found out another good friend is NOT a CHRISTIAN!!!!

[devilsmile]

 On everything God's will. You sound like a mini Nietzsche but let me tell one thing to you - Leo Tolstoy called Nietzsche stupid and abnormal. Leo Tolstoy has had a profound impact on such pivotal twentieth-century figures and the hero of yourz as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.
 You are very stupid and cock confident guy, straight ahead and good luck, Jesus love ya.

Nietzsche was a nobody dude... just like people usually are that are the likes of him. He had some greate points but in many cases he seems like an angry little dude, he still had valid arguments, something what religious whores totally lack.

I'm extremely confident in what I'm saying to you, because as for now you haven't said one valid argument against what I have said... not one, ok. Everything I've said about christianity and their ideals is true... you dont' comment on them at all. Makes you theavoidingone

[tbombz]

your stats are atrocious, the fact that we are hear make the probability 100%, perhaps there is no other way for the universe to be configured, you are assuming all other possibilities and then stacking the deck against life. The anthropomorphic argument, weak or strong sucks, its a tautology and doesn't answer anything.

This is your argument. Before the simplest thing ever, there was the most complex thing there could ever be, why? no reason, it just was. Then he creates the simplest thing which slowly progresses over billions of years to higher and higher complexity, which will eventually end in heat death killing everything.

it is not self evident that complex begets simple, in fact it is the other way around, things start simple then get complex. Again another proof against god.

your idea of simple and complex are rooted in a physical world, and your ideas of "the proper order of beings" are also rooted in this physical world.

YOU put a simple thing before....nothing.
which makes no sense.

if energy is eternal, "where" a it before the big bang? 

[devilsmile]

if energy is eternal, "where" a it before the big bang?  

from redicelous theory to another... GOD made it , god allways was and allways has been, god knows the gazillion galaxies and stars and planets, there's no other intelligent life anywhere and god just wanted to create these dudes and dudettes from pure boredom... with rules and fear OFCOURSE how else would people be able to live 

seriously  

[MCWAY]

your idea of simple and complex are rooted in a physical world, and your ideas of "the proper order of beings" are also rooted in this physical world.

YOU put a simple thing before....nothing.
which makes no sense.

if energy is eternal, "where" a it before the big bang?  

So atheists have a problem with a sentient entity being eternal; but they have no problem with non-sentient energy being eternal.

[Rami]

I would say people don't have wisdom, intelligence, free will and are not even alive in the traditional sense.

The universe is completely physical/mechanical. And so is or brain and consciousness as well as everything else that the energy organizes too.

The physical laws of the universe, like gravity, electromagnetism and the initial one change that started of the universe has already predetermined how everything goes down from the first split second.  

Everything that is happening now is this explosion that has yet to settle, it's merely the fallout until everything has 'fizzled out', and the energies have settled.

Everything that has ever happened and will happen can only go down one way. The universe is a completely linear event.


The only questions are what created the initial energy/matter, determined the physical laws, and what set it off.

[YngiweRhoads]

nothing

Quantum field theory shows that a quantum field, such as the quantum ground state, fluctuates, or is constituted by fluctuations  (e.g. virtual particles) which The Standard Model describes as 'fundamental' somethings. To oversimplify further: "nothingness" vibrates  insofar as "nothingness" is energetic. "A complete absence of energy" is 'metaphysical speculation' and not much else.

[YngiweRhoads]

So atheists have a problem with a sentient entity being eternal; but they have no problem with non-sentient energy being eternal.

The latter has proof, while the former is pure speculation. Can you disprove the law of conservation of energy? Then I may be a little more inclined to accept your conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

[theonlyone]

You will never ever find GOD by using scientific words such as - finite, infinite, physcial, mechanical, eternal, simple, complex, probability, Hubble telescope, Newton, conservation of energy, initial energy, matter, linear and so on, it will always be amiss, always I assure you. I am really starting to think it's kinda of sex or something for some of you.
 It will be easier to kill yourself and return back with Einstein and Hitler. You would finally tell us how the God looks like, paradise, hell etc. Anyone finally?

[YngiweRhoads]

You will never ever find GOD by using scientific words such as - finite, infinite, physcial, mechanical, eternal, simple, complex, probability, initial energe, matter, linear and so on, it will always be amiss, always I assure you. I am really starting to think it's kinda of sex or something for some of you.
 It will be easier to kill yourself and return back with Einstein and Hitler. You would finally tell us how the God looks like, paradise, hell etc. Anyone finally?

