Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Buttsuck on October 21, 2006, 04:12:15 PM
-
You tell her Arnold. Should have smacked her in the face a couple times too!
-
You sir are a douche
-
LOL!!! Looks like someone had a rage blackout, lmao.
It was the tren
-
You sir are a douche
This comming form a man who idolizes The Ultimate Warrior.
-
Damn!!! Ill never shake a girl like that again!! ;)
-
This comming form a man who idolizes The Ultimate Warrior.
Sorry for having a normal boy childhood. Who did you idolize? The Care Bears?
-
Good stuff
-
What the hell flick was that taken from? Hahaha!
-
I hate it when a bitch makes my protein shake with 40g of whey protein and not 50g. Maybe Arnold feels that way too
-
Good stuff
hey knny, thanks for my Avatar...dude this is the funniest thing ever
-
hey knny, thanks for my Avatar...dude this is the funniest thing ever
It's a one of a kind....thats for sure
;D
btw.....
goatboy really would like to use it
;D
-
Good stuff
How do i make that my avatar?
-
Sorry for having a normal boy childhood. Who did you idolize? The Care Bears?
Lets see... I idolized real men. Men like JFK, Ghandi, MLK, Jesus..... Not the ultimate warrior. Continue to live in your world of delusional ignorance. I bet you still watch wwf.
-
Lets see... I idolized real men. Men like JFK, Ghandi, MLK, Jesus..... Not the ultimate warrior. Continue to live in your world of delusional ignorance. I bet you still watch wwf.
Delusional ignorance? how ironic comming from a Chritsian.
-
Lets see... I idolized real men. Men like JFK, Ghandi, MLK, Jesus..... Not the ultimate warrior. Continue to live in your world of delusional ignorance. I bet you still watch wwf.
I'm a man, it's what some men do. Go play house with your boyfriend.
P.S. - No disrespect, but JFK, Ghandi, and MLK wouldn't have lasted one second in the ring with the Ultimate Warrior.
-
Delusional ignorance? how ironic comming from a Chritsian.
Im islamic
-
I'm a man, it's what some men do. Go play house with your boyfriend.
P.S. - No disrespect, but JFK, Ghandi, and MLK wouldn't have lasted one second in the ring with the Ultimate Warrior.
No but Jesus would! ;)
-
No but Jesus would! ;)
Indeed! :D
-
Im islamic
Just as bad ! ;)
-
Just as bad ! ;)
Well certainly better then catholic, jew, evangelical or fundementalist.
-
Well certainly better then catholic, jew, evangelical or fundementalist.
lmfao you're all in the same boat ! I love how one religion laughs at the others imaginary friend thats classic .
-
lmfao you're all in the same boat ! I love how one religion laughs at the others imaginary friend thats classic .
As are atheists.... we are alll in the same boat
-
As are atheists.... we are alll in the same boat
Not quite , atheism is without beleif . ;)
-
Not quite , atheism is without beleif . ;)
I don't use religion to back up my belief of god. I use science and logic.
-
I don't use religion to back up my belief of god. I use science and logic.
It was the Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg who said " Science is corrosive to religious belief. " and one can have logic and believe in God at the same time that my friend is an oxymoron.
-
Universe has a begining and an end... Also try reading philosphy sometime. Renee Descartes has some intresting views on God.
-
It was the Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg who said " Science is corrosive to religious belief. " and one can have logic and believe in God at the same time that my friend is an oxymoron.
Science is corrosive to religious beliefs only to the hard headed morons who think the bible is the exact word of god.
-
Universe has a begining and an end... Also try reading philosphy sometime. Renee Descartes has some intresting views on God.
So did Epicurus Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
-
Science is corrosive to religious beliefs only to the hard headed morons who think the bible is the exact word of god.
Oh I see , you're one of those people who cherry-pcik the bible for what you like and discard the rest lol either the bible is all right or its all wrong , which is it?
-
So did Epicurus Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
God was, is and always will be. Nothing you say or do will change that.
-
So did Epicurus Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Or maybe this is the best possible outcome. In this world there must be laws that are consistent (ex: gravity). If i trip and scrape my knee is this evil taking place or did i simply fall victim to the laws which we are governed by and saw this as evil? If God knew i was going to scrape my Knee why didn't he stop it? Like i said this is the BEST possible outcome.
-
God was, is and always will be. Nothing you say or do will change that.
Exactly.. you can try your hardest to defy it and block it out but everyone is effected some way by it. It is strange that every single culture on earth has some form of religion. Some fear or knowledge of something that is greater then them existing.
-
Or maybe this is the best possible outcome. In this world there must be laws that are consistent (ex: gravity). If i trip and scrape my knee is this evil taking place or did i simply fall victim to the laws which we are governed by and saw this as evil? If God knew i was going to scrape my Knee why didn't he stop it? Like i said this is the BEST possible outcome.
Who created evil? God , who created hell? God , and funny you talk about laws in which God supposedly can violate of course whith no evidence what so ever .
-
God was, is and always will be. Nothing you say or do will change that.
Whos God? whos god is and always will be?
-
Whos God? whos god is and always will be?
The One and Only.
-
The One and Only.
They all claim " The One and Only " you all can't be right !! who's hell are you going to?
-
The One and Only.
Alexxx is god?
-
They all claim " The One and Only " you all can't be right !! who's hell are you going to?
Alexxx is god?
BLASPHEMY!!
There is only one God who created the heavens and the earth.
-
BLASPHEMY!!
There is only one God who created the heavens and the earth.
Created? the law of conservation of mass/enegry states that matter cannot be created or destroyed , please explain how ( whoevers God ) can violate this law , you're can't created anything or destroy it.
-
Created? the law of conservation of mass/enegry states that matter cannot be created or destroyed , please explain how ( whoevers God ) can violate this law , you're can't created anything or destroy it.
The laws of men have no bearing on the Lord.
-
The laws of men have no bearing on the Lord.
These are laws of Universe not of men lol stop it , please explain how these can be violated.
-
These are laws of Universe not of men lol stop it , please explain how these can be violated.
Same way the 10 commandments can be violated. By choice.
-
Same way the 10 commandments can be violated. By choice.
No the laws of the Universe can't be violated , they are constant and can't be bent .
-
No the laws of the Universe can't be violated , they are constant and can't be bent .
Guess who created the universe..
-
Guess who created the universe..
No one , it always existed in one form or another , thanks to the big bang its in the current state.
-
No one , it always existed in one form or another , thanks to the big bang its in the current state.
and what exactly provoked the big bang?
-
Created? the law of conservation of mass/enegry states that matter cannot be created or destroyed , please explain how ( whoevers God ) can violate this law , you're can't created anything or destroy it.
matter can me lost in a nuclear explosion...
-
Big Bang does not at all preclude the existence of God; God must have used some method of Creation.
-
Conservation Law is ridiculous; man-made myth.
-
Look... i have theories how the universe works. At one time we were a solid ball of condensed matter. This matter some how exploded creating the universe. The universe as we know is still expanding but in time it will stop. Suns will burn out and become black holes sucking everything back into the center. As the unvierse shrinks IN THEORY time is suppose to go backwards. We will condense into a solid ball of mass and explode once again. What i don't understnad is the lost matter that occurs in a nuclear explosion. Where does it go?
-
God is fiction, just like every other bronze age deity. Judaism, Christianity, Islam all worship the same deity, they just have slightly diferent rules and cherry pick the testaments differently. Gods are an easy way for humanity to explain things that are unexplainable, like lightning, when knowledge and science are not advanced enough yet to explain it, hence why cultures create deities (but not the same deity). There can be no argument for the Jewish god that cannot be made for Zeus or Thor. Faith in god is inherently illogicalas it involves believing in sometime with no evidence to support and tons of evidence to the contrary.
-
God is fiction, just like every other bronze age deity. Judaism, Christianity, Islam all worship the same deity, they just have slightly diferent rules and cherry pick the testaments differently. Gods are an easy way for humanity to explain things that are unexplainable, like lightning, when knowledge and science are not advanced enough yet to explain it, hence why cultures create deities (but not the same deity). There can be no argument for the Jewish god that cannot be made for Zeus or Thor. Faith in god is inherently illogicalas it involves believing in sometime with no evidence to support and tons of evidence to the contrary.
why dont you post as your normal account, natural al?
-
God is fiction, just like every other bronze age deity. Judaism, Christianity, Islam all worship the same deity, they just have slightly diferent rules and cherry pick the testaments differently. Gods are an easy way for humanity to explain things that are unexplainable, like lightning, when knowledge and science are not advanced enough yet to explain it, hence why cultures create deities (but not the same deity). There can be no argument for the Jewish god that cannot be made for Zeus or Thor. Faith in god is inherently illogicalas it involves believing in sometime with no evidence to support and tons of evidence to the contrary.
