"The principle of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed but can only be transformed from one form to another"
In other words, the amount of energy in the universe is a constant. But energy-requiring reactions only occur at the expense of energy-releasing reactions.
So where did the energy in the universe come from?
The creator.

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

unless you're talking about mass-energy continuum (and you're not) then your conservation of energy thing is incorrect. a nuclear reaction creates energy from the destruction of mass. newtonian physics is WRONG, don't try to use it to demonstrate lofty ideas.

:::::::::::::
"And I know what the fuck an option quarterback is. He's the black QB under six feet that ends up being converted to wide receiver once he's selected on day two of the NFL draft because he can't hit the ocean from the edge of a boat."

--

mass is energy

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

According to Einstein

energy = mass * speed of light * speed of light

if mass was energy then this equation wouldn't work as x can't equal x * y else unless y is 1 or I guess 0. In this case c isn't 1 or 0.

Sorry to be anal but I'm a life-long member of logicians anonymous.

The universe is according to current thought expanding (rather than being a constant entity) as there is a tendency towards entropy (chaos) rather than enthalpy (order). A better way to argue for the existence of a higher power would be to run along the lines of how life exists (semi-ordered and therefore more enthalpic) given the universe's entropic nature. Good luck, amny have tried, none have suceeded.

From a philosophical point of view it's almost impossible (in the sense that no-one has evver successfully managed it) to either prove or disprove the existence of god. Like I said, good luck, you'll need it.

i feel like im watching a gay porno flick.

-mr.thompson



i go to religious chatrooms and cuss at folks for fun.

-?uest in response to fonsworth's hating ass

Ja Rule is as "real" as Talib Kweli--

:Fonsworth

This is a business---don't forget that
:BKyle

but eff a bread.
only bread i love is money.

:?uestlove

Due to yesterday's brief hiatus from the world wide web, I'm sure your level of productivity at home, school, or the office reached an all time high.

: Bkyle, not ?uestlove as previously mentioned. sorry

"i have no guilt whatsoever asking for one legged hookers with an iq above room tempeture."

-mr. thompson


"If somebody told me I had only one hour to live, I'd spend it choking a white man. I'd do it nice and slow."

- Miles Davis


“Gotta have Black Thought and sorta B like Malik,
So don't Question a Brother, to the Roots I get deep”

-Common

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NYU

mass is not energy. and mass is not not energy
mass i a FORM of energy. indeed it is, according to both newton and einstein

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

_____________________________

~~~~
http://omidele.blogspot.com/
http://rahareiki.tumblr.com/
http://seatofbliss.blogspot.com/

is it really


you?

_____________________________

~~~~
http://omidele.blogspot.com/
http://rahareiki.tumblr.com/
http://seatofbliss.blogspot.com/

NO!!!

uh, it was just an illusion.

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!

*slips back into the darkness*

er, i mean, yeah, hi, didn't realize i was ever missed.

:::::::::::::
"And I know what the fuck an option quarterback is. He's the black QB under six feet that ends up being converted to wide receiver once he's selected on day two of the NFL draft because he can't hit the ocean from the edge of a boat."

--

try again

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

nobody will ask you to prove your point. you can just claim anything you want.

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

has nothing to do with the equation. The equation is simply a law of energy conservation. You as the reader are ADDING into the law pure speculation that the energy in question must be "created" by "something." That my friend is poor logic but if it gets you through the night...

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

This is just simply NOT TRUE.
I have added nothing to what science indicates. If energy can only be transformed then where did it come from??????????
Until science answers that question, I will believe in the creator.

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

for proving my point

"If energy can only be transformed then where did it come from??????????
Until science answers that question, I will believe in the creator."

It is YOUR OWN BELIEF, i.e. you ADDED extra info into the equation. Someone arguing agianst the existence of a "creator" can easily use the same law of conservation for their own benefit.

Like I said try again.

Silly newbies, posts are for veterans.

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

you have not given me a single reason why my argument is invalid... i don't care how many crappy posts you have

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

you have left the realm of science and wander into the wonderful world of philosophy. You can do that but this invalidates your use of science as "proof." The law as stated says nothing about a "creator," again YOU added a BELIEF into the equation. Now I again ask you to please "TRY AGAIN!" And try a little harder this time.

I know you can do better, so do it.

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

your not helping out too much

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

Ain't no way for anyone to prove him wrong.

>your not helping out too much

I hope you understand that you are using a fantasy definition of "god" that the poster is not using. You're definition of God is "a black guy". According to your definition, Gary Coleman is God.

LOL!

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see someone white and feel relieved."
-Jesse Jackso

.

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

cosign that

-------------------------------------

http://www.myspace.com/radius
http://www.secretlifeofsound.com
http://www.grittygoat.com/radius
RADIUSHEAD.COM

*clutches stomach while laughing profusely* Oh man that's a good laugh...Ok, as you were...

On this note...I AM giving ALL that I have & ALL within my Power to Live a Righteous Life In The Name Of Allah!

BISMILALLAH-I AM BORN (9) POWER (5) INTELLIGENTLY COMPLETE-PEACE
_________________________________________________________________

“Fantasies are present when a person responds emotionally & vigorously to ideas, concepts, values and ideologies that endangers his well-being & future survival. When a person is tenaciously attached to ideologies that lead them to engage in self-destructive behavior, and logically cannot see that what they are doing does not advance their own interest, psychologist refer to this psychopathology as neurosis; but this is starkly and most simplistically described as stupidity.” - Dr. Amos N. Wilson

"Fitness Facilitates The Platform That Provides Peak Performance in Life." © Brendan Brazier

>I hope you understand that you are using a fantasy
>definition of "god" that the poster is not using.

What definition of "god" is NOT a fantasy?

>You're
>definition of God is "a black guy". According to your
>definition, Gary Coleman is God.
>
>LOL!

Don't forget Emanuel Lewis!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is Precious Roy! You guys are SUCKERS!!!

Precious Roy,
Precious Roy,
Making lots of suckers out of girls and boys!
*PING*

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

Emanuel.

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

ThuŠŠP@k€ŽåRåTHû©kYâ
dufflebagyerheadforthepriceofnothin

I think that your arguement is pretty good. You might be interested in looking at some of the classical arguements for the existance of God. Although there are ways of getting around them.

1) 2nd law of thermodynamics
2) Principle of 1st cause
3) Kosmological arguement
4) morality (i.e. why be moral??) etc.

These are not full proof but they are helpful non the less. Me personally think that naturalism, postmodernism, scientism, are equally self-refuting principles to go off of. But thats just an opinion.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

and on and on we go.

And before you say "the creator doesn't need to be created!" I could just apply that magical property to the universe itself (oh, and we actually know for sure that the universe exists)

and on and on we go.

--


and and shit

"I have to say that even though I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in humanity in any other area, I have the utmost confidence in our ability to kill shit."

--
Rappity Rap: http://www.soulcreator.com/

because we know the universe had to be created. because it is changing. it has a start and is progressing
as i profess it to you, the creator is unchanging. and therefore could have always existed, while the universe could not have.

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

>because we know the universe had to be created. because it
>is changing. it has a start

so because something changes, it has a beginning? This applies to your creator then also (see below)

>and is progressing
>as i profess it to you, the creator is unchanging.

how can you say the creator is unchanging when it itself had to change (from the "I'm not gonna make a universe" state to "I will make a universe")? If the "creator" was unchanging, nothing would ever be "created" in the first place...

>and
>therefore could have always existed, while the universe
>could not have.

ok.

--


and and shit

"I have to say that even though I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in humanity in any other area, I have the utmost confidence in our ability to kill shit."

--
Rappity Rap: http://www.soulcreator.com/

ah I get it...
Pac is gone...
then came DMX and JaRule
DMX and Ja Rule are both wack
Now they beefing.
Who made that happen?
The CREATOR....

"I'm like Aquaman and Brownhornet, Imhotep but don't flaunt it" - the mighty Black Thought

"We.. (puff, puff) gotta make some changes ya dig? (puff, puff) I mean... dayum... brothers gotta work it out (puff, puff)... What's this a Dutch? Damn you aint

the creator is unchanging and does not need to change because he is the creator. think outside the realm of physics, obviously the creator of the universe would not be bound by our theories on physics but would have created those same theories to suit his needs.

>the creator is unchanging and does not need to change
>because he is the creator.

great circular logic there. Especially odd is that ya'll keep saying the "creator" doesn't change, yet there was apparently a moment where there was no universe, followed by a moment where there was. Sounds like a big ass change to me. I'm also trying to figure out why whether something changes or not makes it qualify as "god" anyway...

think outside the realm of
>physics, obviously the creator of the universe would not be
>bound by our theories on physics but would have created
>those same theories to suit his needs.

well yeah, but do we have any evidence of all of this? That's why discussing the supernatural ends up being pretty meaningless, because there's no "rules" to supernatural explanations. The usual god explanation is just as valid as the great leprechaun explanation.

--


and and shit

"I have to say that even though I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in humanity in any other area, I have the utmost confidence in our ability to kill shit."

--
Rappity Rap: http://www.soulcreator.com/

that you cant make something out of nothing. putting all physics theories a side the great debate from day 1 has been where did the initial energy come from and how did it get here.

In fact one of the earlier philosophers, Aquinas, held a similar view. one of his five ways of proving the existence of god was that there had to be a "first mover" some being that initiated the universe

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

Let me guess, are you taking a high school philosophy class, or perhaps a first year introductory college class?

>that you cant make something out of nothing.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? Virtual particles and pair production? There is something being made out of nothing all the time.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is Precious Roy! You guys are SUCKERS!!!

Precious Roy,
Precious Roy,
Making lots of suckers out of girls and boys!
*PING*

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

heisenberg's uncertainty principle says nothing about something being made form nothing

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

The vacuum is seething with activity. Particles continuously come into existence and go out of existence all of the time. This property follows directly from the quantum nature of the sub-atomic world. To see this, recall the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP). In the formulation that I have talked about in this class, the uncertainty in the position of a particle and the uncertainty of the momentum of a particle were related. There are also other (equivalent) ways to state the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. One such formulation uses the energy of a particle and the time at which the energy is measured. In this case, we have that

d(energy) x d(time of measurement) is greater than (h/2pi)

So, this says that if I measure the energy of a particle to very high precision, then there is a huge uncertainty in when it could have this energy!

Now let's look at the vacuum. Suppose that there is nothing in the vacuum (no matter or radiation at all), according to the HUP there is an uncertainty in the amount of energy which can be contained in the vacuum. On average, the energy is constant, however, there is always a slight uncertainty in the energy, dE. This small uncertainty allows a nonzero energy to exist for short intervals of time defined by

dT = (h/2pi) / dE

Small uncertainties in energy can actually live for very long times. Because of the equivalence between matter and energy, these small energy fluctuations can produce matter (particles) which exists for a short time and then disappears.

The particles produced in this manner are not arbitary. What happens is that pairs of particles are produced -- a particle and its anti-particle twin are produced. This allows certain properties of the Universe to be preserved. Also, an interesting note is that the particles cannot be measured directly (hence the name virtual pairs) and so no physical laws such as the conservation of energy are seen to be violated!

Consider a proton and the anti-proton. They have masses of 1.7 x 10**(-24) grams and so, if a virtual pair is created,

dE = (2m) c**2 = 3 x 10**(-3) ergs
===>dT ~ lifetime ~ 10**(-27) / dE ~ 3 x 10**(-25) seconds!!!!

So a proton/anti-proton pair will pop into and go out of existence in the background after less than 10**(-25) seconds.

-------------------------------------------------------------

... so as you can see, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle actually says alot about something being made from nothing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is Precious Roy! You guys are SUCKERS!!!

Precious Roy,
Precious Roy,
Making lots of suckers out of girls and boys!
*PING*

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

Response: Excuse me if I am wrong, I have not looked at this in a while but I thought that Heisenberg's uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to know both the position and velocity (speed and direction) of an object at the same time.

Dealing with electrons or something like that. I did not think that it had something to do with things randomly appearing out of nothing. If I am wrong then please clarify.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

The answers are right there.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is Precious Roy! You guys are SUCKERS!!!

Precious Roy,
Precious Roy,
Making lots of suckers out of girls and boys!
*PING*

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

>The answers are right there.

