Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, humanbeing101 said:

So essentially God and energy are equally eternally? Therefore wouldn't that mean God isn't the first cause of everything.

Questions for you:

1. Does God also "needs" energy to act? As per our definition, ability to do work is called energy.

2. In that case What would be the source of energy? That would means God is in second place & energy on first.

3. If energy is the ability to work, does energy itself do work or is it "a thing" which do work by consuming energy?

There is another thing for which we have very little information and we cannot prove its existence as well as nature scientifically i.e., Ruh. We know that Ruh is the "amr e Rabbi" (command of God).

Some times I feel that it is the ruh without which we remain unable to consume energy. The One who has created life & death, must be the knower & originator of energy, otherwise there would be no death even in case where life spontaneously originated itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hassan Y said:

Here are some facts.

1. The universe is the result of cause and effect. 

The universe is neither a cause nor an effect. It consists of all causes and effects. 
It is the collection of all physical things. 
 

 

10 hours ago, Hassan Y said:

2. Therefore our universe is dependant on a predecessor

What does that mean? Can you explain?

As far as I can tell the Big Bang is an event that happened to matter already in existence. ( If you Big Bang 'nothing'....nothing happens.)

The Big Bang is the point where ' this universe' came into existence, not the point where 'matter' began to exist.  

 

 

10 hours ago, Hassan Y said:

 But we do know that God is the predecessor of all things.

How would you know that? Are you confusing knowledge with belief?  

Why must a first cause be a God, why must it be intelligent?

wslm.

*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Quisant said:

The universe is neither a cause nor an effect. It consists of all causes and effects. 
It is the collection of all physical things. 
 

 

What does that mean? Can you explain?

As far as I can tell the Big Bang is an event that happened to matter already in existence. ( If you Big Bang 'nothing'....nothing happens.)

The Big Bang is the point where ' this universe' came into existence, not the point where 'matter' began to exist.  

 

 

How would you know that? Are you confusing knowledge with belief?  

Why must a first cause be a God, why must it be intelligent?

wslm.

*

Quisant we talked about this on many previous discussions in the past...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hassan Y said:

Quisant we talked about this on many previous discussions in the past...

True, we have agreed to disagree a couple of times but the questions remain unanswered...

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quisant said:

True, we have agreed to disagree a couple of times but the questions remain unanswered...

:)

Ok I'm just curious and I want to ask you these questions.

What would make you believe in God? 

Do you prefer a reality without a God and heaven/hell or do you prefer a reality where God and heaven/hell does exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2017 at 3:03 PM, humanbeing101 said:

Yes but according to the law of conservation of energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus it had to of always existed and therefore it is paradoxical that God created it. That is the problem I am talking about. 

Energy is irrelevant.  Life is the anomaly that transcends Stars, novas, galaxies working their course in their cyclical pattern of energy transfer.

Life is not infinite nor is it a form of Energy.  Life takes things that do not exist in an imaginary realm, and materializes them or rather shapes them into reality.

No Energy, no inanimate or life lacking object can emulate that.   Life is your answer, God is your reason.

As I said before, energy could be or have been infinitely running its course forming and destroying galaxies about, one explosion after another, or starting from the Beginning.  But the existence of life is the only thing that energy on its own cannot do.

Perhaps God is in all forms of Energy using them as an extension of "His" limbs, I won't go into a metaphysical/philosophical debates here.  Questioning the necessity of God however,  is asinine when considering the anomaly of the existence of man.

The universe and energies in it, and other objects which are stuck in their course until impacted by another traversing object have no choice in what they do, absolutely no say.

Humans and things possessing life, do.  We can (although limited) can shape, change the course of objects in the universe if we wanted to launch a projectile to a far away planet and detonate some incredible nuclear force with technology, we can do it.  Don't know what the future will bring, but we will likely develop technology to do crazy things.

Our very existence violates the natural order of the Universe and it's course and all things contained within it, we are anomalies.  God is your only explanation.

Edited by wmehar2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hassan Y said:

Ok I'm just curious and I want to ask you these questions.

What would make you believe in God? 

Do you prefer a reality without a God and heaven/hell or do you prefer a reality where God and heaven/hell does exist?

I am not anti-religious. I am anti-clerical.

I prefer my 'belief' to be something private/personal between me and God, I prefer my belief untainted by the 'teaching' of others.

Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to.

wslm

*
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2017 at 4:23 AM, hayaah said:

Energy was needed to start off the big bang actually....  and since when did I say the big bang came before Allah? Lol. 

That is my point (or actually Islam's point) because you need energy to cause the Big Bang yet they say it happened due to randomness (quantum fluctuations the term they use).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

Energy is irrelevant.  Life is the anomaly that transcends Stars, novas, galaxies working their course in their cyclical pattern of energy transfer.

Life is not infinite nor is it a form of Energy.  Life takes things that do not exist in an imaginary realm, and materializes them or rather shapes them into reality.

No Energy, no inanimate or life lacking object can emulate that.   Life is your answer, God is your reason.

As I said before, energy could be or have been infinitely running its course forming and destroying galaxies about, one explosion after another, or starting from the Beginning.  But the existence of life is the only thing that energy on its own cannot do.

Perhaps God is in all forms of Energy using them as an extension of "His" limbs, I won't go into a metaphysical/philosophical debates here.  Questioning the necessity of God however,  is asinine when considering the anomaly of the existence of man.

The universe and energies in it, and other objects which are stuck in their course until impacted by another traversing object have no choice in what they do, absolutely no say.

Humans and things possessing life, do.  We can (although limited) can shape, change the course of objects in the universe if we wanted to launch a projectile to a far away planet and detonate some incredible nuclear force with technology, we can do it.  Don't know what the future will bring, but we will likely develop technology to do crazy things.

Our very existence violates the natural order of the Universe and it's course and all things contained within it, we are anomalies.  God is your only explanation.

Brother with all due respect I didn't state "energy is infinite" but energy is eternal, there is a difference. 

You're question is a philosophically based one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, humanbeing101 said:

Brother with all due respect I didn't state "energy is infinite" but energy is eternal, there is a difference. 

You're question is a philosophically based one. 

Eternal or infinite ,   both apply in my point.

God is necessary to explain our existence and the intelligent design of our blue prints and the rules the universe abides by.

Random occurrence Is not a scientific explanation .   Randomness is absurdity ,  a crutch to use when one can't explain something . 

God is the rational explanation .  at least ,  from my perspective .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wmehar2 said:

Eternal or infinite ,   both apply in my point.

God is necessary to explain our existence and the intelligent design of our blue prints and the rules the universe abides by.

Random occurrence Is not a scientific explanation .   Randomness is absurdity ,  a crutch to use when one can't explain something . 

God is the rational explanation .  at least ,  from my perspective .

Brother saying because X and Y cannot be, therefore it must be Z is not logical. You're assuming that is the only possiblity left. There may be other possiblities that haven't been fathomed.

Secondly maths and science don't always go hand in hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, humanbeing101 said:

Brother saying because X and Y cannot be, therefore it must be Z is not logical. You're assuming that is the only possiblity left. There may be other possiblities that haven't been fathomed.

Secondly maths and science don't always go hand in hand.

Your X and Y wasn't logical to begin with.  Randomness is not logic.  Intelligent creator, the Z in this argument, has a logical premise.  But .... you mention "possibilities that haven't been fathomed".  

IF X and Y are randomness, and I'm saying Randomness is not a possibility, then that means it is not random.  Which means planned.  If God isn't the only other alternative, then good luck finding those un-fathomed possibilities.

If so, then tell me a more logical A, B, C since X and Y already cannot be.  Saying they're not fathomed yet, just pushes the point that the question behind the OP "If Energy is Eternal, Is God needed?"  has no basis in which to be argued.

First you need to define "God", which is already unfathomable.  So looks like you have a not fathomed possibility to answer your question, already, which is God must be necessary to exist.

If you don't have another logical argument beside X & Y, again, find me one.  The possibility that a planet like Earth being created in every big bang has already been calculated to being some 10^-278 plus some digits (try to let that number sink in).   The possibility that random atoms clashing in super heat forming some life thing randomly  IS ZERO.

There is only one possible explanation, there is no other possibility that hasn't been fathomed yet.

" Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^-300,  a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the age of the universe. "

Science also postulates (and math) that eternity, (which is an expression of infinite time) is an Absurd concept.  Infinity does not exist in the real world/universe.  Time seems to be the only non-finite dimension that humans perceive and attempt measure because we actually can't measure it right and proper, it's a relative measure.

Math and Science are one in the same thing, to say otherwise is .... none-sense.  Physics, Chemistry, Quantum Theory are all branches of Mathematics and governed by Mathematical Axioms.

