shut up, faggot
Lol, unexpected meltdown from aptly named "no name". ;D Maybe you should stop obesseing about how I make you feel, "no name". :P You'll end up giving yourself a stroke. ;D
SUCkMYMUSCLE
Scientists don't believe in a God, yet they treat everything this guy says as if it is the word of God.that generalization is unfair to thoughtful scientists and damaging to the opinions of the lay.
btw, I know that tbombz does this thing where he ignores my posts because i flame him but fact of this matter is that i know what he does on this website and it is very obviousi read your posts, i just dont respond very often, because i usually dont have anything to say to you. what is it that i do on this website that is obvious ?
i read your posts, i just dont respond very often, because i usually dont have anything to say to you. what is it that i do on this website that is obvious ?
"physicists believe the universe is governed by scientific laws. these laws must hold without exceptions, or they wouldnt be laws. that doesnt leave much room for miracles... or god"
this guy understands that quantum mechanics is based on the idea that the laws of physics break down at the quantum level
and yet he says stupid shit like that
lol
Actually, quantum mechanics allows physicists to make predictions with 99.98% accuracy on the behavior of particles. the laws of physics do not break down at the quantum level. The only discrepancy is integrating quantum mechanics with general relativity, but just because there is no working model now it doesen't mean there never will be. I think you should STFU before you embarass yourself more than you already did in that thread.you are postulating that the laws dont break down
And "this guy" know s athing or two more about than you about what happens on the quantum level even though he is a cosmologist. You are a nobody with a degree in annal plumbing.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Scientists don't believe in a God, yet they treat everything this guy says as if it is the word of God.wow youre ignorant
lol @ tbombz talking about advanced physics as if he knows what he's talking about. (http://www.audi-tt.ru/forum/phpBB2/images/smiles/facepalm.gif)
How true it is. My wife believes all good people will either not die or be resurrected, and live forever here on earth. Of course its only people who are of her same religion who are gonna be saved. ::) It really is so simple to see, that most cant see it. They are afraid of death. Unable to come to terms with the fact that someday, they simply wont exist. So to they stroke their hair, like a small frightened child, and say its not so, you wont die, you can live forever. Every single religion has the same belief, same story different version.every religion says that your actions on earth are of eternal importance to your well being and happiness.
I have posted in the religion threads and found most theists are smart, well intentioned, albeit scared of there own mortality, people.
When i finally realized there IS no god, my life became so much clearer. I stopped drinking so much, and life in general improved greatly.
When you realize this all you get, one chance to live your life, you start to make better use of it. I yearn for the day when religion is Finlay recognized for what it is. A place to stick your head in the sand, and not deal with the world and life.
you are postulating that the laws dont break down
that is all you are doing
virtual particles, the communication between electrons, quantum fluctuations..etc. the current laws of physics do not allow for these things to occur, but they are observed to happen. yes, at the quantum level our laws of physics break down.
maybe one day we can come up with an explanation for the cause of these things. but then the question remains: what was the cause of that cause? what causes cause to cause in the first place ? :)
wow youre ignorant
What a dishonest shitbag you are. You argue the same shit that has been addressed and dismissed over and over again ad nauseum simply out of pride. I have already answered the issue of what "caused" the first cause(what a stupid tautology) in this thread http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=398910.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=398910.0) but you act like I never answered it.dishonest ? you just claimed to have explained "what caused the first cause" ;D
SUCKMYMUSCLE
shut up, faggot
he s the only one who s affraid of the dark and wants everyone to join him in it.
what are your thoughts on tbombz wanting to show strangers that he is "smart"?you think i sound smart johnny ? :)
overcompensation for not being heard as a child?
you think i sound smart johnny ? :)
i feel like im saying pretty simple, common sense types of things. nothing complicated or too involved.
but im glad you think it sounds smart !
see, because there is no such thing as "Stephen Hawkins"
looks like I stuck a cordand would it make you happy if you had ?
But there is a "Ronnie Hawkins"
and would it make you happy if you had ?
you think i sound smart johnny ? :)he didnt say he thought you were or sounded smart, he asked why you always have to pretend you are smart, why you act as if you were smarter than others. Looks like you also have reading comprehension troubles.
i feel like im saying pretty simple, common sense types of things. nothing complicated or too involved.
but im glad you think it sounds smart !
Actually, think what you want...but anybody who thinks that any man is so intelligent that he could not possibly be wrong about something, is the one who is ignorant.
Scientist are human, and make mistakes...history has shown this many times.
he didnt say he thought you were or sounded smart, he asked why you always have to pretend you are smart, why you act as if you were smarter than others. Looks like you also have reading comprehension troubles.
You re just a poor, ignorant, badly raised lost kid with a low self esteem, the end of a lineage of sinners. There is no doubt in my mind nobody would give you the time of the day in real life. You re just an immature and hurt little child who wants to get noticed by adults but dont know how.
he didnt say he thought you were or sounded smart, he asked why you always have to pretend you are smart, why you act as if you were smarter than others. Looks like you also have reading comprehension troubles.;D
You re just a poor, ignorant, badly raised lost kid with a low self esteem, the end of a lineage of sinners. There is no doubt in my mind nobody would give you the time of the day in real life. You re just an immature and hurt little child who wants to get noticed by adults but dont know how.
you are postulating that the laws dont break down
that is all you are doing
virtual particles, the communication between electrons, quantum fluctuations..etc. the current laws of physics do not allow for these things to occur, but they are observed to happen. yes, at the quantum level our laws of physics break down.
And so...this somehow turns out that it's a reason to come up with an imaginary friend in the sky.?
The cause of the cause? Funny thing is - the existence/appearance of universe out of "nothing" is explainable scientifically. I'd like to hear who could explain the creation of something SO complex as "god"? (the cause of the cause, remember?).
Oh, I can see the theistic "logic" comming - "It was always there". Well - I can tell the same about the Universe. It was always there.
To quote Freud, the biggest strenght of religion is hard-wired in human nature. In other words - fear.
how is it that the fact that Tbombz gettng anal pleasure from another man is actually a redeeming quality compared to what makes up the rest of his personality?and what part of my "personality" dont you like johnny bo bonny ?
well was the universe always there or did it come out of nothing? you should make up your mind ! .. or admit you have no idea where the universe came from, if it came from anywhere at all.. :)
one thing- no, science can not explain how the universe can come from nothing. if you think so, id love to shed some light on the issue for you.. so please indicate what you might have been refering toScience explains perfectly the evolution of the universe from a "get go" ("Big bang"). If you think a "holly book" can explain it better than you are highly misguided individual. But many ppl are, anyway..
It came out of nothing (if it "came" from anything, yes), I was just giving an example.the big bang theory begins with a dense and hot state of mass energy, it does not explain where it came from, or how long that state existed before expanding.