Response: I must be misreading it because I don't see him saying that something comes from nothing. Kind of hard to make out some of his vocabulary.(maybe that is my difficulty). Looks like those particles that go in and out of existance come from energy that lies within a vacuum. Like for instance he says:


"Now let's look at the vacuum. Suppose that there is nothing in the vacuum (no matter or radiation at all), according to the HUP there is an uncertainty in the amount of energy which can be contained in the vacuum. On average, the energy is constant, however, there is always a slight uncertainty in the energy, dE. This small uncertainty allows a nonzero energy to exist for short intervals of time defined by

dT = (h/2pi) / dE "

Response: Now is he guessing that there is nothing inside of a vacuum or does he know for sure? Then he says:

"Small uncertainties in energy can actually live for very long times. Because of the equivalence between matter and energy, these small energy fluctuations can produce matter (particles) which exists for a short time and then disappears.
The particles produced in this manner are not arbitary. What happens is that pairs of particles are produced -- a particle and its anti-particle twin are produced. This allows certain properties of the Universe to be preserved. Also, an interesting note is that the particles cannot be measured directly (hence the name virtual pairs) and so no physical laws such as the conservation of energy are seen to be violated! "

Response: He seems to be saying that energy within a vacuum can exist for a long time. ( I am not quite sure what he means by uncertainties of energy however.) But I can recognize that he is saying that energy fluctuates and produces particles. If I am reading this correctly then these particles are not coming from nothing, rather they are coming from energy within a vacuum. Then he says:


"However, these virtual pairs can become real particles. It is found that when there are very high energy photons, that the energy of the photons can be channeled into the virtual pairs and the virtual particles can become real. This process is known as pair production. The collision and subsequent disappearance of a particle/anti-particle pair is known as annihilation. What this means is that if there is a large supply of high energy photons then particles can be created. "

Response: the virtual pairs become real particles when there is a large supply of energy within the vacuum then they come into existance, or they run into each other and disappear.

So it does not appear to me that he is saying that something comes out of nothing. Unless I am reading it wrong.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

I will actually have to think about these (unlike with responding to some other people) ...which I don't have the time to do at the moment, but I'll try to get back to you on this tomorrow.

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

>Response: I must be misreading it because I don't see him
>saying that something comes from nothing. Kind of hard to
>make out some of his vocabulary.(maybe that is my
>difficulty). Looks like those particles that go in and out
>of existance come from energy that lies within a vacuum.

No, he specifically says "there is nothing in the vacuum (no matter or radiation at all)", but that "uncertainty allows a nonzero energy to exist for short intervals of time" - i.e. something (nonzero energy) comes from nothing (vacuum with no matter or radiation at all). The particles are coming from energy, but that energy itself is coming from nothing. I can see where the wording gets a little tricky to follow though, and this stuff is pretty hard to comprehend anyway... it still confuses the hell out of me.

>Response: Now is he guessing that there is nothing inside of
>a vacuum or does he know for sure?

There is actually nothing inside of the vaccuum, but because of the uncertainty principle you can never actually observe that there is exactly zero energy at an exact time, all you can say is that the average energy over a discrete time is zero; however you can know for sure that there is nothing inside of the vacuum, otherwise the average energy would not be zero.

>Response: He seems to be saying that energy within a vacuum
>can exist for a long time. ( I am not quite sure what he
>means by uncertainties of energy however.) But I can
>recognize that he is saying that energy fluctuates and
>produces particles. If I am reading this correctly then
>these particles are not coming from nothing, rather they are
>coming from energy within a vacuum.

No, the particles are coming from energy fluctuations within a vacuum that come from nothing. The "uncertainties of energy" that he is talking about are energy fluctuations that arise out of the uncertainties in energy defined by the uncertainty principle: "there is always a slight uncertainty in the energy, dE. This small uncertainty allows a nonzero energy to exist for short intervals of time (energy fluctuation) defined by dT = (h/2pi) / dE". But this nonzero energy fluctuation is arising out of a vacuum with no matter or radiation, therefore the particles created from it are coming from nothing.

>Response: the virtual pairs become real particles when there
>is a large supply of energy within the vacuum then they come
>into existance, or they run into each other and disappear.
>
>So it does not appear to me that he is saying that something
>comes out of nothing. Unless I am reading it wrong.

Well, you are reading it wrong, but it's not really your fault because the terminology is kind of misleading: the "virtual" particles are in fact real, they actually exist for a very short time and then disappear before they can be directly observed, and so are called "virtual". The "real" particles are created when an outside source of high energy photons adds enough energy to the virtual particles that they can stay in existence long enough to be directly observed, and so are called "real". This doesn't mean that the virtual particles don't actually exist, just that they disappear back into the vacuum before they can be directly observed. So the wording is kind of tricky, but he is indeed saying that something comes from nothing.

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

>No, he specifically says "there is nothing in the vacuum (no
>matter or radiation at all)", but that "uncertainty allows a
>nonzero energy to exist for short intervals of time" - i.e.
>something (nonzero energy) comes from nothing (vacuum with
>no matter or radiation at all). The particles are coming
>from energy, but that energy itself is coming from nothing.
>I can see where the wording gets a little tricky to follow
>though, and this stuff is pretty hard to comprehend
>anyway... it still confuses the hell out of me.

Response: Yeah, the wording is really trickey. He is not writting this article for the laymen at all. Ok, so you are saying that the energy is what is coming from nothing. Hmmm, thats very interesting. I wonder how in the world that is taking place?
>
>
>There is actually nothing inside of the vaccuum, but because
>of the uncertainty principle you can never actually observe
>that there is exactly zero energy at an exact time, all you
>can say is that the average energy over a discrete time is
>zero; however you can know for sure that there is nothing
>inside of the vacuum, otherwise the average energy would not
>be zero.

Response: that makes sense. I'd like to read some more about this ( don't know if I can completely follow it) but I'd like to do some more research. If you have a link or something in which I can read something I'd appreciate it.


>>No, the particles are coming from energy fluctuations within
>a vacuum that come from nothing. The "uncertainties of
>energy" that he is talking about are energy fluctuations
>that arise out of the uncertainties in energy defined by the
>uncertainty principle: "there is always a slight uncertainty
>in the energy, dE. This small uncertainty allows a nonzero
>energy to exist for short intervals of time (energy
>fluctuation) defined by dT = (h/2pi) / dE". But this
>nonzero energy fluctuation is arising out of a vacuum with
>no matter or radiation, therefore the particles created from
>it are coming from nothing.