Yeah.... you would think so.. but you'd be wrong
-
This has become a thread of bad karma. You all are doomed.
-
why dont you post as your normal account, natural al?
Yes! My first accusation of gimmicdom!
And no, I'm not Al :P
-
Yeah.... you would think so.. but you'd be wrong
Give me an argument for god that can't be made for any deity in history, or one that I just made up. Belief in god is illogical. The only time good people do bad things is because of religion.
-
Yes! My first accusation of gimmicdom!
And no, I'm not Al :P
Don't worry. All that asshole tomr does is accuse others of being a gimmick. Check this thread out
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=102467.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=102467.0)
-
and what exactly provoked the big bang?
Inflation caused the big bang.
-
Look... i have theories how the universe works. At one time we were a solid ball of condensed matter. This matter some how exploded creating the universe. The universe as we know is still expanding but in time it will stop. Suns will burn out and become black holes sucking everything back into the center. As the unvierse shrinks IN THEORY time is suppose to go backwards. We will condense into a solid ball of mass and explode once again. What i don't understnad is the lost matter that occurs in a nuclear explosion. Where does it go?
No you plagerized everyone elses theories and claimed them as your own ::) nice try though.
-
err...back to the subject.
i assume that segment of 'drama' is from stay hungry?
although i have to confess, i haven't seen the movie.
-
err...back to the subject.
i assume that segment of 'drama' is from stay hungry?
although i have to confess, i haven't seen the movie.
It is from Stay Hungry and you didn't miss much by sutting this one out.
-
Super concept. Who comes up with that stuff? And why did Arnold actually act in it?
-
Inflation caused the big bang.
Wait a second.. didn't you just say that nothing can be created?
-
Wait a second.. didn't you just say that nothing can be created?
Yes , inflation cuased the big bang to its current expanding state , but all the mass/energy in the universe has always existed in an extremely dense ball about the size of a pearl ! do you know cosmologists have traced the big bang to 4 pico-seconds after it happened , look up pico second .
-
Yes , inflation cuased the big bang to its current expanding state , but all the mass/energy in the universe has always existed in an extremely dense ball about the size of a pearl ! do you know cosmologists have traced the big bang to 4 pico-seconds after it happened , look up pico second .
And how was this "ball" created? How could it always be there? Are there any other space balls around??
-
And how was this "ball" created? How could it always be there? Are there any other space balls around??
It wasn't created it always was , and there is a theory of a Multi-verse but thats all it is at this stage .
-
It wasn't created it always was , and there is a theory of a Multi-verse but thats all it is at this stage .
How could it always be without creation? How can you put faith in something that cannot be proven? Sound familiar?
-
How could it always be without creation? How can you put faith in something that cannot be proven? Sound familiar?
Because matter can't be created or destroyed thats how it could always be , there is NO faith required in the conservation of mass/enegry we have evidence , proof that it can't be violated.
-
Because matter can't be created or destroyed thats how it could always be , there is NO faith required in the conservation of mass/enegry we have evidence , proof that it can't be violated.
Show me proof of your magic space ball.
-
Show me proof of your magic space ball.
here you go , and watch all them in order ! http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/program-3114.html
-
here you go , and watch all them in order ! http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/program-3114.html
Find all the answers you seek Saul! http://www.christiananswers.net/
-
Find all the answers you seek Saul! http://www.christiananswers.net/
There ' answers ' leave a lot to be desire and contradict science , Religion has an agenda science doesn't , science reaches their answers after exhuastive research and testable evidence , science is the truth.
-
It is from Stay Hungry and you didn't miss much by sutting this one out.
thanx nd
-
God is fiction, just like every other bronze age deity. Judaism, Christianity, Islam all worship the same deity, they just have slightly diferent rules and cherry pick the testaments differently. Gods are an easy way for humanity to explain things that are unexplainable, like lightning, when knowledge and science are not advanced enough yet to explain it, hence why cultures create deities (but not the same deity). There can be no argument for the Jewish god that cannot be made for Zeus or Thor. Faith in god is inherently illogicalas it involves believing in sometime with no evidence to support and tons of evidence to the contrary.
LOL, at it again eh kid? ;)
-
Look... i have theories how the universe works. At one time we were a solid ball of condensed matter. This matter some how exploded creating the universe. The universe as we know is still expanding but in time it will stop. Suns will burn out and become black holes sucking everything back into the center. As the unvierse shrinks IN THEORY time is suppose to go backwards. We will condense into a solid ball of mass and explode once again. What i don't understnad is the lost matter that occurs in a nuclear explosion. Where does it go?
Matter is not lost it is converted to energy. Matter and energy are interchangeable
-
So energy is always here? Energy cannot be lost?
-
that's right energy can't be lost, but it can dissipate which makes it hard to collect again
-
Alrighty i watched the vid deity but you have yet to explain how all this energy got there to begin with. In philosophy when you try to make proof of God you can only get so far and then there is that gap of lost knowledge. It is what is called a leap of faith. To believe God doesn't exists leaves me with a lonely cold feeling.
-
It is from Stay Hungry and you didn't miss much by sutting this one out.
Wrong. It is from an episode of "The Streets of San Francisco" in 1977 which stared Karl Malden (with the big nose) and Michael Douglas. The episode was called "Dead Lift". I remember watching it.
-
Alrighty i watched the vid deity but you have yet to explain how all this energy got there to begin with. In philosophy when you try to make proof of God you can only get so far and then there is that gap of lost knowledge. It is what is called a leap of faith. To believe God doesn't exists leaves me with a lonely cold feeling.
You've got your fellow human beings to keep you warm in this cold, cold world.
-
Wrong. It is from an episode of "The Streets of San Francisco" in 1977 which stared Karl Malden (with the big nose) and Michael Douglas. The episode was called "Dead Lift". I remember watching it.
"If you're going to San Francisco,
you're gonna meet some gentle people there."
1. She had it coming
2. God is a creation of man
3. Soilent Green is made from people
4. The CIA killed JFK
5. The Ultimate Warrior would be victorious in a battle royale but is the least historically significant person.
-
You've got your fellow human beings to keep you warm in this cold, cold world.
Looking for warmth among a sea of cold hearts equates to finding a needle in a hay stack. Faith gives me no fear of dying. Also Max_Rep, i do believe the CIA killed JFK lol.
-
Weak minds believe in a god.
God is the biggest bullshit story,sham ever created and is responsible for millions dying even today out of fear and hate as well as from stagnating medical technology and scientific progress.
It is laughable that 44 percent of people in the United States think that Jesus Christ will arise in the next 50 years.
It is pathetic to think that the world is only 6000 years old and that Dinosaurs were on Noah`s Ark.
It is even more rediculous to even think a boat could be built to sustain differing climates for tropical animals and arctic animals alike, in a non-climate controlled wooden boat. Simply an obvious impossibility that idiots want to cling to.
Defying reason and logic is what Religions do best.
Hitler had the right idea about eradicating ALL Religions. He just carried it out the wrong way. haha.
I do not care if someone believes in a God, but I DO care if they make it beyond their own personal conviction.
-
Alrighty i watched the vid deity but you have yet to explain how all this energy got there to begin with. In philosophy when you try to make proof of God you can only get so far and then there is that gap of lost knowledge. It is what is called a leap of faith. To believe God doesn't exists leaves me with a lonely cold feeling.
Energy is neither created nor destroyed.
Energy is infinite. To best explain infinity, start counting numbers until you get to the last one.
-
Conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy (often expressed as the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy) in an isolated system remains constant. In other words, energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. In modern physics, all forms of energy exhibit mass and all mass is a form of energy.
In thermodynamics, the first law of thermodynamics is a statement of the conservation of energy for thermodynamic systems.
The energy conservation law is a mathematical consequence of the shift symmetry of time; energy conservation is implied by the empirical fact that physical laws remain the same over time.
Contents [hide]
1 Historical development
2 Modern physics
2.1 Noether's Theorem
2.2 Relativity
2.3 Quantum theory
3 The first law of thermodynamics
4 Notes
5 See also
6 References
6.1 Modern accounts
6.2 History of ideas
6.3 Classic accounts
7 External links
[edit] Historical development
To understand the significance of the conservation of energy in the context of the development of thermodynamics, see Thermodynamics timeline Edit
Ancient philosophers as far back as Thales of Miletus had inklings of the conservation of some underlying substance of which everything is made. However, there is no particular reason to identify this with what we know today as "mass-energy" (for example, Thales thought it was water). In 1638, Galileo published his analysis of several situations -- including the celebrated "interrupted pendulum" -- which can be described (in modernized language) as conservatively converting potential energy to kinetic energy and back again. However, Galileo did not state the process in modern terms and again cannot be credited with the crucial insight. It was the German Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz during 1676-1689 who first attempted a mathematical formulation of the kind of energy which is connected with motion (kinetic energy). Leibniz noticed that in many mechanical systems (of several masses, mi each with velocity vi ),
was conserved so long as the masses did not interact. He called this quantity the vis viva or living force of the system. The principle represents an accurate statement of the approximate conservation of kinetic energy in situations where there is no friction. However, many physicists were influenced by the prestige of Sir Isaac Newton in England and of René Descartes in France, both of whom had set great store by the conservation of momentum (which holds even in systems with friction), as a guiding principle. Thus the momentum:
was held by the rival camp to be the conserved vis viva. It was largely engineers such as John Smeaton, Peter Ewart, Karl Hotzmann, Gustave-Adolphe Hirn and Marc Seguin who objected that conservation of momentum alone was not adequate for practical calculation and who made use of Leibniz's principle. The principle was also championed by some chemists such as William Hyde Wollaston.