Science explains perfectly the evolution of the universe from a "get go" ("Big bang"). If you think a "holly book" can explain it better than you are highly misguided individual. But many ppl are, anyway..
the big bang theory begins with a dense and hot state of mass energy, it does not explain where it came from, or how long that state existed before expanding.
Does "God" (gazillion times more complex "creature") automatically becomes an "explanation" in this case? Or is it a situation where just a gap of information still exists? (oh yes... theists doesn't like "gaps", they doesn't like 'em so much that they wrote a book that explains EVERYTHING perfectly without any gaps and questions. That book even explains itself. What a smart move, eh?).
Theres am ambiguity in saying that everything that exists has a cause, and saying that there is a cause for everything that exists. The cosmological argument trades on that ambiguity. Analogous to saying "1. every person that exists has a mother, 2. so there must be a mother for every person that exists." 1 follows from 2 (if there was a mother for every person that exists (i.e. super mother), then every person that exists would have a mother) but 2 does not follow from 1.
If I could figure out how to type the universal and existential quantifier, I would write it out in logical form to note the ambiguity.
You re just a poor, ignorant, badly raised lost kid with a low self esteem, the end of a lineage of sinners. There is no doubt in my mind nobody would give you the time of the day in real life. You re just an immature and hurt little child who wants to get noticed by adults but dont know how.
The real fear is that there is nothing...we just have our one life as a blip..and thats it. Fear of absolute oblivion is not being exactly cowardly, it might be one of the scariest things to contemplate. Imagine....a great person like Mother Theresa or Gandhi or General Patton ;D get the same "reward" as a Jeffrey Dahmer or Jerry Sandusky. It seems somehow...unjustified.you cant imagine a world in which the bible is just a story book but yet a "god" still exists? ??? this is not a possibility to you?
For me, I want to believe that there is God and Heaven and an eternal afterlife and that walking on the "narrow path" will grant me access to Heaven. However, logic dictates that men do not rise up from the dead.....that seas do not open up to create paths for people......that snakes do not talk.......that people do not walk on top of water.
Now, if a Rapture happens or the oceans turn to blood, then yes...by logic, I will assume that this particular religious doctrine is true.
In the meantime, perhaps I should just live my life to the fullest that I can.
"physicists believe the universe is governed by scientific laws. these laws must hold without exceptions, or they wouldnt be laws. that doesnt leave much room for miracles... or god"
this guy understands that quantum mechanics is based on the idea that the laws of physics break down at the quantum level
and yet he says stupid shit like that
lol
define god?
biblical god, or just a thinking being responsible for creating the universe?
in either case, the definition of god still contains "the creator", and everyone who believes in such a thing also understands his existence to be incomprehensible.
if your asking me if god exists, fuck, i dont know if he does or doesnt.
but science sure as hell can not explain the universe.
What a stupid statement. The laws do not break down - we simply don't understand them entirely. The laws we now understand are simply an approximation.mass-energy can never be created nor destroyed.
every human being(common definition) was born by a woman(mother), therefore every human being that exists has a mother whom it was born from.
lmao, cute attempt at trying to sound smart without understanding a word of my post.
Note the difference between saying #1 "For every object X, there is an Object Y, such that X is caused by Y" and saying #2 "There is an object Y, for every object X, such that X is caused by Y". The 1st follows from the 2nd. The 2nd does NOT follow from the first. The cosmological argument seeks to draw 2 from 1 (since everything that exists has a cause (#1), there must be a cause for everything that exists (#2), and that cause is 'God'). Analogous to the mother example. Every person that exists has a mother (#1). It does NOT follow that there is a mother for every person (i.e. a "Super Mother) (#2). If There was a super mother, then 1 would follow. But 2 does not follow from 1. The Cosmological argument trades on an ambiguity.
"God" is an unseparatable variable from a religion, and religion is a DOCTRINE, so it has some kinf of a "book" that explains "God". If you think you came with your own "idea" of god than think again lol.. Well actually yeah.. if you'd be persistent enough - you could come up with some kind of new wave religion too (with your own explanation of god).
so if i, or somebody, came up with a religion that was based around an incomprehensible god, limited the description of him to supernatural creator, and said nothing more... then at that point you would accept it as a posibility, but not up untill that point?
So people who "believe" in god automatically assume the explanation of it is "incomprehensible". Is that because they haven't even tried or is there some other reason?
by definition the supernatural is incomprehensible. does that not make sense to you? if not, why?
And if you think science does not explain the universe, I can assure you - there's nothing out there that explains it more ACCURATELLY, unless you could suggest something more stable and reliable than mathematics and logic. Can you?
there certainly isnt. though if god does exist, god would certainly be a more accurate explanation, since it would be all encompassing
And if science does not explain EVERYTHING (oh my...who could've thought that it wasn't going to propose - "I am science, so I can explain everything, leaving no space for any doubt." like religion does) it does not mean something insanely more complex and completely unprovable like friggin "god" automatically becomes an "explanation". If you think so, I suggest to refresh your common sense (at least).
did i say that god exists? did i say that because science cant explain reality that god exists? i never said either. science cant explain reality. tis all ive said. and its a fact. by the way, you keep asserting god is "insanely complex", and on what ground may i ask? how did you come to know this ?
lmao, cute attempt at trying to sound smart without understanding a word of my post.who is using the cosmological argument ? did i contradict your post ? or did i offer an alternative ? ;)
Note the difference between saying #1 "For every object X, there is an Object Y, such that X is caused by Y" and saying #2 "There is an object Y, for every object X, such that X is caused by Y". The 1st follows from the 2nd. The 2nd does NOT follow from the first. The cosmological argument seeks to draw 2 from 1 (since everything that exists has a cause (#1), there must be a cause for everything that exists (#2), and that cause is 'God'). Analogous to the mother example. Every person that exists has a mother (#1). It does NOT follow that there is a mother for every person (i.e. a "Super Mother) (#2). If There was a super mother, then 1 would follow. But 2 does not follow from 1. The Cosmological argument trades on an ambiguity.
I wish you'd stop with these absolutes.which absolutes?
which absolutes?
"science cant explain reality"oh, it cant. certain things are absolute. a circle is a circle. 1+1=2. science, which depends on empirical data, can never speak on metaphysics. any assertion about the cause and origin of the universe and its laws its necessarily out of ignorance. science can certainly explain the mechanical cause and effect of the universe to the extent which causality exists, but beyond that point there is no grounds for experimentations.
A scientist has calculated that there is a 67% chance that God exists.
Dr Stephen Unwin has used a 200-year-old formula to calculate the probability of the existence of an omnipotent being. Bayes' Theory is usually used to work out the likelihood of events, such as nuclear power failure, by balancing the various factors that could affect a situation.
dishonest ? you just claimed to have explained "what caused the first cause" ;D
the big bang theory begins with a dense and hot state of mass energy, it does not explain where it came from, or how long that state existed before expanding.
lmao, cute attempt at trying to sound smart without understanding a word of my post.The thing youre forgetting, is that if you go back far enough you more than likely can trace back to a single mother, lol.
Note the difference between saying #1 "For every object X, there is an Object Y, such that X is caused by Y" and saying #2 "There is an object Y, for every object X, such that X is caused by Y". The 1st follows from the 2nd. The 2nd does NOT follow from the first. The cosmological argument seeks to draw 2 from 1 (since everything that exists has a cause (#1), there must be a cause for everything that exists (#2), and that cause is 'God'). Analogous to the mother example. Every person that exists has a mother (#1). It does NOT follow that there is a mother for every person (i.e. a "Super Mother) (#2). If There was a super mother, then 1 would follow. But 2 does not follow from 1. The Cosmological argument trades on an ambiguity.
mass-energy can never be created nor destroyed.
virtual particles.
how is that law in any way compatible with that fact ?
:)
and please, give me an example of how it would be possible to arrive at a "all encompassing universal theory of everything" ;D
This goes to show how much you know of cosmological physics. It is actually known almost precisely(down to decimal places) for how long the singularity existed before expanding. And it is known exactly what was it's composition one billionth of a second after it started expanding.Im not away of it, but how do they explain how singularity came into existance, where the matter came from or what formed it? And how do they determine how long the singularity existed before it started expanding?
SUCKMYMUSCLE
The thing youre forgetting, is that if you go back far enough you more than likely can trace back to a single mother, lol.
I see what youre getting at, but your wording is poor. The way youre wording it DOES sound like its yes to both, as every person came from a mother, and there is a mother for every person. Now Im making the assumption you were getting at the fact that there is not ONE SINGLE MOTHER for every person that exists. Which, technically speaking their may be depending on how our species came together and how much inbreeding occured in the begining ;D ???
(http://cdn.jimonlight.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/stephen-hawking-chicks.jpg)
Shhh, are you with us or with Tdongz >:(Not really either, I believe that we as humans have no idea what or how the beginings of the universe happened, we can guess based on things that we observe, but its so far beyond our comprehension (at this time) that all were doing is guessing. Yes we can explain how the universe started expanding an when, but really were no closer to explaining HOW that matter came into existance. We can guess, that is all.
mass-energy can never be created nor destroyed.
virtual particles.
how is that law in any way compatible with that fact ?
:)
and please, give me an example of how it would be possible to arrive at a "all encompassing universal theory of everything" ;D
Im not away of it, but how do they explain how singularity came into existance,
where the matter came from or what formed it? And how do they determine how long the singularity existed before it started expanding?
so if i, or somebody, came up with a religion that was based around an incomprehensible god, limited the description of him to supernatural creator, and said nothing more... then at that point you would accept it as a posibility, but not up untill that point?
by definition the supernatural is incomprehensible. does that not make sense to you? if not, why?
there certainly isnt. though if god does exist, god would certainly be a more accurate explanation, since it would be all encompassing
science cant explain reality.
fact. by the way, you keep asserting god is "insanely complex", and on what ground may i ask? how did you come to know this ?
(http://cdn.jimonlight.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/stephen-hawking-chicks.jpg)
define god?
biblical god, or just a thinking being responsible for creating the universe?
in either case, the definition of god still contains "the creator", and everyone who believes in such a thing also understands his existence to be incomprehensible.
if your asking me if god exists, fuck, i dont know if he does or doesnt.
but science sure as hell can not explain the universe.
Scientists don't believe in a God, yet they treat everything this guy says as if it is the word of God.Man has a worship complex, whether it be the Sun, public figures, mountains, rain, a volcano, a rock, Gods, a bird,Science, vagina, etc...
Scientists don't believe in a God, yet they treat everything this guy says as if it is the word of God.
lol @ tbombz talking about advanced physics as if he knows what he's talking about. (http://www.audi-tt.ru/forum/phpBB2/images/smiles/facepalm.gif)
i had shoulder surgery and reacted to the anaesthetic and was clinically dead.sorry dude, your soul was still tethered to your body...
they put me in an induced coma and i came to three days later.
while i was dead i....
didnt remember or dream or know a thing...just went under, then woke up- three days later...didnt realise
the hell my family went through and them talking to me, holding
hands and so on...
so im thinking, when you die, its just lights out baby...nothing..nudda..n o trip down a tunnel..no lights..no
afterlife...you are just worm meat.
you assert god would be complex.
why not simple?
hmmm...
seems you like to make guesses at things then pretend those guesses are facts..
The thing youre forgetting, is that if you go back far enough you more than likely can trace back to a single mother, lol.
I see what youre getting at, but your wording is poor. The way youre wording it DOES sound like its yes to both, as every person came from a mother, and there is a mother for every person. Now Im making the assumption you were getting at the fact that there is not ONE SINGLE MOTHER for every person that exists. Which, technically speaking their may be depending on how our species came together and how much inbreeding occured in the begining ;D ???
Not true. Mass can be created by quantum fluctuations of the zero-point field according to mathematical models of string theory that make valid predictions that can be tested and verified. And the fact that energy cannot be created in no way means it cannot have an origin explained by laws of pparticle physics that we don't know yet.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
"physicists believe the universe is governed by scientific laws. these laws must hold without exceptions, or they wouldnt be laws. that doesnt leave much room for miracles... or god"
this guy understands that quantum mechanics is based on the idea that the laws of physics break down at the quantum level
and yet he says stupid shit like that
lol
Actually, quantum mechanics allows physicists to make predictions with 99.98% accuracy on the behavior of particles. the laws of physics do not break down at the quantum level. The only discrepancy is integrating quantum mechanics with general relativity, but just because there is no working model now it doesen't mean there never will be. I think you should STFU before you embarass yourself more than you already did in that thread.Tbumbz, just goes from thread to thread making himself look a total cunt, WTF.
And "this guy" know s athing or two more about than you about what happens on the quantum level even though he is a cosmologist. You are a nobody with a degree in anal plumbing.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Inspiring truth!
SUCKMYMUSCLE
This is a little gem that was brought to my attention.
I can not take credit for the beauty in the following information and will keep the source anonymous as to show respect for the fellow forum member.
It was brought to my attention that a gimmick here by the name of 'Cigaretteman' has been "nuthuggin" Suckmymuscle on various threads as of recent..
Well, the truth has revealed that the paraplegia-inducing, canine destroyer who just so happens to be a genetically engineered superhuman has been using a gimmick to reply to his own posts, LOL!
It's been an outing waiting to happen and light should be shed upon this fountain of truth.
Closely examine CigaretteMan's early posts and their striking similarity to SMMs posts and the truth shall set you, or better said him, free:
SMM:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=profile;u=4908;sa=showPosts (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=profile;u=4908;sa=showPosts)
Cigaretteman:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=profile;u=27918;sa=showPosts (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=profile;u=27918;sa=showPosts)
"1"
pWnd
omg I can't believe I haven't caught on that earlier.. looking at the post history it's so fucking obvious lmao!
mwaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha, total outing, this is the icing on the cake, this is!!!!