Response: Man, now that is unique. I wonder how they observed all of this? Now too my knowledge Stephen Hawkin and Guth disagree on the creation of the earth correct? Hawkins believes that the earth has always been here and Guth believes in a big bang sort of deal. This is what I have heard but not sure if I am correct.
>
>Well, you are reading it wrong, but it's not really your
>fault because the terminology is kind of misleading: the
>"virtual" particles are in fact real, they actually exist
>for a very short time and then disappear before they can be
>directly observed, and so are called "virtual". The "real"
>particles are created when an outside source of high energy
>photons adds enough energy to the virtual particles that
>they can stay in existence long enough to be directly
>observed, and so are called "real". This doesn't mean that
>the virtual particles don't actually exist, just that they
>disappear back into the vacuum before they can be directly
>observed. So the wording is kind of tricky, but he is
>indeed saying that something comes from nothing.

Response: Ok, I follow this. Yeah give me some info if you have some. I'd like to read a little more about this stuff.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

>Response: Yeah, the wording is really trickey. He is not
>writting this article for the laymen at all.

Well in addition i think the guy is Japanese or Korean or something so english probably isn't his 1st language. But the concepts themselves are tricky to explain anyway.

>Ok, so you are
>saying that the energy is what is coming from nothing. Hmmm,
>thats very interesting. I wonder how in the world that is
>taking place?

I have no idea; I don't think anyone really does, though. An alternative explanation is this theory of "", but I don't know much about it, if it is actually "real" energy in the physical sense or whatever. But basically I don't think anyone has a definite answer for that one.

>Response: that makes sense. I'd like to read some more about
>this ( don't know if I can completely follow it) but I'd
>like to do some more research. If you have a link or
>something in which I can read something I'd appreciate it.

I don't really know of any links that explain it well, when I was looking for a link to post I just googled Heisenberg + uncertainty+ virtual particles and went from there. Some of the links were way too technical for me and others too general, so I looked around until I found one that was at my speed. I'd say if you're interested you could do the same and find one you can follow. That might take a little time, but I don't really know any other good links to start you off with - I thought this one was pretty good but I guess not. There's tons of stuff on it out there though, it's just a matter of finding one you can follow.


>Response: Man, now that is unique. I wonder how they
>observed all of this?

Well you cannot directly observe this, but there are observable effects that virtual particles have that can be measured. The best examples I know of are the , a small attractive force which acts between two neutral parallel conducting plates that is caused by quantum vacuum fluctuations of virtual particles; and , in which a virtual electron/positron pair is attracted/repelled by the charge of a "real" electron, causing a net polarization of the vacuum which screens the real electron's charge to a measurable degree.

So it's kind of like a black hole; you can't directly see it, but you can observe the effects it has on other objects/phenomena, like when the gravity of a black hole affects the movement of a nearby star.

>Now too my knowledge Stephen Hawkin
>and Guth disagree on the creation of the earth correct?
>Hawkins believes that the earth has always been here and
>Guth believes in a big bang sort of deal. This is what I
>have heard but not sure if I am correct.

I don't really know Hawkings' view on the creation of the universe or how it disagrees with Guth's.

>Response: Ok, I follow this. Yeah give me some info if you
>have some. I'd like to read a little more about this stuff.

Like I said, I don't know of any links that explain it very clearly, so just google "virtual particles" and surf around until you find something you can follow.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Behind the turntables is where he stands
Then there is the movement of his hands
So when asked who's the best, y'all should say:
'Run-D.M.C. and JAM MASTER JAY!'"

R.I.P. Jam Master Jay:
Thank you for always representing us the right way.
"God damn, that DJ made my day!"

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

This post is not to prove GOD exists. The reason is that people have many definition of what GOD is. In philosophy a common definition of GOD has been : A being greater than which cannot be concieved. This is not what i propose. Only that a creator exists. And if you think about it doesn't this make sense?
Let me illustrate
Look at spontaneous generation. This was the theory held prior to the 1800s that living matter could spontaneously arise from non-living matter. Although disproven early for macroorganisms (flies, humans) it was held for many years regarding microorganisms ( bacteria, viruses). It was subsequently disproven by pasteur. It is now looked on with disdain by most educated people.
Now look at what most of the respondants to this topic are claiming: ... non-living matter ( the ions , building blocks of the universe existing 3.8 billion years ago before the first cell formed ) can arise from NOTHING. Nobody can give me an adequate explanation for this. The only logical explanation is that it was created. By what? By definition a creator... since I define creator as that which created the universe. Is this logical? Of course it is. If it isn't name to me the fallacy included in the reasoning.

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

>This post is not to prove GOD exists.
. . .
>Only that a creator exists. And if you think about it
>doesn't this make sense?

If you only seek to prove (and, I presume, have us believe) that a creator exists, well to put it bluntly, so what?

Somehow I think there's a "hidden trail" here that you (intentionally or not) want us to follow. Namely, if we accept the existence of a creator, then perhaps we'll also agree that it makes sense for said creator to be overly concerned with the fact that the people down the street are eating pork and having anal sex on the Sabbath.

You know, thousands and thousands of years ago, humans didn't know why the sun set or why they died. So they created these Gods. Over the years science has answered many of these questions and these Gods have, for all intensive puposes, gone the way of the Dodo. So now people generally only believe in one God and they are still using it to explain things that they do not or can not understand through science, yet. I'm not trying to start a Holy war, but come on. Are you gonna say that because there is something in nature that we don't completly understand, that it must be proof of a creator or some higher power. Sorry, ain't buyin'.

-ills

I got more new tunes than Nabisco

>Are you gonna say that because there is
>something in nature that we don't completly understand, that
>it must be proof of a creator or some higher power.

I'm not ruling out that there's a creator, but it could just as easily be a scientist in a laboratory as it could be YHWH. I'm just suspicious when someone who has proselytized in other posts now claims he's only interested in proving a creator -- ANY creator -- exists but isn't concerned about who it is.

What book did that come from...or what site...? I like it...

"There is nothing noble about being superior to your fellow man. True nobility comes from being superior to your old self." - Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

"There is nothing noble about being superior to your fellow man. True nobility comes from being superior to your old self." - Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

Of the original post?

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

yeah, i idnt read all the responses...did i miss it?