 

Creation/humans/animals have energy and consume things to have energy so that we can move and do things.  We manipulate energy.  Energy didn't create the manipulator, not by randomness.

Asteroids, Planets, Stars, are all confined to their course and laws.  We are not as bound to laws as they are.  Which  means we are more than just energy aren't we?  We extend beyond energy and matter.  We have imaginations which don't even exist, and we can even manipulate energy to manifest those non-existing images!  If that exists in us, then of course it can exist and must exist in an Intelligent Creator.

God created us in his "image" according to the Hadith and a previous book of Allah SWT.

Edited by wmehar2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@wmehar2

Quote

Your X and Y wasn't logical to begin with.  Randomness is not logic.  Intelligent creator, the Z in this argument, has a logical premise.  But .... you mention "possibilities that haven't been fathomed".  

Who mentioned anything about randomness? Can you quote me? 

Quote

First you need to define "God", which is already unfathomable.  So looks like you have a not fathomed possibility to answer your question, already, which is God must be necessary to exist.

If energy is eternal, neither being created or destroyed. Then surely it isn't needed to have God. 

Quote

If you don't have another logical argument beside X & Y, again, find me one.  The possibility that a planet like Earth being created in every big bang has already been calculated to being some 10^-278 plus some digits (try to let that number sink in).   The possibility that random atoms clashing in super heat forming some life thing randomly  IS ZERO.

You have a source to back that statement up? 

Quote

Math and Science are one in the same thing, to say otherwise is .... none-sense.  Physics, Chemistry, Quantum Theory are all branches of Mathematics and governed by Mathematical Axioms.

That's factually not true. Maths and Science don't always go hand in hand. For example maths claims the likelihood of aliens being a high possiblity, yet science hasn't discovered any yet. Mathematics also have the concept of infinity, science doesn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, humanbeing101 said:

@wmehar2

Who mentioned anything about randomness? Can you quote me? 

If energy is eternal, neither being created or destroyed. Then surely it isn't needed to have God. 

You have a source to back that statement up? 

That's factually not true. Maths and Science don't always go hand in hand. For example maths claims the likelihood of aliens being a high possiblity, yet science hasn't discovered any yet. Mathematics also have the concept of infinity, science doesn't. 

If you're saying that God's existence is not necessary since "energy is eternal" then you're implying the  existence of human beings were a random mishap of clashing forces. 

If there was a Big Bang, and we don't know what there was before then, how do you know  energy can't be created nor destroyed?  That's an assumption.   A law that's perceived by Humans, and humans aren't the perfect perceiving entities.

Sorry not 10^-278 but still an impossibly small number:

"The reader of the essay entitled Is There A God (What is the Chance the World is the Result of Chance?) may be interested in knowing some hard numbers with regard to the probability that the universe occurred randomly (i.e. no conscious creator involved). Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox quotes renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:

“Try to imagine phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”

Lennox goes on to cite Penrose’s answer:

“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”

As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”"

 

Infinite as a concept in math doesn't mean it's implied that it exists.  When you're measuring limit breaking dimensions such as speed, force, and a function iterating through time, one can use "infinity" to evaluate what happens when a limit approaches infinity.  which is EVERYWHERE in Physics, String Theory, and other Scientific modes.

Also, Math doesn't take away the fact Science needs to use MATH to find those Aliens.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox quotes renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:

There are lies, damn lies and statistics...

The refutation to your argument is here:

https://www.quora.com/Does-Roger-Penroses-observation-that-the-probability-of-the-occurrence-of-a-universe-in-which-life-can-form-is-10-to-the-power-of-123-to-1-support-the-case-of-those-who-believe-in-God

P.S. by the way...Roger Penrose is an atheist.

:)

 

 

Edited by Quisant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@wmehar2

Quote

If you're saying that God's existence is not necessary since "energy is eternal" then you're implying the  existence of human beings were a random mishap of clashing forces. 

If there was a Big Bang, and we don't know what there was before then, how do you know  energy can't be created nor destroyed?  That's an assumption.   A law that's perceived by Humans, and humans aren't the perfect perceiving entities.

Bro why are you making stuff up? A law>A theory. IT'S A LAW AND NOT A THEORY. Here is the link: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/adv.chem/lectures/lecture_2/node4.html

Secondly are you saying gravity is simply percieved by humans and doesn't exist? Newtonian laws clearly proves it exists. If you want to deny it? I tell you what, go to a tall building a jump off and then still tell me if it's just a perception. 

