Darwinism is made up

[TheJackel]

And just this for fun : )

Qbit

To this:
The Engineering of Conscious Quantum Computing.

[TheJackel]

For example, what philosophically created the universe? you don't have to go into quantum theory or mechanisms, I'm just curious how you know the universe was created..?

I might shed some light on this subject to Referenced about our existence and the Universe:

If you find one, count me in. Some choose to belief in faith and the others choose to belief in science, fine as long as we don't go beyond "debate". After all, we don't know "jack @!$%#" for sure or unless someone can come up with absolute proof answer.

My Reply was:

We have, it's rooted in information theory and physics. However, the lack of the 100% answer is reference only to the gray areas of reality. Hence what lies between zero (ground state - lowest possible level without actually being literally zero), and the infinity. We already know you can't create Ground state, or even be conscious at Ground state. However, we do not know everything to which is above it.. And this is the crux to all arguments, anything above ground state is irrelevant to existence.

It's the application of infinite regress until we reach a point to where regression can go no further in order to solve the problem. It can only be solved by an impossible, or a point to which is impossible to regress any further.. So lets explore that here:

What we already know by fact and by example:

Spatial capacity to which is the capacity to exist, and have a place to exist in. This can not ever have zero literal capacity, exist as zero capacity, or exist in the form of a negative capacity. Hence, literal 0 dimensional objects, places, or things do not exist because they can not have the capacity to do so. And that is especially true for someone that would try and imply -1 dimensional capacity or something to be a-spatial..

And what is Spatial Capacity made of?

ENERGY! (Yep, that everyday stuff that even heats our homes). It's also why we know that spatial capacity is infinite.

And that also means no literal negative or zero energy can exist. This is also stated in the laws of Thermodynamics because literal zero temperature, or thermal property is impossible for this very same reason. This is from ground state to every day objects like the chair you sit in here on Planet Earth.. So we do know quite a bit, we just don't know the entire sum total there is to know between zero (ground state) and above. Chaotic systems are nearly impossible to predict, or fully understand at every level that might emerge.

So you can feel free to reference:

1) Scale:
http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/

2) You, me, and everything else on the orders of magnitude on the energy scale..as also demonstrated above under (scale):

http://talklikeaphysicist.com/2009/ener ... magnitude/

Gravity is considered a negative energy (not literally, just opposite force in the opposite direction/attraction)This is also where expansion is considered positive energy. The total net energy is zero (not literal). This is where Zero point energy, as energy, is in a state of Equilibrium vs actually being nothing or literally zero. This is why we refer to zero-point energy or ground state. So at rest there is zero-point energy. This is where zero also = 1 or (0,1) in qbits

Zero point energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Ground State:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_state

Vacuum Energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Zero Energy Calculator:
http://www.curtismenning.com/ZeroEnergyCalc.htm

The Four stages of Matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88tK5c0wgH4
--
Quantum Electrodynamics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8R4Tz_vKEE
--
Chaos Theory and Emerging order from the coupling of positive and negative feedback:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HVRniR3GrQ
--
Butterfly effect: Secret life of Chaos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6NnCOs20GQ

--

So yes, there are gaps in our "Knowledge" of the universe, but they are actually only Gray Area Gaps in terms of physics, complexity of chaotic systems, and how exactly to infinite detail did the Big Bang happen from Quantum fluctuations of energy.

This can best be understood by the following example:

We know we are human and what we are made of, and where we relatively reside. However, we do not infinitely know everything there is to know about ourselves, or our species.. In fact we know more about the Chicken than we do about ourselves on a scientific level. So are we human? Do we need to know the entire 100% of all the infinite information we could ever gain about ourselves to understand what we are? Do we need to know everything in order to make correct assumptions of what we are based on the available and already known knowledge of what we are?

Same principle applies to Earth.. We don't need to infinitely know everything about Earth to know it's a habitable planet in a solar system labeled "sol" to which resides in the Milky-way Galaxy amongst the billions of other Galaxies...And this is why the GOD of the Gaps argument is erroneous..

You can also note these references:

Our own Universe has been measured to be flat with less than a 2 percent margin of error.

