What is Energy?

[Busyman™]

Sorry but an intelligent being making the rules which govern everything is more believable than no one making them.

You can prefer whatever you want, that still doesn't answer the question "what made god?".

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.

Uhhuh .....and I can counter with somethin' unentulligunt didn't start it all. That would be just ridiculous.

Let's go around the carousel one mo' time, lynx.

[thewizeard]

Energy; the equivalent of or the capacity for doing work.

don't describe to me what energy does, i want to know what it is.
you don't define coffee as something that burns your tongue, do you?

Let us, do our best to explain in a simple way to answer your simple questions , so you can grasp the concept of energy. You didn't, in you original question, make any limitations, now suddenly .."dont this... don't that". how could you possibly be able to understand it, if you reject every simple concept that's offered? First you describe for me the colour red or the taste of an apple?, then I will give you comprehensive answers to your troll questions.

ps: cold coffee does not burn one's tongue.. yet it will melt ice.

[bigboab]

don't describe to me what energy does, i want to know what it is.
you don't define coffee as something that burns your tongue, do you?

Let us, do our best to explain in a simple way to answer your simple questions , so you can grasp the concept of energy. You didn't, in you original question, make any limitations, now suddenly .."dont this... don't that". how could you possibly be able to understand it, if you reject every simple concept that's offered? First you describe for me the colour red or the taste of an apple?, then I will give you comprehensive answers to your troll questions.

ps: cold coffee does not burn one's tongue.. yet it will melt ice.

I agree. There is a simple answer to most things.


@Busy, do you take your coffee cold with ice?

[lynx]

You can prefer whatever you want, that still doesn't answer the question "what made god?".

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.

Uhhuh .....and I can counter with somethin' unentulligunt didn't start it all. That would be just ridiculous.

Let's go around the carousel one mo' time, lynx.

Busy, I think you missed my point. It doesn't matter what you believe, that's up to you and personal to you, I don't care one way or the other.

The argument "god always was", can be equally applied to anything else. If it is applied to something else then there is no need for a creator, supreme being or otherwise, to have devised anything else, everything can simply follow from the original "things".

On the other hand, if you insist that there always has to be creation, then by inference that must equally apply to the creator. To claim otherwise is to assert that there does NOT need to be creation, which leads us back to where we started.

The conclusion is that this argument does not lead anywhere in the proof or otherwise of a supreme being.

[Barbarossa]

Sorry, that's nonsense.

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.

Sorry but an intelligent being making the rules which govern everything is more believable than no one making them.

It is not more believable to me

[Biggles]

Sorry, that's nonsense.

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.

Sorry but an intelligent being making the rules which govern everything is more believable than no one making them.

You clearly didn't see the referee we had a couple of weeks ago. The result still stood despite the arbitrary nature of the events as they unfolded.

What we see is a possible outcome of events, perhaps the only possible outcome perhaps not. It is possible to look back and apply meaning or intent to that outcome but any number of such interpretations will fit. Predicting future outcomes is more tricky.