If you believe in God, refute this! - Page 110

First Previous

Page

119

Next Last

Frequent Posters

BirdieNumNum

@BirdieNumNum

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

OK, won't drag this discussion, but will just point out a flaw in your analogy. When talking about the total energy of the whole Universe, we are including all there is. So, in the case of money, it would include all money there is and my point stands there. Money just got transferred, like energy changes form, but it sill is. Still, this is much different from total zero energy Universe. You can't have total money of world 0 and still trade. 😊

since you want to go on with the trivia, how many kangaroos do you find jumping in your backyard? I got 0 for an answer.😆

you made a point suggesting 0 is not "reality". If you want to limit that to only energy, then we have to get into other discussion. But 0 is not something one would rule out without research. It's possible, just depends on what quantity/ concept we are talking about. So it's very real in that general sense.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
i am doing no such thing. If you read my post more carefully, you'll find the intent there and a tacit understanding of the points you have made. I was just trying to go beyond those.

See, the difference between you and me is that I like to think beyond what is, and that's after some understanding of "what is". I feel if people sat around waiting for the next day to come to find out whether they learned anything, the world would not have made progress. Unless accidentally when the proverbial apple fell on them. It's called thought leadership buddy and I like the position I am coming from. Works for me.😊

I think you don't understand me enough to say that. I used to be in this thing, the beyond thing, you know new age conspiracy stuff. So many speculations with so much confidence as if they were talking science. All these vibration, energy, and force stuff. I used to believe in the beyond etc. But then I realized that I am not expert enough to find new things. Unless i have studied that much. And scientists are not just xeroxing existing books, they are finding new things. So, pointing out current limitations while putting out untestable and bold claiming hypothesis but not bothering to try and research on it is no good. Yes, somebody finds out things, that's how we move forward. But if you are gonna challenge existing things and make a new one, at least go prove them wrong. Everybody can come up with things. What makes them credible is if they can make sense of it. Thinking outside the box is good, but you gotta have the idea where the box is. 😊

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
since you want to go on with the trivia, how many kangaroos do you find jumping in your backyard? I got 0 for an answer.😆

How can you be sure of that? 😉 😆

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
you made a point suggesting 0 is not "reality". If you want to limit that to only energy, then we have to get into other discussion. But 0 is not something one would rule out without research. It's possible, just depends on what quantity/ concept we are talking about. So it's very real in that general sense.

First of all, point was just 0 is a concept, 0 attached with something can be real.

And here we were talking about that how can "nothing" exist in real? Is there something completely "empty"? Even the vacuum is active.

And don't mix them all, please. The two points above are separate, and they both are different from that zero energy universe, whose possibility I was talking about. We don't know that the total energy of Universe is 0.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

The name doesn't matter ..Krishna or the Christ ...Not to me ...and shouldn't matter to most unless I start calling myself the GOD 😆 << Which I DO ..but in a difference sense of that word ..A part of the greater energy that is ...😛

Names do matter when things get so ambiguous that misinterpretation starts. It is energy. It didn't create itself. It is not conscious. It didn't "create" us. In that sense, not a God.

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

@ Bold: But we know that the energy exists ...Which I call the GOD ...Not just Krishna ...but by every name that everybody alludes to that ...For MOSKHA I need a soul ? ..I am the SOUL ..as i had told ya ..everything is, The derivative of the big energy.. ...Moksha definitely doesn't mean dwelling in some heavenly abode ...😆 It means again being the part of that Energy ..Which then is separate from all consciousness ..The Joys , the Grief ...

Again, see above. And no, you have not told what part is the soul? Which vanishes as soon as someone dies. And again, we all already have energy. So, we all are in moksha. Unless you wanna explain what "being part of that Energy" means.

P.S. - And to the rest, I don't wanna mix religion in this. 😊

Edited by Freethinker112 - 11 years ago

Quote

BirdieNumNum

@BirdieNumNum

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

Names do matter when things get so ambiguous that misinterpretation starts. It is energy. It didn't create itself. It is not conscious. It didn't "create" us. In that sense, not a God.

wow. Those are a lot of assertions.Can you prove any of it? Specifically,

energy cant create itself- how do you suppose we came up with energy in the first place? Did it always exist? Or it created itself? Or something else created it? Try anything, but let's see you trying to prove it.

and it didnt create us- again, can you prove it?

now just dont say that burden of proof is on believers. You made the assertions, it's for you to support them. Also, if you're going to use fuzzy principles, it will be fair for other side to do the same.

Quote

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: Freethinker112
I am sorry but I don't exactly understand what you are trying to ask. Electrons are the fundamental particles, not built of any sub-particles. If you have something built by parts, you can vary them by varying the order and arrangement of its parts. But if something doesn't have substructure, wouldn't it be the same? Please elaborate because I didn't get linking random with electron. 😊

For instance, photons are fundamental particles too but not all photons are the same, they differ by energy. Quarks are fundamental too but they have flavors (6 to be precise) with varying electrical charges depending upon the flavor.

Electrons on the other hand are identical. You can't distinguish one electron from another.

My question was about that "random" process that happened in the initial seconds of the big bang (lepton epoch) when electrons formed. How can one process "create/form" gazillions of particles ALL of which have the exact same mass, same charge and whatever other properties of those particles we know. The question was not about how is a process "creating" (as baffling as that is) but creating with such precision. As an analogy, we can't create golf balls that are identical. We might think they are but they wouldn't be.

Quote

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
wow. Those are a lot of assertions.Can you prove any of it? Specifically,

energy cant create itself- how do you suppose we came up with energy in the first place? Did it always exist? Or it created itself? Or something else created it? Try anything, but let's see you trying to prove it.

and it didnt create us- again, can you prove it?

now just dont say that burden of proof is on believers. You made the assertions, it's for you to support them. Also, if you're going to use fuzzy principles, it will be fair for other side to do the same.

I know exactly what Freethinker is going to say and probably others do too by now but I will let him say it anyways :))

Quote

Vintage.Wine

@Vintage.Wine

Goldie

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

Names do matter when things get so ambiguous that misinterpretation starts. It is energy. It didn't create itself. It is not conscious. It didn't "create" us. In that sense, not a God.

Again, see above. And no, you have not told what part is the soul? Which vanishes as soon as someone dies. And again, we all already have energy. So, we all are in moksha. Unless you wanna explain what "being part of that Energy" means.

P.S. - And to the rest, I don't wanna mix religion in this. 😊

Oh! WOW 😆 ...

   Call it LIQUOR ...CAll it SOM RAS ...Call it Tharra <<<< The basic essence of that beverage would always remain the same ..All will flip ya out the same way ...😆 ..And what makes ya assume the consciousness can't be a product of energy ? .

All I had to say was ...Assuming that the BIG BANG happened the way it has been articulated ...There existed enormous energy concentrated in one single point ...Even the Quarks have both energy and linear momentum ...The Matter / anti matter interaction which happened to be asymmetrical ( And physicists themselves state that this the impossible became possible here ..as all particles must have a pairing anti Particles for energy to remain energy in a pure form ) thus the matter was created ..and we are made of the same cute matter which has energy .....Which means we are the part of that energy ...It actively partook the process that created the matter ( As an attribute of matter ) ie : us ..So we become a part of that ...

When a process which is opposite to what happened at big bang ...where Antiparticles would outnumber / equal the particles would be triggered ..all matter might again become energy ... Which means we and all the matter would stop existing as Particles + energy ..The electrons and hadrons would be gone ...The four forces of nature might exist as Supergravity again ...

    ^^^^ I have explained what being part of energy means .. Now to the SKIT part of your reply

@ Bold: Do we exist as sheer energy? Or are the particles our basic building block too ? When you ll exist as pure energy I would say you have attained moksha..

   What happens after the death ..was something i had asked ya ...You were saying ..everything shuts off when the brain shuts off ..( Funny that ..Firstly you said Electrons Decay then you corrected that ...They you said ..the late body movements are the effect of Reflex actions engendered by the Spinal chord ..Then you said Hadrons came before Leptons ) ..That doesn't happen ..I presented ya with the question what happens to the Electrons .and other energy forms as they can't be destroyed ...And What I alluded to as the soul was SHEER energy ..which is everywhere ..Not peculiar to a part ..

   If you want me to tell ya the process of death ..and how exactly the energy is transformed ...I would like to resort to your kind of statement " WE DON'T KNOW ..Just YET ' ...

   Ask me that on September the 20th ...15 Billion AD and I promise ll tell ya that ..Yeah.. I ll have my answer ready by then .. ☺️ ... But make sure you answer all those " We don't knows' at that time ..😆

@ PS: You asked me for the historic reference of Krishna's existence ..I gave ya that ... 😛 ...The point being someone who talked about multiple universes in the era when no scientist existed ...😆 ..I was not even talking religion ..😆

Also Please write that as a rule in the Opening post ..that religious beliefs can't be presented for consideration by the members here, in the thread that relates to the GOD 😆 ( For those who might wanna take it to that level ...) ..And that you would like to discuss GOD only on a Sub Atomic Level ...😆 ..After Einstein and Faraday that is ...😆

Vintu... 😆

Edited by Vintage.Wine - 11 years ago

Quote

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: _Angie_

... assuming you do get wiser does it change anything ?

I am guessing a wise person will debate with self but I am not there yet.

Quote

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

The way Quantum field theory (QFT) "resolves" the identical electrons question is by stating that particles are identical if and only if they are excitations of the same underlying quantum field.

Question then becomes, how do you localize a field? What do they mean by an underlying quantum field? Underlying what exactly?!

Quote

1 ... 108 109 110 111 112 ... 119