biggest question ever. So is what you wrote your personal view on things or actual science that did away with God?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you didn't actually read anything DG wrote, or having read it, you didn't comprehend any of it.

Do you understand the simple fallacy of a false dichotomy?  That's where you make something into an either-or question when it's not.  For instance:
 

HD: Llama, it's dinner time.  Do you want roasted beetle-grubs in week old fish entrails?

Llama: No, I don't want that.

HD: Ok.  Llama doesn't want any food, everyone!

 

You see, there are more foods in the world than roasted beetle-grubs in week old fish entrails, but in that conversation, I have made it seem like if you didn't want that particular food, that you had no desire for food.  That's a false dichotomy.

 

Now, you presented a view of the universe which is flawed.  Deludedgod has shown you in great detail that your view is wrong.  This doesn't imply anything else.  Just that your view is wrong. 

Does that mean that Deludedgod knows with certainty exactly how the universe formed?  No.  It means that he knows that you don't know.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
hey SCIENCE is NEUTURAL in the debate of God/gods

science is neutural in the area of religion. now science is used to help understand life which your dumbass dont seem to get just like some that dont understand that point! i am going to ask you what gives you the right to believe in one thing but if anyone or thing disagrees then they are wrong?

from what i learned from History is Science was created to better explain life. now  you trying to get science to prove god is flawed position to use just like it is a flawed position to use science to prove the nonexistence of god! i understand that this makes people mad when you have to show this because it shows them that they want to be right no matter how many they screw over just to be right!

the ends justify the means is a phrase but does not make it a truth! i could say that in cases the phrase could be true and others where it is not! i am not trying to feed your pride on the issue of God's existence and whether he be happy if he is doubted or not. but one would have to presume he wanted people to doubt him because of the bible and how it talks. but just because you want something to be true doesnt mean it is. Bush claims he talks to god and serial killers claim god told them to go kill because it was evil! this means they  have a strong belief i cant prove but i must say the likely hood of validity of it being true is very doubtful.

but you cant see past your pride of being superior to people that dont believe in what you believe. this is a probelm that you have to realize that pride is not the greatest thing to protray. and dont expect me to give you a pat on the back to add to your ego which is making you look like a complete dumbass Llhama.

i really am sad that i saw this a mile away but you want to be a dumbass thats cool but dont try to tell me your dumbass belief is the only true one. i hate people that do that crock of bull shit because it gets in the way of truth!

why should i believe in god if he likes to allow evil to happen? and before you say he doesn't go look in job where satan has to have permission to do evil! so again why should i want to follow this? which i currently have no belief because i am questioning things that just seem to good to be true! but i will tell you this i know that bible just as well or if not more then 75% of the christians i have ever met. and christianity is a belief but should be noted if you look at the bible and its rules for a christian it is what i like to call a belief and observation religion! now judism is an observance just like Islam which means actions speak and not what i say but rather what i do.

Why should i believe in one of those and ignore the rest and try to control the rest of the world? what told them they were right and could do anything and that all others were wrong??? and why do they have to use fear to get their point across???? another question why should i follow something that tells me i cant do certian things and then gives me a disorder that i cant control that makes me do certian things that are stated as wrong and why does churchs look at you as second class if you question them?????

where and how can i find out what i believe or don't believe in without having to worry about someone trying to show me they are right no matter what???

let me add this if you assume you are right then yes dumbass llama anything seems false againest your belief! but this is a stupid reason because science and religion are two different things so stop trying to convert people and actually try to start helping out.

 


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Re Don't You

"well fair enough but I think there is actual evidence for a creator god and zero evidence for a godless universe thats why I favor god did it. Science use science fiction to say why the big bang happen and science fiction is fiction. But we have sources that God revealed himself to man mainly through Jesus and through other ways and God himself said he made the Universe. If you follow the evidence then it takes you to God but there no breadcrums to follow to a godless universe just fancy ideas and science fiction. Llama"

well i see i you saw what i wrote but still do not understand the point i was making. so let me try it again. what you are doing is trying to act like you are better then anyone that does not believe in this god. which i did ask you who created god and does that not mean i should worship him or her because he or she created god? do you not see that not all things can be explained. i think you have a reason to believe in this god but i don't see it. now if you could prove that this god exists while not taking cheap shots at a majority ideas on this website that might would help you but this is not working for convincing me and doubt it is to people not agreeing with you.

now i am not trying to tell you that you are wrong because i don't have that right. and i hate to tell you this since the christian leaders like pastors don't really express that the bible no where gives man the right to judge people. and if it does then give me the book and chapter and verse and then maybe i read the bible wrong. what i am saying clearer is telling someone they are wrong is like say you have an open wound and instead of trying to help you i decide to rub salt in it then you would be mad at me justifible so.

the reason i don't believe in the idea of a creator is simple. the earth is older then 6000 years old for sure. also i think science does a good job explaining a lot of answers to questions as well as help find cures for different forms of illnesses that occur in the world. and history lets me know that other civilizations were just as smart as me or you Llama and let people control them through greed and religion and the always every presence of i have to have power over a group of people. also with the universe as big and unknown i am more inclined to believe it formed over time than to take the bible or another religious text word for a supreme being is the reason because that is also human nature is to give credit to a higher being to form a society and dont take my word go research places outside of europe and mespotomia and you will see this. i bet that rescently found tribe outside of brazil believe in the supernatural somehow.

