More than one mind killer, eh.Dang, I thought it was *fear* that is the mindkiller...the little death.
Kudos for those who get the reference.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
More than one mind killer, eh.Dang, I thought it was *fear* that is the mindkiller...the little death.
Kudos for those who get the reference.
Which scientific theory do you accept as the origin of this universe, The Big Bang Theory, seems to be the most popular, but apparently you do not accept that theory, so I will ask again; "Which scientific theory do you accept as the origin of this universe?"
There is absolutely no need to have an alternative "origin of the universe" theory in order to dismiss a god as (at best) a baseless guess. A god (or some gods) don't answer the basic "why something rather than nothing or something different?" question anyway.
The existence of a god that creates this universe is no less mysterious and unexplained than just the universe by itself.
Any origin of the universe hypothesis needs justification - some reason to take it seriously. I see no reason to take any of the many, many versions of god(s) that people believe (or have believed) in seriously...
There is absolutely no need to have an alternative "origin of the universe" theory in order to dismiss a god as (at best) a baseless guess. A god (or some gods) don't answer the basic "why something rather than nothing or something different?" question anyway.
The existence of a god that creates this universe is no less mysterious and unexplained than just the universe by itself.
Any origin of the universe hypothesis needs justification - some reason to take it seriously. I see no reason to take any of the many, many versions of god(s) that people believe (or have believed) in seriously...
If you believe the Big Bang theory, you must accept that at the instant of the supposed singularity being spatially separated, the expanding space was filled with nothing but a plasma-like soup of electromagnetic energy in the trillions and trillions of degrees. You must also believe that it was that energy which has neither beginning or end, that has become this universe and all herein, and that the quantum of that eternal energy is the wave-like particles, which are not particles at all, as they have zero mass and no electric charge, and yet they carry angular and linear momentum.
But if you believe in the theory of Evolution without intelligent design, then you must believe that a universe of mindless matter created all the life within this boundless cosmos, and your scientific evolutionists, should be able to tell you how a dog was created by your universe of mindless matter.
But they can't, they haven't got a clue, other than to suggest that they may, and I repeat, they MAY have evolved from wolves.
This is firstly, totally irrelevant to my point, and secondly, is largely nonsense. No idea where you got that description but I wouldn't use the source again. The wiki article is quite good: Chronology of the universe - Very early universe
There is copious evidence for evolution as pretty much everybody in the field (of many nationalities, cultures, and faiths) will tell you. Of the tiny, tiny minority that disagree, almost all of them have an obvious religious vested interest in it being wrong. It's the same sort of situation as when the only 'experts' in the world telling us smoking was safe, worked for the tobacco companies.
The first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. Therefore, according to this law, energy must be eternal, having neither beginning or end. Energy can be and is converted to that which we perceive as matter. In fact, this supposedly material universe at the time of the Big Bang was pure electromagnetic energy, which has been converted to that which we perceive as matter only to be reconverted to its original form as electromagnetic energy during the phase of the Big Crunch.
In fact, it has now been revealed that matter is no more than an illusion. Quantum physicists discovered that so called physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature.
“Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual” (1) – Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University (quote taken from “the mental universe)
Relying on this nonsense is a big part of your problem. As I've already pointed out, it's written by a tax advisor, presents conjecture as fact, misrepresents science, and is, in places, scientifically illiterate.
This is nonsense. Energy isn't stuff - it can't exist on its own. Things have energy, they cannot be energy. Here is a physicist (not a tax advisor) explaining it: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy
Energy is conserved because of the time translation symmetry of the laws of physics (phycical law doesn't change over time) - see Noether's theorem. In this respect energy is like momentum, which is conserved because of the space translation symmetry. There is no magical, eternal energy.
This is nothing like the quantum mechanical description of an atom. It's the nonsense your tax advisor wants to believe.
YEs, he's come in for quite a bit of criticism for that, rightly so. It isn't inarguable at all. It's just one (minority) interpretation of quantum theory - there are many, many more: Interpretations of quantum mechanics Anybody who claims to know the correct answer or says that their view is 'inarguable' (without new and compelling evidence) has lost all credibility.
You really need to learn some actual science if you're going to try an it.
Technically, the BB scenario doesn't *require* a singularity. It is just implied by General Relativity. But a quantum thoery of gravity may avoid such.If you believe the Big Bang theory, you must accept that at the instant of the supposed singularity being spatially separated, the expanding space was filled with nothing but a plasma-like soup of electromagnetic energy in the trillions and trillions of degrees.
You must also believe that it was that energy which has neither beginning or end, that has become this universe and all herein, and that the quantum of that eternal energy is the wave-like particles, which are not particles at all, as they have zero mass and no electric charge, and yet they carry angular and linear momentum.
But if you believe in the theory of Evolution without intelligent design, then you must believe that a universe of mindless matter created all the life within this boundless cosmos, and your scientific evolutionists, should be able to tell you how a dog was created by your universe of mindless matter.
But they can't, they haven't got a clue, other than to suggest that they may, and I repeat, they MAY have evolved from wolves.
But today, that little minority of two, Copernicus and Galileo Galilei, have revealed that those who rejected the works of Copernicus, were no more than a mob of idiots.
Please reveal where any physical structure can be found in an atom, which has been proven by our Quantum physicists, to be no more that swirling vortices of energy?
Nicolaus Copernicus, who proved that the earth was not the centre of the universe, was rubbished by idiots, who refused to abandon their false beliefs. It was only when he was on his death- bed that Nicolaus Copernicus dared to publish his sun-centered model of the universe, and Galileo Galilei, who was constantly in conflict with the church, skillfully arguing with the church authorities for Copernicus views, finally died under house arrest as a prisoner of the Inquisition.
If it were not for those, who had the brains to study Copernicus' work and run with it, until his theory evolved to what we have today, those idiots would still have the world today believing that the universe revolved around our earth.
But today, that little minority of two, Copernicus and Galileo Galilei, have revealed that those who rejected the works of Copernicus, were no more than a mob of idiots.
Please reveal where any physical structure can be found in an atom, which has been proven by our Quantum physicists, to be no more that swirling vortices of energy?
"Swirling vortices of energy" has nothing to do with the quantum mechanical description of an atom. The quantum mechanical description of an atom (or anything else) involves solving the Schrödinger equation to find a wave function that allows us to predict the possible values of observables.
For example: Hydrogen atom
Please reveal where any physical structure can be found in an atom, which has been proven by our Quantum physicists, to be no more that swirling vortices of energy?
Um, no. Quantum mechanics does NOT say that atoms are no more than 'swirling vortices of energy'. In fact, there is almost no connection between the equations of QM (which are linear) and those for Navier-Stokes (fluid flow---giving vortices), which are non-linear.
Even more to the point, ALL energy in QM is associated with some quantum particle, whether it be a photon, and electron, or a quark. Energy isn't the fundamental substance. It is a *property* of quantum particles, like charge, rest mass, spin, etc.
I might suggest you actually go read a textbook on QM and see whether your viewpoint is supported or not, but I know that the math is way beyond what you can do. But, if you are willing to try, I can give some recommendations that don't use too much past calculus.
Which has nothing to do with you posting scientifically illiterate nonsense from a tax advisor. The idea that things are made of energy isn't a new idea, in scientific terms, it's meaningless. It's like saying things can be made of momentum - it just makes no sense.
"Swirling vortices of energy" has nothing to do with the quantum mechanical description of an atom. The quantum mechanical description of an atom (or anything else) involves solving the Schrödinger equation to find a wave function that allows us to predict the possible values of observables.
For example: Hydrogen atom
As I said, and gave you a link to read by a physicist, not a tax advisor, energy isn't stuff. Nothing at all can possibly be made of energy - energy cannot exist by itself.