God and the World, what do you think? [Does God Exist II]

[Godular]

Stupid photons. How dare they have no mass, yet possess energy... which has mass... *twitch

Sigh photons have momentum. E=mc^2 is used when the system is at rest.

Sigh? Really?

It has both, and both incorporate mass in their respective calculations. E =mc^2 and E =pc are the same thing in empty space. Is this in disagreement with previous points put forward by you and mav?

[Vilatania]

Can someone please explain to me how a "Does God Exist" thread get on the topic of mass-energy conversion and similarity?

It's pretty common. In many cases someone tries to make their point with incorrect or flawed scientific backing and the discussion has to shift in order to show how exactly it is wrong. Otherwise they won't understand why their point is fallible.

[Godular]

Can someone please explain to me how a "Does God Exist" thread get on the topic of mass-energy conversion and similarity?

Something to do with the notion of a nature-driven universe origin violating the law of conservation of mass/energy and whatnot, if I read the past few pages correctly.

[Wallenburg]

Can someone please explain to me how a "Does God Exist" thread get on the topic of mass-energy conversion and similarity?

Something to do with the notion of a nature-driven universe origin violating the law of conservation of mass/energy and whatnot, if I read the past few pages correctly.

In that case, there is no violation because the universe began with a cosmic level of energy at a singularity.

[Salandriagado]

No. Matter is energy. You've heard of E=MC^2? Matter, as such, can be destroyed. And in fact, we've done it. Energy is a bit more difficult. Apparently energy cannot be created or destroyed. Fortunately gravity can have negative energy, and as a result of that the net energy of the universe is zero. Which means no energy had to be created to make the universe.

Now how about instead of just repeating yourself you try and come up with an actual argument. You know, one that I didn't just refute.

Where the hell did you pull the information that matter is de facto energy? Matter is a blanket term for different things, and your direct association that matter is energy is quite wrong.

An atom is a physical object with mass, i.e matter. Therefore, an atom is not energy. But, the atom possesses energy, which is the effect of the cause (atom).

A ≠ E. A ≠ M and always M.

In that case, you are wrong.

Wrong.

If the way that you believe that you should act according to the bible precisely matches how you would act otherwise, then none (but it's irrelevant). If it changes your behaviour in any way, then there's your cost.



Any god worth worshiping would reward critical thought, not punish it.

About the acceptance of critical thinking.

In a "theoscientific" view, God is an multi-dimensional being that does not occupy the:

• 3rd dimension (x, y, z)
• 2nd (x, y)
• 1st (x)
• 0 Dimensional Space (0)

To question God's functions and motives is like questioning the fourth dimension and onwards; you have no reason to critique, because you have absolutely no idea how it works. You know what it is, however, and that's that.

I know quite a lot about those dimensions, actually. I spend a lot of my time working in them.

I refer you to the title of the thread.

Then talk to someone who's talking about the OP? I wasn't.

*Sigh*. I see subtlety is wasted on you. I was trying to hint that you might want to try staying on topic.

Being as the growth in zero-hour contracts amounts to a huge percentage of the supposed growth in jobs that you're so proud of, yes.

Zero-hour contracts are good for the economy.

Not when they're essentially just fake jobs to massage unemployment figures, they aren't.

[Kainesia]

Can someone please explain to me how a "Does God Exist" thread get on the topic of mass-energy conversion and similarity?

Considerably preferable to "the bible dun said so" that you find everywhere else on the internet.

[Salandriagado]

...Umm no, you fail to understand the concept of a singularity. You further fail to understand how that affects physics. You further fail to understand that energy can be negative so that + and - =0.

It may be off topic, but are you certain that positives and negatives can have a polarity mechanism in dimensions more complex than the third dimension?

Just a thought for everyone.

Yes. In greater than one dimension, you get infinitely many other possible "polarity systems" (see colour charge).

I am not sure I understand the question the way it is worded. Are you asking if positive and negative cancel in higher dimensions?

Yeah.

In physics, matter is anything with a mass and volume.
Matter can be produced from energy, and energy can be produced from matter.

Then what had projected these two mechanisms in the third dimension, if this is true alongside the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed? I know that matter can be created from two photons to fermions; but still, won't this end in circular reasoning for the photon creation and, basically, all of the creation enigmas?

You're nearly there. Matter stores energy, so converting energy to/from matter doesn't destroy/create it, just changes it into a different form. For your latter question, energy can be created and destroyed, providing that an equal quantity of negative energy is also created/destroyed at the same time. The net energy of the universe seems to be zero, so far as we can tell.

