Atheist vs Theist

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by DennisTate, Mar 22, 2017.

  1. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    19,408
    Likes Received:
    13,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed and matter/energy exists therefore the universe has always existed and will always exist in one form or another. We are merely observing the current form of the universe. The concept of a cyclical universe that expands, cools, contracts into a singularity which heats up from the compression and then expands again fits that model. Your fallacy is using the theist assumption that there was "a beginning". There is nothing to support that assumption.
    Obviously you do not understand Einstein's equation that E=MC2. Transforming matter into energy is what you do on a regular basis. You consume matter in the form of food and convert it into energy in order to breathe, pump blood around your body, move your muscles, think, etc, etc. You breathe out carbon dioxide that plants convert into carbon using the energy of the sun in a process called photosynthesis. That is another example of E=MC2.
    Asimov had a great sense of humor.
    Probably just keep on looking. Our own planet had no life at all for the first billion or so years. At the rate we are going there might not be any life left on it after we wipe ourselves out.
    Ad homs because you can't handle the arguments that Grumblenuts was making? :eek:

    FTR Newton refused to preach, even though he was an ordained minister, for fear of being discovered to be an atheist.
     
    Guno likes this.
  2. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    1,264
    Likes Received:
    550
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is incorrect. Matter consumed by the body continues to be matter. Energy expended continues to be energy. The only time E=MC^2 comes into play is in nuclear reactions, when matter is transformed directly into energy, a massive amount of energy. Here's a graphic describing photosynthesis as it relates to the conservation of matter and energy: https://prezi.com/jy5yykh9u9ey/photosynthesis-and-laws-of-conservation-of-matter-and-energy/?webgl=0 I'd say if you can't understand science, it's no wonder you don't understand politics, but way too many scientists don't understand politics, either, or else they wouldn't be liberals.
     
  3. delade

    delade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2017
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    So often do persons think of God as 'an intelligent Being that could' do whatever; and so forth.

    Is this something like a genie that comes out of a bottle and grants 'whatever' to the owner of the bottle?

    Or is God a 'Being' that SHOULD keep Law and Order in the Places 'HE' is God over?

    Let me rephrase the idea..

    Would you or any other and every other person(s) be okay and accepting IF GOD did take 'Rule' Over the Chaotic World to 'do whatever He wanted'?

    Because if He did, there might not be any questions such as 'Where should the public money be spent in Britain'.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ould-public-money-be-spent-in-britain.510173/
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2017
  4. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    7,836
    Likes Received:
    480
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    In what way?
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  5. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    7,836
    Likes Received:
    480
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Where do you get that idea? Not from any legitimate source (and I see you didn't source your claim). You do know that E=MC^2 generates an unbelievably huge number for energy, right? If E=MC^2 had anything to do with photosynthesis, plants would explode with the force of a nuclear weapon. And if you converted food to energy with the formula E=MC^2, YOU would explode with that force. If you still stand by your statement, well...do the math. And show your work.
     
  6. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    16,069
    Likes Received:
    499
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Here is how Dr. Chaim Tejman explains it......

    http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/gender/g1.htm
     
  7. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    7,836
    Likes Received:
    480
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, I don't see contracting as being inherently female, nor do I see expansion as being inherently male. This reasoning reeks of confirmation bias.
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  8. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    16,069
    Likes Received:
    499
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Possibly... but it could help to answer this question.......

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...begin-in-matter-or-fundamental-energy.465052/

    Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?

    ....
     
    fifthofnovember likes this.
  9. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    7,836
    Likes Received:
    480
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, I'm agnostic, so I'm not trying to say that you're wrong necessarily; I just remain unconvinced. Your theory seems to me about as valid as most theories that I wouldn't reject out of hand (although I think one might get carried away with the idea and start seeing "confirmation" everywhere). But there are still a good number of those unrejected theories out there, and this one doesn't seem any more likely to me than Big Bounce, or that our universe was created from the ejection point of a black hole in a parallel universe (I like both these theories, as they maintain conservation of matter/energy). And in fact there may be overlap there between your theory and others.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
    DennisTate likes this.
  10. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    16,069
    Likes Received:
    499
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes.... I can think of a few ways that to my thinking confirm parts of this theory.

    For example... the most ancient Intelligence... should ... i would tend to think......
    be the most emotionally connected to the various life forms that have been created.........
    and a much younger intelligence.. would tend to be less emotionally connected to
    "others / Others."


    https://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/experiences/mellen-thomas-benedict.html#a05
    A younger intelligence / Intelligence.....
    would be more likely to begin a rather destructive war........

    The following information could perhaps be useful in getting even a Theist to
    take Gap Theory more seriously...... and move away from Young Earth.

    https://www.near-death.com/science/articles/richard-eby-and-secomd-coming-of-christ.html
     

Share This Page