Members of the academic establishment such as John Playfair were quick to point out that kinetic energy is clearly not conserved. This is obvious to a modern analysis based on the second law of thermodynamics but in the 18th and 19th centuries, the fate of the lost energy was still unknown. Gradually it came to be suspected that the heat inevitably generated by motion under friction, was another form of vis viva. In 1783, Antoine Lavoisier and Pierre-Simon Laplace reviewed the two competing theories of vis viva and caloric[1]. Count Rumford's 1798 observations of heat generation during the boring of cannons added more weight to the view that mechanical motion could be converted into heat, and (as importantly) that the conversion was quantitative and could be predicted (allowing for a universal conversion constant between kinetic energy and heat). Vis viva now started to be known as energy, after the term was first used in that sense by Thomas Young in 1807.
The recalibration of vis viva to
which can be understood as finding the exact value for the kinetic energy to work conversion constant, was largely the result of the work of Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis and Jean-Victor Poncelet over the period 1819-1839. The former called the quantity quantité de travail (quantity of work) and the latter, travail mécanique (mechanical work), and both championed its use in engineering calculation.
In a paper Über die Natur der Wärme, published in the Zeitschrift für Physik in 1837, Karl Friedrich Mohr gave one of the earliest general statements of the doctrine of the conservation of energy in the words: "besides the 54 known chemical elements there is in the physical world one agent only, and this is called Kraft [energy or work]. It may appear, according to circumstances, as motion, chemical affinity, cohesion, electricity, light and magnetism; and from any one of these forms it can be transformed into any of the others."
A key stage in the development of the modern conservation principle was the demonstration of the mechanical equivalent of heat. The caloric theory maintained that heat could neither be created nor destroyed but conservation of energy entails the contrary principle that heat and mechanical work are interchangeable.
The mechanical equivalence principle was first stated in its modern form by the German surgeon Julius Robert von Mayer.[2] Mayer reached his conclusion on a voyage to the Dutch East Indies, where he found that his patients' blood was a deeper red because they were consuming less oxygen, and therefore less energy, to maintain their body temperature in the hotter climate. He had discovered that heat and mechanical work were both forms of energy, and later, after improving his knowledge of physics, he calculated a quantitative relationship between them.
Joule's apparatus for measuring the mechanical equivalent of heat. A descending weight attached to a string causes a paddle immersed in water to rotate.Meanwhile, in 1843 James Prescott Joule independently discovered the mechanical equivalent in a series of experiments. In the most famous, now called the "Joule apparatus", a descending weight attached to a string caused a paddle immersed in water to rotate. He showed that the gravitational potential energy lost by the weight in descending was equal to the thermal energy (heat) gained by the water by friction with the paddle.
Over the period 1840-1843, similar work was carried out by engineer Ludwig A. Colding though it was little-known outside his native Denmark.
Both Joule's and Mayer's work suffered from resistance and neglect but it was Joule's that, perhaps unjustly, eventually drew the wider recognition.
For the dispute between Joule and Mayer over priority, see Mechanical equivalent of heat: Priority
Drawing on the earlier work of Joule, Sadi Carnot and Émile Clapeyron, in 1847, Hermann von Helmholtz postulated a relationship between mechanics, heat, light, electricity and magnetism by treating them all as manifestations of a single force (energy in modern terms). He published his theories in his book Über die Erhaltung der Kraft (On the Conservation of Force, 1847). The general modern acceptance of the principle stems from this publication.
In 1877, Peter Guthrie Tait claimed that the principle originated with Sir Isaac Newton, based on a creative reading of propositions 40 and 41 of the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. This is now generally regarded as nothing more than an example of Whig history.
[edit] Modern physics
[edit] Noether's Theorem
The conservation of energy is a common feature in many physical theories. It is understood as a consequence of Noether's theorem, which states every symmetry of a physical theory has an associated conserved quantity; if the theory's symmetry is time invariance then the conserved quantity is called "energy". In other words, if the theory is invariant under the continuous symmetry of time translation then its energy is conserved. Conversely, theories which are not invariant under shifts in time (for example, systems with time dependent potential energy) do not exhibit conservation of energy -- unless we consider them to be exchanging energy with another, external system so that the theory of the enlarged system becomes time invariant again. Since any time-varying theory can be embedded within a time-invariant meta-theory energy conservation can always be recovered by a suitable re-definition of what energy is. Thus conservation of energy is valid in all modern physical theories, such as relativity and quantum theory.
[edit] Relativity
With the discovery of special relativity by Albert Einstein, it was found that energy is one component of an energy-momentum 4-vector. Each of the four components (one of energy and three of momentum) of this vector is separately conserved, as well as the vector length (Minkowski norm). The latter is associated with invariant mass and rest mass. The relativistic energy of a single massive particle contains a term related to its rest mass in addition to its kinetic energy of motion. In the limit of zero kinetic energy (or equivalently in the rest frame of the massive particle, or the center-of-momentum frame for objects or systems), the total energy of particle or object (including internal kinetic energy in systems) is related to its rest mass via the famous equation E = mc2. Thus, the rule of conservation of energy in special relativity was shown to be a special case of a more general rule, alternatively called the conservation of mass and energy, the conservation of mass-energy, the conservation of energy-momentum, the conservation of invariant mass or now usually just referred to as conservation of energy.
In general relativity conservation of energy-momentum is expressed with the aid of a stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor.
[edit] Quantum theory
In quantum mechanics, energy is defined as proportional to the time derivative of the wave function. Lack of commutation of the time derivative operator with the time operator itself mathematically results in an uncertainty principle for time and energy: the longer the period of time, the more precisely energy can be defined (energy and time become a conjugate Fourier pair). However quantum theory in general, and the uncertainty principle specifically, do not violate energy conservation (as laymen or philosophers often imply).
[edit] The first law of thermodynamics
Laws of thermodynamics
Zeroth law of thermodynamics
First law of thermodynamics
Second law of thermodynamics
Third law of thermodynamics
edit
Main article: First law of thermodynamics
For a thermodynamic system with a fixed number of particles, the first law of thermodynamics may be stated as:
, or equivalently, ,
where δQ is the amount of energy added to the system by a heating process, δW is the amount of energy lost by the system due to work done by the system on its surroundings and dU is the increase in the internal energy of the system.
The δ's before the heat and work terms are used to indicate that they describe an increment of energy which is to be interpreted somewhat differently than the dU increment of internal energy. Work and heat are processes which add or subtract energy, while the internal energy U is a particular form of energy associated with the system. Thus the term "heat energy" for δQ means "that amount of energy added as the result of heating" rather than referring to a particular form of energy. Likewise, the term "work energy" for δW means "that amount of energy lost as the result of work". The most significant result of this distinction is the fact that one can clearly state the amount of internal energy possessed by a thermodynamic system, but one cannot tell how much energy has flowed into or out of the system as a result of its being heated or cooled, nor as the result of work being performed on or by the system.
The first law can be written exclusively in terms of system variables. For a simple compressible system, the work performed by the system may be written
,
where P is the pressure and dV is a small change in the volume of the system, each of which are system variables. The heat energy may be written
,
where T is the temperature and dS is a small change in the entropy of the system. Temperature and entropy are also system variables.
[edit] Notes
^ Lavoisier, A.L. & Laplace, P.S. (1780) "Memoir on Heat", Académie Royal des Sciences pp4-355
^ von Mayer, J.R. (1842) "Remarks on the forces of inorganic nature" in Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie, 43, 233
-
Weak minds believe in a god.
God is the biggest bullshit story,sham ever created and is responsible for millions dying even today out of fear and hate as well as from stagnating medical technology and scientific progress.
It is laughable that 44 percent of people in the United States think that Jesus Christ will arise in the next 50 years.
It is pathetic to think that the world is only 6000 years old and that Dinosaurs were on Noah`s Ark.
It is even more rediculous to even think a boat could be built to sustain differing climates for tropical animals and arctic animals alike, in a non-climate controlled wooden boat. Simply an obvious impossibility that idiots want to cling to.