SMM, I can see you're online, you little snivelling cunt, what's the matter, is the going too rough, now? ;D Is your monster 200 points IQ not of any use to you in this situation? :P
Come on lad, give us one of those famous 50pt font meltdowns ;D
Definately the same poster....can you say OWNED once again ?
GEEZUS,the shit just keeps on a coming! ;D
ROFLLLLLL hahah that gimmick account is so obvious wtf? how did I miss that?
Hahah , Onemorerep destroying SMM rectum.
Actually, quantum mechanics allows physicists to make predictions with 99.98% accuracy on the behavior of particles.
How true it is. My wife believes all good people will either not die or be resurrected, and live forever here on earth. Of course its only people who are of her same religion who are gonna be saved. ::)
tbombs is smartStephen Hawkins smart. Kid should have stayed in school.
Stephen Hawkins smart. Kid should have stayed in school.
Scientific people need to shut up, they know nothing of what they speak of all they have is a bunch of theory that they change everyday.latest word from God is that she is bored with this debate particularly among a group of boys not content with the body she gave them
latest word from God is that she is bored with this debate particularly among a group of boys not content with the body she gave them
This goes to show how much you know of cosmological physics. It is actually known almost precisely(down to decimal places) for how long the singularity existed before expanding. And it is known exactly what was it's composition one billionth of a second after it started expanding.;D how long did it exist ?
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Not true. Mass can be created by quantum fluctuations of the zero-point field according to mathematical models of string theory that make valid predictions that can be tested and verified. And the fact that energy cannot be created in no way means it cannot have an origin explained by laws of pparticle physics that we don't know yet."virtual particle" , maybe you missed that part of my post.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Just because you don't understand the laws does not mean they are breaking down - there is not necessarily a god in the gaps.the current laws of physics break down at a certain level, meaning that certain basic concepts we previously agreed upon as being laws no longer hold true.. its not that I dont understand whats going on, its that NOBODY DOES.
We may never find the all encompassing theory of everything, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I meant - you'd have NO idea of what the word "god" is if there was no religion (with a DOCTRINE, that EXPLAINS it). Ok, let's take a god without a religion. WHat's that? AN entity.....to believe in? Uh...that's it? What's about that?
It's a logical falacy, called "Elephant in the room". Read upon it: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage
Oh really?? Just because there's a lack of data on a certain issue - it's somehow appropriate to take an indefinitely MORE complex explanation that hasn't been proven IN ANY WAY at all, as a "missing variable".? (that's basically what religious nuts do in every case when they can't explain something. It's an ACT OF GOD!!). Have you at least any idea what "logic" is, in this case?
not that there is a lack of data, its that data itself is necessarily incapable of providing any information on metaphysics.
why are you ASSuming god is so complex?
Science CAN explain reality, and it DOES, it's actually the only thing that does it siccesfully and is FULLY predictable and testable. I have no idea what are you talking about, by saying that, and I'm not sure you have it either..
SOmething that created EVERYTHING is a lot more difficult to explain (as the reality proves) then the evolution of the universe itself (which is explaineble perfectly).
the "evolution of the universe". which universe? what about the possibility of other universes outside of our own? what about universes that existed before ours? :) nonetheless, science cant actually "explain" the evolution of our universe, it can only describe the events that happened. no explanation for why or how is reachable.
So afterall - I have no idea what makes you (or anyone else) think that there "may be or IS something called "god" ". Could you elaborate? I personally have NO proof, not even remotely tangible one to even let that idea slip to my mind, aside that I've been lied to, like many people in some period during my childhood by people who were as clueless and afraid of death as many others..
as a child i was about where you and the rest of the athiests in this thread are at intellectually. not once in my youth at any age did i ever think that god existed and i always rejected it as a fairy tale, stories of magic, and a way for scared people to avoid thinking of death. but my thoughts have evolved past that unsophisticated and unwise and foolish presumptious way of being. i dont know god exists. to say so would be a lie. just like if you said you KNEW he didnt. that would also be a lie. but my experience of causality , and other logical things, have encouraged me to believe that diety of some sort is probably responsible forcretaing this world.
i ask, lets say you are out in the wild and stumble upon a highly advanced computer capable of making decisions on its own and sustaining and reproducing itself. would you think it more reasonable to assume an extremely intelligent person was responsible for creating that computer than to assume that computer just popped into existence out of nothing and for no reason at all ?
But then where did that creator come from? Saying that it 'always existed' is just as plausible as saying that the universe 'always existed'. So in the end, all you're really doing is substituting one question (about the creator) for another one (about the universe), and creating an extra level of indirection, which would tend to violate Occam's Razor.
oh, it cant. certain things are absolute. a circle is a circle. 1+1=2. science, which depends on empirical data, can never speak on metaphysics. any assertion about the cause and origin of the universe and its laws its necessarily out of ignorance. science can certainly explain the mechanical cause and effect of the universe to the extent which causality exists, but beyond that point there is no grounds for experimentations.
tbombz, Why would you argue physics with a goob like suck men off? As a radiation physicist, you can read through his cut and paste threads, and tell he has absolutely no idea what he is saying, my advice to you, don't pick on the special ed child anymore. ;Di like arguing with people. its a hobby of mine. ;D
And my second question is for those that say scientist do not believe in God, there are several of us that believe in God. Actually through my degree, I actually feel science has proven there is a God with the lack of answers that we do have!
i like trolling. its a hobby of mine. ;D
yall need to read this over and over till ya understand
i like arguing with people. its a hobby of mine. ;DIf you could only invest your prodigious logic, mental acrobatics and 'arguing' in a scholastic investment...
tbombz, Why would you argue physics with a goob like suck men off? As a radiation physicist, you can read through his cut and paste threads, and tell he has absolutely no idea what he is saying, my advice to you, don't pick on the special ed child anymore. ;DIve noticed this, for some reason, many scientists like to insinuate that "scientists" dont believe in god, period.
And my second question is for those that say scientist do not believe in God, there are several of us that believe in God. Actually through my degree, I actually feel science has proven there is a God with the lack of answers that we do have!
So science can never find the answers but you can?? This is in fact what you're saying.
If you could only invest your prodigious logic, mental acrobatics and 'arguing' in a scholastic investment...
Exactly , science can't figure it out but he has at home I wonder why he hasn't claimed his Nobel Prize yet. ::)Is bomz gonna sweep, or is he favoured in one of the categories? ;D
Is bomz gonna sweep, or is he favoured in one of the categories? ;DpWnd.
Inspiring truth!
SUCKMYMUSCLE
He's right.Hawking is just pissed that god was drunk when he was putting him together.
He's also wrong.
In a word: Pragmatism.
pWnd.I agree. He's obviously ticking over. Interested in stuff - that's obvious, from his posts. And, interest is so, so important to intellectual pursuits...but he has no discipline. And no intellectual rigor. That's not to say that university is for everybody - it's not! - but I do feel that he would benefit from the structure of getting an under-graduate degree. If, after that, his eclat rings farther than than the local church's purview, it will be manifest.