Quote

"The reader of the essay entitled Is There A God (What is the Chance the World is the Result of Chance?) may be interested in knowing some hard numbers with regard to the probability that the universe occurred randomly (i.e. no conscious creator involved). Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox quotes renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:

“Try to imagine phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”

Lennox goes on to cite Penrose’s answer:

“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”

As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”"

 

Ok but a possiblity still exists, so all this is irrelevant and opinions. 

Quote

Infinite as a concept in math doesn't mean it's implied that it exists.  When you're measuring limit breaking dimensions such as speed, force, and a function iterating through time, one can use "infinity" to evaluate what happens when a limit approaches infinity.  which is EVERYWHERE in Physics, String Theory, and other Scientific modes.

Also, Math doesn't take away the fact Science needs to use MATH to find those Aliens.

It doesn't prove the existence of God though. You keep using this logical fallacy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Quisant said:

There are lies, damn lies and statistics...

The refutation to your argument is here:

https://www.quora.com/Does-Roger-Penroses-observation-that-the-probability-of-the-occurrence-of-a-universe-in-which-life-can-form-is-10-to-the-power-of-123-to-1-support-the-case-of-those-who-believe-in-God

P.S. by the way...Roger Penrose is an atheist.

:)

 

 

I never claimed to use that number as proof, that would be a non-sequitur as your link states.   The proof is where I've said before,  human beings and things with "life" are anomalies that defy every object and element perceived thus far in the universe.

Slaves to laws of physics don't accidentally create their manipulators, or those possessing life.

Elements of the universe perceived by us do not have will, imagination, and are confined to their trajectory, where as we are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, humanbeing101 said:

@wmehar2

Bro why are you making stuff up? A law>A theory. IT'S A LAW AND NOT A THEORY. Here is the link: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/adv.chem/lectures/lecture_2/node4.html

Secondly are you saying gravity is simply percieved by humans and doesn't exist? Newtonian laws clearly proves it exists. If you want to deny it? I tell you what, go to a tall building a jump off and then still tell me if it's just a perception. 

Ok but a possiblity still exists, so all this is irrelevant and opinions. 

It doesn't prove the existence of God though. You keep using this logical fallacy. 

Is Time, a Law?  Or does it only exist because human beings are the only things in existence that can perceive it?  We measure time based on how many times Earth orbits around a Sun.

And gravity perceived by humans is still not even perfected in our understanding, in fact gravity is still not fully explainable.   Fun fact Newtonian laws prove it existed but no science today can explain how it functions, we are FAR FAR away from fully understanding Gravity, much less any other transcendental concepts.

Anyway here is from your link:

" In a closed system, i.e., a system that isolated from its surroundings, the total energy of the system is conserved. "

So, the Big Bang that happened, was a system isolated from Which surroundings exactly?  Just eject and think about this for a minute.  I'm not making anything up.   If Energy "was conserved" in a tiny space, and needed to have to BLOW up and scatter about, or rather BIG BANG it out,  then why did it condense and need to explode in the first place?  If there was nothing, and then something became, obviously you're going to have a massive acceleration of "existing things" breaking into empty space.

High pressure to low pressure, high concentration to low concentration, High temperature to low temperature, Existing matter, into non existing matter.  I don't see how Energy can't have been created given these circumstances but either way, that's not my argument as to why God must exist.

My argument is that vessels of body's that contain "life" defy every scientific, mathematical model ever conceived when juxtaposed with we we know now of the known universe.

Kill every life form in the Universe now, and you will never see another like it again until "something" brings it back.

You can't perceive something and claim you know all of it, if all you know is what you see in front of you.  Humans are blind, deaf, and dumb when it comes to knowledge. 

Humans can't even perceive frequencies that other life forms easily can with hearing, and eye sight, feeling, and other senses.  We just have brains and tools.  They will only get you so far.

Just because we center everything around ourselves, doesn't make it right either. 

 

Edited by wmehar2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@wmehar2

Quote

Is Time, a Law?  Or does it only exist because human beings are the only things in existence that can perceive it?  We measure time based on how many times Earth orbits around a Sun.

No time isn't a law and no scientist ever said it was...