"There is nothing noble about being superior to your fellow man. True nobility comes from being superior to your old self." - Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

"There is nothing noble about being superior to your fellow man. True nobility comes from being superior to your old self." - Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

the portion in quotations is a statement of newtonian physics. i got it form my physics textbook but you can likely find it in many physics works by newton.
if you want a description of what its implications are, check out response 30, which is also my post

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

Now how can I use this information to push an oppressive dogma on a community, keeping them oppressed and enriching myself at the same time?

i'm glad you're convinced.
you can start on the oppression on your own time

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

Proving there is a god defeats the whole puspose of believing. Besides.. for atheists, no proof is gonna be good enough untill they can actually open some sort of inter-dimensional wormhole and SHOW God to them. Then he's like "Yeah here i am motherfucker... who did you expect, Ricky Ricardo? And close that fucking door, you're letting all the love out".

curiosity killed the catechism

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

I agree....


"There is nothing noble about being superior to your fellow man. True nobility comes from being superior to your old self." - Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

"There is nothing noble about being superior to your fellow man. True nobility comes from being superior to your old self." - Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

>So where did the energy in the universe come from?

A grand inflation emerging out of a quantum vacuum fluctuation.
http://www.discover.com/apr_02/featguth.html

The conservation of energy is also explained in the article, briefly that according to Einstein's theory of relativity, the energy of a gravitational field is negative, while that of the matter/energy you're talking about is positive. The positive energy of all matter/energy in the universe is thus counterbalanced by the negative energy of all the gravity in the universe, so the net energy of the universe is actually zero.

>The creator.

Are you trying to also prove that "The creator" still exists or just that "The creator" must have created everything - just trying to clarify.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is Precious Roy! You guys are SUCKERS!!!

Precious Roy,
Precious Roy,
Making lots of suckers out of girls and boys!
*PING*

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

but there is the theory of a sustaining cause, by Aquinas, that attempts to prove that because got is the cause of everything, he must still exist

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

>but there is the theory of a sustaining cause, by Aquinas,
>that attempts to prove that because got is the cause of
>everything, he must still exist

There is also this theory called communism, by Marx, that attempts to prove that the final perfect stage of society is where the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably. It might work in theory, but unfortunately the theory doesn't work very well in the real world.


P.S. did you look at the article on inflation theory? You posed your question "so where did the energy in the universe come from?" in a scientific framework; so do you want a scientific answer, or do you want to keep looking for philosophical answers from medieval theologans?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is Precious Roy! You guys are SUCKERS!!!

Precious Roy,
Precious Roy,
Making lots of suckers out of girls and boys!
*PING*

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

I noticed something funny underneath the first picture of the Guth article.


"Inflationary universes need not be natural, argues Guth (plotting the curving boundaries of hypothetical artificial universes against a space-time axis). In his view, an advanced race could harness the engines of inflation and create a whole cosmos from scratch. Indeed, our universe could be such a creation."

An advanced race??
What does he mean by that??

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

I just presented his theory as a possible scientific explanation for where the energy in the universe came from.

>"Inflationary universes need not be natural, argues Guth
>(plotting the curving boundaries of hypothetical artificial
>universes against a space-time axis). In his view, an
>advanced race could harness the engines of inflation and
>create a whole cosmos from scratch. Indeed, our universe
>could be such a creation."
>
>An advanced race??
>What does he mean by that??

He meant that if an advanced civilization could somehow manage to harness the power of a false vacuum that they could create an inflation like the one in his theory and create a whole new universe from scratch. This is sheer speculation of course, but it obviously shows that his theory doesn't rule out "creation" (and I never said that it does). Like Guth said, "The way I like to say it is that we are approaching a scenario for the creation of the universe that is compatible with the laws of physics. That raises the question: 'Where do the laws of physics come from?' ...We are a long way from being able to answer that one."

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

you are all wasting your time discussing this. "God", "the creator" cannot be described by an equation or theory from a human being. we are imperfect beings incapable of understand what god or the creator is, we are incapable of even comprehending what s/he is, we can only assume and glimpse.

i ask you only one thing, how many of you have spoken with the creator ? how can you possibly begin to define eternity with equations and theories developed by human beings? there is no truth that holds ground over any other truth. basically, i can say that my ass is the creator and neither of you can disprove it.

peace.

tao-


seeking to express the limitless,
that cannot be described in human terms

that it is the origin and essence of all things,
of vision and all that appears manifest,
the mother and kernel
of everything we think we know.

if you wish to begin to undertsand,
seek only through your inner-self,
through your very core.
And yet, to wishfully seek to realise this,
or anything, is in itself limiting.

One can perceive limitations in everything;
but the limitations are our own.
Only what is eternal is limitless>
And that is beyond description.

These two streams - essence and vision -
spring from the same source;
yet we differentiate between them.
In differentiation lies confusion.

So here is a portal to perception:
see origin and manifestation as ONE
and glimpse the myster of life.

---
the pursuit of fame and fortune
leads to shame and misfortune
-tao

Man I'm tired of all this "man is incapable of understanding" bullshit, and no I'm not just trying to be a pessimist, I do know what I'm talking about, I've read Dogen, Huang Po, Diamond Heart and the other important Sutras, Dhammapada, Upanishads, Bhagavaad Gita, Al'Quran, the Bible, the Torah, Gateless Barrier etc. etc. in multiple translations, not to mention Shankara, Sri Ramakrishna, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and so many others in my quest to achieve a greater understanding of the universe (shit I know all that sounds ridiculously pretentious but I'm just trying to show that I'm not just mouthing off), and I've come to the conclusion that the only way we can become greater as a species is to attempt to elevate ourselves to the level of say a St. Francis of Assisi or the prophet Muhammad etc. etc., they began as people, therefore man can in fact become one with "god" or have understanding similar to "god". If you have the belief that man is forever incapable of understanding anything greater than the world right in front of us in the terms commonly used to describe it, then there's really no point in debating any of this because you'll never understand since you're human and not god, thereby making any opinions you have about a higher power completely and totally false.

How then can you tell me that you have a statement that you belive proves the existence of a higher power when you also believe that you can never understand that power? And don't tell me that you can understand its existence but that you can't understand its methods, that shit is a cop-out if I've ever heard one, trust me I know I live in Huntsville fucking Alabama where racist conservative pricks are a dime a dozen.