Lack of understanding is no basis for the existence of a deity.

This is the last time I respond to you Quackzilla.

[theonlyone]

This is the last time I respond to you Quackzilla.

I assurre you, you  understand nothing

[theonlyone]

 It's not a dispute or a competition who knows more about physics. It's about whether God exists or not. Whether hell and paradise exist or not. The simplest way to dicover it is to kill yourself and return back with the full report. There is no easier way out!

[Captain Equipoise]

I assurre you, you  understand nothing

You are a severely retarded individual, I feel sorry for you..keep holding on to your faith as science disproves everything you believe in year after year.

[theonlyone]

 I love science and the scientist I beleive in them! They will build a town on Marz in 2972. They will make man live forever and return to life all deads, unless God terminates all humanity in 1 sec.
 You may continue to discuss the physics, I'm done.

[tbombz]

So atheists have a problem with a sentient entity being eternal; but they have no problem with non-sentient energy being eternal.

yes..exactly.




Pure logic can never prove anything, let alone God's existence. God has given us no direct confirmation of his existence that we can verifiably confirm.

it is a matter of faith, but reason and logic combined can lead one to the proper conclusion.

[Captain Equipoise]

yes..exactly.




Pure logic can never prove anything, let alone God's existence. God has given us no direct confirmation of his existence that we can verifiably confirm.

it is a matter of faith, but reason and logic combined can lead one to the proper conclusion.

 

[#1 Klaus fan]

 

^^^ That emoticon can't be overused in a situation like this.

 

[MCWAY]

The latter has proof, while the former is pure speculation. Can you disprove the law of conservation of energy? Then I may be a little more inclined to accept your conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Both have proof; both have speculation.

Or, if you prefer, man cannot create or destroy energy.

[YngiweRhoads]

Both have proof; both have speculation.

Or, if you prefer, man cannot create or destroy energy.

Proof for God? Provide said proofs.


Please point out where any part of the law of conservation of energy is speculative, or Noether's theorem which corroborates the evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_Theorem

[MCWAY]

Proof for God?

Yep!! Enough to convince certain atheists-turned-Christians, like Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel (just to name a few).

[YngiweRhoads]

Yep!! It worked for former atheists-turned-Christians, Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel (just to name a few).

That explains nothing.

[Captain Equipoise]

Yep!! Enough to convince certain atheists-turned-Christians, like Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel (just to name a few).

Let me guess, conveniently enough you need to have 'faith' to see/feel/hear/witness the proof and evidence, right ?...

how about some solid fucking evidence!?! a polaroid !?!, a videotape, any physical evidence (don't answer with - the earth or some other b.s) that (a) god exists anywhere in the universe in any dimension (currently there are aproximately 11 - string theory)

[Croatch]

I can't stop laughing.
Joking aside, if you enter logic into any religion, it fails every time.
People need "faith" because they really don't know wtf they're here.  Much like a rodent, it doesn't know either, but was never shown a bible.  Either way, it doesn't hurt to believe in any of it, so enjoy....well, unless you figure all the deaths due to religious wars.  Let's face it though, that's just entertainment for the rest of us, who aren't religious...win win.

[Butterbean]

This is in reference to nothing as described in quantum physics, and not the colloquial term nothing.

http://www.nanogallery.info/news/?id=8735&slid=news&type=anews


Something from nothing is a quantum possibility. Werner Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle opened the doors to overturning the law of energy conservation. Something from nothing is a quantum possibility


Is it ever possible to get something for nothing? The global wave of financial scandals has been widely seen as confirmation that “only nothing can come from nothing”, as the Greek philosopher Parmenides argued around 2,500 years ago and finger-wagging moralists have been telling us ever since.

Slackers everywhere should therefore take heart from the mounting evidence that Parmenides and his ilk could not have been more wrong. It is now becoming clear that everything can – and probably did – come from nothing.

Whenever some common-sense view of the nature of reality is challenged like this, you can bet quantum theory will be involved. And so it proves in this case, with two recent advances in the understanding of the subatomic world adding to the weight of evidence.

Unlike financial scam artists, physicists have been amassing evidence for their unlikely claim for decades, beginning with the discovery by a young German theoretician of a loophole in a supposedly inviolable law of nature.

As countless generations of schoolchildren are taught to parrot in class, the law of conservation of energy states that it cannot be created or destroyed, but merely transformed from one form to another.