Quote

And gravity perceived by humans is still not even perfected in our understanding, in fact gravity is still not fully explainable.   Fun fact Newtonian laws prove it existed but no science today can explain how it functions, we are FAR FAR away from fully understanding Gravity, much less any other transcendental concepts

Yes we do, when large celestial objects form together, they form a gravitional force because of their mass.

Ok it's still a perception? Bro then as I said jump off a building and tell me if you survive. Ok?

Quote

So, the Big Bang that happened, was a system isolated from Which surroundings exactly?  Just eject and think about this for a minute.  I'm not making anything up.   If Energy "was conserved" in a tiny space, and needed to have to BLOW up and scatter about, or rather BIG BANG it out,  then why did it condense and need to explode in the first place?  If there was nothing, and then something became, obviously you're going to have a massive acceleration of "existing things" breaking into empty space.

I have yet to see any hard science that explains anything outside the universe. 

Quote

You can't perceive something and claim you know all of it, if all you know is what you see in front of you.  Humans are blind, deaf, and dumb when it comes to knowledge. 

Humans can't even perceive frequencies that other life forms easily can with hearing, and eye sight, feeling, and other senses.  We just have brains and tools.  They will only get you so far.

 

Then using this logic, how can you percieve God or be aware of the existence of God using your logical faculties when they are inherently flawed since perception is subjective? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Energy man @humanbeing101,  How much energy is needed to sustain one life?

A human?  a fly?  a tartigrade?  clump of bacteria?  A single cell, or atom?  Is Energy is conserved, is there a finite number of "living" objects that there can be in the universe?

Tell me how much energy is needed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wmehar2 said:

Mr. Energy man @humanbeing101,  How much energy is needed to sustain one life?

A human?  a fly?  a tartigrade?  clump of bacteria?  A single cell, or atom?  Is Energy is conserved, is there a finite number of "living" objects that there can be in the universe?

Tell me how much energy is needed?

Hehe I hit you well on that logical fallacy question. See you know as well as I do to claim "science is bla bla ". It's the exact same with using your own brain to logically deduce the existence of God, which is completely subjective. 

 

The universe isn't infinte according to science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, humanbeing101 said:

Hehe I hit you well on that logical fallacy question. See you know as well as I do to claim "science is bla bla ". It's the exact same with using your own brain to logically deduce the existence of God, which is completely subjective. 

 

The universe isn't infinte according to science. 

It easy for me. 

Human beings that can do things no object can, vs Asteroid stuck in orbit.  The universe has not scientific need for US.  the universe needs "Gravity", "mass", "heat", thermodynamics, physics, to operate it's course and traverse its trajectory/life cycles.

Human beings are capable of interrupting all of those.  We are illogical.   Our existence (all life forms) is not necessary.

Stars existence is necessary for the Universe Model, Gravity is necessary, the Laws and attributes assigned to Atoms are necessary.  We (life) are not.

That to me is highly suggestive, if not enough evidence for me to deduce an Intelligent creator does exist.

Is life some ornamental added benefit/rider to the Universe?   In order for the Universe to be the Universe you need..., Energy transfer, Nova's, Quasars, Brownian motion, Gravity, and laws.  You don't need Life.

The Universe has no randomness attributed to it.  Each and every thing is quantifiable through mathematics and science, and maybe we don't have math and science progressed enough to quantify it, maybe perhaps we will.  There are laws of Quantum Physics that we don't understand, but they're there keeping the Universe in motion.

Not us (life).

Edited by wmehar2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wmehar2 said:

It easy for me. 

Human beings that can do things no object can, vs Asteroid stuck in orbit.  The universe has not scientific need for US.  the universe needs "Gravity", "mass", "heat", thermodynamics, physics, to operate it's course and traverse its trajectory/life cycles.

Human beings are capable of interrupting all of those.  We are illogical.   Our existence (all life forms) is not necessary.

Stars existence is necessary for the Universe Model, Gravity is necessary, the Laws and attributes assigned to Atoms are necessary.  We (life) are not.

That to me is highly suggestive, if not enough evidence for me to deduce an Intelligent creator does exist.

Is life some ornamental added benefit/rider to the Universe?   In order for the Universe to be the Universe you need..., Energy transfer, Nova's, Quasars, Brownian motion, Gravity, and laws.  You don't need Life.