Defying reason and logic is what Religions do best.
Hitler had the right idea about eradicating ALL Religions. He just carried it out the wrong way. haha.
I do not care if someone believes in a God, but I DO care if they make it beyond their own personal conviction.
Your logic is flawed.
-
Your logic is flawed.
Your intelligence is extremely low. Perhaps you should educate yourself more so you will not fall into the category of the dumb.
Statistics indicate a high correlation of low intelligence and the belief in a god.
-
Your intelligence is extremely low. Perhaps you should educate yourself more so you will not fall into the category of the dumb.
Statistics indicate a high correlation of low intelligence and the belief in a god.
Work on your punctuation little rascal.
-
What the hell flick was that taken from? Hahaha!
From the 1970's television show called The Streets of San Fransisco in an episode called: Dead Lift.
-
So did Epicurus Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Evil is a by-product of free will. No free will, no evil. No evil, no free will.
-
Look... i have theories how the universe works. At one time we were a solid ball of condensed matter. This matter some how exploded creating the universe. The universe as we know is still expanding but in time it will stop. Suns will burn out and become black holes sucking everything back into the center. As the unvierse shrinks IN THEORY time is suppose to go backwards. We will condense into a solid ball of mass and explode once again. What i don't understnad is the lost matter that occurs in a nuclear explosion. Where does it go?
Not all suns become black holes, just the really big ones. Ours will not.
The universe may continue expanding forever, it may begin to contract. Science is still not sure which. Even if the universe does contract, time will not go backwards.
The mass becomes energy. This is was E=MC(2) is all about.
-
Weak minds believe in a god.
God is the biggest bullshit story,sham ever created and is responsible for millions dying even today out of fear and hate as well as from stagnating medical technology and scientific progress.
It is laughable that 44 percent of people in the United States think that Jesus Christ will arise in the next 50 years.
It is pathetic to think that the world is only 6000 years old and that Dinosaurs were on Noah`s Ark.
It is even more rediculous to even think a boat could be built to sustain differing climates for tropical animals and arctic animals alike, in a non-climate controlled wooden boat. Simply an obvious impossibility that idiots want to cling to.
Defying reason and logic is what Religions do best.
Hitler had the right idea about eradicating ALL Religions. He just carried it out the wrong way. haha.
I do not care if someone believes in a God, but I DO care if they make it beyond their own personal conviction.
Adonis, i see where you are coming from. Voltaire was once quoted as saying "[Christianity] is assuredly the most ridiculous, the most absurd and the most bloody religion which has ever infected this world". I believe organized religion is evil in many cases and causes more harm the good. Catholics probably being the most guilty and responsible for murder and corruption but do you not find it strange that the sharpest minds of human history had belief of God? Voltaire, Einstein, and Aristotle? As Voltaire once said if God doesn't exist then it is neccesary we create him.
-
Alrighty i watched the vid deity but you have yet to explain how all this energy got there to begin with. In philosophy when you try to make proof of God you can only get so far and then there is that gap of lost knowledge. It is what is called a leap of faith. To believe God doesn't exists leaves me with a lonely cold feeling.
The energy has always been , matter can't be created or destroyed its always been in one form or another and always will be ! Faith it was once said is the lack of evidence . for me personally I don't have a feeling of loneliness without a belief in God , if anything it makes me accpreciate life even more , once you learn of how the universe came into its current state and how long it took for the formation of everything in it and how life started to evolve and how rare it is on a time scale that we are even conscious at all for any lenght of time is mindblowing to me its more midblowing than anything religion can offer up .
-
Wrong. It is from an episode of "The Streets of San Francisco" in 1977 which stared Karl Malden (with the big nose) and Michael Douglas. The episode was called "Dead Lift". I remember watching it.
Okay my mistake I seen what I think is Sally Feilds and put two and two together !
-
buttsuck is adonis.
-
Evil is a by-product of free will. No free will, no evil. No evil, no free will.
Evil is Gods creation period , God made men with free will so he made evil by proxy either way it all translates back to the creator .
-
Adonis, i see where you are coming from. Voltaire was once quoted as saying "[Christianity] is assuredly the most ridiculous, the most absurd and the most bloody religion which has ever infected this world". I believe organized religion is evil in many cases and causes more harm the good. Catholics probably being the most guilty and responsible for murder and corruption but do you not find it strange that the sharpest minds of human history had belief of God? Voltaire, Einstein, and Aristotle? As Voltaire once said if God doesn't exist then it is neccesary we create him.
Einstein NEVER believe in a personal God , one of the Judeo/Christian belief . and some of the smartest people who ever graced the planet all have been atheists , agnostics and freethinkers , I could post names but there are so many.
-
Matter can be made, and matter can be destroyed. We don't have the means to understand this concept yet.
The problem with science, is that people take theories as fact. And when millions of non-facts are all cojoined as fact, there is an immense room for error, which is what we're dealing with now.
The big bang theory is actually in reverse. It isn't a big bang, of separating objects.
It's a big implosion of those same objects, moving in a direction that appears as if they are moving away from the big bang. When in truth, they are moving towards the place of the theorized big bang.
The big bang is still based around man's unshakable belief in a finite universe. We believe the universe is infinite, but base our theories so that if they are true, they must exist in a finite universe?
Assuming a true infinite universe, everything is actually moving towards the point of the big bang, however the movement appears to be in the opposite direction. Understanding this tells us that the big bang is actually a big implosion.
-
Weak minds believe in a god.
Weak minds feel the need to disprove god.
Many of the stongest minds in history can fathom a single deity that could be godlike.
You are assuming god is a man.
-
Matter can be made, and matter can be destroyed. We don't have the means to understand this concept yet.
The problem with science, is that people take theories as fact. And when millions of non-facts are all cojoined as fact, there is an immense room for error, which is what we're dealing with now.
The big bang theory is actually in reverse. It isn't a big bang, of separating objects.
It's a big implosion of those same objects, moving in a direction that appears as if they are moving away from the big bang. When in truth, they are moving towards the place of the theorized big bang.
The big bang is still based around man's unshakable belief in a finite universe. We believe the universe is infinite, but base our theories so that if they are true, they must exist in a finite universe?
Assuming a true infinite universe, everything is actually moving towards the point of the big bang, however the movement appears to be in the opposite direction. Understanding this tells us that the big bang is actually a big implosion.
Where did you get this from? there is a theory called the Big Crunch which states that the universe will reach a point where it will begin to contract to the point of where it started again the big bang , scientists theorize that this might be the first of an infinite number of expanasions and contractions or it may be just another in the series of billions , but we don't have to worry about that seeing our Sun will run out of fuel long before this supposedly happens.
-
Weak minds feel the need to disprove god.
Many of the stongest minds in history can fathom a single deity that could be godlike.
You are assuming god is a man.
Disprove God? there is NO god to disprove thats like saying weak minds feel the need to disprove the easter bunny , its evident to any free thinking person that there is NO god(s)
-
Adonis, i see where you are coming from. Voltaire was once quoted as saying "[Christianity] is assuredly the most ridiculous, the most absurd and the most bloody religion which has ever infected this world". I believe organized religion is evil in many cases and causes more harm the good. Catholics probably being the most guilty and responsible for murder and corruption but do you not find it strange that the sharpest minds of human history had belief of God? Voltaire, Einstein, and Aristotle? As Voltaire once said if God doesn't exist then it is neccesary we create him.
Einstein was an Athiest. He was VERY upset when stated otherwise.
From a correspondence between Ensign Guy H. Raner and Albert Einstein in 1945 and 1949. Einstein responds to the accusation that he was converted by a Jesuit priest: "I have never talked to a Jesuit prest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from religious indoctrination received in youth." Freethought Today, November 2004
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The
From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, published by Princeton University Press. Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27.
"During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world... The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes... In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vase power in the hands of priests." Albert Einstein, reported in Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium, edited by L. Bryson and
"Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true....Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me." The Quotable Einstein
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-
Where did you get this from? there is a theory called the Big Crunch which states that the universe will reach a point where it will begin to contract to the point of where it started again the big bang , scientists theorize that this might be the first of an infinite number of expanasions and contractions or it may be just another in the series of billions , but we don't have to worry about that seeing our Sun will run out of fuel long before this supposedly happens.
Our star, as we know it now will run out of fuel. The fuel is still there. It will re-form.
Human's can't understand things on that scale. Our minds are remarkable, but the human mind is very limited. We can't even truly fathom what a billion dollar is.
How are we expected to grasp molecules, atoms, their substructures, their substructures, and probably even THEIR substructures?
Or how are we expected to fathom the universe? Our galaxy is beyond our comprehension. There are billions of galaxies in the universe. We can't grasp the size of our galaxy, and we can't grasp the concept of a billion.