In 1927, Dr Werner Heisenberg showed that the truth is rather more interesting in a paper that addressed a philosophical question: how do we know what reality is like? The answer seems obvious: by making observations. But Dr Heisenberg pointed out that the newly emerging quantum theory implied that the very act of observation affects whatever is being observed. That, in turn, means it is impossible to know with total precision what reality is actually like.

Dr Heisenberg went on to show that his now-celebrated Uncertainty Principle implies there is always some uncertainty about properties of any region of space – specifically, how much energy it contains over a given period. The “law” of energy conservation is thus merely a conceit, and one whose violation leads to some astonishing consequences – including support for the something-for-nothing view of reality.

Heisenberg’s principle implies, for example, that the very space around us is seething with subatomic particles, popping in and out of empty space. During their fleeting existence, these “vacuum particles” interact with each other, and turn the supposedly dull vacuum of space into the quantum vacuum – which astronomers now know is anything but dull. Observations suggest the expansion of the entire cosmos is being propelled by quantum vacuum energy, in the form of enigmatic “dark energy”.

Something for nothing can also be seen working its magic down at the other scale of things. In the late 1940s, the Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir predicted that the quantum vacuum could generate a force-field between two flat plates of metal. This “Casimir Effect” again emerges literally out of nowhere, pushing the plates together.

The force is pretty feeble: between two book-sized plates separated by just a hair’s breadth, it is equivalent to barely the weight of the ink in this sentence’s full stop, and it was properly measured only in the mid-1990s. Even so, it’s enough to cause the components of delicate micro-mechanical devices to seize up.

Fortunately, back in the 1960s some Soviet theorists predicted that the quantum vacuum can be engineered so that the Casimir force becomes one of repulsion rather than attraction. And last week a team of scientists in the US reported in the journal Nature that they had confirmed the prediction in dramatic style, using the repulsive form of the force to levitate a gold-plated ball. OK, the ball was less than the size of a full stop, but that’s pretty impressive considering it was being held aloft by nothing but the energy of empty space.

Some theorists now think they can go even further, and use the physics of something for nothing to explain the origin of literally everything. They claim that the Big Bang from which the entire universe emerged was the result of convulsions in the quantum vacuum which took place around 14 billion years ago.

New theoretical work on the nature of matter suggests we may now have to regard even ourselves to be manifestations of the quantum vacuum.

All atoms are made up of electrons plus a far more massive central nucleus, made up of clusters of particles called quarks. It seems obvious that the mass of the nucleus must be the sum total of the masses of its quarks – but that reckons without the effect of the quantum vacuum. It turns out that the quarks account for only a tiny fraction of the total mass of a nucleus. By far the bulk comes from the subatomic “glue” that binds its quarks together. And this glue takes the form of vacuum particles flitting in and out of existence.

That at least is the theory. Confirming it requires some appallingly difficult calculations, involving all the different manifestations of quantum vacuum particles inside the nucleus – of which there are trillions. At the John von Neumann Institute for Computing in Jülich, Germany, Dr Stephan Dürr and colleagues have had a shot at doing this titanic calculation, using a computer capable of performing over 100 million million calculations a second.

After several months of number-crunching, the machine has now spat out its estimate for the mass of a hydrogen nucleus, and it is within 2 per cent of the value measured in the lab. In other words, virtually all the mass contained in atoms – and indeed us – appears to be nothing more than the evanescent energy of empty space.

It thus seems that much as we may like to distance ourselves from financial scam artists and get-rich-quick schemes, we are all living proof that it’s possible to get something for nothing.

Robert Matthews is Visiting Reader in Science at Aston University, Birmingham, England

Something from nothing is a quantum possibility. Werner Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle opened the doors to overturning the law of energy conservation.

I see what you are trying to present w/this but from where did the quantum vacuum come?


Also, do you accept this as true re: quantum vacuum?  Doesn't sound like "nothing" to me though.

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5]

(wiki)

[Butterbean]

Not gonna go into a lengthy argument about those happenings but one fact I find interesting is that over half of the Waffen SS were confirmed christians.

What is a "confirmed christian?" 

[Necrosis]

I see what you are trying to present w/this but from where did the quantum vacuum come?


Also, do you accept this as true re: quantum vacuum?  Doesn't sound like "nothing" to me though.

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5]

(wiki)

stella can you not tell by your response that you are so closed minded its impossible to discuss this with you? where did the vaccum come from, you guys will always ask where did that come from, oh, until we get to your god who needs no explanation.