The Universe has no randomness attributed to it.  Each and every thing is quantifiable through mathematics and science, and maybe we don't have math and science progressed enough to quantify it, maybe perhaps we will.  There are laws of Quantum Physics that we don't understand, but they're there keeping the Universe in motion.

Not us (life).

 

Quote

Human beings that can do things no object can, vs Asteroid stuck in orbit.  The universe has not scientific need for US.  the universe needs "Gravity", "mass", "heat", thermodynamics, physics, to operate it's course and traverse its trajectory/life cycles.

Humans cannot destroy an entire galaxy, we don't have such capabilities. The andromeda galaxy is heading to smah our galaxy into pieces. 

Quote

Stars existence is necessary for the Universe Model, Gravity is necessary, the Laws and attributes assigned to Atoms are necessary.  We (life) are not.

Necessary to what?

Quote

The Universe has no randomness attributed to it.  Each and every thing is quantifiable through mathematics and science, and maybe we don't have math and science progressed enough to quantify it, maybe perhaps we will.  There are laws of Quantum Physics that we don't understand, but they're there keeping the Universe in motion.

They aren't laws yet. However let me ask you a question, can a human being be at two places at once? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, humanbeing101 said:

 

Humans cannot destroy an entire galaxy, we don't have such capabilities. The andromeda galaxy is heading to smah our galaxy into pieces. 

Necessary to what?

They aren't laws yet. However let me ask you a question, can a human being be at two places at once? 

Yea, it's called imagination, visalization.

I mean necessary for the universe to function . life is an attribute and fact,  that can be in two places at once by using ones mind.  

Like now how my mind is thinking about  how I'm going to approach my  boss monday and explain why this code is impossible right now.  and then now here typing  this response .

Then  Monday will come and the imagination part with transpire, as I've conjured it in my imagination.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@humanbeing101, it is not difficult brother, First I was confused that you were questioning the existence of God. 

Since you're prefering to discuss science, let me present you theory of relativity in its very short form.

E= mc2, the famous equation.

In simple terms, the equation represents the correlation of energy to matter: essentially, energy and matter are but two different forms of the same thing.

For understanding mass in this equation, know that there exists "invariant mass," and "relativistic mass." Invariant mass is mass that remains unchanged no matter what frame of reference you are in. Relativistic mass, on the other hand, depends on the object's velocity. In the equation E = mc2, m refers to the invariant mass. This is very important, because this means that your mass does not grow as you go faster, contrary to popular belief.

Like energy, mass can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can also change form. For example, an ice cube can melt into a liquid, but it still has the same mass in both states.

The equation states that mass and energy are the same thing and tells you how much energy is contained inside a certain amount of mass. Essentially, the equation explains that a small amount of mass is full of a large amount of energy.

Now tell me which form you're talking about? Enery or Mass? :) 

You have presented the law of conservation of energy, here is the law of conservation of mass:

"The law of conservation of mass states that mass in an isolated system is neither created nor destroyed by chemical reactions or physical transformations. According to the law of conservation of mass, the mass of the products in a chemical reaction must equal the mass of the reactants."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now before you say anything, let me take you into more depth, there exists massless particles :).

we know that scientifically. The latest example is higgs boson. We now even know the process of creating matter. 

"Matter creation is the process inverse to particle annihilation. It is the conversion of massless particles into one or more massive particles. This process is the time reversal of annihilation. Since all known massless particles are bosons and the most familiar massive particles are fermions, usually what is considered is the process which converts two bosons (e.g. photons) into two fermions (e.g., an electron–positron pair). This process is known as pair production. 

Because of momentum conservation laws, the creation of a pair of fermions (matter particles) out of a single photon cannot occur. However, matter creation is allowed by these laws when in the presence of another particle (another boson, or even a fermion) which can share the primary photon's momentum. Thus, matter can be created out of two photons."

With this, I hereby prove scientifically that energy is not eternal. :D

Edited by Engineer73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

Yea, it's called imagination, visalization.

I mean necessary for the universe to function . life is an attribute and fact,  that can be in two places at once by using ones mind.  

Like now how my mind is thinking about  how I'm going to approach my  boss monday and explain why this code is impossible right now.  and then now here typing  this response .

Then  Monday will come and the imagination part with transpire, as I've conjured it in my imagination.

 

How is it possible a human can be at two places at once from a scientific and logical perspective?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, humanbeing101 said:

How is it possible a human can be at two places at once from a scientific and logical perspective?