To us, the possibility of many universes exploding, imploding, and repeating many times is just out of the question.
Many religions use the phrase "how did humans get here without god?" "Do you think that we just sprang up from a few molecules?"
If you can understand that there are billions of galaxies in the universe, and that atoms make up the matter in that universe. You can't even begin to appreciate how many quarks there are to make up those atoms to make those galaxies in the universe.
The plausability that humans "sprang up" in our present form is an easily grasped possibility when you understand the insane number the above statment would be.
The chance that humans just came to be from some molecules is very possible when considering the size, and age of the universe.
-
Disprove God? there is NO god to disprove thats like saying weak minds feel the need to disprove the easter bunny , its evident to any free thinking person that there is NO god(s)
What is your definition of god?
It is very easy to believe there is or isn't a god depending on your definition.
Single deity, human looking, sitting on a cloud? Sure, that's tough to believe.
Unknown mass of non-matter that can create and destroy matter? explain how that isn't possible.
-
Einstein was an Athiest. He was VERY upset when stated otherwise.
From a correspondence between Ensign Guy H. Raner and Albert Einstein in 1945 and 1949. Einstein responds to the accusation that he was converted by a Jesuit priest: "I have never talked to a Jesuit prest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from religious indoctrination received in youth." Freethought Today, November 2004
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The
From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, published by Princeton University Press. Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27.
"During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world... The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes... In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vase power in the hands of priests." Albert Einstein, reported in Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium, edited by L. Bryson and
"Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true....Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me." The Quotable Einstein
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
That explains why I don't really like Einstein
-
Einstein was an Athiest. He was VERY upset when stated otherwise.
Nope, not quite. According to what you posted, he was agnostic. Agnostics are pragmatic about the God question; they regard it as unknowable and, in effect, ignore or side-step the question altogether.
Atheists are rather different. They actively deny the existence of God/gods/whatever. The more intelligent atheists are apt to call higher powers unnecessary or extraneous terms (a'la Ockham/Occam's Razor).
Read the quote about Einy's atheism again. Pay special attention to the context in which he talks about atheism. "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest [Einstein was] ... and [had] always been an atheist."
But remember, he already said he'd definitely not "always been an atheist." He did, after all, come " ... to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12."
Einstein probably realized that, as far as priests are concerned, most are too narrow-minded to care about the distinctions between agnositicism and atheism. It was the same with my best friend in the 8th grade. As soon as she found out I wasn't Southern Baptist, I might as well've been hellspawn :)
-
Somebody explain how molecules created humans?
-
Somebody explain how molecules created humans?
What the fuck are we made of?
-
Our star, as we know it now will run out of fuel. The fuel is still there. It will re-form.
Human's can't understand things on that scale. Our minds are remarkable, but the human mind is very limited. We can't even truly fathom what a billion dollar is.
How are we expected to grasp molecules, atoms, their substructures, their substructures, and probably even THEIR substructures.
Or how are we expected to fathom the universe. Our galaxy is beyond our comprehension. There are billions of galaxies in the universe. We can't grasp the size of our galaxy, and we can't grasp the concept of a billion.
To us, the possibility of many universes exploding, imploding, and repeating many times is just out of the question.
Many religions use the phrase "how did humans get here without god?" "Do you think that we just sprang up from a few molecules?"
If you can understand that there are billions of galaxies in the universe, and that atoms make up the matter in that universe. You can't even begin to appreciate how many quarks there are to make up those atoms to make those galaxies in the universe.
The plausability that humans "sprang up" in our present form is an easily grasped possibility when you understand the insane number the above statment would be.
The chance that humans just came to be from some molecules is very possible when considering the size, and age of the universe.
Again you never stated where you got those claims from , anyway I'm not sure the point you're making but it reminds me of Richard Feynmans comment on quantum physics " if you think you know quantum theory , you don't know quantum theory. "
-
What the f**k are we made of?
So mulecules start f**king each other and created a baby human?
-
Again you never stated where you got those claims from , anyway I'm not sure the point you're making but it reminds me of Richard Feynmans comment on quantum physics " if you think you know quantum theory , you don't know quantum theory. "
Got those claims from my own reading. I didn't get them from anywhere.
No one can understand quantum theory. I've come to decide that it is all a big farce a few people with some big brains made up to watch people read.....and then laugh.
Theories on things the human mind can't grasp is a true paradox. How can we make truths on things we can't understand?
It's very easy for some of the world's brightest to talk over our heads.
Most humans have an IQ of around 100. Having an IQ of 70 makes you retarded. Can a retard understand what you say? Not really.
That is only a 30 point difference.
What would happen if someone with a 170 IQ tried to talk down to a normal person? It would be very easy.
Did you hear about the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac?
He stayed up all night wondering if there really was a Dog.....
-
What is your definition of god?
It is very easy to believe there is or isn't a god depending on your definition.
Single deity, human looking, sitting on a cloud? Sure, that's tough to believe.
Unknown mass of non-matter that can create and destroy matter? explain how that isn't possible.
Well God in the convential context , Omiscient , Omnipotent , etc , and I think you're referring what Einstein ' believed ' in like the Spinoza God who reveals himself through the ordely harmony of nature , but any beleif in a supernatural God is laughable .
-
So mulecules start f**king each other and created a baby human?
I'm dissapointed Alexxxxxx.
I thought you would be on here explaining how you're god.
You're losing your touch.
Perhaps you should be blow drying your pompadour instead?
-
What is your definition of god?
It is very easy to believe there is or isn't a god depending on your definition.
Single deity, human looking, sitting on a cloud? Sure, that's tough to believe.
Unknown mass of non-matter that can create and destroy matter? explain how that isn't possible.
Doison, I respect your position. But hon, asking atheists to disprove his existence is hardly logical. You've got to realize that no one can prove -- as in rationally, empirically -- God exists.
No. He's an article of faith which, IMNSHO, is what's most remarkable about intelligent religious modernists. They know it goes against everything their senses tell them; but in spite of that, they continue to believe.
Some people call that weak, which is itself illogical. It can be. It can be quite the opposite, too. But then, I'm not about to argue with anyone who draws strength from something that doesn't hurt me.
-
Got those claims from my own reading. I didn't get them from anywhere.
No one can understand quantum theory. I've come to decide that it is all a big farce a few people with some big brains made up to watch people read.....and then laugh.
Theories on things the human mind can't grasp is a true paradox. How can we make truths on things we can't understand?
It's very easy for some of the world's brightest to talk over our heads.
Most humans have an IQ of around 100. Having an IQ of 70 makes you retarded. Can a retard understand what you say? Not really.
That is only a 30 point difference.
What would happen if someone with a 170 IQ tried to talk down to a normal person? It would be very easy.
Did you hear about the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac?
He stayed up all night wondering if there really was a Dog.....
I think you're leaning towards philosophy with your veiws and nothing wrong with that , but science while not being 100% true because again nothing can be 100% true is about as true as it gets as true as we can comprehend and the best part is science is proven wrong and we learn even more , it may not be perfect but its the best we have.
Did you hear about the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac?
He stayed up all night wondering if there really was a Dog.....
That was funny !!
-
I'm dissapointed Alexxxxxx.
I thought you would be on here explaining how you're god.
You're losing your touch.
Perhaps you should be blow drying your pompadour instead?
I would never make that claim.
-
all religions are bs.... mans way of explaining the unknown. we laugh at mythology how they used to worship zeus and these other make believe gods to explain things they didnt understand. how about muslims, christians or jews? we are any better?? also what makes any one religion right?? becuase of how you are raised in a certain location and it is of family tradition to believe in that religion? religion is all bs.
-
I think you're leaning towards philosophy with your veiws and nothing wrong with that , but science while not being 100% true because again nothing can be 100% true is about as true as it gets as true as we can comprehend and the best part is science is proven wrong and we learn even more , it may not be perfect but its the best we have.
Did you hear about the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac?
He stayed up all night wondering if there really was a Dog.....
That was funny !!
Ouch....
I truly dislike philosophy, so I'm deeply sorry. Do I have to go watch Blade Runner now, and write a paper on whether or not computers can ever be human?
Science isn't truth though. Science is not fact. It is entirely based on theories that can never truly be fact. Our Science based "facts" today are very very different than our science based "facts" of even 50 years ago.
We're talking about god, and the creation of this universe 12 billion years ago. Facts that can be proven wrong in a few years is hardly a "truth."
-
Doison, I respect your position. But hon, asking atheists to disprove his existence is hardly logical. You've got to realize that no one can prove -- as in rationally, empirically -- God exists.
No. He's an article of faith which, IMNSHO, is what's most remarkable about intelligent religious modernists. They know it goes against everything their senses tell them; but in spite of that, they continue to believe.
Some people call that weak, which is itself illogical. It can be. It can be quite the opposite, too. But then, I'm not about to argue with anyone who draws strength from something that doesn't hurt me.
No. He's an article of faith which, IMNSHO, is what's most remarkable about intelligent religious modernists. They know it goes against everything their senses tell them; but in spite of that, they continue to believe.
Richard Dawkins addresses this in his book the God Delusion , when people are forced into the religion of their parennts at a young age it tends to stay with them for life , this would explain why they can't shake religion because its been beat into them for years & years , when their mind is most vulnerable , the Jesuits had a saying " give me a child until the age of 5 and I'll give you the man "
-
Energy is neither created nor destroyed.
Energy is infinite. To best explain infinity, start counting numbers until you get to the last one.
It's not infinite. That's saying it can't be measured, but the E of the universe can be.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980211b.html (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980211b.html)
-
Doison, I respect your position. But hon, asking atheists to disprove his existence is hardly logical. You've got to realize that no one can prove -- as in rationally, empirically -- God exists.
No. He's an article of faith which, IMNSHO, is what's most remarkable about intelligent religious modernists. They know it goes against everything their senses tell them; but in spite of that, they continue to believe.
Some people call that weak, which is itself illogical. It can be. It can be quite the opposite, too. But then, I'm not about to argue with anyone who draws strength from something that doesn't hurt me.
Well, since you called me hon.....I guess I'll reply.
A put down, thinly veiled as something other than such certainly requires a reply.
Truthfully, talk on God is boring.
Theology is really the initial stepping ground to deep discussion.
Anyone who has spent a few hours reading some books, and decides they are now "smarter than the average bear" feels the need to puke their drivel on whether or not there is a god.
It's like when someone posts on a message board that "so and so got busted for roids."
50 people come out of the woodwork with "Bastards! Why can't they focus on REAL problems?" or "money well spent! Some crack head is out robbing a store, and this guy is getting busted!"
It just gets old after a while.
Didn't say it wasn't still fun though......so I'm not leaving this thread just yet.
-
Richard Dawkins addresses this in his book the God Delusion , when people are forced into the religion of their parennts at a young age it tends to stay with them for life , this would explain why they can't shake religion because its been beat into them for years & years , when their mind is most vulnerable , the Jesuits had a saying " give me a child until the age of 5 and I'll give you the man "
Definitely.
That's a little different than what I had in mind, though. I was thinking of people who came to "faith" sans extensive indoctrination (specifically, people who knew it was irrational but, for various reasons, decided to believe anyway).
-
Well, since you called me hon.....I guess I'll reply.
A put down, thinly veiled as something other than such certainly requires a reply.
I'm not putting you down!
At least, I certainly didn't intend to. I'm a lot of things, but I learned from an early age to mean exactly what I say.
I'm sorry :( I think you misread me somehow.
-
So mulecules start f**king each other and created a baby human?
Alex... we are star dust. All we are is a combination of elements of the periodic table made in the right order. I believe lighting caused the first begining of life. I also believe in incorperating science and the belief of God because im not capable of understanding something just existing with no begining. How the fuck does energy just exist. Everything in my belief is finite and if it is finite then it has a begining and an end and it had to be created. Just because you believe in God doesn't make your dumb.... hell we are all ignorant on how the universe works. I agree that organized religion has done more harm to this earth then any other one thing; it has killed more people then we can count, but the fact is you cannot deny the existance of something that seems apparent. Something can't be made from nothing.
-
Ouch....
I truly dislike philosophy, so I'm deeply sorry. Do I have to go watch Blade Runner now, and write a paper on whether or not computers can ever be human?
Science isn't truth though. Science is not fact. It is entirely based on theories that can never truly be fact. Our Science based "facts" today are very very different than our science based "facts" of even 50 years ago.
We're talking about god, and the creation of this universe 12 billion years ago. Facts that can be proven wrong in a few years is hardly a "truth."
Science is truth , its not 100% because the variables but its as true as the word true can be , and sure some theories have been proven wrong but guess by who? scientists we are constantly learning , updating and discovering , so while its may not always be right its the best we have.
And are we talking about " god " God in the traditional sense of the word , super natural God of the Judeo/Christian/Muslim belief , I'm under the assumption we believe in something else and thats fine by me , but if you're claiming another ' type ' of creator etc like what the Deists believed or something else I'm curious as to what you mean by " God "
-
Alex... we are star dust. All we are is a combination of elements of the periodic table made in the right order. I believe lighting caused the first begining of life. I also believe in incorperating science and the belief of God because im not capable of understanding something just existing with no begining. How the f**k does energy just exist. Everything in my belief is finite and if it is finite then it has a begining and an end and it had to be created. Just because you believe in God doesn't make your dumb.... hell we are all ignorant on how the universe works. I agree that organized religion has done more harm to this earth then any other one thing; it has killed more people then we can count, but the fact is you cannot deny the existance of something that seems apparent. Something can't be made from nothing.
I don't deny science. I believe once the smartest scientist reach the peak level of cranium development that they will all come to one conclusion. God exists. As for wars.. they would exist regardless.
-
What colour is God????.
-
Alex... we are star dust. All we are is a combination of elements of the periodic table made in the right order. I believe lighting caused the first begining of life. I also believe in incorperating science and the belief of God because im not capable of understanding something just existing with no begining. How the f**k does energy just exist. Everything in my belief is finite and if it is finite then it has a begining and an end and it had to be created. Just because you believe in God doesn't make your dumb.... hell we are all ignorant on how the universe works. I agree that organized religion has done more harm to this earth then any other one thing; it has killed more people then we can count, but the fact is you cannot deny the existance of something that seems apparent. Something can't be made from nothing.
I don't get your point , you obviously adhere to sciences explanation of how life was ' created ' with the formation of the elements in stars but you believe in a personal God?
-
What colour is God????.
What color is Tuesday?
-
Richard Dawkins addresses this in his book the God Delusion , when people are forced into the religion of their parennts at a young age it tends to stay with them for life , this would explain why they can't shake religion because its been beat into them for years & years , when their mind is most vulnerable , the Jesuits had a saying " give me a child until the age of 5 and I'll give you the man "
Actually my dad was an athiest and mocked religion. I turned to God on my own and i respect my parents for letting me make my own decision. As for the guy who says science is fact. You are wrong. Take the theory of gravity for example. When you drop a pencil it is going to fall but this is based on what? Observation through the senses. We do not have all the case studies of dropping the pencil. Who is to say the 3857390528092378 time we drop it it wont fly up? The only kind of knowledge in this world that is certain is apriori which are htings like eucledian geometry.This sounds pretty stupid but it goes back to the whole implosion of the universe theory. After a while the universe stops expanding and implodes on itself. When this happens supposedly time is suppose to go in reverse and the universe will start all over again. God may be used to explain the unknown but that doesn't make you weak minded if you believe in him. If anything it makes you stronger minded. Anyone can believe something thats put right under their fucking nose. It takes strength to make a leap of faith. It's almost like trust. If you have an invisible beam across a canyon and the guy on the other side says trust me you can walk across is it requires some ammount of strength in mind to trust them (or stupidity). Now when it comes to belief in God there are the ignorant and there are the intelligent. The ignorant are the ones that you typically find in the southern united states who believe the bible is the exact word of God. The intelligent try to use science to better understand God.
-
I don't get your point , you obviously adhere to sciences explanation of how life was ' created ' with the formation of the elements in stars but you believe in a personal God?
I believe God is what put this energy here that started life as we know it. Like i said before i cannot and refuse to comprehend the existance of something that had no begining. If it has no begining the it does not exist.
-
What color is Tuesday?
Tuesday is blue. God is a color we haven't idenitfied.
I don't believe in god. I don't know where you got that from my posts.
I was just saying that people love to talk about whether or not god exists. Take any liberal arts college right now, and 1,000's of "enlightened" idiots are on this same subject. Discussions on god are where people who aren't truly intelligent (me), can take their limited understanding of science, throw in some big words, and self satisfy themselves into believing "I'm one of the smart ones."
Humans are like the flatlanders in "Flatland: A romance of many dimensions."
I'm certainly no different
-
Actually my dad was an athiest and mocked religion. I turned to God on my own and i respect my parents for letting me make my own decision. As for the guy who says science is fact. You are wrong. Take the theory of gravity for example. When you drop a pencil it is going to fall but this is based on what? Observation through the senses. We do not have all the case studies of dropping the pencil. Who is to say the 3857390528092378 time we drop it it wont fly up? The only kind of knowledge in this world that is certain is apriori which are htings like eucledian geometry.This sounds pretty stupid but it goes back to the whole implosion of the universe theory. After a while the universe stops expanding and implodes on itself. When this happens supposedly time is suppose to go in reverse and the universe will start all over again. God may be used to explain the unknown but that doesn't make you weak minded if you believe in him. If anything it makes you stronger minded. Anyone can believe something thats put right under their fucking nose. It takes strength to make a leap of faith. It's almost like trust. If you have an invisible beam across a canyon and the guy on the other side says trust me you can walk across is it requires some ammount of strength in mind to trust them (or stupidity). Now when it comes to belief in God there are the ignorant and there are the intelligent. The ignorant are the ones that you typically find in the southern united states who believe the bible is the exact word of God. The intelligent try to use science to better understand God.
