CrazyMan: @All the atheist...

Do you believe in life after death?

If yes, please explain.

If no please explain.

We are all spiritual beings trapped in this mortal body. I hope you know the concept of the Life Machine used in the clinic. What it does is to trap the soul of the human for a specific period of time.
We are are only experiencing this reality with the help of our body,otherwise we all are spirits and part of the oneness. When we dream,we experience other realities which seldom make much meaning to us.
Life as we know is the opposite of BIRTH. just like there is life after Birth,there is also life after Death.

Most of the time we die and yet we don't know we have died so many times. The human mind is limited to information outside of its jurisdiction and thus,it gets scared of the after-life. Remember,when a baby is born,it has to learn to walk,talk and adjust to the human behaviors and ways of life.

We all have existed in the past and will always be. The soul is eternal,just like energy,we can never be destroyed.

Avicenna:

Your argument in red is correct logically to an extent. From there, you started your speculations. I agreed to go along because I sincerely thought you knew we were speculating what MAY, not what IS.

The correct theory can only be proven by experiment. The type currently being planned in cosmology.
I have no interest in speculating with you again. We discuss facts only. When I want to speculate, I will actually find someone that knows exactly what we are doing.

Wow! You asked for logical proof of God. I started laying down my premises, so far they have followed logically. Rather than accept them so that we can progress, you brand them "speculations".
Now logic is no longer good enough for you and the correct theory can only be proven by "experiment" and you only want to deal with "facts" ok that's fine.

The problem now is how do you know for sure that you actually know anything or that anything is a fact? I am quite sure that for most of the things you think you know, you really don't know how you know them. You just accept them to be true. (but then never mind, that's another thing entirely. I'll let you be)

Mr_Anony:
Wow! how wrong you are. What you have just said is like if I said mass is the same as force because f=mg or velocity is the same as distance since v=m/s
Anyway I'll leave you with that. . . .but then even if I allow matter to neither be created nor destroyed, you have still failed to show me something that begins to exist but has no cause.
If you define something as "cannot be created nor destroyed" you have essentially said that it cannot begin to exist or cease to exist therefore it is silly to now say that something causes it to begin to exist after saying it cannot begin to exist.

Never argue with scientific facts unless you have better facts to refute them.
You are getting me confused with some else. I am not a proponent of first cause. It is intelligent design people that talk about first cause.

Mr_Anony:
Wow! You asked for logical proof of God. I started laying down my premises, so far they have followed logically. Rather than accept them so that we can progress, you brand them "speculations".
Now logic is no longer good enough for you and the correct theory can only be proven by "experiment" and you only want to deal with "facts" ok that's fine.

The problem now is how do you know for sure that you actually know anything or that anything is a fact? I am quite sure that for most of the things you think you know, you rally don't know how you know them. You just accept them to be true. (but then never mind, that's another thing entirely. I'll let you be)

And I said your premises were logical.
Until you entered possibilities. It is possible for a supernatural realm to be present pre-this universe.
Then in your annoying trickery, you substituted that possibility and called it a FACT. That means you don't understand what we are doing.

What else can we do without experiment?
A supernatural realm may be possible
A multi-verse may be possible
A reverse-universe may be possible
A lot of things may be possible
#speculations# not only you have a theory. Others also follow logically to varying degrees i.e they are possible.

Is that hard for you to understand?

mkmyers45:

Plaetton is making reference to wave-particle paradox which is perfectly interchangeable in physics...and you of course there's an energy/matter balance.... matter is destroyable cause The Sun "destroys" 4 and a quarter tonnes of mass every second, in order to produce 385,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts of power but creation of matter/energy is the tricky part...but matter was actually condensed out from energy due to temperature cooling...

Correction: The sun does not destroy mass, it just converts it into the heat and electromagnetic energy which then radiates throughout the solar system, absorbed by the earth, for example, to synthesize carbohydrates for plants, provide heat for life. the heat is further absorbed by the earth's crust to fuse carbon atoms in the formation of minerals and fossil fuels.
The universe is a big recycling plant for energy.

There is absolutely no loss of matter. Every atom is accounted for in the universe. It either exists in the form of mass or in the forms active or latent energy.

plaetton:

Correction: The sun does not destroy mass, it just converts it into the heat and electromagnetic energy which then radiates throughout the solar system, absorbed by the earth, for example, to synthesize carbohydrates for plants, provide heat for life. the heat is further absorbed by the earth's crust to fuse carbon atoms in the formation of minerals and fossil fuels.
The universe is a big recycling plant for energy.

There is absolutely no loss of matter. Every atom is accounted for in the universe. It either exists in the form of mass or in the forms active or latent energy.

Why is mass/energy conversion not equal considering heat changes...

CrazyMan:
You atheists on this forum should know that It’s hard to move forward when you don’t know where you’re headed or why.

Your answer to my question simply shows that you people (atheist) are even more confused than most christians.

If you follow the believe of some people including you like I bolded here some people look at reincarnation I believe. Or some sort of dream (like those from the movie 'inception'), among many other options.

Then it shows clearly that you're heading towards nowhere.

Allow me to further more stress that God’s plan gives us (his children) the answers to life’s most basic questions like, Where did I come from? What’s my purpose here? And, What happens when I die?

Knowing the answers gives us hope and helps us find peace and joy. You should also know that your life didn’t begin at birth and it won’t end at death. Before you came to earth, your spirit lived with your Heavenly Father who created you. You knew Him, and He knew and loved you. It was a happy time during which you were taught God’s plan of happiness and the path to true joy.

But just as most of us leave our home and parents when we grow up, God knew you needed to do the same. He knew you couldn’t progress unless you left for a while. So he allowed you to come to earth to experience the joy—as well as pain—of a physical body.

One thing that makes this life so hard sometimes is that we’re out of God’s physical presence. Not only that, but we can’t remember our pre-earth life which means we have to operate by faith rather than sight. God didn’t say it would be easy, but He promised His spirit would be there when we needed Him. Even though it feels like it sometimes, we’re not alone in our journey.

At least we christians have a strong believe on that matter. You atheists don't. If I sit ten different atheists and ask them this question, I strongly believe that they would give me ten different answers.

To be honest, I'd rather believe in the biblical definition than some reincarnation Or some sort of dream like those from the movie. Such believe sounds ridiculous.

Thus I come to a final conclusion by saying you guys are all confused...if not, prove me otherwise.

Actually all you're displaying, albeit probably unknowingly, is close-mindedness.

A general example, in sciences when someone brings up some hypothesis and backs it up with evidence, we all now have a verified theory. The scientific community (or companies using their work) will probably use it to give us nice things like our pc's, etc. However note, the theory might be incomplete and later expanded on, or wrongly interpreted etc. Now here's the key, even for a well established theory, supposing you bring an alternative solution that invalidates said popular theory and back it up with even better evidence than the older theory's, the scientific community will gladly take up your theory and dispose of the older one. Basically, science keeps an open mind.

In speaking about what happens after death, the evidence and science is pretty clear: nothing. So we are now just basically speculating, perhaps to make ourselves feel good because the concept of death is not pleasing to a lot of us. While making all these speculations, you have settled on the christian one as a favorite
of yours. For whatever reasons you prefer it, and trust me when I say most of us are actually (EDIT: oops, NOT) interested in changing your preference. Now, you've chosen this option for subjective reasons, you do not have any evidence, yet you shoot down all other options as well. Some might even plausibly have more evidence to support them (like reincarnation, or the dream stuff, both veeeeeeerrrrrryyyyy unlikely) but you still shoot them down simply because they personally don't appeal to you, not because you have evidence to the contrary. That is being close-minded. Atheists looking for other solutions are simply being open-minded. Who knows, maybe someday they figure out a way to contact the dead (heh heh, not likely), now that would be useful to those looking to achieve that, no?

mkmyers45:

Why is mass/energy conversion not equal considering heat changes...

Sorry, I dont understand the question

Mr_Anony:
Ok, but you do realize that if you really hold that we can know nothing, then we really cannot learn anything and knowledge becomes flawed.


Erhm.......I think you've messed up the uncertainty principle a bit if that's what you were talking about.
The uncertainty principle as I understand it is not that particles act 'weird' but that certain attributes of a particle can't be measured to precision i.e. the more certain you are about an attribute of the particle, the more uncertain you are about it's other attributes. e.g. If trying to measure the position of a particle, the mere act of observing it makes it's momentum uncertain - by observing the particle, photons of light hit it hence displacing it therefore the better your observation, the more uncertain your readings. However, I still don't see how your post explains "something out of nothing".


Here I'm afraid you are losing me.



I understand your analogy, however you are missing something here. The only way that two events can be simultaneous is if they are not in a causal relationship. To say that A caused B means that B could never have existed before A. It can happen faster or slower depending on intuition/point of view but never simultaneous. As your analogy shows, the two presidents are independently signing documents and not one causing the other to sign.
For the sequence to change, time has to flow in the opposite direction. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't. At least not in our universe.

First, it is highly impractical to hold that view, yes. So for practical reasons I let it go. I apply that kind of thinking to lots of things, but that's just my personal philosophy thingie

Second, what you describe is the observer effect. That is different, the popular example being measuring tire pressure. You have to lose it first, altering the tires pressure, thus you've actually changed it's state already. Observer effect does muddle quantum calculations, obviously. Actually it should disturb any measurement, just extremely neglibly for some. Uncertainty is different. Again, I'm no physicist, but it seems to indicate some truly random behaviour. Whether or not you interfere or not, there are probabilities involved. Probabilities would indicate, possibly, particles being influenced by nothing. So far a few hidden variables have been introduced, they've all failed. I'm not sure how bell's inequalities work, but that supposedly shows components of this jazz via math, and has been verified by experiments. It involves particles borrowing energy from - I'm no scientist!! Need to be fully sure, so pls verify.

Now assuming I am wrong, your postulates may be correct... For now... I'd still not be sure that something can't come from nothing... Numbers...

Third, with the black hole, you stated earlier that if there were a supernatural universe that birthed ours, it would be able to interact with ours but not necessarily the other way. I point out that not strictly true, black holes demonstrate this to a degree, we can't get any information from beyond their event horizon. Or the supernatural universe may have been destroyed while birthing ours, etc.


Last, that is correct, that is why I add in the edit much earlier (just after I posted it actually) that it doesn't really affect casuality per say. I realized it only affects the sequence, events still need to be caused (if you move faster than c cause and effect would still hold in a sense, just you'd probably wipe the cause out from history, enter multiverse, etc fans). But I still used it as a way to demonstrate what I meant by stuff not being 'intuitive'.

Again, considering uncertainty, I'm not sure how casuality works on the quantum level


This osts are getting longer... I'm working on how to make them shorter... I get time sef... Need to get to work

''...It is hard for you to believe there is no architect, right?
And all these must have been created and designed.

But you also find it easy to believe that the architect came from nowhere.. LOL

Isn't that insane?
If the world which is so called creation of a god can't just exist, then how can the god just exist?

The creator should be more complex and intelligent than the creation right?
SO if the lesser complex and intelligent creations can just exist, then how can the more complex creation just exist?

And if the more intelligent can exist then why can't the lesser just exist?

When you can tell us where your god came from and how it came to be, that same way is how everything else came to be.. Now enlighten us!

I never for once told you I agreed with ANY theory of world creation or beginning!

How it came to be? I don't know! NEITHER do I have the arrogance, ego and ignorance to assume I do and NEITHER DOES ANYONE KNOW!

I'm also not that foolish to assume that such must be known by me and in my life time as to then fall for fools who have claimed that some god or something brought about it.

Those foolish enough have fallen prey of that, hence there are tons and tons of claims of some god and creation. Funny you only pick one, Ohh the one you were raised with.

Soon a muslim will be here and tell us of a different god with a different message, at least at some point, same will the Thor worshippers, Mormorns et al..

You speak of the big bang and loathe it..
But believe some god just appeared there by what? accident? init?

LOL
Diss the big bang and then hide under it later. You lot are damn unintelligent, it is a disgrace!

Your god just appeared there and started creating everything, right? How is that different from there was a bang and everything came to be?

A sudden bang? Some god from no where appearing?

5. You foolishly call it creation hence you seek a creator. And a creation can't prove a creator, because without having the idea of a creator you wouldn't even use the term creation and creator actually comes before creation.

You have built up the idea of some god/creator foolishly and hence make that your premise that everything was created! And then you some how flatter yourself that creation confirms the creator.. LOL

WAKE UP AND REASON!! WAKE UP AND REASON!!!

Your failure to reason has made you mental and physical slaves of other men, the consumer of their waste products and the guinea pig on which they test all experiments and hypotheses!

Somehow the rat in the lab assumes it's equal to the scientists simply because they are in the same lab room!

How insane!!! WAKE UP!!!"- Teekay Akin FreedomMovementVoice