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

For clarity, like a disc floating in space similar to our own Galaxy but at a much grander scale. Thus the net Energy = zero (no lower than ground state).

Some Good source videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqb1lSdqRZY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV33t8U6 ... ure=relmfu

Other resources:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2848

http://icecube.wisc.edu/~halzen/notes/week1-3.pdf

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/lectures/early_univ.html

http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/Cosmology.html

---

The basic laymen description when it comes to Zero Point energy / ground state:

Key:

* 0 = zero = Qbit = (0,1) = energy (base to potential self-oscillating energy)
* (0,1) = ground state
* 0 = no other objects or complexities higher than zero (ground state)
* 1= the only object even if there are an infinite number of other zero's (0,1)'s or points in space.. Because it's only relative to it's own point in space. Thus is zero point energy. However this could interact or interfere with other 0 points of energy and generate fluctuations and eventually the possibility of expansion (the Big Bang) and the rise to complexity. This being of course the Universe as we know it.

So in Quantum Electrodynamics, the particle and anti-particles are generated by borrowing energy from other zeros (0,1)'s (the future) to create a fluctuation that spawns them. So adding (0,1) to (0,1) gives you a possibility of getting (0,2). So these particles comeback together and destroy each other, leaving of course a byproduct that makes up the stuff of Stars and ourselves (matter).

non-existence / non-material / impossible:
(0,0)
- 0 literal energy
- 0 Dimensional or Spatial Capacity
- Can not be a person place or thing (noun), or can not have or gain mass. Nor can it be or have matter, energy, or informational value in the literal sense. It can not even be or contain itself.




I hope I have helped provide some known answers to help the debate here

[Tank]

Isn't the bible supposed to be proof God exists?  Assuming that was true, right?

The bible is supposed to be proof of god, but it fails on the basis of inductive circular reasoning. It would also be the case that all Muslims would disagree with you and that the Koran is the true word of God. As Islam is growing faster than Christianity at some point it will have more followers than Christianity. At what point will you convert to Islam? If you gather all the holy books together they all disagree with each other to a greater or lesser extent. Thus indicating that there is really no evidence of God as a consistent entity.

I'm not sure things of science make more sense without a God, if anything, they make more sense with one.

Obviously I would disagree with you completely on this point. One example would be the book of Genesis. The world was not created in six days, all the evidence refutes this claim. If you believe the bible to be an accurate reflection of reality you have to ask why some people interpret it in complete variance to reality. Are you a Young Earth Creationist? If you are then you deny reality, if you are not then you deny the accuracy of the bible and thus make a choice that you know better than the people who wrote the bible, thus you place yourself above them.

For example, what philosophically created the universe? you don't have to go into quantum theory or mechanisms, I'm just curious how you know the universe was created..?

I know I exist, if you have existential issues then that's your problem not mine  

EDIT: Topys

[The Magic Pudding]

The bible is supposed to be proof of god, but it fails on the basis of inductive circular reasoning.

I know that Jesus loves me I know
because the bible tells me so
I know that Jesus loves me I know
because the bible tells me so

[hackenslash]

The property of wetness is not in the molecular or atomic structure of water.  It is not evidence by mathematical formula.  Sure, we can still say, at this temperature, these particles behave as such.  But the observation of wetness is mechanical in our perception.  Just as we see the color blue. For the wave (photon) has peculiar characteristics including frequency, wavelength, the depth and height of the trough and crests, but the observation of blue is purely intangible to our perception.  The light hits the eye, then we begin to associate what properties of light are recognize with particular words, such that we see blue. The color blue is not a property or part of the light wave in itself.

So how (unless energy and particles and the laws of mathematics are essentially conscious) can we have such inordinate characteristics add up to define consciousness?

Whooooooosh!

That was the sound of the point flying past your head. The entire point is that the property of wetness is emergent, and rooted in the aggregation of a significant number of water molecules, in precisely the same way that consciousness is an emergent property of the aggregation of a significant number of neurons and a significant number of synaptic connections. This emergence has nothing to do with perception.