Bombz is a good kid IMHO.
Once he gets older and accumulates life experience he'll probably be a pretty cool guy, he's already laid back and lets shit slide, he's driven and he likes to learn, even if he likes to try to debate and teach before he's actually experienced what he's debating. :-\
He'll learn as he gets older and more experienced how much different things are in reality, compared to how they appear to him now.
You can't really ask what happened before the big bang because time itself resulted from the big bang. Therefore, any cause would have to exist outside the scope of space-time.thats just sticking your head in the sand via semantics. who says before the big bang there wasnt a previous big bang? who says outside the boundaries of our universe some odd gazilliuon trillion miles aaway there isnt a whole other universe ? maybe hundreds thousands billions of other universes, big bangs happening all the time , going back eternally?
So science can never find the answers but you can?? This is in fact what you're saying.no, im saying answers are unreachable. period. and this is fact.
I doubt any 'schooling' is going to help him considerably. Sure it won't hurt to give it a shot but his issues stem mostly from a very bad attitude.bad attitude ;D
And how is not this the most reprehensible ignorance, to think that one knows what one does not know? But I, O Athenians! in this, perhaps, differ from most men; and if I should say that I am in any thing wiser than another, it would be in this, that not having a competent knowledge of the things in Hades, I also think that I have not such knowledge.
When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.
I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing... as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go on my way, obedient to the god, and make inquisition into anyone, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and this occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god.
...if, I say now, when, as I conceive and imagine, God orders me to fulfill the philosopher's mission of searching into myself and other men, I were to desert my post through fear of death, or any other fear; that would indeed be strange, and I might justly be arraigned in court for denying the existence of the gods... then I would be fancying that I was wise when I was not wise. For this fear of death is indeed the pretense of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being the appearance of knowing the unknown; since no one knows whether death, which they in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good. ...this is the point in which, as I think, I am superior to men in general, and in which I might perhaps fancy myself wiser than other men — that whereas I know but little of the world below, I do not suppose that I know: but I do know that injustice and disobedience to a better, whether God or man, is evil and dishonorable, and I will never fear or avoid a possible good rather than a certain evil.
no, im saying answers are unreachable. period. and this is fact.
I agree. He's obviously ticking over. Interested in stuff - that's obvious, from his posts. And, interest is so, so important to intellectual pursuits...but he has no discipline. And no intellectual rigor. That's not to say that university is for everybody - it's not! - but I do feel that he would benefit from the structure of getting an under-graduate degree. If, after that, his eclat rings farther than than the local church's purview, it will be manifest.Agree - and he will probably arrive at the fact that he would benefit from discipline and structure.
roflmao, as if you know the slightest thing about science and it's boundaries. It's probably true that some things might be forever beyond the scope of science but looking back at the history of science; of what we knew back then and what know now, we are today absolutely not in a position to say "this is where science ends". You're among the last people on earth to be consulted on matters of science. Don't use words such as "indisputable", "fact" and "logic" when you over and over again display your massive ignorance on all kinds of subjects.science only began to make forward progress after the centuries of metaphysical speculation were finally put to rest when empiricists proved that metaphysics were beyond the bounds of experience and thus one could only guess.
Agree - and he will probably arrive at the fact that he would benefit from discipline and structure.Agree.
I would imagine almost everyone would get tired (i hope) of just floating from subject to subject without ever really accomplishing anything more than a rudimentary understanding of whatever concept it is theyre currently interested in.
And I bet when he has some real solid life experience under his belt, his posts on subjects like these (ones in that he has knowledge, but not enough to seriously debate) will drop quite a bit.
And Ill also bet that when he DOES really dig in and find something that he's ready to devote himself to learning, that he'll make a great teacher as he seems very open with things he's learned and his experiences (although im sure that will change with time too, as it does for everyone), and seems to really have a desire to help people that want to learn.
shockwave and chimps, i beg you, go back and read through my posts in this thread. do so a million times if you have to. keep rereading untill you grasp what i have been saying. do not project the thoughts of theists into my words, take my words as they are written. i am not the one in this thread who claims to know something, i am the one pointing out when others believe they know something that they do not. you may be older than i, but i assure you you can learn a great deal from me.Perhaps. It's certainly not humility, or openness.
Perhaps. It's certainly not humility, or openness.and what am i not open about? where do i lack humility ? should i let others proclaim to know things they do not to appear humble? should i avoid suggesting logical truths in order to appear that i possess humility ? nay.. i show my humility by being honest, admitting i know not what i know not..
science only began to make forward progress after the centuries of metaphysical speculation were finally put to rest when empiricists proved that metaphysics were beyond the bounds of experience and thus one could only guess.
being that science is essentialy founded on the principle that knowledge is limited, your the one showing profound ignorancee on the subject by acting as if its a possibilty that one day science may be able to find some kind of answers as to meta physics (cause and origin of universe and its laws)
and what am i not open about? where do i lack humility ? should i let others proclaim to know things they do not to appear humble? should i avoid suggesting logical truths in order to appear that i possess humility ? nay.. i show my humility by being honest, admitting i know not what i know not..Time to resume your sessions, as well, bro. ;)
If you went back in time to say the 17th century and told the smartest and most educated man/woman alive in that time period that the universe started with a massive inflation(details of which we know down to the billionth of a second), that there's an upper speed limit in the cosmos, that sickness comes from bacteria/virus and not demons, that we evolved from other animals, that atoms exist and their behavior relies on probabilities etc etc they would either declare you insane(probably possessed by demons) or burn you at the stake.first lets just make a few corrections:
Are you seriously saying that you, tdongschlong, in the year 2012 know the boundaries of science?
Time to resume your sessions, as well, bro. ;);D .. oh my.. chimpps.. i fear you might be beyond repair.. hopefully god does exist and he can eventually guide you..
shockwave and chimps, i beg you, go back and read through my posts in this thread. do so a million times if you have to. keep rereading untill you grasp what i have been saying. do not project the thoughts of theists into my words, take my words as they are written. i am not the one in this thread who claims to know something, i am the one pointing out when others believe they know something that they do not. you may be older than i, but i assure you you can learn a great deal from me.I wasnt talking about anything you had written in this thread bombz, I wasnt talking about your words, or your argument, lol.
first lets just make a few corrections:
you dont know that there is a "speed limit". recent observations of neutrinos should have been enough for you to drop that bit on your own.
theory of disease has been around since antiquity and so has the theory of evolution and atomic theory
leibnez predictyed quantum physics almost to the "t" back before there was any evidence of any such thing
secondly, yes, i do know that science is limited. can we explain the cause of quantum fluctuations? sure we migth be able to, in fact we probably will. at again and again and again and again as time moves forward and we increase our knowledge we will continue making discoveries. but at some point we will stop, or we will just keep going.. and neithe rof those scenarios provides an answer of any kind. it just leaves a big fat question mark. there will always be a question mark at the end of science. always. and this is where metaphysical speculation lies. science is incapable of speaking on it
theory of disease has been around since antiquity and so has the theory of evolution and atomic theory
leibnez predictyed quantum physics almost to the "t" back before there was any evidence of any such thing
Does anyone know if Hawkins is or isn't using his mind to try to "cure" his disease?I dont believe he does.