The universe isn't exanding. It is imploding, and never has or never will expand. The big bang is an implosion on itself. The objects that appear to be expanding are already imploding, and when later, when they will appear to be imploding, will still be imploding.
Expanding requires a finite size of the universe. The universe is infinite.
-
The universe isn't exanding. It is imploding, and never has or never will expand. The big bang is an implosion on itself. The objects that appear to be expanding are already imploding, and when later, when they will appear to be imploding, will still be imploding.
Expanding requires a finite size of the universe. The universe is infinite.
Evidence.... your believe your theory ill believe in mine. Last i head its exapansion was slowing. There are plenty of theories. We can post all day info backing up either. The man who admits he knows nothing knows everything. We live in a world of uncertainty where nothing is garunteed. The fact is WE DONT KNOW SHIT!!! Science is always contradicting itself. We haven't even figured out what is under our feet. That is the whole point. We will more then likely never discover everything.
-
Actually my dad was an athiest and mocked religion. I turned to God on my own and i respect my parents for letting me make my own decision. As for the guy who says science is fact. You are wrong. Take the theory of gravity for example. When you drop a pencil it is going to fall but this is based on what? Observation through the senses. We do not have all the case studies of dropping the pencil. Who is to say the 3857390528092378 time we drop it it wont fly up? The only kind of knowledge in this world that is certain is apriori which are htings like eucledian geometry.This sounds pretty stupid but it goes back to the whole implosion of the universe theory. After a while the universe stops expanding and implodes on itself. When this happens supposedly time is suppose to go in reverse and the universe will start all over again. God may be used to explain the unknown but that doesn't make you weak minded if you believe in him. If anything it makes you stronger minded. Anyone can believe something thats put right under their fucking nose. It takes strength to make a leap of faith. It's almost like trust. If you have an invisible beam across a canyon and the guy on the other side says trust me you can walk across is it requires some ammount of strength in mind to trust them (or stupidity). Now when it comes to belief in God there are the ignorant and there are the intelligent. The ignorant are the ones that you typically find in the southern united states who believe the bible is the exact word of God. The intelligent try to use science to better understand God.
See I disagree I think science is fact as factual as any definition of the wrord , and you have a theory about gravity now all you have to do is test it , you can start by dropping a pencil 3857390528092378 times and see if its true publish your paper to a pier reviewed scientific panel and collect your Nobel prize , and while science isn't absolute truth its the best we have and so much more honest and accurate than anything religion has offered up
And either the bible is right about the formation of the universe or it isn't and science has proven the universe opperates one way and its based on evidence , observation , and data now the bible says its another way but offers no evidence to this just faith . and science has shown that God can't do the things he's claimed to do in the universe we're in plain & simple and if you choose to ignore and base your beleifs on faith I think that doesn't take a stronger person I think it takes a weaker one , one who has an honest explanation and choose to dismiss it in favor of fables
-
I believe God is what put this energy here that started life as we know it. Like i said before i cannot and refuse to comprehend the existance of something that had no begining. If it has no begining the it does not exist.
See this is where you trap yourself in your own warped logic , what was then Gods begining? the old addage is is God is the creator and everything must be created who created the creator? if the creator didn't have a begining than he couldn't have existed
the law of conservation of mass/energy states matter/energy can't be created or destoryed that means it always was and always will be in one form or another.
-
The universe isn't exanding. It is imploding, and never has or never will expand. The big bang is an implosion on itself. The objects that appear to be expanding are already imploding, and when later, when they will appear to be imploding, will still be imploding.
Expanding requires a finite size of the universe. The universe is infinite.
Edwin Hubble begs to differ as does Steven Hawking the Universe is expanding in all directions if you have proof to the contrary I'll be the first to apologize and polish your Nobel prize medal.
-
Evidence.... your believe your theory ill believe in mine. Last i head its exapansion was slowing. There are plenty of theories. We can post all day info backing up either. The man who admits he knows nothing knows everything. We live in a world of uncertainty where nothing is garunteed. The fact is WE DONT KNOW SHIT!!! Science is always contradicting itself. We haven't even figured out what is under our feet. That is the whole point. We will more then likely never discover everything.
Sounds like we agree then.
-
Edwin Hubble begs to differ as does Steven Hawking the Universe is expanding in all directions if you have proof to the contrary I'll be the first to apologize and polish your Nobel prize medal.
Of course it looks like it's expanding. I've said this in every post. I'm just saying that if the universe is infinite, then it is imploding, even while it's expanding. Peer reviewed, published articles are suffocated with rules on what can and cannot be said. No published article is ever what the writer wants to put down. True thought can't be put down to a set of publishing rules. There are 250,000 words in the English language. Our thoughts are much more vast. I'm sure Mr. Hawking would be much happier if everyone could just read his mind, and understand what he understands. That is impossible now, so he is forced to publish articles, along with all the dogma that is attached to it.
I'm not going to win any Nobel prize. Is that to "fire me up," so I'll get into a heated debate?
What if C A T really spelled Dog?
-
Evidence.... your believe your theory ill believe in mine. Last i head its exapansion was slowing. There are plenty of theories. We can post all day info backing up either. The man who admits he knows nothing knows everything. We live in a world of uncertainty where nothing is garunteed. The fact is WE DONT KNOW SHIT!!! Science is always contradicting itself. We haven't even figured out what is under our feet. That is the whole point. We will more then likely never discover everything.
Again science is wrong at times and its proven wrong by other scientists its an never ending path but we do accumulate facts along the way , Religion thought for hundreds & hundreds of years that the Earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around the Earth , science has proven that theory WRONG
We're NOT the center of the Universe and the earth revolves around the sun , so seeing we know nothing and science is constantly wrong does that mean thats wrong as well? of course not , you underestimate sciences facts because it favors your veiw , we know a LOT more than you think but there are facts about the universe that hasvn't change since their discovery amd some have this however doesn't change the facts as the stand that the earth is approxamatly 4.5 billion years old and not 6000 years old according to the bible .
-
Of course it looks like it's expanding. I've said this in every post. I'm just saying that if the universe is infinite, then it is imploding, even while it's expanding. Peer reviewed, published articles are suffocated with rules on what can and cannot be said. No published article is ever what the writer wants to put down. True thought can't be put down to a set of publishing rules. There are 250,000 words in the English language. Our thoughts are much more vast. I'm sure Mr. Hawking would be much happier if everyone could just read his mind, and understand what he understands. That is impossible now, so he is forced to publish articles, along with all the dogma that is attached to it.
I'm not going to win any Nobel prize. Is that to "fire me up," so I'll get into a heated debate?
What if C A T really spelled Dog?
Again you have a thoery that contradicts modern cosmologists and what do I know? you may be right the Universe may NOT expanding but I'll take what Edwin Hubble & Steven Hawking say until proven otherwise by a mmeber of GetBig no less. !!
-
this however doesn't change the facts as the stand that the earth is approxamatly 4.5 billion years old and not 6000 years old according to the bible .
Only assuming that our methods of dating the earth are correct. Therefore it isn't fact, but theory.
What if carbon dating is wrong? What if our understanding of the gravitational pull of matter is wrong....even just a tad?
Science is theories. Theories made by the smartest humans on earth. For the most part, theories that hold up under all known circumstances. But, they're still only theories.
-
Again you have a thoery that contradicts modern cosmologists and what do I know? you may be right the Universe may NOT expanding but I'll take what Edwin Hubble & Steven Hawking say until proven otherwise by a mmeber of GetBig no less. !!
As well you should. I was the one who said that all this talk was just self serving.
It's hard to argue with someone who believes the same as you. But, you're doing a good job.
-
See this is where you trap yourself in your own warped logic , what was then Gods begining? the old addage is is God is the creator and everything must be created who created the creator? if the creator didn't have a begining than he couldn't have existed
the law of conservation of mass/energy states matter/energy can't be created or destoryed that means it always was and always will be in one form or another.
Ok.... ill reword this differently but good point you made. If energy is infinite and God is defined as infinite the God is energy. If God is energy and we are all energy then God created us and is in everyone of us. El O eL OwNaGe! lol
-
Ok.... ill reword this differently but good point you made. If energy is infinite and God is defined as infinite the God is energy. If God is energy and we are all energy then God created us and is in everyone of us. El O eL OwNaGe! lol
Thats flawed logic , when you say " God " now you're just playing with words , God(s) imply supernatural energy isn't supernatural its natural and you used the word created again mass/energy can't be created lol . nice try though .