 

If a Human can dream, they're already perceiving two places at once.  Extend that further if the dream is about real people in a real place.   But I guess that's a philosophical perspective, as opposed to a "scientific and logical" one.

It should matter what goes on in an "imaginary realm".  Inspiration and profound thinking/planning leads to invention, discovery, and bringing into reality things from the immaterial plane.

If you wanna really take this further to a "scientific and logical" perspective, you can have a human be in 10 different places at once, controlling 10 drones or robots with audio/visual inputs, and then do things with those bodies without physically being there.

Such things only humans are capable of thanks to their minds and "life".

Energy may not be able to be created, and only conserved, but you can create life and destroy life buddy.  Energy can't be measured by life as I've tried to ask you before, "How much energy does it take to retain life in a vessel of a fly, human, bacteria and so forth?"

Because Energy may not be infinite, but if Time is, and humans do develop technology to traverse to other planets and subsist, then you can have an infinite amount of life that has existed from the day of inception.

They would just continuously borrow energy over and over, and no human being is identical to the last, each is unique.  So life, absolutely has the potential to defy logic (as if it already doesn't by just existing) just by existing until the Universe ends - assuming we don't kill ourselves or fail to escape impending astrological danger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

If a Human can dream, they're already perceiving two places at once.  Extend that further if the dream is about real people in a real place.   But I guess that's a philosophical perspective, as opposed to a "scientific and logical" one.

It should matter what goes on in an "imaginary realm".  Inspiration and profound thinking/planning leads to invention, discovery, and bringing into reality things from the immaterial plane.

If you wanna really take this further to a "scientific and logical" perspective, you can have a human be in 10 different places at once, controlling 10 drones or robots with audio/visual inputs, and then do things with those bodies without physically being there.

Such things only humans are capable of thanks to their minds and "life".

Energy may not be able to be created, and only conserved, but you can create life and destroy life buddy.  Energy can't be measured by life as I've tried to ask you before, "How much energy does it take to retain life in a vessel of a fly, human, bacteria and so forth?"

Because Energy may not be infinite, but if Time is, and humans do develop technology to traverse to other planets and subsist, then you can have an infinite amount of life that has existed from the day of inception.

They would just continuously borrow energy over and over, and no human being is identical to the last, each is unique.  So life, absolutely has the potential to defy logic (as if it already doesn't by just existing) just by existing until the Universe ends - assuming we don't kill ourselves or fail to escape impending astrological danger.

You've completely strawmanned by position brother. Let me tell you why. I am not talking about imagination or the human ability to imagine. If I asked you can a human jump a million feet in the air. Yes obviously we can imagine a human doing that. I'm talking from a realist perspective. In the real world and physically have you seen a human being at two places at once? 

I'm not going to let you off the hook here. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Verdicts & final judgement of whom? Is there a possibility that those verdicts & judgements be wrong? Or you're specifically talking about the verdicts & judgements of "Rasikhoona fil ilm"?
    • if four witnesses accused of stealing, you declared innocence, were innocent, but the witnesses were your enemies, is that a fair judgement?. The judge would not know, as the witnesses looked just like you. This happens around the world daily. Your statement is incorrect, it would not be a fair judgement, it would appear to be one, similar to how western politicians use this same concept to invade nations. It is a fair judgement according to their criteria. But those on the receiving end find it abysmal. The reason why you prefer B&W situations, because your mind prefers order and thus it is too simplistic in nature to consider options as it requires critical thinking. This is general for a majority of human beings, as there are too many variables in all cases including the B&W ones. Hence, if one were to analyse religion, its majority is based around this B&W concept, as order is preferred over disordered, especially in regards to the whole, even if we have collateral damage.
    • W Salam لا یستوی اصحاب النار و اصحاب الجنة، اصحاب الجنة هم الفائزون فما ذا بعد الحق الا الضلال قد تبین الرشد من الغی For God, everything is black and white It is for us, ignorant human beings, that gray areas exist, temporarily of course. ان تتقوا الله یجعل لکم فرقانا If you maintain Taqwa, you have black and white distinction in this life; and if not, it will be on the day of judgment, the day of distinction. هذا یوم الفصل جمعناکم و الاولین  
    • Either place right over left or left over right both mean cross legged. However, in Pakistan and India while people sit on the ground, they fold their legs like in yoga people do, but this is not exactly like Yoga but more relaxed, I think, I have to ask this question from my Maraja as well. 
×