I dont believe he does.Yeah, I've said it before...you'd think there was no god if you had his "luck".
Like I said earlier, my opinion of Hawkings is that he's butthurt about his lot in life and about his disability
Id be pissed too if i was uber intelligent but looked like a human prune and sounds like a 1980's Macintosh. Thats not even including the fact that he stuck in a wheelchair and cant move.
Yeah, I've said it before...you'd think there was no god if you had his "luck".Agreed, I pretty much said the same thing earlier
I bet you he'd trade all his accomplishments, his intelligence, for one day as a handsome man who got the fuck the woman of his dreams---and could run, jump, walk up the stairs, and use the bathroom without someone wiping his ass or wearing a diaper...oh and have the voice of Barry White...
Each and everyone of us should be lucky that we are not sitting (or shitting) in his wheelchair, people having pity on you, and sounding like a Texas Instruments Speak n Spell.
Hawking is just pissed that god was drunk when he was putting him together.
If Hawking had to acknowledge that there was a god, he would be acknowledging that someone INTENTIONALLY made him the way he is. Pretty sure Hawking is pissed at life for his ailment, id bet 1099870987 dollards he'd trade his intelligence for a working body in .000000000000001 milliseconds.
Agreed, I pretty much said the same thing earlierEver have a Texas Instruments Speak n Spell as a kid? Well he sounds just like it. And when the batteries start to die, the. Damn thing starts to stutter and the words on the screen start to mesh together with numbers...it's like the damn thing has an "ailment"...everytime I hear him talk, I think that one day the computer he's using will start stuttering like the Speak n'Spell (I can't hold back my laughter).
;D
Ever have a Texas Instruments Speak n Spell as a kid? Well he sounds just like it. And when the batteries start to die, the. Damn thing starts to stutter and the words on the screen start to mesh together with numbers...it's like the damn thing has an "ailment"...everytime I hear him talk, I think that one day the computer he's using will start stuttering like the Speak n'Spell (I can't hold back my laughter).BAHAHAHA!!!
let socrates infiltrate your mind...Socrates fills candidizzles minds as Tyrone fills his ass with 13 inches of ebony dark chocolate goodness.
BAHAHAHA!!!And when this day happens, a tear will come to his eye, and he says "Fuck You God" (in a stuttering voice), and God (whereever, whoever) says, "You've been fucked your whole life."
I remember those things, dead nuts on Parker.
And when this day happens, a tear will come to his eye, and he says "Fuck You God" (in a stuttering voice), and God (whereever, whoever) says, "You've been fucked your whole life."Wrong! Stephen is the only man in history to stand up to this so called GOD, the man unable to stand in life has cast his shadow across the multiverse and even outdone GOD himself, that magnificent retarded bastard! To think it took a cripple to expose the myth and lies of thousands of generations of Idiots. Can you imagine such Power, every intellect in the world has known that the majority of people are idiots and believe anything, and the idiot majority rule by numbers. For thousands of years people have been superstitious because knowledge was yet to be unveiled, and know that the truth is here, the cracking of the denial of thousands of years of lies embedded in the idiot majorities heads is like the sound of the Big Bang Itself, it can be heard in every part of the Universe. A New World is coming where the enlightened rule and the idiots are kept quiet. JMO ;D
Wrong! Stephen is the only man in history to stand up to this so called GOD, the man unable to stand in life has cast his shadow across the multiverse and even outdone GOD himself, that magnificent retarded bastard! To think it took a cripple to expose the myth and lies of thousands of generations of Idiots. Can you imagine such Power, every intellect in the world has known that the majority of people are idiots and believe anything, and the idiot majority rule by numbers. For thousands of years people have been superstitious because knowledge was yet to be unveiled, and know that the truth is here, the cracking of the denial of thousands of years of lies embedded in the idiot majorities heads is like the sound of the Big Bang Itself, it can be heard in every part of the Universe. A New World is coming where the enlightened rule and the idiots are kept quiet. JMO ;Dunfortunately, you're wrong. He can't even walk, let alone stand...A New World is coming where the enlightened rule and the idiots are kept quiet
Wrong! Stephen is the only man in history to stand up to this so called GOD, the man unable to stand in life has cast his shadow across the multiverse and even outdone GOD himself, that magnificent retarded bastard! To think it took a cripple to expose the myth and lies of thousands of generations of Idiots. Can you imagine such Power, every intellect in the world has known that the majority of people are idiots and believe anything, and the idiot majority rule by numbers. For thousands of years people have been superstitious because knowledge was yet to be unveiled, and know that the truth is here, the cracking of the denial of thousands of years of lies embedded in the idiot majorities heads is like the sound of the Big Bang Itself, it can be heard in every part of the Universe. A New World is coming where the enlightened rule and the idiots are kept quiet. JMO ;DA New World is coming where the enlightened rule and the idiots are kept quiet
unfortunately, you're wrong. He can't even walk, let alone stand...Unfortunately, Getbig is full of the retarded majority, the retarded majority like to pick a few words out of a 300 word paragraph and make outlandish statements that reveal they didn't even read the post. I cant wait to the day if you test with a retard IQ you are even banned from posting on even the crudest forums such as GETBIG, it's bad enough the church has produced thousands of years of idiots, now a broken western society just produces these consumerist idiots who can hardly read, let alone retort with an educated reply. Sad, So Sad, because I know every idiot will be unable to completely read this post, but will post off topic and irrelevant responses anyway. God bless the Idiots, for they shall inherit the dirt!
Poor genetics...he won't recover.
Unfortunately, Getbig is full of the retarded majority, the retarded majority like to pick a few words out of a 300 word paragraph and make outlandish statements that reveal they didn't even read the post. I cant wait to the day if you test with a retard IQ you are even banned from posting on even the crudest forums such as GETBIG, it's bad enough the church has produced thousands of years of idiots, now a broken western society just produces these consumerist idiots who can hardly read, let alone retort with an educated reply. Sad, So Sad, because I know every idiot will be unable to completely read this post, but will post off topic and irrelevant responses anyway. God bless the Idiots, for they shall inherit the dirt!Its called sarcasm and a quick wit...
The neutrino experiment has not changed anything yet. It needs to be reproduced and verified before any conclusions can be drawn. Besides it's quite ironic that the results apparently disproves the theory of relativity but yet it uses that exact theory to determine the distance between start and finish of the experiment(via gps satellites).
You're only slightly correct about the atom part(atom is a greek word blabla) but the other two statements about disease and evolution you better find a damn good source for. How could they possibly have known about bacteria without a microscope?
I bet all kinds of stuff have been speculated about at one point in history but there's a dramatic difference between speculation, proof and working theories. Vague speculation just doesn't get the job done.
There might always be a question mark at the 'end'(whatever that might be) of science but you can absolutely not predict where that will be. Personally I'd be shocked if a working theory of the origin of the universe has not been worked out by the end of this century.
"Tdongz", let me summarize the issue for your limited mind to understand. There are two hypothesis here:
1. There is a first cause.
2. There was never a first cause.
Either one of these possibilities do not require a God.
1. The first cause, by definition, does not require any previous cause. This is conditione sine qua non for it to be the first cause in the first place. The first cause, if there is one, somehow sprang about from itself. It could be a super-magical being called God, but this does not eliminate the fact that the first cause sprang about by itself. In fact, there being a super-magical being posessed of infinite powers and capabilities in the beggining creates more problems than you set yourself to resolve in the first place. The first cause should be a very simple axiom, like the numbers "0" and "1", from which all mathematics and computer science derive. But whatever it was, the first cause creates with itself the very process of causality "Before" first cause = no causality required. Speaking of an "uncaused cause" is non-sequitur. It is a play at semantics, a tautology.
2. In this case, an infinite loop like infinite sets in mathematics. This makes God impossible because the one requirement for God being God is that He is the first cause. If there is no first cause = no God. You cannot argue either that there was no first cause in time, but de facto God as the first God because God "timelessly" created the Universe, meaning an infinite regressing loops of causes but with God as the "first" cause. The problem here is that we are arguing in absolute, axiomatic terms and not chronological terms. An infinite regressing chain of causes makes it impossible for there to be a God with the most important attribute for God being God of being the creator of the Universe. There could be immensely powerful beings that far surpass the traditional religious ideas of God, but these beings still wouldn't be God if they weren't the first cause.
Case closed.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
btw, I for one am refreshed that this thread didnt turn into one of those long, dick measuring contests for psuedo intellectuals who never did anything in real lifeno ones stopping you from putting your two cents in, and nobodies forcing you to read either. are you feeling envious of people who like to engage in discussions about interesting concepts or are you mad because we arent paying attention to your constant attempts at humor? im here to help anytime you need somebody to listen, not being an asshole, being serious. let me know if you need somebody to talk to. ill listen. but i will warn you, im not going to pretend your attempts at humor are funny if they arent (as is usually the case)
in closing, I want to say that this thread so didn't end up the way I thought it would
no ones stopping you from putting your two cents in, and nobodies forcing you to read either. are you feeling envious of people who like to engage in discussions about interesting concepts or are you mad because we arent paying attention to your constant attempts at humor? im here to help anytime you need somebody to listen, not being an asshole, being serious. let me know if you need somebody to talk to. ill listen. but i will warn you, im not going to pretend your attempts at humor are funny if they arent (as is usually the case)
thats a solid post except for a few things.
first, you can not assert what a first cause should be. it may be simple or it may be complex.
second, you can not asssert that god is complex. god could be simple or complex. you dont know which. in fact, i think a god would be neither.. something totally incomprehensible,that no words could ever describe gods qualities.
third, having god as the first cause does not create "more problems". an uncaused cause is just as problematic as an uncaused god.
first cause = uncaused cause.. by definition..
Speaking of humility: didnt tbomz pull ouy of his ass that matter is 'infinitely divisible' and that 'there is no such thing as a massless particle'? :-\
Like others have said u need to gain some life experiences and knowledge before you claim to k.ow everything. I almost puked when i saw you quote socrates. Dont unnecessarily put yourself in a situation where you proclaim what is beyond your knowledge, it only hardens your pre-existing beliefs and blocks you even more from learning new things.
Have a good night.
It is non-sequitur. A tautology. A redundancy. Because the first cause needs be uncaused for there to be a first cause in the first place, and if you postulate God as the cause of the "first" cause, then you are making God the first cause and you are making the "first" cause the second one. Holy shit, why can't you understand this? :-\ :-\yes, exactly, the first cause is necessarily an uncaused cause. lol ;D
SUCKMYMUSCLE
There is such a thing as a brickwall, i hope you believe.
matter is infinitely divisible and there isnt such a thing as a massless particle.
There is such a thing as a brickwall, i hope you believe.cut the brick wall in half. cut it in half again. keep going. tell me when you can no longer cut those halfs in half.
cut the brick wall in half. cut it in half again. keep going. tell me when you can no longer cut those halfs in half.Haha. You dont know the very basics of particle physics and u get in this drawn out discussions about quantum mechanics and uncaused causes. Have you no shame?
Haha. You dont know the very basics of particle physics and u get in this drawn out discussions about quantum mechanics and uncaused causes. Have you no shame?go try cutting that brick wall in half. come back when your done cutting the halfs in half.
go try cutting that brick wall in half. come back when your done cutting the halfs in half.Shameless
energy (photon) doesnt have RESTMASS, cuz it doesnt rest. it still has mass. look it up homeboy. (you dont even need to do that though, just use common sense )What in the blue fuck are you talking about?
you experience red????? wow, youve actually been red through and through ?? ;DCut the semantics bullshit, u know what i meant. As for 'who selected it' i will refer u to the theory of evolution. It favored ua to perceive color whereas other animals dont perceive it, or have no visua sense at all.. cuz it was not advantageous for them in the natural world.
and what do you mean "the experience of red" and how are you seperating this from the actual "color" red?
the color was selected for its usefulness??? and by whom was it selected ? ;D
btw, your post had absolutely nothing to do with the point i was making
The neutrino experiment has not changed anything yet. It needs to be reproduced and verified before any conclusions can be drawn. Besides it's quite ironic that the results apparently disproves the theory of relativity but yet it uses that exact theory to determine the distance between start and finish of the experiment(via gps satellites).
You're only slightly correct about the atom part(atom is a greek word blabla) but the other two statements about disease and evolution you better find a damn good source for. How could they possibly have known about bacteria without a microscope?
I bet all kinds of stuff have been speculated about at one point in history but there's a dramatic difference between speculation, proof and working theories. Vague speculation just doesn't get the job done.