*breathes*

I mean no disrespect to anyone it's just that people need to stop making overarching comments/explanations about the nature of the cosmos unless they've really discovered a brand new idea that's never been thought of by anyone else in humanity's history, and it's highly unlikely that any of us are going to have such an idea, since such people are about as rare as you can possibly get. In other words: don't recycle shit and act like it's new and profound, try and immerse yourself in the knowledge already available and then if you think you've found something that's not present in any existing religious or scientific texts share it with people. THEN you'll be helping out your fellow human, whereas now you're just creating unrest and dischord between people.

"It's not about a salary it's all about reality."
-KRS-One

"Me being wack is like naps on Kojack."
-RZA

"The revolution will not be apologized for."
-Aesop Rock

"Came to save the game like a memory card."
-MF Doom

You wanna prove that God DOESN'T exist atheists?

Look death in the eye; don't flinch. Look back on EVERY EXPERIENCE YOU HAD...If it is not in some way shape or form related to a focal topic then you can say it's a sham. Then if you feel perfectly comfortable with leaving this world, then you're can say that its all a sham.

Stop trying to explain shit. Nothing, NOTHING man lays his hands upon is perfect. This most DEFINITELY includes ALL holy text and scientific theory. WHY? We perverse everything wwe interpret. Which is why I believe man won't EVER under/overstand the nature of God.

Sure. You can SAY you do. But explain it.

Adam lives in Theory.
Trying to turn stone into bread.
Masquerading like he's got it all figured out.

Keep trying ya'll Keep trying.

_____________________________________________
DOWNLOAD THE HELLO EP Spit by yours truly!
http://www.zshare.net/download/80520753aae60df7/
Just a PSA

>You wanna prove that God DOESN'T exist atheists?

that's hard to do (if not impossible) because every single person has wildly different definitions of "god". When presented with a specific definition though, one is free to point out any inconsistencies...

>Look death in the eye; don't flinch. Look back on EVERY
>EXPERIENCE YOU HAD...If it is not in some way shape or form
>related to a focal topic then you can say it's a sham. Then
>if you feel perfectly comfortable with leaving this world,
>then you're can say that its all a sham.

Hmm...what exactly are you saying here? (I'm genuinely confused)

>Stop trying to explain shit. Nothing, NOTHING man lays his
>hands upon is perfect.

Well duh. That's why when people start spouting off about invisible beings that are "beyond human comprehension", one should take it with a fat grain of salt.

This most DEFINITELY includes ALL
>holy text and scientific theory. WHY? We perverse
>everything wwe interpret.

Although scientific theories do have the important advantage of always being open to questioning and change...

Which is why I believe man won't
>EVER under/overstand the nature of God.

if one can't ever understand the "nature of God", why bother believing in it?

>Sure. You can SAY you do. But explain it.

explain what? No one says being an atheist automatically means you must know the answer to every deep question pertaining to the universe. There's a wonderful phrase we like to use in place of "God did it"...we tend to say, "I don't know".

>Adam lives in Theory.
>Trying to turn stone into bread.
>Masquerading like he's got it all figured out.
>
>Keep trying ya'll Keep trying.

you've lost me, lol...

--


and and shit

"I have to say that even though I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in humanity in any other area, I have the utmost confidence in our ability to kill shit."

--
Rappity Rap: http://www.soulcreator.com/

>>You wanna prove that God DOESN'T exist atheists?
>that's hard to do (if not impossible) because every single
>person has wildly different definitions of "god". When
>presented with a specific definition though, one is free to
>point out any inconsistencies...

Sure you are free to point out inconsistencies.
And everyone DOES have different definitions of God. We also have different definitions of FOOD and SHELTER, yet we all need it to survive.

>>Look death in the eye; don't flinch. Look back on EVERY
>>EXPERIENCE YOU HAD...If it is not in some way shape or form
>>related to a focal topic then you can say it's a sham. Then
>>if you feel perfectly comfortable with leaving this world,
>>then you're can say that its all a sham.
>
>Hmm...what exactly are you saying here? (I'm genuinely
>confused)

Our experiences aren't JUST random occurences based upon the decisions of OUR lives or EVEN the decisions of others. They all have purpose. Our experiences, they have purpose and that is to prove the purpose of our even existing together as humanity...IF OUR DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES MAKE UP WHO WE ARE INDIVIDUALLY, AND THAT PERSON GOES OUT INTO THE WORLD TO DEAL WITH THE NEXT, THEN THAT WOULD MEAN THAT WE ARE INTER-REALATED, THROUGH EXPERIENCES THAT WE MAY NOT EVEN HAVE EXPERIENCED simply because when we deal with the next person we are dealing with whatever piece of an experience that they have survived...I.E. I never marched in the civil rights struggle or with the Nation of Islam during that time period but I have benefitted from their experiences.

What if the things I, AND my ancestors, went through somehow rolled into one ball of experience to help me help others, like atheists? Hey, waitaminute, are you an atheist?

>>Stop trying to explain shit. Nothing, NOTHING man lays his
>>hands upon is perfect.
>
>Well duh. That's why when people start spouting off about
>invisible beings that are "beyond human comprehension", one
>should take it with a fat grain of salt.

Oh, so the only things that exist, are the things we "understand" or shall I say think we "understand"...Okay
So if we didn't understand blood cells, they wouldn't exist right? Well, I guess even though I have SEEN blood, it don't exist because if we humans understood them, like we do say, automobiles, we would be able to fix them, and HIV and herpes still are around to plague us.

Chances are you have seen God, acting through the experiences of man, or even other things, strange occurences which you tried your HARDEST to logic out and explain, YET, you didn't have proof to say, without a shadow of a doubt that THIS is how

>This most DEFINITELY includes ALL
>>holy text and scientific theory. WHY? We perverse
>>everything wwe interpret.
>
>Although scientific theories do have the important advantage
>of always being open to questioning and change...

Holy Text isn't open to question? Wow I've been questioning the bible for Years and it only made me closer to reading it and praying more. Why do people believe that God fearing people aren't able to investigate?

>Which is why I believe man won't
>>EVER under/overstand the nature of God.

>if one can't ever understand the "nature of God", why bother
>believing in it?
Why not believe, everything to gain and nothing to lose.


This is a cop out excuse for not believing in God.
Why bother believing in the space, you, nor does any scientist understand it's nature? If the scientists and mathematicians of the Scientific Revolution felt the way you did about science as you do about God, then you wouldn't understand why you fall back on the ground when you jump.