now telling me there is a god powerful enough to create all this is extraordinary claim and not very likely be able to prove easily and you must know this. but what makes it even more a stretch is that not only did he create humankind he also created humankind is his image and gave them freewill to choose to love him or ignore him but then when they choose not to love him he then decided that they had to be punished to eternal place of dark fire and no light or water to drink whatsever. and then through out the bible he does some good for humanity but also does or allows unthinkible evil to happen to all on the earth ie the flood, slavery, murders and other natural diasters which if this supreme being created then i would have to say he is a reject from what created him. but the notion that he is a loving and caring and judging fair god does not add up as well as he is an angry and jealous and destructive god does add up and it makes it very hard to believe that he is actually true maybe someone else could better explain this to you then me. but also he allows all sorts of people suffer while rewarding people with an afterlife if they have faith in him until his son came and then get eternal life for believing his son died for the sins of the world and this gets you rewarded with an afterlife in heaven. and you can go to heaven for believing no matter what you do unless you blamesomphy the spirit of truth (which i do question why only would this send you to hell or does this thing exist) which then even counterdicts this by saying in romans i think that i can do all things but not all things are profittable. this does not sound like a creator or supreme being.

now what this bible does sound like is a way to keep people undercontrol of what ever mainly paitrachal group was in power. which knew they needed to convince the society to accept their rule and submit to them and be stupid at that. and i think george carlin is right when he say the 10 commandents did this and he said it was to decieve the people because 10 sounded like a legit number. now all the while the people throughout the ages were subject to this which its leaders kept them poor and always needing guidence from the preists and sanhedrin which were phrassies and scribes which if the leaders had all their needs then this group got to do what they wanted while telling the people that it is the will of god to give sacrafices and tithe of income which normally was 10%+ of what little they had but nevermind that god said he would provide for everything that he wanted done. but these regilous leaders of this time rich and nowhere needing to worry about hunger and what a surprize this really has not changed at all overtime. and yea forget about the rules he told people to live by like help the weak and poor out dont bear false witness againest another.

which the story of jesus which i will assume that at somepoint a man doing good deeds exist in this area that because of doing these good deeds would have been considered a messiah or devine because their leaders screwed them over. but i do not comprehend they death and resurrection of this person like josephues said but i assume a good and smart person could of lived in this area during the time of 0 to 30-36 common era because that is possible but i dont see him being the son of god just like i dont see a leader being devine expect maybe 2 i have heard of out of india but i dont think they were halfman half god.but what this did was allow israel and anyone to follow this to let their leaders rule unaccountable with no punishment for the most part.

and i hate to tell you this christianity is not the only belief to have this idea of a triune god head or holy trinty out of the levant area near where judism began had 2 other religions previous to it with same ideas but consider these beliefs to be myths rather then fact and the fact is i doubt we will have actual evidence to prove this thanks to fanitic christian leaders that had to destroy anything that did not agree to their beliefs make me question if the bible used today is actually true or not and i will say some of it is because we know that quite of these places and empires existed but i question the validity of the stories told in it. and runs all to well in it to state the fucking damn obvious of telling us how the followers would be prescuted so in return when the christians or judism sects got in power instead of showing that they were different did the same things to anyone that did not agree with the belief. so why again should i based on history believe this or any supernatural religion to live and follow by? because i absolutly cant see why i should but if there is a logical and peaceful way or example it might would help make me believe. but if it has to use fear to convert people to it then that sort of defeats the whole purpose of religion.

sorry that you going to dislike this. i am just trying to find reasons why i should follow this or any religion when they seem to be mainly about controlling and acting superior to one another. oh yea dont tell me i should believe because of the good part of the religion and be ignorant to the bad elementant at all times. that does not make since and really shadows more doubt and is borderline with a cult belief which i dont believe. but if there is this god then maybe he can show himself through his son that resurrected like he did to thomas in luke but that as will be stated sounds to good to be true.

now what i think to the purpose of living is help others when you can and dont try to act better then someone but rather consider someone you know or dont as an equal trying to live and be happy and at peace! and if i ever was in politics i would not let something tell me i should go kill other groups of people because it is good i would reject that voice and say that was evil and not helpful to the bettermint of humanity!!!!!


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:ok can you explain

Quote:

ok can you explain what excatly was false about it? What you wrote must be personal opinion because if you say you found out how the universe was born and therefor pushed god out of the way then you deserve a prize and be hailed as the guy who solved the biggest question ever. So is what you wrote your personal view on things or actual science that did away with God?

Well, you see, if you learn to read, and then you read my post, you will realize I never claimed to know what caused the Big Bang, which is yet unknown. What I did do was explain why your argument was false. I am only going to go through this one more time, because I just spent 2000 words explaining why. Your argument was based on the premise that BB is ex nihilo and nothing existed prior, and that BB describes the creation of energy and matter ex nihilo. This is completely false, and if I have to tell you this again, I will be extremely irritated, so I invite you to read my post in question, for the first time.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I have no idea what

I have no idea what General-Forrest is saying/