There might always be a question mark at the 'end'(whatever that might be) of science but you can absolutely not predict where that will be. Personally I'd be shocked if a working theory of the origin of the universe has not been worked out by the end of this century.
not that atom is a greek word, but atomic theory- that everything is made of 'atoms', geometrically but not physically divisible units of stuff. this goes back to pre-socratic era and was furthered by leibnez to the point of basically predicting quantum physics. start with anaxagoras and go from there.
evolution - anaximander http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
disease - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
yes there will always be a question mark. no, no one can tell where it will be at. it may keep getting pushed farther and farther down the round, but there it will always be.
you would not be shocked if such a theory came about, you would be misinformed.
you really need to study some basic philosophy
not that atom is a greek word, but atomic theory- that everything is made of 'atoms', geometrically but not physically divisible units of stuff. this goes back to pre-socratic era and was furthered by leibnez to the point of basically predicting quantum physics. start with anaxagoras and go from there.
evolution - anaximander http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
disease - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
yes there will always be a question mark. no, no one can tell where it will be at. it may keep getting pushed farther and farther down the round, but there it will always be.
you would not be shocked if such a theory came about, you would be misinformed.
you really need to study some basic philosophy
energy (photon) doesnt have RESTMASS, cuz it doesnt rest. it still has mass. look it up homeboy. (you dont even need to do that though, just use common sense )
what you copy and pasted didnt address what i copy and pasted.
in fact it doesnt nothing to refute it at all.
if one were to read both copy and pastes, they would still understand that a photon is only "massless" because its never at rest and therefore its rest-mass is immeasurable.
but it indeed has "mass-energy", which is the same thing as just plain "mass".
But photons have energy. By E=mc2, doesn't this mean that they have A mass?
The equation above was derived from this expression:
E2=(pc)2+(m0c2)2
A photon can still have zero invariant mass (m0), and can still have energy. There's nothing inconsistent here. All of the photon's energy is in the term pc. Some people would say that this is the photon's "inertial mass", since it is similar to the inertia that one feels when trying to stop a moving mass. This may or may not be useful to consider. However, it certainly should not be confused with the concept of the ordinary mass that most people are familiar with.
ACTUALLY THE NEUTRIN0 EXPIRMENT HAS BEEN VERIFIED MANY TIMES AND S0 FAR N0 0NE CAN DISPR0VE IT.
What makes many physisicts doubt the results of this experiment is the whenever they're fortunate enough to witness a supernova explosion(that emits tons of light and neutrinos) through their telescopes and detectors they've found that the photons and the neutrinos arrive to the earth at the exact same time. The european experiment had a measly earthly/human distance between start and finish while the supernova observation relied on a distance that's measured in lightyears and yet no neutrinos arrived before the photons. If there was any discrepancy between the two the difference would have been huge.
you dont have the slightest idea about how the retina relates imagery to the visual cortex and yet you have the arrogance to think this was written in the color red. the gumption!
not that there is a lack of data, its that data itself is necessarily incapable of providing any information on metaphysics.
why are you ASSuming god is so complex?
the "evolution of the universe". which universe? what about the possibility of other universes outside of our own? what about universes that existed before ours? nonetheless, science cant actually "explain" the evolution of our universe, it can only describe the events that happened. no explanation for why or how is reachable.
as a child i was about where you and the rest of the athiests in this thread are at intellectually. not once in my youth at any age did i ever \think that god existed and i always rejected it as a fairy tale, stories of magic, and a way for scared people to avoid thinking of death.p
but my experience of causality , and other logical things, have encouraged me to believe that diety of some sort is probably responsible forcretaing this world.
AND YET N0 SCIENTIST HAS BEEN ABLE T0 FIND AN ERR0R IN THE EXPERIMENT.
What about the possibility that there was a cause and no cause simultaneously - leaving humanity with an unsolvable paradox.As I said - simply beyond human comprehension at this time, fun to speculate on, but pointless for us to debate. (Probably for anyone to debate for that matter)
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
What about the possibility that there was a cause and no cause simultaneously - leaving humanity with an unsolvable paradox.This appears, on a first reading, to be in English? Could you rearrange the words to make it so? Thanks.
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
And what have great minds of Getbig concluded?
So is there a god or not?What do you think? ;D
And what have great minds of Getbig concluded?There is no dong but tdongz, and Ron is his messenger
And again you display your massive ignorance. The photon has momentum, but no mass. I've corrected you on this before.even in your homeboys quote he isnt saying anything with certainty ... "this may or may not be useful to consider"
This is where you're wrong and it also seems that whoever typed that quote is also wrong/misguided. It's a common misconception to apply the E=mc^2 formula to photons and therefore think they have mass.
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-511175.html (http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-511175.html)
I'd like to see you say this when trying to cut a wire of the bomb (like in movies, you know :D). Someone would say to you through a walkie "Cut a red one", and you'd go like.. "Ummm.. you say red? I don't think Red is actually Red, because I see it like Blue.." ;)..
you might be on to something there ;)
In other words - you don't even have an idea of what are you talking about (but you are still convinced it's somehow "true" :D).. That's a sign of lack of a simple common sense.
what am i convinced is true ? ;D
And in this case god IS complex, becuase it's way more difficult to explain it's existence than to explain teh evolution of the universe.
ability to explain= deifnition of complexity ? where are you getting that idea? besides, both a self caused universe and a universe caused by an entity are equaly difficult to expplain - unexplainable.
String theory allows an existence of other universes, but it's a theory still. We'll see what come out of it (as it's not a "Holly book" with a "finite" explantion of everything).
Science doesn't try to answer philosophical questions like "Why?", btw, it does explain HOW tho', or at least does it without a rivalry, as in effectiveness (unless you have to suggest something more PROVEN. Can you? ).
No you WERE NOT. It seems that you can't even grasp what is an ATHEISM. Read carefully, I'll explain why you haven't been as a child where I am, or other atheists are. You may've not believed in god, but NOT because you were EDUCATED on the issue, but because of any other reason (like - parents didn't "make" you believe in one). Just liek if you were kid who didn't believe in Santa (as parents didn't tell you about "him").
What you try to say is that you were a clueless child, who grew up and falled into the same trap of human nature driven religiousness and belief in god. You haven't had a chance to educate yourself on the issue, as you've accepted "faith" in advance as a "trustworthy" idea.
To be an atheist is to be someone who does not believe in god, because he knows what religion is all about, understands how human psychology works on this issue, knows the history of religiousness and generally understands that PARENTS PUT THESE GIFTS UNDER AN X-MASS TREE. It's not DISbelief just to disbelieve, it's a state of mind when education takes place of a former UNeducation. When a light hits a dark. It's NOT a doctrine nor an ideology by any means, it's just a thought up "title". We could call kids, who doesn't believe in Santa ANY MORE atheists too. Let's say Santa is touted as "god". Oh my... some kids just've realized that there's no Santa. Umm.. let's call them somehow.. maybe "Asanthists"? The fact of the matter is that once they've found out the TRUTH and REALITY there is NO way they will start believeing in Santa once again. That'd be pure insanity (or dementia, whatever..).
um, actually, i was raised in an extremely religious family. ive never met someone so convinced of the truth and infallibilty fo the bible than my father is. my thoughts on this issue when i was 2,3,6 years old are where yours are now. your thought process is extremely unsophisticated - you cant see the forest through the trees.
Your "exprience" is subjective, and mind is prone to delusions, that's it. On the other hand - science is not, love it or hate it, but it is not prone to that.
What about the possibility that there was a cause and no cause simultaneously - leaving humanity with an unsolvable paradox.that is absolutely the case regardless of whether it was god or not.
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
So is there a god or not?