...Umm no, you fail to understand the concept of a singularity. You further fail to understand how that affects physics. You further fail to understand that energy can be negative so that + and - =0. You are also assuming that nothingness is possible. Right now we do not know if energy is infinite, all that we know is that the universe as we know it has a begining. That does not mean that there did not exist a previous universe. So first thing you must demonstrate is that nothingness is possible and ever existed for the claim that energy came from nothing to be true.

First of all, logic tells us that there was a point in time where there was a void. My whole argument is based on singularity; read a post thoroughly before you actually develop a response. All matter and energy in the Universe must have a beginning in a certain frame of time. For if it is not to, then logic is permissible. Energy, as we not it, has to of had a beginning, energy can't be without beginning. Even positive and negative energy has to of had a certain beginning.

No it doesn't. You assume that time is (backwards) infinite. There is no particular reason to think that it is.

No. Logic doesn't tell us that. And science tells us that time is an emergent property of the universe, and couldn't have existed prior to the universe.


And your whole argument doesn't understand singularity.

Positive and negative energy don't need to be created, because one can be created from the other. In the same way as you can withdraw money from a bank account of $0.00. The $20.00 in your hand relates to a -$20.00 in your account. No money was created, just an imbalance of money.

Energy itself needs a beginning. Without energy, positive and negative energy are a malleable concept. Assuming that the negative and positive energy that create a net zero energy has always existed is a foolish assumption. Energy has to of had a beginning, as all matter in the universe.

0 -> 1 + -1 is a perfectly valid energy transition.

It's exactly the same thing. The dimensions of a dynamic system is the number of degrees of freedom plus the number of constraints.

Since I am a little unclear on how things are being defined I can't really answer that.

It's just a bit of terminological awkwardness, I wouldn't worry about it.

It is more of a relation to B-time, and B-time is a tenseless statement. Nevertheless, the event that happened has cause and effect through reasoning and logic.

I've said this before, but I'm glad that science is wonderful enough to not give a rat's ass about your logic.

The whole A-time/B-time concept seems, to me, to presuppose that time is a universally absolute thing. It seems like it would all fall apart as soon as someone in a corner quietly mutters things that sound suspiciously like "relativity".

Can someone please explain to me how a "Does God Exist" thread get on the topic of mass-energy conversion and similarity?

People trying to argue that god must exist because "matter can't come from nothing".

[The Rich Port]

Can someone please explain to me how a "Does God Exist" thread get on the topic of mass-energy conversion and similarity?

Considerably preferable to "the bible dun said so" that you find everywhere else on the internet.

Not really.

Because at least those guys eventually realize they don't have anything else to base their arguments on.

And they loose their argument boner.

[Mavorpen]

Considerably preferable to "the bible dun said so" that you find everywhere else on the internet.

Not really.

Because at least those guys eventually realize they don't have anything else to base their arguments on.

And they loose their argument boner.

Sucks for them. Argument Viagra is pretty expensive these days.

[The East Asian Post-Apocalyptic Pact]

Not really.
Because at least those guys eventually realize they don't have anything else to base their arguments on.
And they loose their argument boner.

Sucks for them. Argument Viagra is pretty expensive these days.

I get my arguement boner from googling エロ.

[Wallenburg]

Not really.

Because at least those guys eventually realize they don't have anything else to base their arguments on.

And they loose their argument boner.

Sucks for them. Argument Viagra is pretty expensive these days.

What about those "1 Weird Trick to a Solid Argument" links? I've never tried them, but a friend of mine says that the one he tried worked wonders!

On topic, I believe we need a first mover to cause existence. But this is the Big Bang. Since mass and energy are fundamentally identical, and the universe began in the Big Bang as a singularity of unimaginable energy, there is no need for a God.
Occam's razor tells us that all logical theories are based on the simplest models possible that still fit the nature of the universe. The theological model has God as the first mover, who causes the Big Bang (or worse, begins Creation), which causes everything afterwards. The atheist model has the Big Bang as the first mover, which causes everything afterwards. Tell me, which one is simpler?

This is ignoring an even bigger problem for theists: if God exists, He must be either matter or energy. There is nothing else. To be neither, by definition, is to not exist.
So let's say God is matter/energy. Here we run into another problem: theists claim God created the universe, which is the realm of all matter and energy. For the universe to maintain its aforementioned definition, it must follow that God is not matter/energy, because God cannot create all matter and energy when he is already matter/energy.
Neither matter nor energy can exist outside the universe. God's existence depends therefore on the prior existence of a universe of matter/energy. This negates His status as first mover, and therefore his status as God.
Conclusion: it is not that God may not exist; it is that God cannot exist.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Not really.

Because at least those guys eventually realize they don't have anything else to base their arguments on.

And they loose their argument boner.

Sucks for them. Argument Viagra is pretty expensive these days.

FQ this post.

[Sociobiology]

Sucks for them. Argument Viagra is pretty expensive these days.

What about those "1 Weird Trick to a Solid Argument" links? I've never tried them, but a friend of mine says that the one he tried worked wonders!

On topic, I believe we need a first mover to cause existence.

no you don't, it is a concept that disproves itself.
Either the first mover needs a cause (and thus is not a first mover) or the assumption that everything needs a cause is wrong ( and thus the justification for needing a first mover is gone.

[Slavaboostan]

Can someone please explain to me how a "Does God Exist" thread get on the topic of mass-energy conversion and similarity?

Questions about God tend to go further into the meta of the universe.

[Wallenburg]

What about those "1 Weird Trick to a Solid Argument" links? I've never tried them, but a friend of mine says that the one he tried worked wonders!

On topic, I believe we need a first mover to cause existence.

no you don't, it is a concept that disproves itself.
Either the first mover needs a cause (and thus is not a first mover) or the assumption that everything needs a cause is wrong ( and thus the justification for needing a first mover is gone.

You are incorrect. You see, there cannot be an infinite chain of causation, because then you need an infinite number of causes. In the words of your computer, "Stack Overflow Error". Therefore, we must have an uncaused cause.

[Shaggai]

This is ignoring an even bigger problem for theists: if God exists, He must be either matter or energy. There is nothing else. To be neither, by definition, is to not exist.
So let's say God is matter/energy. Here we run into another problem: theists claim God created the universe, which is the realm of all matter and energy. For the universe to maintain its aforementioned definition, it must follow that God is not matter/energy, because God cannot create all matter and energy when he is already matter/energy.
Neither matter nor energy can exist outside the universe. God's existence depends therefore on the prior existence of a universe of matter/energy. This negates His status as first mover, and therefore his status as God.
Conclusion: it is not that God may not exist; it is that God cannot exist.

If William Shakespeare exists, he must be words. There is nothing else. To not be words, by definition, is not to exist. So let's say that Shakespeare is words. Here we run into another problem: authorists claim that Shakespeare created Hamlet, which is the realm of all words. For Hamlet to maintain its aforementioned definition, it must follow that Shakespeare is not words, because Shakespeare cannot create all words when he is already words. Words cannot exist outside of Hamlet. Shakespeare's existence depends therefore on the prior existence of a book of words. This negates His status as the author, and therefore his status as Shakespeare.
Conclusion: it is not that Shakespeare may not exist; it is that Shakespeare cannot exist.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

This is ignoring an even bigger problem for theists: if God exists, He must be either matter or energy. There is nothing else. To be neither, by definition, is to not exist.
So let's say God is matter/energy. Here we run into another problem: theists claim God created the universe, which is the realm of all matter and energy. For the universe to maintain its aforementioned definition, it must follow that God is not matter/energy, because God cannot create all matter and energy when he is already matter/energy.
Neither matter nor energy can exist outside the universe. God's existence depends therefore on the prior existence of a universe of matter/energy. This negates His status as first mover, and therefore his status as God.
Conclusion: it is not that God may not exist; it is that God cannot exist.

If William Shakespeare exists, he must be words. There is nothing else. To not be words, by definition, is not to exist. So let's say that Shakespeare is words. Here we run into another problem: authorists claim that Shakespeare created Hamlet, which is the realm of all words. For Hamlet to maintain its aforementioned definition, it must follow that Shakespeare is not words, because Shakespeare cannot create all words when he is already words. Words cannot exist outside of Hamlet. Shakespeare's existence depends therefore on the prior existence of a book of words. This negates His status as the author, and therefore his status as Shakespeare.
Conclusion: it is not that Shakespeare may not exist; it is that Shakespeare cannot exist.

This is a joke, right? You can't possibly think this is a logical argument.

[Vilatania]

Sucks for them. Argument Viagra is pretty expensive these days.

What about those "1 Weird Trick to a Solid Argument" links? I've never tried them, but a friend of mine says that the one he tried worked wonders!

On topic, I believe we need a first mover to cause existence. But this is the Big Bang. Since mass and energy are fundamentally identical, and the universe began in the Big Bang as a singularity of unimaginable energy, there is no need for a God.
Occam's razor tells us that all logical theories are based on the simplest models possible that still fit the nature of the universe. The theological model has God as the first mover, who causes the Big Bang (or worse, begins Creation), which causes everything afterwards. The atheist model has the Big Bang as the first mover, which causes everything afterwards. Tell me, which one is simpler?

This is ignoring an even bigger problem for theists: if God exists, He must be either matter or energy. There is nothing else. To be neither, by definition, is to not exist.
So let's say God is matter/energy. Here we run into another problem: theists claim God created the universe, which is the realm of all matter and energy. For the universe to maintain its aforementioned definition, it must follow that God is not matter/energy, because God cannot create all matter and energy when he is already matter/energy.
Neither matter nor energy can exist outside the universe. God's existence depends therefore on the prior existence of a universe of matter/energy. This negates His status as first mover, and therefore his status as God.
Conclusion: it is not that God may not exist; it is that God cannot exist.

This is really well written, however unfortunately I think the general consensus is that they believe God exists apart from the physical which would allow him to exist without being either matter or energy. Like a thought. I too think it's absurd but it's what they believe.

[Shaggai]

If William Shakespeare exists, he must be words. There is nothing else. To not be words, by definition, is not to exist. So let's say that Shakespeare is words. Here we run into another problem: authorists claim that Shakespeare created Hamlet, which is the realm of all words. For Hamlet to maintain its aforementioned definition, it must follow that Shakespeare is not words, because Shakespeare cannot create all words when he is already words. Words cannot exist outside of Hamlet. Shakespeare's existence depends therefore on the prior existence of a book of words. This negates His status as the author, and therefore his status as Shakespeare.
Conclusion: it is not that Shakespeare may not exist; it is that Shakespeare cannot exist.

This is a joke, right? You can't possibly think this is a logical argument.

God need not be matter or energy. Just because matter and energy are all that exist in our universe doesn't mean that God must be matter or energy. Furthermore, God doesn't need to exist in our universe, in the same way Shakespeare doesn't need to be a character in Hamlet.

I admit that the metaphor gets somewhat strained, but if you have an actual objection, say it. Simply saying that I can't possibly think it's a logical argument is not, in fact, an argument.

[Vilatania]

This is a joke, right? You can't possibly think this is a logical argument.

God need not be matter or energy. Just because matter and energy are all that exist in our universe doesn't mean that God must be matter or energy. Furthermore, God doesn't need to exist in our universe, in the same way Shakespeare doesn't need to be a character in Hamlet.

I admit that the metaphor gets somewhat strained, but if you have an actual objection, say it. Simply saying that I can't possibly think it's a logical argument is not, in fact, an argument.

It's irrelevant. Demonstrating that he "could" exist does not demonstrate that he does. We already know he "could". What we want is evidence that demonstrates that he does.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

This is a joke, right? You can't possibly think this is a logical argument.

God need not be matter or energy.

There is no evidence that something that exists doesn't need to be energy. Prove it.

Just because matter and energy are all that exist in our universe doesn't mean that God must be matter or energy.

Prove it.

Furthermore, God doesn't need to exist in our universe, in the same way Shakespeare doesn't need to be a character in Hamlet.

Prove it.

If William Shakespeare exists, he must be words.

No, he must be energy. Which he was.

There is nothing else. To not be words, by definition, is not to exist.

Well God is words, so does he exist?

So let's say that Shakespeare is words.

No.

Here we run into another problem: authorists claim that Shakespeare created Hamlet, which is the realm of all words.

Demonstrably false.

For Hamlet to maintain its aforementioned definition, it must follow that Shakespeare is not words, because Shakespeare cannot create all words when he is already words. Words cannot exist outside of Hamlet. Shakespeare's existence depends therefore on the prior existence of a book of words.

Demonstrably false.

This negates His status as the author, and therefore his status as Shakespeare.

Funny thing is that some people actually think Shakespeare didn't write his own works, so this is a very roundabout way to substantiate said claim.

Conclusion: it is not that Shakespeare may not exist; it is that Shakespeare cannot exist.

Demonstrably. False.

Conclusion: this is a terrible metaphor.

[The East Asian Post-Apocalyptic Pact]

If William Shakespeare exists, he must be words.

No, he must be energy. Which he was.

Aren't you being a bit pretantious right now?

[Wallenburg]

Shakespeare IS God...
!!!REVELATION!!!

Seriously dude, that metaphor makes no sense. Shakespeare exists outside of Hamlet. Otherwise he couldn't write Macbeth. And Shakespeare is words? Dufuq?

[Mavorpen]

No, he must be energy. Which he was.

Aren't you being a bit pretantious right now?

[Salandriagado]

no you don't, it is a concept that disproves itself.
Either the first mover needs a cause (and thus is not a first mover) or the assumption that everything needs a cause is wrong ( and thus the justification for needing a first mover is gone.

You are incorrect. You see, there cannot be an infinite chain of causation, because then you need an infinite number of causes. In the words of your computer, "Stack Overflow Error". Therefore, we must have an uncaused cause.

Problems with this:

1) There's no reason you can't have infinitely many causes.
2) There's no reason you can't have cyclic causal systems.
3) There's no reason for there to be one single uncaused cause.