-
Thats flawed logic , when you say " God " now you're just playing with words , God(s) imply supernatural energy isn't supernatural its natural . nice try though .
Define supernatural? Define natural? What is supernatural? Something that we don't understand? If you are denying the existence of God then you are denying the existence of energy which would be denying your own existence. Definitions are altered from time to time..
-
Define supernatural? Define natural? What is supernatural? Something that we don't understand? If you are denying the existence of God then you are denying the existence of energy which would be denying your own existence. Definitions are altered from time to time..
Again now you're just playing with words , I don't deny the existence of God , thats like denying the existence of the tooth fairly its common knowlege there is no God , I'm without belief when it comes to God .
Natural laws are events that take place in our Universe anything which supposedly happened that violates these laws is ' supernatural ' when you say God created the Universe thats a supernatural claim because matter/energy can't be created or destroyed so how does one create the Universe if the laws of physics say it can't be done? thats a violation of this laws and if you're going to make that claim which is extraodrinary you better like Carl Sagan suggested have extraordinary evidence and to the best of my knowlege it hasn't been done.
-
Again now you're just playing with words , I don't deny the existence of God , thats like denying the existence of the tooth fairly its common knowlege there is no God , I'm without belief when it comes to God .
Natural laws are events that take place in our Universe anything which supposedly happened that violates these laws is ' supernatural ' when you say God created the Universe thats a supernatural claim because matter/energy can't be created or destroyed so how does one create the Universe if the laws of physics say it can't be done? thats a violation of this laws and if you're going to make that claim which is extraodrinary you better like Carl Sagan suggested have extraordinary evidence and to the best of my knowlege it hasn't been done.
Thats the thing.... There is no evidence to support anything of course unless you say the door is green and you look at the door and it is green. Physics is not a complete math. The only compelte math we have is euclidian geometry. Now what if God is energy. That would mean he created us all and everything we know of but we would all be apart of him. They say God is all knowing and infinite. Now this goes back to what Renee Decartes says in that we all have an impression of God like the mark of a craftsman impressed upon his work. The important thing to know is that you know nothing. There is no firm foundation for knowledge. The astronomer and layman do not differ. The layman says the sun will rise tommorow based on experience. The Astronomer "knows" how the sun rises and uses logic but this is not true because he uses experience like everyone else because he does not know how the "secret pwoers" truly work. If God is energy and we are all energy then it only supports what Renee Decartes is saying. Also if we are all energy then life does not end after death. We still exist but in a different form (little off topic sorry).
-
Thats the thing.... There is no evidence to support anything of course unless you say the door is green and you look at the door and it is green. Physics is not a complete math. The only compelte math we have is euclidian geometry. Now what if God is energy. That would mean he created us all and everything we know of but we would all be apart of him. They say God is all knowing and infinite. Now this goes back to what Renee Decartes says in that we all have an impression of God like the mark of a craftsman impressed upon his work. The important thing to know is that you know nothing. There is no firm foundation for knowledge. The astronomer and layman do not differ. The layman says the sun will rise tommorow based on experience. The Astronomer "knows" how the sun rises and uses logic but this is not true because he uses experience like everyone else because he does not know how the "secret pwoers" truly work. If God is energy and we are all energy then it only supports what Renee Decartes is saying. Also if we are all energy then life does not end after death. We still exist but in a different form (little off topic sorry).
You're still stuck on creation.. God can't create mass/energy it violates the laws of physics if you can prove God did violtare these laws please share it , but seeing you believe he violated these laws it becomes what it is , theology or Philosophy and in science we deal with facts as we know them NOT theology or philosophy.
-
You're still stuck on creation.. God can't create mass/energy it violates the laws of physics if you can prove God did violtare these laws please share it , but seeing you believe he violated these laws it becomes what it is , theology or Philosophy and in science we deal with facts as we know them NOT theology or philosophy.
You are missing my point i think. I am saying God is energy. We are energy. Everything is energy..... you know what fuck this. I am an atheist now, Happy? YOu win lol.
-
You are missing my point i think. I am saying God is energy. We are energy. Everything is energy..... you know what f**k this. I am an atheist now, Happy? YOu win lol.
lol
-
lol
Basically the point is that what ever knowledge we have can't be trusted. If you can use math to prove God doesn't exist then you might be on to something. For every argument there is an equal and opposite argument. I notice in philosophy class every fucking argument ends up going in circles. If God is good then why does evil exist? The point is we know nothing. All we know is that we are thinking things and even if presented with a false enviroment we are thinking about it.
-
We evolved from taradactyels... thus the Lats and tail bone.
-
Actually my dad was an athiest and mocked religion. I turned to God on my own and i respect my parents for letting me make my own decision. As for the guy who says science is fact. You are wrong. Take the theory of gravity for example. When you drop a pencil it is going to fall but this is based on what? Observation through the senses. We do not have all the case studies of dropping the pencil. Who is to say the 3857390528092378 time we drop it it wont fly up? The only kind of knowledge in this world that is certain is apriori which are htings like eucledian geometry.This sounds pretty stupid but it goes back to the whole implosion of the universe theory. After a while the universe stops expanding and implodes on itself. When this happens supposedly time is suppose to go in reverse and the universe will start all over again. God may be used to explain the unknown but that doesn't make you weak minded if you believe in him. If anything it makes you stronger minded. Anyone can believe something thats put right under their fucking nose. It takes strength to make a leap of faith. It's almost like trust. If you have an invisible beam across a canyon and the guy on the other side says trust me you can walk across is it requires some ammount of strength in mind to trust them (or stupidity). Now when it comes to belief in God there are the ignorant and there are the intelligent. The ignorant are the ones that you typically find in the southern united states who believe the bible is the exact word of God. The intelligent try to use science to better understand God.
Quantum mechanics predicts such a scenario is possible but unlikely. Science is simply based on the observable world - as our understanding of the world evolves Science changes.
-
You are missing my point i think. I am saying God is energy. We are energy. Everything is energy..... you know what f**k this. I am an atheist now, Happy? YOu win lol.
http://www.keyofdavid.com. Watch the videos, save the transcripts.
-
Basically the point is that what ever knowledge we have can't be trusted. If you can use math to prove God doesn't exist then you might be on to something. For every argument there is an equal and opposite argument. I notice in philosophy class every fucking argument ends up going in circles. If God is good then why does evil exist? The point is we know nothing. All we know is that we are thinking things and even if presented with a false enviroment we are thinking about it.
I disgaree whatever knowlege we do have can be trusted because most of it ( not all ) has stood the test of time . and you're working under the assumption there is a God to disprove even mathmatically and since Religions are claiming there is a God(s) they have done little to prove he//she/him/her exsists
If I create a time machine and tell you I can travel back any period in time and you say " I don't believe you prove to me it works " and I say " no you prove to me it doesn't work " then the burden of proof lies on the one making the positive claim
Science can't disprove millions of things it doesn't make them true , Science can't disprove the God of Thunder Thor , so until they do we have to believe in Thor? or is it safe to be an Athorist?
-
This is all a matter of how rigorous your definitions of observation and objectivity are. Some nihilists say that an observation is strictly personal, you can't say that someone else is seeing the same because you can never check if it's indeed the same. Therefore the only reality is your own. Well not a really practical and optimistic train of thought...
All sciences work within a certain paradigm with specific instruments and theories. Paradigms shift and new instruments are created. There is no true objectivity in science, you are always putting trust in manmade standards and instruments.
I had a large course of science philosophy in my psychology study that went into detail about objectivity, paradigms, observation etc. It was an eyeopener but it certainly made your head spin.
-
ND do you believe that where are all going to evolve into homo sapian superiors aka X-Men or are we going to evolve into green creatures with giant foreheads?
-
ATTENTION:
ButtSuck will be out of commission for a while. He had a life time break down last night.. It was truly of epic proportions.
- BBM
-
what happened to this thread ???
great video but that chick could only get a stud like arnold in her wet dreams 8)
E
-
what happened to this thread ???
great video but that chick could only get a stud like arnold in her wet dreams 8)
E
Arnold should have been laughing at the tramp for picking up a stranger in the park and bringing him back to her apartment.
Talk about a thread going WAY off topic and getting completely hijacked.
-
Arnold should have been laughing at the tramp for picking up a stranger in the park and bringing him back to her apartment.
Talk about a thread going WAY off topic and getting completely hijacked.
haha! no kidding.
-
To quote a great man :)
"Religion is the opium of the people"
-
I've heard it translated as "opiate of the masses."
I think it was Marx, maybe Mao. They had their own agenda too.
-
I've heard it translated as "opiate of the masses."
I think it was Marx, maybe Mao. They had their own agenda too.
Marx