Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[sealybobo]

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Unfortunately, with the discovery of massless matter, that premise is no longer valid.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.

How does this prove god exists?

It won't for you. Nothing will.

True. At this point I see no evidence. All the things I don't know the answer to don't prove god exists. Fear of the afterlife won't convince me. Wishful thinking won't. Because it makes me feel better isn't a reason to believe. Because it does more good than harm isn't a good reason in fact I believe the opposite. If it makes you a better person doesn't matter. Because most people believe doesn't move me. In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.

 

[Czernobog]

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Unfortunately, with the discovery of massless matter, that premise is no longer valid.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.

How does this prove god exists?

It won't for you. Nothing will.

He is convinced that because there is a finite limit on matter with mass in the universe that there is a finite limit to the ammount of matter that can be converted into energy. Thus, it is his contention that the universe must have both a beginning, and an end. As such the agent for the "beginning" of the universe is God. Actually, he knows that this is not true, but he keeps insisting on discounting massless matter, so that he does not have to find some way to fit that into his matter to energy conversion theory.

 

[ding]

No necessarily because mass and energy are equivalent. The loss would occur in either transaction. Do you believe that gravitons prevent the loss of usable energy in a closed system when matter is converted to energy or vice versa?

We'll, you tell me. How much energy would be lost in converting 0 mass to energy?



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That is not the pertinent question. Why do we still have usable energy if the universe is eternal? My point has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe was created. It only has to do with it being impossible for the universe to be eternal or infinite. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes that and gravitons have nothing to do with it.

No, it doesn't, and your refusal to answer the question about energy conversion proves that you know you're wrong, and just don't want to admit it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What exactly do gravitons have to do with matter which has mass? How do gravitons prevent heat loss when matter is converted to energy?

Okay. Let's try this another way. Let us assume that every bit of matter containing mass in the entire universe has been converted into energy. Is it, at that point still possible to convert matter to energy?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would have been the conditions at the Big Bang. They would have all been subatomic particles. Most likely nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. They would have rapidly formed hydrogen and helium. At least the matter that was left over. The reality is that we have an observable universe that we believe is at least 14 billion years old. We have observed that all points are moving away from us. The theory of relativity predicts the Big Bang. The 2nd law of thermodynamics confirms that the universe has a finite age and is not infinite because there is still usable energy remaining. What the fuck do you have that proves otherwise?

 

[Czernobog]

We'll, you tell me. How much energy would be lost in converting 0 mass to energy?



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That is not the pertinent question. Why do we still have usable energy if the universe is eternal? My point has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe was created. It only has to do with it being impossible for the universe to be eternal or infinite. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes that and gravitons have nothing to do with it.

No, it doesn't, and your refusal to answer the question about energy conversion proves that you know you're wrong, and just don't want to admit it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What exactly do gravitons have to do with matter which has mass? How do gravitons prevent heat loss when matter is converted to energy?

Okay. Let's try this another way. Let us assume that every bit of matter containing mass in the entire universe has been converted into energy. Is it, at that point still possible to convert matter to energy?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would have been the conditions at the Big Bang. They would have all been subatomic particles. Most likely nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. They would have rapidly formed hydrogen and helium. At least the matter that was left over. The reality is that we have an observable universe that we believe is at least 14 billion years old. We have observed that all points are moving away from us. The theory of relativity predicts the Big Bang. The 2nd law of thermodynamics confirms that the universe has a finite age and is not infinite because there is still usable energy remaining. What the fuck do you have that proves otherwise?

So, it is your contenmtion, that with no mass-containing matter, there can be no energy conversion, correct?

 

[ding]

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.

How does this prove god exists?

It won't for you. Nothing will.

He is convinced that because there is a finite limit on matter with mass in the universe that there is a finite limit to the ammount of matter that can be converted into energy. Thus, it is his contention that the universe must have both a beginning, and an end. As such the agent for the "beginning" of the universe is God. Actually, he knows that this is not true, but he keeps insisting on discounting massless matter, so that he does not have to find some way to fit that into his matter to energy conversion theory.

No. I do not claim the universe must have an end. Just that it is finite.

 

[ding]

That is not the pertinent question. Why do we still have usable energy if the universe is eternal? My point has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe was created. It only has to do with it being impossible for the universe to be eternal or infinite. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes that and gravitons have nothing to do with it.

No, it doesn't, and your refusal to answer the question about energy conversion proves that you know you're wrong, and just don't want to admit it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What exactly do gravitons have to do with matter which has mass? How do gravitons prevent heat loss when matter is converted to energy?

Okay. Let's try this another way. Let us assume that every bit of matter containing mass in the entire universe has been converted into energy. Is it, at that point still possible to convert matter to energy?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would have been the conditions at the Big Bang. They would have all been subatomic particles. Most likely nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. They would have rapidly formed hydrogen and helium. At least the matter that was left over. The reality is that we have an observable universe that we believe is at least 14 billion years old. We have observed that all points are moving away from us. The theory of relativity predicts the Big Bang. The 2nd law of thermodynamics confirms that the universe has a finite age and is not infinite because there is still usable energy remaining. What the fuck do you have that proves otherwise?

So, it is your contenmtion, that with no mass-containing matter, there can be no energy conversion, correct?

No. that it has no effect on the matter that does have mass as it pertains to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

How does this prove god exists?

It won't for you. Nothing will.

He is convinced that because there is a finite limit on matter with mass in the universe that there is a finite limit to the ammount of matter that can be converted into energy. Thus, it is his contention that the universe must have both a beginning, and an end. As such the agent for the "beginning" of the universe is God. Actually, he knows that this is not true, but he keeps insisting on discounting massless matter, so that he does not have to find some way to fit that into his matter to energy conversion theory.

No. I do not claim the universe must have an end. Just that it is finite.

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

 

[ding]

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.

How does this prove god exists?

It won't for you. Nothing will.

He is convinced that because there is a finite limit on matter with mass in the universe that there is a finite limit to the ammount of matter that can be converted into energy. Thus, it is his contention that the universe must have both a beginning, and an end. As such the agent for the "beginning" of the universe is God. Actually, he knows that this is not true, but he keeps insisting on discounting massless matter, so that he does not have to find some way to fit that into his matter to energy conversion theory.

No. I do not claim the universe must have an end. Just that it is finite.

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

 

[koshergrl]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

And our attitude is that God created science.

 

[Czernobog]

No, it doesn't, and your refusal to answer the question about energy conversion proves that you know you're wrong, and just don't want to admit it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What exactly do gravitons have to do with matter which has mass? How do gravitons prevent heat loss when matter is converted to energy?

Okay. Let's try this another way. Let us assume that every bit of matter containing mass in the entire universe has been converted into energy. Is it, at that point still possible to convert matter to energy?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would have been the conditions at the Big Bang. They would have all been subatomic particles. Most likely nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. They would have rapidly formed hydrogen and helium. At least the matter that was left over. The reality is that we have an observable universe that we believe is at least 14 billion years old. We have observed that all points are moving away from us. The theory of relativity predicts the Big Bang. The 2nd law of thermodynamics confirms that the universe has a finite age and is not infinite because there is still usable energy remaining. What the fuck do you have that proves otherwise?

So, it is your contenmtion, that with no mass-containing matter, there can be no energy conversion, correct?

No. that it has no effect on the matter that does have mass as it pertains to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Then even without mass-containing matter, the conversion, and cycle of the universe can, and will continue, ad infinitum. No limit.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

How does this prove god exists?

It won't for you. Nothing will.

He is convinced that because there is a finite limit on matter with mass in the universe that there is a finite limit to the ammount of matter that can be converted into energy. Thus, it is his contention that the universe must have both a beginning, and an end. As such the agent for the "beginning" of the universe is God. Actually, he knows that this is not true, but he keeps insisting on discounting massless matter, so that he does not have to find some way to fit that into his matter to energy conversion theory.

I know what he's experiencing.

the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.

cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance

 

[Czernobog]

How does this prove god exists?

It won't for you. Nothing will.

He is convinced that because there is a finite limit on matter with mass in the universe that there is a finite limit to the ammount of matter that can be converted into energy. Thus, it is his contention that the universe must have both a beginning, and an end. As such the agent for the "beginning" of the universe is God. Actually, he knows that this is not true, but he keeps insisting on discounting massless matter, so that he does not have to find some way to fit that into his matter to energy conversion theory.

No. I do not claim the universe must have an end. Just that it is finite.

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

 

[sealybobo]

We'll, you tell me. How much energy would be lost in converting 0 mass to energy?



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That is not the pertinent question. Why do we still have usable energy if the universe is eternal? My point has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe was created. It only has to do with it being impossible for the universe to be eternal or infinite. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes that and gravitons have nothing to do with it.

No, it doesn't, and your refusal to answer the question about energy conversion proves that you know you're wrong, and just don't want to admit it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What exactly do gravitons have to do with matter which has mass? How do gravitons prevent heat loss when matter is converted to energy?

Okay. Let's try this another way. Let us assume that every bit of matter containing mass in the entire universe has been converted into energy. Is it, at that point still possible to convert matter to energy?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would have been the conditions at the Big Bang. They would have all been subatomic particles. Most likely nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. They would have rapidly formed hydrogen and helium. At least the matter that was left over. The reality is that we have an observable universe that we believe is at least 14 billion years old. We have observed that all points are moving away from us. The theory of relativity predicts the Big Bang. The 2nd law of thermodynamics confirms that the universe has a finite age and is not infinite because there is still usable energy remaining. What the fuck do you have that proves otherwise?

Just because the universe has an age doesn't mean that another universe didn't exist 14 billion years before the big bang. We will never know that. So the answer is we don't know. We can speculate that there probably was a universe before ours, which seems plausable, or we can limit our minds and believe time itself started with our universe. Not realizing that if you are right, god too was born 14 billion years ago too. Is that what you are saying? Well then what was go doing 28 billion years ago? If all that there is is our universe, what about before the big bang? I know it is hard to wrap your brain around that and truly the answer is that this time before time is unknowable. But that doesn't mean it didn't exist. But funny you will write it off but not god.

Seriously, what was god doing 1999 billion years ago?

 

[sealybobo]

How does this prove god exists?

It won't for you. Nothing will.

He is convinced that because there is a finite limit on matter with mass in the universe that there is a finite limit to the ammount of matter that can be converted into energy. Thus, it is his contention that the universe must have both a beginning, and an end. As such the agent for the "beginning" of the universe is God. Actually, he knows that this is not true, but he keeps insisting on discounting massless matter, so that he does not have to find some way to fit that into his matter to energy conversion theory.

No. I do not claim the universe must have an end. Just that it is finite.

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So what your one little universe had a beginning? That's just one universe. One tiny universe.

All in all, Hubble reveals an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe or so, but this number is likely to increase to about 200 billion as telescope technology in space improves

for a total of something in the order of 10^21 (that's 1 then 21 zeros) planets in the observable Universe.

And that's just one universe. There are probably just as many universes as their are galaxies.

Oh, is that too much for you to imagine? Is it easier for you to imagine one universe and an invisible man and heaven?

 

[sealybobo]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

And our attitude is that God created science.

Who's god?

 

[BreezeWood]

We'll, you tell me. How much energy would be lost in converting 0 mass to energy?



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That is not the pertinent question. Why do we still have usable energy if the universe is eternal? My point has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe was created. It only has to do with it being impossible for the universe to be eternal or infinite. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes that and gravitons have nothing to do with it.

No, it doesn't, and your refusal to answer the question about energy conversion proves that you know you're wrong, and just don't want to admit it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What exactly do gravitons have to do with matter which has mass? How do gravitons prevent heat loss when matter is converted to energy?

Okay. Let's try this another way. Let us assume that every bit of matter containing mass in the entire universe has been converted into energy. Is it, at that point still possible to convert matter to energy?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would have been the conditions at the Big Bang. They would have all been subatomic particles. Most likely nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. They would have rapidly formed hydrogen and helium. At least the matter that was left over. The reality is that we have an observable universe that we believe is at least 14 billion years old. We have observed that all points are moving away from us. The theory of relativity predicts the Big Bang. The 2nd law of thermodynamics confirms that the universe has a finite age and is not infinite because there is still usable energy remaining. What the fuck do you have that proves otherwise?

.

We have observed that all points are moving away from us.

as explained before, all matter is traveling with a trajectory of a finite angle and will all re-converge at the same time at their origin to replicate a new moment of Singularity. BB is cyclical.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

How does this prove god exists?

It won't for you. Nothing will.

True. At this point I see no evidence. All the things I don't know the answer to don't prove god exists. Fear of the afterlife won't convince me. Wishful thinking won't. Because it makes me feel better isn't a reason to believe. Because it does more good than harm isn't a good reason in fact I believe the opposite. If it makes you a better person doesn't matter. Because most people believe doesn't move me. In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.

.

In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.

genome: the complete set of genes or genetic material present in a cell or organism.


the above is for all living beings, what shapes and where did the genome come from and the manufacturing process of organic tissue - before the beings inception ... and please, it is not related to the awful 4th century coup d'etat.

as a spoken language ... the beings existence post operative.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It won't for you. Nothing will.

He is convinced that because there is a finite limit on matter with mass in the universe that there is a finite limit to the ammount of matter that can be converted into energy. Thus, it is his contention that the universe must have both a beginning, and an end. As such the agent for the "beginning" of the universe is God. Actually, he knows that this is not true, but he keeps insisting on discounting massless matter, so that he does not have to find some way to fit that into his matter to energy conversion theory.

No. I do not claim the universe must have an end. Just that it is finite.

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

 

[sealybobo]

That is not the pertinent question. Why do we still have usable energy if the universe is eternal? My point has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe was created. It only has to do with it being impossible for the universe to be eternal or infinite. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes that and gravitons have nothing to do with it.

No, it doesn't, and your refusal to answer the question about energy conversion proves that you know you're wrong, and just don't want to admit it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What exactly do gravitons have to do with matter which has mass? How do gravitons prevent heat loss when matter is converted to energy?

Okay. Let's try this another way. Let us assume that every bit of matter containing mass in the entire universe has been converted into energy. Is it, at that point still possible to convert matter to energy?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would have been the conditions at the Big Bang. They would have all been subatomic particles. Most likely nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. They would have rapidly formed hydrogen and helium. At least the matter that was left over. The reality is that we have an observable universe that we believe is at least 14 billion years old. We have observed that all points are moving away from us. The theory of relativity predicts the Big Bang. The 2nd law of thermodynamics confirms that the universe has a finite age and is not infinite because there is still usable energy remaining. What the fuck do you have that proves otherwise?

.

We have observed that all points are moving away from us.

as explained before, all matter is traveling with a trajectory of a finite angle and will all re-converge at the same time at their origin to replicate a new moment of Singularity. BB is cyclical.

And it might not be the same starting point the next time. Maybe another black hole will start off the next big bang. I know there seems to be order but that isn't always the case. When the universe was young it was chaos like a pinball machine when it drops a bonus 10 balls all at once and you try to keep as many of those 10 balls in play and while they are they are all over the place sometimes even banging against each other and causing a chain reaction.

If this chain reaction didn't happen the dinosaurs may never have gone extinct. The trees might not have been all knocked down either. So basically we would have stayed monkey's in the trees. Just like a dolphin's brain is really evolved but they can't build a ship to go to the moon, we wouldn't be driving in cars either if the dinosaurs were still around. Maybe. Who knows. LOL

 

[sealybobo]

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.

How does this prove god exists?

It won't for you. Nothing will.

True. At this point I see no evidence. All the things I don't know the answer to don't prove god exists. Fear of the afterlife won't convince me. Wishful thinking won't. Because it makes me feel better isn't a reason to believe. Because it does more good than harm isn't a good reason in fact I believe the opposite. If it makes you a better person doesn't matter. Because most people believe doesn't move me. In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.

.

In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.

genome: the complete set of genes or genetic material present in a cell or organism.


the above is for all living beings, what shapes and where did the genome come from and the manufacturing process of organic tissue - before the beings inception ... and please, it is not related to the awful 4th century coup d'etat.

as a spoken language ... the beings existence post operative.