Stephen Hawkins: Theists Are Cowards Who Are Afraid Of The Dark.

[tbombz]

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!

[haider]

The experience of red we're not sure where it comrs from but the color is a wavelength in the snarrow spectrum of  electromagnetic radiation, selected for its usefulness to our survival.

The naming scheme of colors is based on concensus ofcourse, there is no objective reality of ita 'redness'.

Oh and by the way, light is a beam of photons that have a particle nature. And it is massless.

[tbombz]

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 )

[tbombz]

you experience red?? wow, youve actually been red through and through ?? 

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 ?   

btw, your post had absolutely nothing to do with the point i was making

[haider]

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?

It doesnt have mass, ie there is no gravitational field that acts on it. Why did i get pulled into this?

[tbombz]

i suggest you do a quick google search on the topic and educate yourself broseph. or, just use your head. no mass=no particle.

[haider]

you experience red?? wow, youve actually been red through and through ?? 

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 ?   

btw, your post had absolutely nothing to do with the point i was making

Cut 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.

Yawn. I have HW to do.

[tbombz]

evolution favored us ? i didnt know the evolutionary process was capable of forethought and decision making 

stop repeating bullshit you hear and start thinking on your own haider

yes at times i play with semantics, but i do it to make you be deliberate with yoru words and to think analytically about the implications of your verbage


when one says "massless particle" , there could be two meaning. the moder definition that modern scientists use, or the older definition that most people would assume.  a photon doesnt have any mass because "its energy at rest would equal zero", but the thing is, photons dont rest, and any speculation as to what their mass would be at rest is nothing more than speculation. what is their "relativistic mass" , what modern scientists would call it, now that is what most people would consider when they talk abotu mass.

i do not accept the term massless particle on the grounds that it is misleading on based purely on speculation with absolutely no way to test its hypothesis.

[tbombz]

Stevie 

I'm so glad that he let me try it again
Cause my last time on earth I lived a whole world of sin
I'm so glad that I know more than I knew then
Gonna keep on tryin'
Till I reach my highest ground
Till I reach my highest ground
No one's gonna bring me down
Oh no
Till I reach my highest ground
Don't you let nobody bring you down (they'll sho 'nuff try)
God is gonna show you higher ground
He's the only friend you have around

[suckmymuscle]

  "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

[asbrus]

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.

ACTUALLY THE NEUTRIN0 EXPIRMENT HAS BEEN VERIFIED MANY TIMES AND S0 FAR N0 0NE CAN DISPR0VE IT.

[lovemonkey]

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.

Are you slow? 

evolution - anaximander http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html

disease - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease

Again as I said, most things most likely have been speculated about at one point or another but there's a huge difference between speculation and a working theory. It wasn't even knowledge at that point.

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

Aha! Here you go again claiming to know the boundaries of science!

[lovemonkey]

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 )

And again you display your massive ignorance. The photon has momentum, but no mass. I've corrected you on this before.

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".

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

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.

[lovemonkey]

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 that 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.

[asbrus]

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.

AND YET N0 SCIENTIST HAS BEEN ABLE T0 FIND AN ERR0R IN THE EXPERIMENT.

[da_vinci]

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!

I'd like to see you say this when trying to cut a wire of the bomb (like in movies, you know ). 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.." ..
 

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?

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" ).. That's a sign of lack of a simple common sense.
 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.

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. 

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? ).

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

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..).

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.

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.

[lovemonkey]

AND YET N0 SCIENTIST HAS BEEN ABLE T0 FIND AN ERR0R IN THE EXPERIMENT.

Which means that we need to remain patient and reproduce the experiment several times over before drawing any conclusions. I like how you completely ignored the supernova example 

[suckmymuscle]

  "Tdongz" decimated...as usual.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[The Abdominal Snoman]

In the dating game, the color red represents desperation.

[Radical Plato]

What about the possibility that there was a cause and no cause simultaneously - leaving humanity with an unsolvable paradox.

                                               

[Shockwave]

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)

[dr.chimps]

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.

[Parker]

And what have great minds of Getbig concluded?


 

[Raymondo]

And what have great minds of Getbig concluded?


 

That there are butthurt snitches amongst us

[Polish Power]

“I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.… This is a somewhat new kind of religion.”

Albert Einstein