The Collapce of the theory of evolution in 20 questions
- Thread starter Esperanza
- Start date
that we have no idea where all the energy and mass in the universe comes from, and since the law of conservation of mass says it cannot be created or destroyed.....well that leads one to believe that at one time, something was outside our known laws of physics. right?
and the opposite then? id like to hear a premise for the non-existence of god.
and the opposite then? id like to hear a premise for the non-existence of god.
all depends what you mean by 'god'.....do you mean the biblical god? or a sense of depth, which is our past has been called 'god'?The Devil Inside said:that we have no idea where all the energy and mass in the universe comes from, and since the law of conservation of mass says it cannot be created or destroyed.....well that leads one to believe that at one time, something was outside our known laws of physics. right?
mePPPPonlyif you cant take that matter-energy ISterenal. whay, for example DOESit have to come from some where?....andas i keeps saying. it is not ONLY matter-energy. THAT idea is materialism.................yes? i am saying that along with eternal matter-energy is eternal consciousness. tht matter-energys is sentient. so we don'yt NEED any 'supernatrual' outside agency--a 'GOD' behind....AS IT WERE. THATS A SPOOK INIT?
and the opposite then? id like to hear a premise for the non-existence of god.
The Devil Inside said:that we have no idea where all the energy and mass in the universe comes from, and since the law of conservation of mass says it cannot be created or destroyed.....well that leads one to believe that at one time, something was outside our known laws of physics. right?
and the opposite then? id like to hear a premise for the non-existence of god.
Well it seems pretty logical that things can not exist without life creating those things... but using that same logic to the universe doesn't get you anywhere, it seems like we are unable to think 'outside the box' in that respect.
Time is the hardest thing for me to get around, time is all we know, so if there is a God, who created God etc... The mind just bawks at the idea of time not existing.
i mean the infinite, duendy.
not an old man on a throne. i mean that which we can have no knowledge of in this "meat prison".
not an old man on a throne. i mean that which we can have no knowledge of in this "meat prison".
The Devil,
OK.
So no valid opening argument for a god there, agreed?
OK.
But that isn’t quite accurate. It implies energy and mass came from somewhere and ignores the logical possibility that it has always been.
That doesn’t follow does it? If something cannot be created or destroyed then that indicates it is infinite, right?
So no valid opening argument for a god there, agreed?
That’s quite a different issue. Trying to argue for such a negative is generally accepted as impossible.
So you have effectively defined "God" as "everything of which we can have no knowledge".The Devil Inside said:i mean the infinite, duendy.
not an old man on a throne. i mean that which we can have no knowledge of in this "meat prison".
And you worship this God?
Is this "God" worthy of praise?
Why call it God? Why give it religious connotations?
Why ascribe any personification to it?
Can it interact with us?
Can we interact with it?
Does it affect us when we die?
That which we can not know is absolutely irrelevant to us - and the logical equivalent to something that doesn't exist.
how is it logical, given what we know of entropy...to say that physical things have always been?Cris said:
we already know what i think on that from the above statement.Cris said:
i am an open minded fellow, and i am prepared to hear it. to say that it is impossible, is a cop-out. impossibility implies limitation. to imply limitation is to say that you know how far something goes. is that too convoluted? sorry if it is...i try to make sense but sometimes my brains get all scrambled when i try to make coherent sentencesCris said:
in another post (i dont remember which, but it was recent), i stated that i cannot define G-d. i stand by that statement.Sarkus said:
nope. i worship no G-d.Sarkus said:
to give praise is to assume i am in a position to do so. so, no.Sarkus said:
because "Frank" doesnt do the idea justice, i dont think.Sarkus said:
i believe that ascribing personification is probably the most disrespectful thing we can do, as it brings such a lofty idea down to the level of my meager brains.Sarkus said:
the fact that we are existing says "yes. it can."Sarkus said:
not in a traditional sense, no. i dont think so. maybe im wrong though. who knows?Sarkus said:
everything that ever happens affects us at every moment of existence, whether we are alive on this earth or not.Sarkus said:
thats idiotic. sorry. i usually dont resort to that kind of mudslinging, but really...examine that statement, and tell me that you are serious. i hope it was a typo.Sarkus said:
maybe. but i learned a long time ago to never say never.Sarkus said:
The devil,
Until we can examine every corner and aspect of the universe and beyond and potential parallels then we can never be sure that the imaginary item does not exist in some form, unless you can show that the imaginary item is logically impossible, i.e. has contradictory properties.
In this case our inability to search everywhere.
Yes I’ve noticed and I will try not to hold that against you but it may well cause some misunderstandings if I misinterpret your statements sometimes.
The Devil Inside said:
Actually, NO ,devil ............
According to the latest theories of the origin of the universe :
The universe, that was created from the big bang , was only a small universe created from the energy from the 5. dimension - the small part of energy was there ALWAYS in the big total universe - only transformed by the big bang into this sub universe we inhabit ........
Which means that the 4.th dimension (time) has no beginning or end for the energy of the small part of the total universe , that was created at the big bang .........
Energy comes in many forms - one of them matter .........
There is NO beginning or end of time for the energy in the total universe....
There is NO beginning or end of time for the small part of energy, that created the small universe as we know it after the big bang ......
hmmmmmmm, well that 'might' dont seem right to me. as te Holographic analogy reveals, what is contained in a 'part' shows the WHOLE. so it'd be limiting to assume a universe such as ours was limited to 3 dimensions. also, always keep in mind, i am never just talking about matter-energy on its OWN, for it ALWAYS is with consciousness.Magic said:
If matter-energy is non-local, consciousness is not-located
ie., that consciousness is the FEELING of matter-energy
all this speaks to me as , boundlessness
Dear God, please protect me from your followers and their propaganda.
AMEN!
AMEN!
Magic said:
sources? you made alot of very large statements right there, and if you cant back them up, then they are meaningless.
Yup!!
The big bang never happened! Period.
Source here
Eric J. Lerner
BB religion disguised as science.
Found another site of iterest;
Science Stifled by Dogma
Godless
Last edited: