If nothing comes from nothing, where would god come from?Originally Posted by anak
.
If nothing comes from nothing, where would god come from?
.Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Use Logic Or STFU!
God always was.....vs. a molecule always was.If nothing comes from nothing, where would god come from?
It really comes down to whether one believes a sentient being started it all or whether a poof pow of something non-sentient started it all.
The first is much more believable since I believe ultimately the start of something involves a decision and that rules are made.
Error xɐʇuʎs
BT Rep: +1
The creation of this universe, and all the molecules in it could just be a migration from another state. Matter is an illusion anyways, everything is energy (according to some, anyway). But I suppose it might have had to start somewhere even so.
The thing is, tho', if I'm to get all esoteric about it, like, that current theories don't see this universe as all there is. Whether we're talking a holographic universe, m-space or another macroverse, or I don't know what, most of the rules we know probably don't apply to what else is there. And that makes the prevalence of things like absolute beginnings and ends inside of all there is a tad unpredictable. Not to mention that time might not be what it seems to be.
It might be that everything is circular, like a constant stream from one state to the other, or it might be that everything is constant, maybe like a big fat static phase space, and we're looking at it, living it really, from the wrong angle. Kinda' tricky to define energy, then.
Last edited by Snee; 11-23-2007 at 02:52 AM.
BT Rep: +2
I believe that, if pondered philosophically, the idea of energy might seem to consist purely of '+' (symbolizing focused positivity); the opposite: '-', a bending of the term (sprouting earnestly under theoretical discovery) runs along a nonexistent/pale thread primarily composed of scientifically altered psychological feedback (regarding the changing tiles of mankind through processed evolution: ultimately abstract). Through balance, one might discover harmony (the spectrum/wavelength cohesive and brilliantly fused) which exists, in a way, as the lesser relative, speaking through wisdom/experience, challenging fault. There is no clear way to define a term, which could be why some individuals solely rely on physics. Without a doubt, physics (disregarding the meta) brings light to/enflames the abstract/unknown, figuratively filling the crevices of history with a paste-like monotony that, like shards of muscle, function on the relativity of a flowing organism.
...just peeling some thought.
Error xɐʇuʎs
BT Rep: +1
On the off-chance I hadn't confused the fuck out of everybody enough, you thought you'd bring it home, did you?
Well played.
the o'lol factor
BT Rep: +10
potential or kinetic energy? elastic or gravitational potential energy?
AHHHHH!
Energy puts things in motion. I saw they manged to bottle it and call it Gatorade.
.
Sorry, that's nonsense.God always was.....vs. a molecule always was.
It really comes down to whether one believes a sentient being started it all or whether a poof pow of something non-sentient started it all.
The first is much more believable since I believe ultimately the start of something involves a decision and that rules are made.
There's absolutely no reason why the statement "god always was" should be any more true than the statement "a molecule always was".
Just to put things into perspective, the logic behind that statement is true, and always has been. Since logic is abstract and doesn't need any physical entity, it surely has a higher standing than any god, molecule, energy wave or whatever else we want to think up.
.Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Use Logic Or STFU!
Sorry but an intelligent being making the rules which govern everything is more believable than no one making them.Sorry, that's nonsense.
God always was.....vs. a molecule always was.
It really comes down to whether one believes a sentient being started it all or whether a poof pow of something non-sentient started it all.
The first is much more believable since I believe ultimately the start of something involves a decision and that rules are made.
There's absolutely no reason why the statement "god always was" should be any more true than the statement "a molecule always was".
Just to put things into perspective, the logic behind that statement is true, and always has been. Since logic is abstract and doesn't need any physical entity, it surely has a higher standing than any god, molecule, energy wave or whatever else we want to think up.
.
You can prefer whatever you want, that still doesn't answer the question "what made god?".Sorry but an intelligent being making the rules which govern everything is more believable than no one making them.
The argument "god always was" can be countered by "the molecule always was" and "the rules have always existed", getting rid of the need for them to have been devised.
.Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks