Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[ding]

The Bible nailed the Great Migration

The Bible nailed the great flood

The account of genesis was recorded in the symbols of the first written language 4500 years ago

The Bible nailed that there was a beginning.

The Bible nailed evolution.

The Bible nailed DNA.

The Bible nailed that we came from dust.

The Bible nailed the Nature of Man.

The Bible nailed the morality progression.

The Bible nails an internal locus of control.

The Bible nails that the Spirit of God is within us all.

The Bible nails the saeculum cycle.

The Bible nails successful behaviors.

The Bible nails failed behaviors.

Now tell me what three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt has got as a justification to be taken seriously? Your problem is that you don't take it seriously. You have got it in your head that you can't be wrong about anything. I don't have a problem with your non-belief. I have a problem with your attitude and behavior towards my belief.

It's because you guys have been much more in your face the last 17 years. Much more dangerous

I see. You blame others for your behavior.

EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL ALERT

So, to be clear, in your opinion, a person's actions will, and should have absolutely zero effect on the actions of others? It is your contention that one's choices should not have consequences, and, if they do, then the blame for such consequences falls on the person, or persons reacting to the bad behaviour, and not the person who behaved badly? That is really your position?

That was some mental masturbation you did to arrive at a position to justify an external locus of control. So let me put this down quickly, yep, that's right, your failed behaviors should not cause me to behave poorly. I am accountable for my behaviors, no one else.

Why do you complain about liberals? I don't have a problem with your belief. It's your attitude and behavior I have a problem with.

Same thing you said about us athiests only I found something I believe is good but you don't.

I don't complain about them. I examine them. What am I complaining about?

 

[hobelim]

Right and there is quite a bit more evidence to support the God of Judea/Christianity exists than there is a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt exists.

There is no such thing as a Judeo/Christian God.

Jews do not believe in an edible triune mangod, only Christians do.

There is only one Creator whose nature is beyond our comprehension, however you choose to represent that Supreme Being is ok by me. You can call Him whatever the fuck you want. I won't piss on your belief. I suggest you not piss on mine. In fact, I would be more than happy for you to tell me about your God. I hope your love and admiration for Him shines through in what you write.

you don't seem to understand.

Christians believe that God became a man.

Jews have rejected this assertion ever since it was first unleashed on mankind by Rome in 325.ce.

Am I missing something?


Jesus said that he came from God, was sent by God to teach, and owed his very existence to God.

Any being, whether created or begotten, whose source is God cannot be God who alone is the source of all life.

God has no visible shape or material form, he has no equal, and there is no other god in existence either above or below him.


This precludes the possibility that a human being, even Jesus, ever was God or became God either before during or after their human existence.

 

[ding]

Oh I get it now. It's all those Absolute atheists who sound like complete fucking idiots all the time. Good thing you can make such a clear distinction between them and you.

I find this interesting maybe you can explain. They say the bible was written around 1600 years ago. The old testament was written supposedly 7000 years ago. Now we know the ancients found fossels and told stories of dragons monsters and other mythical beasts but it wasn't until 1824 that we knew dinosaurs once roamed and how they got here and disappeared. None of that is in the old testament. God left that part out of the 7 day creation story.

I call bullshit!

Before you can understand any particular faith you would first have had to had faith in God and then have faith in a faith. You have done neither. You shouldn't be expected to understand.

I once had faith

I doubt you did, more than likely you had notional faith; superficial faith. I suspect if you are honest with yourself you will admit that you really didn't believe even when you thought you believed. But I could be wrong. Either way it does not change my point. You would not be expected to know and understand a faith that is not yours.

This is funny. I didn't have enough or the right kind of faith. Lol. Sorry I can't fully believe the unbelievable

Pretty much. You weren't ready. But today you believe that you are an expert on it. You're not. Your understanding is superficial at best and skewed by your bias.

 

[ding]

Right and there is quite a bit more evidence to support the God of Judea/Christianity exists than there is a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt exists.

There is no such thing as a Judeo/Christian God.

Jews do not believe in an edible triune mangod, only Christians do.

There is only one Creator whose nature is beyond our comprehension, however you choose to represent that Supreme Being is ok by me. You can call Him whatever the fuck you want. I won't piss on your belief. I suggest you not piss on mine. In fact, I would be more than happy for you to tell me about your God. I hope your love and admiration for Him shines through in what you write.

you don't seem to understand.

Christians believe that God became a man.

Jews have rejected this assertion ever since it was first unleashed on mankind by Rome in 325.ce.

Am I missing something?


Jesus said that he came from God, was sent by God to teach, and owed his very existence to God.

Any being whose source is God cannot be God who alone is the source of all life.

God has no visible shape or material form, he has no equal, and there is no other god in existence either above or below him.


This precludes the possibility that a human being, even Jesus, ever was God or became God either before during or after their human existence.

Yes. You did miss something. The point of my last post.

 

[hobelim]

Right and there is quite a bit more evidence to support the God of Judea/Christianity exists than there is a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt exists.

There is no such thing as a Judeo/Christian God.

Jews do not believe in an edible triune mangod, only Christians do.

There is only one Creator whose nature is beyond our comprehension, however you choose to represent that Supreme Being is ok by me. You can call Him whatever the fuck you want. I won't piss on your belief. I suggest you not piss on mine. In fact, I would be more than happy for you to tell me about your God. I hope your love and admiration for Him shines through in what you write.

you don't seem to understand.

Christians believe that God became a man.

Jews have rejected this assertion ever since it was first unleashed on mankind by Rome in 325.ce.

Am I missing something?


Jesus said that he came from God, was sent by God to teach, and owed his very existence to God.

Any being whose source is God cannot be God who alone is the source of all life.

God has no visible shape or material form, he has no equal, and there is no other god in existence either above or below him.


This precludes the possibility that a human being, even Jesus, ever was God or became God either before during or after their human existence.

Yes. You did miss something. The point of my last post.

No, I just ignored it because it was and is ridiculous. If you want to remain in fantasyland, I suggest you don't post your fantasies here where they can be scrutinized and challenged by rational people. Go to church. Even here, no one will piss on beliefs if you don't try to make some absurd claim to moral authority on them.

My point remains .

There is no such thing as a judeo/christian God.

The two groups beliefs about God have nothing whatever in common.

 

[Czernobog]

Are you not familiar with gravitons?

Do gravitons create energy from nothing? Look, you are kind of slow on this stuff so let me break it down. As time approaches infinity the usable energy will approach zero. There is no getting around this. There is no such thing as a free lunch, every transfer will have losses to the system. The universe had to have a beginning. It is not possible for the universe to be eternal.

You are mistaking "massless" for "nothing". Energy is created by matter conversion, not mass conversion. By being massless, gravitons can be converted ad infinitum with no loss of mass. Also, as particles of quantum matter, because they are massless, they do not lose mass as they approach the speed of light. In other words, your model is incomplete. This is why trying to use high school physics to explain the universe, and cosmic events will always fall short. You simply do not have access to all of the relevant data.

No, I don't believe I am. Matter is energy and energy is matter. They are equivalent. E=MC^2. They only change form and when they do there is a loss to the system's usable energy. Why is this so hard for you to accept? Are you really suggesting that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is invalid? Do you still see usable energy? You wouldn't if the universe were infinite. Are gravitons responsible for recharging the universe? Gravitons do not apply to this discussion.

Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.

All natural processes tend toward increasing disorder. And although energy is conserved, its availability is decreased.

Nature proceeds from the simple to the complex, from the orderly to the disorderly, from low entropy to high entropy.

The entropy of a system is proportional to the logarithm of the probability of that particular configuration of the system occurring. The more highly ordered the configuration of a system, the less likely it is to occur naturally - hence the lower its entropy.

The total energy of the universe is a constant.
The total entropy of the universe always increases.

Okay. I'm sure you're smarter than both Ahmed Farag Ali, and Saurya Das. Das has only had a PhD in Physics since 1998, and
Ali has only spent his entire life in theoretical physics, winning multiple awards. But, hey! You had high school physics, so what do they know?

You do get that E=MC^2 means Energy equal MASS times the speed of light squared, right? So, when the matter is massless, guess how much energy is lost in the conversion? 0 squared is zero. When gravitons are converted to energy, zero energy is lost in the conversion. Oops.

And what in the hell does that have to do with all that mass that is floating out there with usable energy still left?

It has to do with the fact that mass is not required to convert matter to energy. With gravitons, matter is converted without any loss of energy, or mass. There is no begining, there is no end. Your universal model is not necessary. So, no need for God.

 

[Czernobog]

There is no more objective evidence of your mythical god than there is of your three-headed unicorn.You have repeatedly been offered to present the objective evidence supporting the existence of God. The one time you tried, you first required that God be presumed to exist, in order for the evidence to fit your hypothesis. That isn't evidence, that's confirmation bias. After that, you just refused to even try.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The Bible nailed the Great Migration

The Bible nailed the great flood

The account of genesis was recorded in the symbols of the first written language 4500 years ago

The Bible nailed that there was a beginning.

The Bible nailed evolution.

The Bible nailed DNA.

The Bible nailed that we came from dust.

The Bible nailed the Nature of Man.

The Bible nailed the morality progression.

The Bible nails an internal locus of control.

The Bible nails that the Spirit of God is within us all.

The Bible nails the saeculum cycle.

The Bible nails successful behaviors.

The Bible nails failed behaviors.

Now tell me what three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt has got as a justification to be taken seriously? Your problem is that you don't take it seriously. You have got it in your head that you can't be wrong about anything. I don't have a problem with your non-belief. I have a problem with your attitude and behavior towards my belief.

It's because you guys have been much more in your face the last 17 years. Much more dangerous

I see. You blame others for your behavior.

EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL ALERT

So, to be clear, in your opinion, a person's actions will, and should have absolutely zero effect on the actions of others? It is your contention that one's choices should not have consequences, and, if they do, then the blame for such consequences falls on the person, or persons reacting to the bad behaviour, and not the person who behaved badly? That is really your position?

That was some mental masturbation you did to arrive at a position to justify an external locus of control. So let me put this down quickly, yep, that's right, your failed behaviors should not cause me to behave poorly. I am accountable for my behaviors, no one else.

Huh. Impressive how you nevber react to the actions of others. Tell me, are you a parent?

 

[sealybobo]

It's because you guys have been much more in your face the last 17 years. Much more dangerous

I see. You blame others for your behavior.

EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL ALERT

So, to be clear, in your opinion, a person's actions will, and should have absolutely zero effect on the actions of others? It is your contention that one's choices should not have consequences, and, if they do, then the blame for such consequences falls on the person, or persons reacting to the bad behaviour, and not the person who behaved badly? That is really your position?

That was some mental masturbation you did to arrive at a position to justify an external locus of control. So let me put this down quickly, yep, that's right, your failed behaviors should not cause me to behave poorly. I am accountable for my behaviors, no one else.

Why do you complain about liberals? I don't have a problem with your belief. It's your attitude and behavior I have a problem with.

Same thing you said about us athiests only I found something I believe is good but you don't.

I don't complain about them. I examine them. What am I complaining about?

I'll pay attention and see if that's true. Because the way you suggests we are socialists and commies suggests you are lying right now

 

[ding]

Right and there is quite a bit more evidence to support the God of Judea/Christianity exists than there is a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt exists.

There is no such thing as a Judeo/Christian God.

Jews do not believe in an edible triune mangod, only Christians do.

There is only one Creator whose nature is beyond our comprehension, however you choose to represent that Supreme Being is ok by me. You can call Him whatever the fuck you want. I won't piss on your belief. I suggest you not piss on mine. In fact, I would be more than happy for you to tell me about your God. I hope your love and admiration for Him shines through in what you write.

you don't seem to understand.

Christians believe that God became a man.

Jews have rejected this assertion ever since it was first unleashed on mankind by Rome in 325.ce.

Am I missing something?


Jesus said that he came from God, was sent by God to teach, and owed his very existence to God.

Any being whose source is God cannot be God who alone is the source of all life.

God has no visible shape or material form, he has no equal, and there is no other god in existence either above or below him.


This precludes the possibility that a human being, even Jesus, ever was God or became God either before during or after their human existence.

Yes. You did miss something. The point of my last post.

No, I just ignored it because it was and is ridiculous. If you want to remain in fantasyland, I suggest you don't post your fantasies here where they can be scrutinized and challenged by rational people. Go to church. Even here, no one will piss on beliefs if you don't try to make some absurd claim to moral authority on them.

My point remains .

There is no such thing as a judeo/christian God.

The two groups beliefs about God have nothing whatever in common.

You worry about yourself and I'll worry about myself. Fair enough?

 

[mamooth]

I doubt you did, more than likely you had notional faith; superficial faith. I suspect if you are honest with yourself you will admit that you really didn't believe even when you thought you believed. But I could be wrong. Either way it does not change my point. You would not be expected to know and understand a faith that is not yours.

This is funny. I didn't have enough or the right kind of faith. Lol. Sorry I can't fully believe the unbelievable

The "No true scotsman" fallacy:

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

The Ding version:

Person A: "Nobody with faith becomes an atheist."
Person B: "But I had faith, and I became an atheist."
Person A: "Ah yes, but nobody with _true_ faith becomes an atheist."

Funny thing is that when those atheists were Christians, Ding would have been praising them for their _true_ faith. Ding only recategorizes faith as "not true" after the change to atheism. How convenient. Perhaps Ding can give us an objective standard to judge whether faith is "true" in the here and now, without waiting to see what the future brings. But I doubt it.

 

[ding]

The Bible nailed the Great Migration

The Bible nailed the great flood

The account of genesis was recorded in the symbols of the first written language 4500 years ago

The Bible nailed that there was a beginning.

The Bible nailed evolution.

The Bible nailed DNA.

The Bible nailed that we came from dust.

The Bible nailed the Nature of Man.

The Bible nailed the morality progression.

The Bible nails an internal locus of control.

The Bible nails that the Spirit of God is within us all.

The Bible nails the saeculum cycle.

The Bible nails successful behaviors.

The Bible nails failed behaviors.

Now tell me what three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt has got as a justification to be taken seriously? Your problem is that you don't take it seriously. You have got it in your head that you can't be wrong about anything. I don't have a problem with your non-belief. I have a problem with your attitude and behavior towards my belief.

It's because you guys have been much more in your face the last 17 years. Much more dangerous

I see. You blame others for your behavior.

EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL ALERT

So, to be clear, in your opinion, a person's actions will, and should have absolutely zero effect on the actions of others? It is your contention that one's choices should not have consequences, and, if they do, then the blame for such consequences falls on the person, or persons reacting to the bad behaviour, and not the person who behaved badly? That is really your position?

That was some mental masturbation you did to arrive at a position to justify an external locus of control. So let me put this down quickly, yep, that's right, your failed behaviors should not cause me to behave poorly. I am accountable for my behaviors, no one else.

Huh. Impressive how you nevber react to the actions of others. Tell me, are you a parent?

Not when it comes to transferring control I don't. Yes, I am a parent.

 

[ding]

I doubt you did, more than likely you had notional faith; superficial faith. I suspect if you are honest with yourself you will admit that you really didn't believe even when you thought you believed. But I could be wrong. Either way it does not change my point. You would not be expected to know and understand a faith that is not yours.

This is funny. I didn't have enough or the right kind of faith. Lol. Sorry I can't fully believe the unbelievable

The "No true scotsman" fallacy:

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

The Ding version:

Person A: "Nobody with faith becomes an atheist."
Person B: "But I had faith, and I became an atheist."
Person A: "Ah yes, but nobody with _true_ faith becomes an atheist."

Funny thing is that when those atheists were Christians, Ding would have been praising them for their _true_ faith. Ding only recategorizes faith as "not true" after the change to atheism. How convenient. Perhaps Ding can give us an objective standard to judge whether faith is "true" in the here and now, without waiting to see what the future brings. But I doubt it.

You seem to have taken it out of context. I would not expect an atheist to understand my faith anymore than I would be able to understand a faith that was not my own.

 

[ding]

I see. You blame others for your behavior.

EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL ALERT

So, to be clear, in your opinion, a person's actions will, and should have absolutely zero effect on the actions of others? It is your contention that one's choices should not have consequences, and, if they do, then the blame for such consequences falls on the person, or persons reacting to the bad behaviour, and not the person who behaved badly? That is really your position?

That was some mental masturbation you did to arrive at a position to justify an external locus of control. So let me put this down quickly, yep, that's right, your failed behaviors should not cause me to behave poorly. I am accountable for my behaviors, no one else.

Why do you complain about liberals? I don't have a problem with your belief. It's your attitude and behavior I have a problem with.

Same thing you said about us athiests only I found something I believe is good but you don't.

I don't complain about them. I examine them. What am I complaining about?

I'll pay attention and see if that's true. Because the way you suggests we are socialists and commies suggests you are lying right now

Just the militant ones, lol.

 

[ding]

Do gravitons create energy from nothing? Look, you are kind of slow on this stuff so let me break it down. As time approaches infinity the usable energy will approach zero. There is no getting around this. There is no such thing as a free lunch, every transfer will have losses to the system. The universe had to have a beginning. It is not possible for the universe to be eternal.

You are mistaking "massless" for "nothing". Energy is created by matter conversion, not mass conversion. By being massless, gravitons can be converted ad infinitum with no loss of mass. Also, as particles of quantum matter, because they are massless, they do not lose mass as they approach the speed of light. In other words, your model is incomplete. This is why trying to use high school physics to explain the universe, and cosmic events will always fall short. You simply do not have access to all of the relevant data.

No, I don't believe I am. Matter is energy and energy is matter. They are equivalent. E=MC^2. They only change form and when they do there is a loss to the system's usable energy. Why is this so hard for you to accept? Are you really suggesting that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is invalid? Do you still see usable energy? You wouldn't if the universe were infinite. Are gravitons responsible for recharging the universe? Gravitons do not apply to this discussion.

Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.

All natural processes tend toward increasing disorder. And although energy is conserved, its availability is decreased.

Nature proceeds from the simple to the complex, from the orderly to the disorderly, from low entropy to high entropy.

The entropy of a system is proportional to the logarithm of the probability of that particular configuration of the system occurring. The more highly ordered the configuration of a system, the less likely it is to occur naturally - hence the lower its entropy.

The total energy of the universe is a constant.
The total entropy of the universe always increases.

Okay. I'm sure you're smarter than both Ahmed Farag Ali, and Saurya Das. Das has only had a PhD in Physics since 1998, and
Ali has only spent his entire life in theoretical physics, winning multiple awards. But, hey! You had high school physics, so what do they know?

You do get that E=MC^2 means Energy equal MASS times the speed of light squared, right? So, when the matter is massless, guess how much energy is lost in the conversion? 0 squared is zero. When gravitons are converted to energy, zero energy is lost in the conversion. Oops.

And what in the hell does that have to do with all that mass that is floating out there with usable energy still left?

It has to do with the fact that mass is not required to convert matter to energy. With gravitons, matter is converted without any loss of energy, or mass. There is no begining, there is no end. Your universal model is not necessary. So, no need for God.

How does that impact the matter that does have mass?

 

[Czernobog]

You are mistaking "massless" for "nothing". Energy is created by matter conversion, not mass conversion. By being massless, gravitons can be converted ad infinitum with no loss of mass. Also, as particles of quantum matter, because they are massless, they do not lose mass as they approach the speed of light. In other words, your model is incomplete. This is why trying to use high school physics to explain the universe, and cosmic events will always fall short. You simply do not have access to all of the relevant data.

No, I don't believe I am. Matter is energy and energy is matter. They are equivalent. E=MC^2. They only change form and when they do there is a loss to the system's usable energy. Why is this so hard for you to accept? Are you really suggesting that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is invalid? Do you still see usable energy? You wouldn't if the universe were infinite. Are gravitons responsible for recharging the universe? Gravitons do not apply to this discussion.

Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.

All natural processes tend toward increasing disorder. And although energy is conserved, its availability is decreased.

Nature proceeds from the simple to the complex, from the orderly to the disorderly, from low entropy to high entropy.

The entropy of a system is proportional to the logarithm of the probability of that particular configuration of the system occurring. The more highly ordered the configuration of a system, the less likely it is to occur naturally - hence the lower its entropy.

The total energy of the universe is a constant.
The total entropy of the universe always increases.

Okay. I'm sure you're smarter than both Ahmed Farag Ali, and Saurya Das. Das has only had a PhD in Physics since 1998, and
Ali has only spent his entire life in theoretical physics, winning multiple awards. But, hey! You had high school physics, so what do they know?

You do get that E=MC^2 means Energy equal MASS times the speed of light squared, right? So, when the matter is massless, guess how much energy is lost in the conversion? 0 squared is zero. When gravitons are converted to energy, zero energy is lost in the conversion. Oops.

And what in the hell does that have to do with all that mass that is floating out there with usable energy still left?

It has to do with the fact that mass is not required to convert matter to energy. With gravitons, matter is converted without any loss of energy, or mass. There is no begining, there is no end. Your universal model is not necessary. So, no need for God.

How does that impact the matter that does have mass?

It makes it irrelevant in regard to the creation of the universe. Your entire premise is that, because there is a finite limit to the amount of mass in the universe, there is a limit to the ability to convert matter to energy. Thus, it is your contention that, due to the law of Conservation, the universe must have an end, and by inference, a beginning.

Unfortunately, with the discovery of massless matter, that premise is no longer valid. So, no loss of mass, no end, no beginning. An infinite supply of matter that requires no loss of mass for conversion.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

No, I don't believe I am. Matter is energy and energy is matter. They are equivalent. E=MC^2. They only change form and when they do there is a loss to the system's usable energy. Why is this so hard for you to accept? Are you really suggesting that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is invalid? Do you still see usable energy? You wouldn't if the universe were infinite. Are gravitons responsible for recharging the universe? Gravitons do not apply to this discussion.

Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.

All natural processes tend toward increasing disorder. And although energy is conserved, its availability is decreased.

Nature proceeds from the simple to the complex, from the orderly to the disorderly, from low entropy to high entropy.

The entropy of a system is proportional to the logarithm of the probability of that particular configuration of the system occurring. The more highly ordered the configuration of a system, the less likely it is to occur naturally - hence the lower its entropy.

The total energy of the universe is a constant.
The total entropy of the universe always increases.

Okay. I'm sure you're smarter than both Ahmed Farag Ali, and Saurya Das. Das has only had a PhD in Physics since 1998, and
Ali has only spent his entire life in theoretical physics, winning multiple awards. But, hey! You had high school physics, so what do they know?

You do get that E=MC^2 means Energy equal MASS times the speed of light squared, right? So, when the matter is massless, guess how much energy is lost in the conversion? 0 squared is zero. When gravitons are converted to energy, zero energy is lost in the conversion. Oops.

And what in the hell does that have to do with all that mass that is floating out there with usable energy still left?

It has to do with the fact that mass is not required to convert matter to energy. With gravitons, matter is converted without any loss of energy, or mass. There is no begining, there is no end. Your universal model is not necessary. So, no need for God.

How does that impact the matter that does have mass?

It makes it irrelevant in regard to the creation of the universe. Your entire premise is that, because there is a finite limit to the amount of mass in the universe, there is a limit to the ability to convert matter to energy. Thus, it is your contention that, due to the law of Conservation, the universe must have an end, and by inference, a beginning.

Unfortunately, with the discovery of massless matter, that premise is no longer valid. So, no loss of mass, no end, no beginning.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Lol, how do gravitons impact the application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics on matter that has mass?

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. I'm sure you're smarter than both Ahmed Farag Ali, and Saurya Das. Das has only had a PhD in Physics since 1998, and
Ali has only spent his entire life in theoretical physics, winning multiple awards. But, hey! You had high school physics, so what do they know?

You do get that E=MC^2 means Energy equal MASS times the speed of light squared, right? So, when the matter is massless, guess how much energy is lost in the conversion? 0 squared is zero. When gravitons are converted to energy, zero energy is lost in the conversion. Oops.

And what in the hell does that have to do with all that mass that is floating out there with usable energy still left?

It has to do with the fact that mass is not required to convert matter to energy. With gravitons, matter is converted without any loss of energy, or mass. There is no begining, there is no end. Your universal model is not necessary. So, no need for God.

How does that impact the matter that does have mass?

It makes it irrelevant in regard to the creation of the universe. Your entire premise is that, because there is a finite limit to the amount of mass in the universe, there is a limit to the ability to convert matter to energy. Thus, it is your contention that, due to the law of Conservation, the universe must have an end, and by inference, a beginning.

Unfortunately, with the discovery of massless matter, that premise is no longer valid. So, no loss of mass, no end, no beginning.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Lol, how does that impact the application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics on matter that has mass?

Since you keep asking the same question without comprehension, I'll let you take time to do a bit of study, and see if you can't discover how this affects your theory that the universe "must" have a beginning.

Actually, no I won't. Answer a question. Is loss of mass required to convert matter to energy?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

And what in the hell does that have to do with all that mass that is floating out there with usable energy still left?

It has to do with the fact that mass is not required to convert matter to energy. With gravitons, matter is converted without any loss of energy, or mass. There is no begining, there is no end. Your universal model is not necessary. So, no need for God.

How does that impact the matter that does have mass?

It makes it irrelevant in regard to the creation of the universe. Your entire premise is that, because there is a finite limit to the amount of mass in the universe, there is a limit to the ability to convert matter to energy. Thus, it is your contention that, due to the law of Conservation, the universe must have an end, and by inference, a beginning.

Unfortunately, with the discovery of massless matter, that premise is no longer valid. So, no loss of mass, no end, no beginning.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Lol, how does that impact the application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics on matter that has mass?

Since you keep asking the same question without comprehension, I'll let you take time to do a bit of study, and see if you can't discover how this affects your theory that the universe "must" have a beginning.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

My comprehension is fine. It is you who does not understand the implication of my question. How do gravitons affect matter which has mass as it pertains to mass to energy transfers and the resulting loss of heat which reduces the usable energy of the system. It doesn't, dumbass. You lose, again.

 

[sealybobo]

I doubt you did, more than likely you had notional faith; superficial faith. I suspect if you are honest with yourself you will admit that you really didn't believe even when you thought you believed. But I could be wrong. Either way it does not change my point. You would not be expected to know and understand a faith that is not yours.

This is funny. I didn't have enough or the right kind of faith. Lol. Sorry I can't fully believe the unbelievable

The "No true scotsman" fallacy:

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

The Ding version:

Person A: "Nobody with faith becomes an atheist."
Person B: "But I had faith, and I became an atheist."
Person A: "Ah yes, but nobody with _true_ faith becomes an atheist."

Funny thing is that when those atheists were Christians, Ding would have been praising them for their _true_ faith. Ding only recategorizes faith as "not true" after the change to atheism. How convenient. Perhaps Ding can give us an objective standard to judge whether faith is "true" in the here and now, without waiting to see what the future brings. But I doubt it.

Very good observations.

 

[Czernobog]

It has to do with the fact that mass is not required to convert matter to energy. With gravitons, matter is converted without any loss of energy, or mass. There is no begining, there is no end. Your universal model is not necessary. So, no need for God.

How does that impact the matter that does have mass?

It makes it irrelevant in regard to the creation of the universe. Your entire premise is that, because there is a finite limit to the amount of mass in the universe, there is a limit to the ability to convert matter to energy. Thus, it is your contention that, due to the law of Conservation, the universe must have an end, and by inference, a beginning.

Unfortunately, with the discovery of massless matter, that premise is no longer valid. So, no loss of mass, no end, no beginning.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Lol, how does that impact the application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics on matter that has mass?

Since you keep asking the same question without comprehension, I'll let you take time to do a bit of study, and see if you can't discover how this affects your theory that the universe "must" have a beginning.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

My comprehension is fine. It is you who does not understand the implication of my question. How do gravitons affect matter which has mass as it pertains to mass to energy transfers and the resulting loss of heat which reduces the usable energy of the system. It doesn't, dumbass. You lose, again.

The only dumbass here is you. Allow me to ask the question again. In fact, let's start simple.

Do you agree that matter is converted to energy at the cost of mass?