[hackenslash]

Isn't the bible supposed to be proof God exists?  Assuming that was true, right?

That would be the fallacy of circular reasoning.

I'm not sure things of science make more sense without a God, if anything, they make more sense with one.

Why?

For example, what philosophically created the universe?

And this fallacy is the complex question.

you don't have to go into quantum theory or mechanisms, I'm just curious how you know the universe was created..?

What makes you think the universe was created? Complex question again.

[defendor]

Funny thing about the Koran, it actually testifies that the first revelation of Moses was true.  i.e. the first 5 books of the bible
Islam is not the fastest growing religion, more people convert to christianity than islam, except islam is smaller so its a higher percentage of people according to its population

If the universe wasn't created then it was eternal right? ...not being created?  
1. if the universe was always here, this is the same logic that God is just always there
2.  The universe is made of finite parts. the universe is decreasing in the amount of usable energy. For instance, the hydrogen in stars is used up, it does not make more hydrogen.  The parts of the universe are finite and we add it all up. How can a bunch of finite things make infinite?
3. If the universe is infinitely existing, then how could you say you exist now? There would be an infinite past of moments that must be traversed for you to say you can exist now.  You of course exist now, so you must say that  you have traversed the temporal limits of a finite time frame so an infinite series of past moments can't exist.

So logically, it has to have a beginning.  Scientifically, particle physicists claim it has a beginning, but just don't quite know what started it.

As for the Jackel- I have a quick question, what is energy?

[hackenslash]

If the universe wasn't created then it was eternal right? ...not being created?  

Yes.

1. if the universe was always here, this is the same logic that God is just always there

It would be the same logic, if you could actually point to something and say 'that's god there', as we can do with the universe. Good luck with that.

2.  The universe is made of finite parts. the universe is decreasing in the amount of usable energy.

That depends on what you mean by 'usable energy', and it depends on what you mean by 'decreasing'. Perhaps a crash course in thermodynamics would be illuminating. There's a discussion on that HERE.

For instance, the hydrogen in stars is used up, it does not make more hydrogen.

You do realise, do you not, that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and that it isn't all bound in stars? You are also aware, are you not, that hydrogen is made of smaller parts, parts which are present in every other element and indeed on their own without being bounded in elements?

The parts of the universe are finite and we add it all up. How can a bunch of finite things make infinite?

They can't. The problem here is that a) you're only considering our local cosmic expansion, which quite probably is not infinite, although that's unclear, at least until the details of inflation are better understood, and b) you don't have any understanding of what's meant by infinite. You're treating it as if it's a number. It isn't.

Non of this has much to do with energy, of course. Indeed, one of the fundamental laws of physics, the first law of thermodynamics, tells us that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. That puts a bit of a hole in your thesis here.

3. If the universe is infinitely existing, then how could you say you exist now? There would be an infinite past of moments that must be traversed for you to say you can exist now.

This is straight out of the Kalamity Kraig playbook (as is the rest of the guff you're presenting here as 'logic', and it's utter idiocy. It's like saying that an infinite line has no points on it, which is about as nonsensical as it's possible to get, not least because all lines are, in essence, infinite.

 

You of course exist now, so you must say that  you have traversed the temporal limits of a finite time frame so an infinite series of past moments can't exist.

Complete non-sequitur. Please demonstrate that a line has no points on it.

So logically, it has to have a beginning.

Logic works fine as long as you start from true premises. You don't actually have any true premises, only blind assertions, and some of them are categorically wrong, as demonstrated above.

Scientifically, particle physicists claim it has a beginning, but just don't quite know what started it.

Well, firstly, particle physicists say no such thing, because the remit of particle physics consists of the fundamental constituents of matter and energy, while the instantiation of the cosmos and the physics of the universe is the remit of cosmology, a different area of study. This is much akin to the cretinous conflation of evolution and abiogenesis so beloved of the terminally credulous. Secondly, even cosmologists don't say it has a beginning, although they do say that our local cosmic expansion had a beginning, but they have no theories yet to describe it. Indeed, our best theory of cosmogeny only goes back to a finite time after the beginning of expansion, and has absolutely nothing to say on the actual beginning, but that's only our cosmic expansion, not the universe. The universe is literally 'all that exists' and includes whatever preceded our cosmic expansion. More importantly, though, there's still that niggling problem of the first law of thermodynamics.

what is energy?

The ability to do work.

[defendor]

The logic I was imposing about the God, is that science is readily and willing to give the characteristics of omnipotence to everything other than God.  For instance, the law of Gravity.   The law of Gravity is an observable force, not imposable.  So if the law of gravity existed before it had existed, it could have created the universe.  

Scientists speculate as to what caused the universe, but really, don't know.  I don't want to seem pretentious, but I would like to state some knowledge in the field for my physics instructor is a theoretical particle physicist who works on the math of the string theory as well as the math behind the large hadron collider.  

Most who say the universe is eternal or just there appeals to the first law of thermodynamics.  According to the first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.  First, this way of stating the first law is not scientific; rather, it is a philosophical assertion.  Science is based on observation, and there is no observational evidence that can support the dogmatic "can" and "cannot" implicit in this statement.  It should read, "as far as we have observed" the amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant.  That is, no one had observed any actual new energy in either coming into existence of going out of existence.  Once the first law is understood properly, it says nothing about the universe being eternal or having no beginning.  As far as the first law is concerned, energy may or may not have been created.  It simply asserts that if energy was created, then as far as we can tell, the actual amount of energy that was created has remained constant since.  

According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is running out of usable energy.  But if the universe is running out of energy it cannot be eternal.  Otherwise it would have run down completely by now.  While you can never run out of an unlimited amount of energy, it does not take forever to run out of a limited amount of energy.  Hence, the universe must have had a beginning.  If you state that the universe is self-winding or self-rebounding, this position is pure speculation and is in complete violation of the second law of thermodynamics.  If the overall amount of actual energy stays the same but the universe is running out of usable energy, it has never had an infinite amount, for an infinite amount of energy can never run down.  This would mean that universe could not have existed forever in the past.

Regardless of points on a line, there could not have been an infinite number of moments before today; otherwise today would never would have come (which it has).  This is because, by definition, an infinite can never be traversed, it has no end or beginning.  But since moments before today have been traversed, that is we have arrived at today, it follows that there must only have been a finite number of moments before today.  That is, time had a beginning.

energy is defined as the ability to do work, but all that tells me is you know what it does or can do, but do you really know what energy is?

[hackenslash]

The logic I was imposing about the God, is that science is readily and willing to give the characteristics of omnipotence to everything other than God.  For instance, the law of Gravity.   The law of Gravity is an observable force, not imposable.  So if the law of gravity existed before it had existed, it could have created the universe.  

Actually, science isn't willing to grant omnipotence to anything, because it constitutes a paradox. As for gravity, it is a consequence of the geometry of spacetime. It certainly isn't granted omnipotence, not least because it's the weakest of the fouor fundamental forces of the cosmos. It's unclear at the moment whether or not gravity could have existed without extended spatial dimensions, and indeed there are models for gravity that suggest that the reason that it's so weak is that it spills into other, unseen dimensions. Have a shufty at the details of the Turok/Steinhardt 'brane-worlds' model for more information on this.

Scientists speculate as to what caused the universe, but really, don't know.  I don't want to seem pretentious, but I would like to state some knowledge in the field for my physics instructor is a theoretical particle physicist who works on the math of the string theory as well as the math behind the large hadron collider.  

Well, cosmologists certainly speculate on the origin of our local cosmic expansion, which is to be differentiated from the universe, but they don't do so using wibble, but hard evidence and well-established physical principles, along with what is often some very esoteric mathematics. In any event, citing some unknown particle physicist constitutes an empty argument from authority, unless you can actually cite his research in this area. I can present original research by some of the world's most well-respected cosmologists.

Most who say the universe is eternal or just there appeals to the first law of thermodynamics.  According to the first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.  First, this way of stating the first law is not scientific; rather, it is a philosophical assertion.  Science is based on observation, and there is no observational evidence that can support the dogmatic "can" and "cannot" implicit in this statement.  It should read, "as far as we have observed" the amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant.  That is, no one had observed any actual new energy in either coming into existence of going out of existence.  Once the first law is understood properly, it says nothing about the universe being eternal or having no beginning.  As far as the first law is concerned, energy may or may not have been created.  It simply asserts that if energy was created, then as far as we can tell, the actual amount of energy that was created has remained constant since.

ACtually, unlike the second law of thermodynamics, the first law is not merely an experimental law, but is well-supported, not least by Noether's theorem, in which certain quantities, such as energy, are conserved. This isn't merely conjecture, but well-established science.

According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is running out of usable energy.  But if the universe is running out of energy it cannot be eternal.  Otherwise it would have run down completely by now.  While you can never run out of an unlimited amount of energy, it does not take forever to run out of a limited amount of energy.  Hence, the universe must have had a beginning.  If you state that the universe is self-winding or self-rebounding, this position is pure speculation and is in complete violation of the second law of thermodynamics.  If the overall amount of actual energy stays the same but the universe is running out of usable energy, it has never had an infinite amount, for an infinite amount of energy can never run down.  This would mean that universe could not have existed forever in the past.

I see you didn't actually bother to read the discussion on the 2LT that I linked to. I actually do understand entropy, as demonstrated in that thread, but your understanding is woefully inadequate. What the law of entropy actually states is that entropy will not, on average, increase. It doesn't say that the energyof the universe is running down. More importantly, expansion changes the game completely, and is actually the source of entropy, because it changes what the maximum value for entropy can be all the time. Finally, the third law of thermodynamics tells us that the maximum value for entropy can never actually be attained, because it is an asymptote. Oh, and it's entirely probable that the law of entropy (which is an experimental law, and comes under the rubric of the problem of induction) is merely a feature of the coarse-graining of the universe.

I could teach you a lot about thermodynamics, if you didn't think you already knew.

Regardless of points on a line, there could not have been an infinite number of moments before today; otherwise today would never would have come (which it has).  This is because, by definition, an infinite can never be traversed, it has no end or beginning.  But since moments before today have been traversed, that is we have arrived at today, it follows that there must only have been a finite number of moments before today.  That is, time had a beginning.

Merely re-asserting your point after it has been debunked will not win you any traction here. The question you must answer is why there cannot be points on a line, because any event on an infinite timeline is precisely analogous to a point on a line. What you are saying is that, given infinite time, there can be no events. In other words, nothing can ever happen because there is too much time for it to have happened. This was pathetic and stupid when Kalamity Kraig erected it, and it's even more so when you re-assert it.

energy is defined as the ability to do work, but all that tells me is you know what it does or can do, but do you really know what energy is?

That is it's definition, as employed by physicists in rigorous settings. Beyond that, it doesn't have a singular definition, because work comes in many forms. That is all the definition I need, and I have already demonstrated that I understand energy rigorously, while you only demonstrate that you have absorbed the retarded ididocy of Kalamity Kraig. That will not aid you here.

[TheJackel]

edit:

combined to the below post.

[TheJackel]

Regardless of points on a line, there could not have been an infinite number of moments before today; otherwise today would never would have come (which it has)

Incorrect. Moments are as relative as points on a line and there can be equally infinite in number over an infinite period of time.

That is it's definition, as employed by physicists in rigorous settings. Beyond that, it doesn't have a singular definition, because work comes in many forms. That is all the definition I need, and I have already demonstrated that I understand energy rigorously, while you only demonstrate that you have absorbed the retarded ididocy of Kalamity Kraig. That will not aid you here.
Beliefs are the eyelids of the mind - David Zindell

Incorrect.. There are 3 laws that govern everything and they are the 3 laws of energy to which can lead to complex... It's also the only 3 laws that can "do work".

Positive
Negative
Neutral

There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral:

Action
Reaction
Process
choice
decision
phenomenon
emerging property
environment
Feedback
motion
moral
ethic
thought
Idea
emotion
Selection
Natural Selection
Adaptation
response
Stimuli
Piece of information
existence (negative not existing)
Capacity (negative capacity impossible to exist)
time
mathematical equation, or solution
Answer
image
perception
ability
function
sate of being (negative state means no being is existent)
place (negative place doesn't exist)
Oscillation
inertia
work
belief
ect...

Einstein - You can talk about the ethical foundation of science, but you can't talk about the scientific foundation of ethics

Good thing Einstein didn't study evolution of ethics.. However I can prove that statement wrong.

Energy has 3 properties:

Positive
Negative
Neutral

Ethics has 3 properties:

Positive
Negative
Neutral


Do the math.. energy =/= information and thus ='s all information to which ethical principles are based on..

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. If there were no light in the universe, thus no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark

And the whole universe has meaning.. It's called existence! It's all the meaning it requires!

Can you feel emotion without physically feeling it? NOPE!

[Tank]

Funny thing about the Koran, it actually testifies that the first revelation of Moses was true.  i.e. the first 5 books of the bible
Islam is not the fastest growing religion, more people convert to christianity than islam, except islam is smaller so its a higher percentage of people according to its population

If the universe wasn't created then it was eternal right? ...not being created?  
1. if the universe was always here, this is the same logic that God is just always there
2.  The universe is made of finite parts. the universe is decreasing in the amount of usable energy. For instance, the hydrogen in stars is used up, it does not make more hydrogen.  The parts of the universe are finite and we add it all up. How can a bunch of finite things make infinite?
3. If the universe is infinitely existing, then how could you say you exist now? There would be an infinite past of moments that must be traversed for you to say you can exist now.  You of course exist now, so you must say that  you have traversed the temporal limits of a finite time frame so an infinite series of past moments can't exist.

So logically, it has to have a beginning.  Scientifically, particle physicists claim it has a beginning, but just don't quite know what started it.

Nice chisel, ill used.

If the universe wasn't created then it was eternal right? ...not being created?

Begging the question, falling foul of the capability of human language to adequately reflect reality. The word 'created' implies a creator so you're using a disingenuous semantic technique that attempts to shape the argument in your favour, Wittgensttein would have been proud of you   . We can estimate the length of time from which time appears to have started, the event referred to by Fred Hoyle as 'The Big Bang'. We can see the 'heat death' of the universe going on around us and the fact that it has been going on from the Big Bang. These conditions, placed in a human 'common sense' frame work imply a beginning and an end. But the closer we examine reality the more we find that human 'common sense' is a very poor perspective from which to judge reality. Einstein knew this when he took his imaginary ride on a photon to illustrate relativity. Quantum mechanics flies in the face of 'common sense'.

We are having to come to terms with the apparent contradiction that the photons captured by the Hubble space telescope when it looks at the furthest (oldest) galaxies existed throughout the universe as a probability until we built the Hubble and put it into orbit and pointed it at said galaxy and collapsed that probability. And if we had not built the Hubble that probability may never have collapsed. To common sense what I have just written is absurd, but it appears to be the way the universe works. Faced with our growing understanding that the conceptual tools by which we judge reality by, the passing of time and cause leading to effect are flawed making any claim of a 'start' to the universe is fraught with danger. We have evidence that things were not as they are now. That evidence has come from scrupulous examination of what we can and have observed. It has never come from a holy book or the wishful thinking of a philosopher.

When there was no understanding of the way the universe works philosophers had no choice but to 'make shit up'. It's part of human nature to want to understand the relationship between cause and effect. But it would appear that in the quantum world human concepts of cause and effect break down as useful terms. I don't think we know what happened at the Big Bang, and that is ALL we can say about that. One can't simply invoke superstition to replace a lack of knowledge as our ancestors did because we do know that superstition (AKA Making shit up) has an appealing track record in terms of actually explaining what is going on. By way of illustration see 'Witches' burnt to death in Kenya'. The people who carried out these atrocities did it because they were convinced their superstitions (AKA Making shit up) were correct.

I'm sorry to say it but I see your assertions about God as no different, in essence, from the same attitude that allowed, nay demanded, those Kenyans kill those 'Witches'. The only thing that stops you from burning a Witch is that your particular type/style/level of superstitious belief shaped by your culture/societal values prevents it as an option.

Your abuse of logic, semantic arguments and superstitious assertions cut no ice with me. If you want me to take your world view seriously the first thing you'll have to do is get all theists to sing from the same song sheet. Until that happens don't expect me to take you or any theist seriously. Your views are extensions of the mythology that our ancestors created to fill in the cognitive dissonance between knowledge (the Sun rises) and understanding (the Earth orbits the Sun and spins while it does so). Your views are redundant now, the trouble is as humans we have great difficulty 'un-learning' what we have been told by authority figures is true.

Regards
Chris

[defendor]

I think there is a misunderstanding of infinity.

If I am standing on a point on an infinite line, I look behind me, what do I see?  Infinity.  There is no beginning, it would take infinitely long to walk backwards.  So is the case of time.  If we say that time is infinite, then there is infinite time behind us.  SO if there is infinite time behind us, then it would take infinity for us to reach the point of time we have.  But since we have reached the point of time we have (Now), there cannot be infinitely much more time behind us.  So time is not infinitely long.

Yes, we can break down a finite line into infinite many points, but that does not make the finite line grow any longer.  All that does is distinguish between to specific points on the finite line.  But as the line is concerned there is a beginning and there is an end.  Such is with time.

When you do calculus, if you have an improper integral, it means it cannot be evaluated.  An integral is considered improper when it cannot be evaluated at a specific point.  Such points are that of infinity.  You cannot evaluate a specific point at infinity.  It is mathematically impossible.  Such is with time.  We cannot say time grows to infinity and then evaluate the points at which it exists at infinity.

For energy to be correlated to ethics, you would have to know what energy is.  But telling me what energy can do, is not telling me what it is.  What is energy?
You can tell me everything energy does, but you still haven't told me what energy is.  If you have a great understanding of energy, it should be easy to tell me what energy really is, shouldn't it?  

I'm just curious, it sounds like theres a bunch of science majors on here. Outside of reading about quantum mechanics online, who has actually studied quantum physics at a university?

[hackenslash]

I think there is a misunderstanding of infinity.

There certainly is, and it's you that doesn't understand it, as demonstrated by the following nonsense.

If I am standing on a point on an infinite line, I look behind me, what do I see?  Infinity.  There is no beginning, it would take infinitely long to walk backwards.  So is the case of time.  If we say that time is infinite, then there is infinite time behind us.  SO if there is infinite time behind us, then it would take infinity for us to reach the point of time we have.  But since we have reached the point of time we have (Now), there cannot be infinitely much more time behind us.  So time is not infinitely long.

What you are saying here is that there can be no points on a line. SImply reasserting this ignorant guff will not make it true.

Yes, we can break down a finite line into infinite many points, but that does not make the finite line grow any longer.  All that does is distinguish between to specific points on the finite line.  But as the line is concerned there is a beginning and there is an end.  Such is with time.

Now you can tell us what time is, since you think you know what you're talking about. I look forward to your dissertation on the subject.

When you do calculus, if you have an improper integral, it means it cannot be evaluated.  An integral is considered improper when it cannot be evaluated at a specific point.  Such points are that of infinity.  You cannot evaluate a specific point at infinity.  It is mathematically impossible.  Such is with time.  We cannot say time grows to infinity and then evaluate the points at which it exists at infinity.

Which demonstrates that you have no clue of what you're talking about, as if we actually needed further demonstration. Certainly, infinity cannot be reached by the addition of integers, because that defeats the definition of what infinity actually is, namely beyond calculability. The successive addition of integers will never give you infinity, because you will never arrive at a figure that is incalculable. Yet infinities can be shown to exist, mathematically, at least. There is no barrier to infinities existing in nature, either, despite the wild assertions of Kalamity Kraig and other idiotic liars for doctrine.

For energy to be correlated to ethics, you would have to know what energy is.  But telling me what energy can do, is not telling me what it is.  What is energy?

I already told you. It is the ability to perform work.

You can tell me everything energy does, but you still haven't told me what energy is.  If you have a great understanding of energy, it should be easy to tell me what energy really is, shouldn't it?  

I already did, three times.