>>Sure. You can SAY you do. But explain it.

>explain what? No one says being an atheist automatically
>means you must know the answer to every deep question
>pertaining to the universe. There's a wonderful phrase we
>like to use in place of "God did it"...we tend to say, "I
>don't know".

How better then to believe in God because then you could say
"I don't know but I bet God does."

>>Adam lives in Theory.
>>Trying to turn stone into bread.
>>Masquerading like he's got it all figured out.

>>Keep trying ya'll Keep trying.
>you've lost me, lol...


Adam is mankind, trying to understand everything about everything his eyes see and forgettting that if that was meant for us REALLY, we would already have that knowledge.
Lauryn Hill Unplugged. Available on Cd & DVD.

_____________________________________________
DOWNLOAD THE HELLO EP Spit by yours truly!
http://www.zshare.net/download/80520753aae60df7/
Just a PSA

>>>Look death in the eye; don't flinch. Look back on EVERY
>>>EXPERIENCE YOU HAD...If it is not in some way shape or form
>>>related to a focal topic then you can say it's a sham. Then
>>>if you feel perfectly comfortable with leaving this world,
>>>then you're can say that its all a sham.
>>
>>Hmm...what exactly are you saying here? (I'm genuinely
>>confused)
>
>Our experiences aren't JUST random occurences based upon the
>decisions of OUR lives or EVEN the decisions of others.
>They all have purpose. Our experiences, they have purpose
>and that is to prove the purpose of our even existing
>together as humanity...IF OUR DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES MAKE UP
>WHO WE ARE INDIVIDUALLY, AND THAT PERSON GOES OUT INTO THE
>WORLD TO DEAL WITH THE NEXT, THEN THAT WOULD MEAN THAT WE
>ARE INTER-REALATED, THROUGH EXPERIENCES THAT WE MAY NOT EVEN
>HAVE EXPERIENCED simply because when we deal with the next
>person we are dealing with whatever piece of an experience
>that they have survived...I.E. I never marched in the civil
>rights struggle or with the Nation of Islam during that time
>period but I have benefitted from their experiences.
>
>What if the things I, AND my ancestors, went through somehow
>rolled into one ball of experience to help me help others,
>like atheists? Hey, waitaminute, are you an atheist?

yeah.

And I do understand about how we are all "connected" at some level...that's the nature of living in a society. Our actions affect one another.

>>>Stop trying to explain shit. Nothing, NOTHING man lays his
>>>hands upon is perfect.
>>
>>Well duh. That's why when people start spouting off about
>>invisible beings that are "beyond human comprehension", one
>>should take it with a fat grain of salt.
>
>Oh, so the only things that exist, are the things we
>"understand" or shall I say think we "understand"...Okay
>So if we didn't understand blood cells, they wouldn't exist
>right?

If no one had any explanation on blood cells, then one would be justified in not assuming they exist. If no one ever "understood" it, then of course they wouldn't exist to us! God could exist, but I haven't heard any definition of it that fits into the world we live in (besides pantheistic notions where God=universe or something), so until then, I'll remain skeptical.

Do you believe every wild story someone comes up with is automatically true until they "prove it" wrong? I would imagine one would ask for some sort of evidence first...

>Well, I guess even though I have SEEN blood, it
>don't exist because if we humans understood them, like we do
>say, automobiles, we would be able to fix them, and HIV and
>herpes still are around to plague us.

Er...if you've seen blood (and blood is a readily available substance to verify one's claims), then of course it exists. Once you've seen blood then you do have some "understanding" of it.

>Chances are you have seen God, acting through the
>experiences of man, or even other things, strange occurences
>which you tried your HARDEST to logic out and explain, YET,
>you didn't have proof to say, without a shadow of a doubt
>that THIS is how

see, that's odd to me...If god is "acting through men", how am I supposed to tell the difference? I see a man doing something, then I simply work off the assumption that a man is doing something. I don't add a bunch of extra "explanations" that only serve to confuse the issue. If you lose your car keys, do you:

A) Go to the last place you found them, or
B) Assume that angels moved your car keys to a different location to test your faith.

I'm sure most people think A makes more sense...so why are we so quick to jump to B-like conclusions whenever certain other things happen?

I honestly think that maybe our brains are just wired differently...you see the "supernatural" when there's something unexplained, I simply think "oh, that was weird, but there's more than likely a good explanation for it since everything else I've experienced had a natural explanation"

*shrug*

>
>>This most DEFINITELY includes ALL
>>>holy text and scientific theory. WHY? We perverse
>>>everything wwe interpret.
>>
>>Although scientific theories do have the important advantage
>>of always being open to questioning and change...
>
>Holy Text isn't open to question? Wow I've been questioning
>the bible for Years and it only made me closer to reading it
>and praying more. Why do people believe that God fearing
>people aren't able to investigate?

lol, god-fearing is a funny phrase...anyways, according to the traditional monotheistic religions, you're not supposed to question it, or at the very least, if you question, you always have to come back to it. (Unless there's some weird clause that says atheists can go to heaven).

"God is love."

"If god is loving, why did he kill all those people in the flood?"

"He's god he can do that..."

"Well I don't think that's very nice of him."

"God's ways are higher than yours...you're just a sinful human"

"Ok..."

>>Which is why I believe man won't
>>>EVER under/overstand the nature of God.
>
>>if one can't ever understand the "nature of God", why bother
>>believing in it?
>Why not believe, everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Tell that to people who spent there whole life dedicated to "the church" only to find out that the whole story just doesn't make any sense to them. And really, if god knows our "hearts and minds" or whatever, I doubt he would respect someone who approaches their spirtuality like a poker game.

I'm amazed at how people say "just believe" as if it's just a switch in my brain to turn on. I can't "just believe" in god anymore than you can just "believe" in Zeus throwing lightning bolts during a thunderstorm.

>This is a cop out excuse for not believing in God.
>Why bother believing in the space, you, nor does any
>scientist understand it's nature?

Er...we've been to outer space a few times, so we have some understanding of it's nature...

Simple evidence for "believing in space": Get a telescope and look through it.

If the scientists and
>mathematicians of the Scientific Revolution felt the way you
>did about science as you do about God, then you wouldn't
>understand why you fall back on the ground when you jump.

Hey, it would be cool if I could "find God"...but that requires some sort of evidence. Not vague personal experiences or "I think god made this, therefore god exists"-type arguments.

>>>Sure. You can SAY you do. But explain it.
>
>>explain what? No one says being an atheist automatically
>>means you must know the answer to every deep question
>>pertaining to the universe. There's a wonderful phrase we
>>like to use in place of "God did it"...we tend to say, "I
>>don't know".
>
>How better then to believe in God because then you could say
>"I don't know but I bet God does."

How can I believe god knows something if I've never gotten any evidence that there's a god in the first place?

hey, God is welcome to come down and talk to me and correct me if I'm wrong about him. Obviously he hasn't did that yet...

>>>Adam lives in Theory.
>>>Trying to turn stone into bread.
>>>Masquerading like he's got it all figured out.

I repeat...I don't claim to have it all figured out. But when someone comes and tells me that there's some invisible being out there somewhere who knows everything that you're thinking, and he "created" us through unknown processes (basically, magic)...I remain skeptical until some actual evidence comes in.

Thanks for the convo...

--


and and shit

"I have to say that even though I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in humanity in any other area, I have the utmost confidence in our ability to kill shit."

--
Rappity Rap: http://www.soulcreator.com/

wow. impressive
Un-impressive that is
imagine a vacuum with no matter. this proves there must be matter in the vacuum..
ahem...good logic... this is a scientific theory with little support

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

>wow. impressive
>Un-impressive that is

Yes, so "Un-impressive", in fact, that Guth received the Benjamin Franklin Medal in physics, often a precursor to the Nobel Prize, joining such past Franklin laureates as Edwin Hubble, Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein - yep, very un-impressive indeed.

>imagine a vacuum with no matter. this proves there must be
>matter in the vacuum..

That is not what it says at all - try again slick. While you're at it, maybe you can also explain to me again how Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has nothing to do with virtual particle production in a vacuum - I mean, you're obviously so much smarter than Dr. Guth that you can prove him wrong with a two-sentence logistics argument that has nothing to do with what his theory says or the scientific principles involved; I'm sure you're likewise smarter than Heisenberg and can prove him wrong too.

>ahem...good logic...

"I don't understand this theory, therefore it isn't true" - even better logic. Of course this from the genius who presented this iron-clad argument: "'energy cannot be created or destroyed but can only be transformed' - this proves that energy was created by a creator." ...yeah, good logic; attempting to prove your personal beliefs with a scientific principle that directly contradicts them - absolutely brilliant!

>this is a scientific theory with little support

How would you know? Did you even read the article? It looks more like you skimmed it for about 30 seconds, because evidenced by your failed little attempt at a logics argument you don't even understand what the theory actually says, let alone the scientific support behind it. Look, you posed your question under scientific principles; if you're not even going to bother trying to understand a scientific answer, then don't ask the question under the guise of science.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is Precious Roy! You guys are SUCKERS!!!

Precious Roy,
Precious Roy,
Making lots of suckers out of girls and boys!
*PING*

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

It's obvious that s/he is speaking strictly from a philosophical/religious pov. THis post has nothing to do with science and everything to do with philosophical rhetoric.

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

...do you love your parents/mother/father/family etc.? Why?

In His service
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Brindle, www.lampmode.com

Who'd assume that this could be?
You became a man penetrating into human history?

You basically settled that point in post #22. I was hoping that I could steer the conversation towards a scientific discussion though, but I see now that was a futile effort.

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

This is my first post and I ironically wanted to steer away from scientific evidence since nothing has really been accomplished by it yet, in this post. Everyone is disproving everyone. If anything, all of the scientific evidence that has been gathered throughout history is moreso proving than disproving the existence of a higher power. So the ones that want to deny the existence of an Intelligent designer are in actuality proving His existence as valid.

But onto the heart of what I'm trying to say, I just ask that you all please lay down your intellect for just a second and answer the question honestly with your heart and not your mind.

Do you love your family/friends etc.? Why?

In His service
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Brindle, www.lampmode.com

Who'd assume that this could be?
You became a man penetrating into human history?

i understand the theory.
wholly.
entirely.
exhaustively.
it is all too clear to me.
i keep my posts short because i know people don't like reading lots, and that means they might read my posts.
short but sweet:
i'm not convinced by that theory. you may be. i may not be. maybe you've actually won this argument: in other words, you've proven.... you can place your faith in a mediocre theory.... or place your faith in belief in a creator... but this is not scientific... this is consistent with what many posters have attested here: "you can't prove the existence of god with science".

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

I'm not angry...a bit tired, but not angry at all.

>>i understand the theory.
>>wholly.
>>entirely.
>>exhaustively.
>>it is all too clear to me.
>>i keep my posts short because i know people don't like reading >>lots, and that means they might read my posts.
>>short but sweet:
>>i'm not convinced by that theory. you may be. i may not be. >>maybe you've actually won this argument: in other words, >>you've proven.... you can place your faith in a mediocre >>theory.... or place your faith in belief in a creator... but >>this is not scientific... this is consistent with what many >>posters have attested here: "you can't prove the existence of >>god with science".

Was this towards my question?? If so, I simply asked a question. I didn't say anything about a theory or faith or belief, I simply asked a question: "Do you love your family/friends etc.??", that's all. Do you(all)??

In His service
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Brindle, www.lampmode.com

Who'd assume that this could be?
You became a man penetrating into human history?

was to 40th street.. not you
yes, i love my family
mos def

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

Oh o.k., thanks for clarifying.

Well you(hiphop) believe in a creator right?

The question was moreso directed toward those who don't believe. I thank you for answering though. But since you did answer, why do you love them?

In His service
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Brindle, www.lampmode.com

Who'd assume that this could be?
You became a man penetrating into human history?

they help me with my struggles in the case of friends and family
and they are the reasons for my existence in case of my family

"there's a one-legged busboy in here thinkin: i don't wanna change. i'm gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes me. that's how good it is to be white." - chris rock

O.k., now how did your family/friends know how to do this(help you w/ your struggles)? Do you think that it is instinctive or something learned.

Why don't they dishonor you, or laugh at you, or talk about you behind your back? Do you think the first human beings did this and learned not to, or do you think that they just loved and showed compassion inately?

(Hold on, I'm getting somewhere with this...)

In His service
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Brindle, www.lampmode.com

Who'd assume that this could be?
You became a man penetrating into human history?