Your best argument that G-d does not exist

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Heat isn't in a fuel after combination of those three we can use heat to warm

Chemical energy is in the fuel. This is converted to thermal energy.

If the chemical energy in the fuel is less than the thermal energy needed to bring the fuel to combustion temperature, then the fire goes out.

This is clear, no need to any further arguments except for someone that denies everything

Sound like you're just frustrated at having to deal with the problems in your bad analogy.

 

[interminable]

Chemical energy is in the fuel. This is converted to thermal energy.

If the chemical energy in the fuel is less than the thermal energy needed to bring the fuel to combustion temperature, then the fire goes out.


Sound like you're just frustrated at having to deal with the problems in your bad analogy.

Say whatever u want
What I meant is clear
Heat isn't a complete cause
According to you it needs fuel and oxygen to produce remarkable heat

This heat is clearly originated from a concept that we call it fire

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Say whatever u want
What I meant is clear
Heat isn't a complete cause
According to you it needs fuel and oxygen to produce remarkable heat

This heat is clearly originated from a concept that we call it fire

... while also being dependent on heat.

Like I said: bad analogy.

Or maybe a good analogy.

 

[interminable]

... while also being dependent on heat.

Like I said: bad analogy.

Or maybe a good analogy.

U say heat is needed to produce heat
So my question is that the first heat is needed to another heat and .....

Where this will end?

So I think we don't need heat to make a fire we need just a spark

Now I'm busy I need to think more

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

U say heat is needed to produce heat
So my question is that the first heat is needed to another heat and .....

Where this will end?

In the case of a fire, it begins with the initial ignition.

So I think we don't need heat to make a fire we need just a spark

The spark is heat.

The spark provides the activation energy needed to start combustion and keep it going until the fuel is releasing enough thermal energy of its own to maintain the process.

 

[interminable]

In the case of a fire, it begins with the initial ignition.


The spark is heat.

The spark provides the activation energy needed to start combustion and keep it going until the fuel is releasing enough thermal energy of its own to maintain the process.

Look
U say spark is heat
And u said heat needs 3 elements to make fire
So this spark itself needs 3 elements and....
I need to think more

Have u ever seen that by rubbing the wood on another wood we can make fire

I'm thinking about this too

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Look
U say spark is heat
And u said heat needs 3 elements to make fire
So this spark itself needs 3 elements and....
I need to think more

A spark usually isn't fire. It's just material that has been heated up until it glows.

Have u ever seen that by rubbing the wood on another wood can we make fire

Yes. The rubbing creates heat. The heat starts the fire.

 

[Willamena]

Look
U say spark is heat
And u said heat needs 3 elements to make fire
So this spark itself needs 3 elements and....
I need to think more

Have u ever seen that by rubbing the wood on another wood can we make fire

I'm thinking about this too

Rubbing makes heat, also. It is friction.

 

[viole]

The existence of cause should be befor the effect and I don't know what u r seeking for
Would u please make an example that we can't differentiate between a cause and it's effect

We know that fire is a cause of heat
Can u say that heat is a cause and fire is its effect?

You are getting there. But first, I want to be sure I understand you.

Your example is perfect. Fire causes heat. I mean, everyone knows that. So, if I show you a movie of a bunch of heat collecting itself to a point in order to magically form a fire, you will know that I cheated. You will know that I played the movie in reverse. And you know that, because fire does not form magically through the concerted and synchronous collection of energetic particles into a point. The same with a hammer hitting an egg. We know that shattered eggs do not assemble themselves to form a full egg and cause a recoil on a hammer.

Therefore, it is because of that that fire caused that heat and not the other way round. Is that correct?

But suppose now that I show you a movie where you cannot say whether I cheated or not. For instance the decay of a photon into two antiparticles. If I play the movie in reverse, I see two antiparticles disappearing and generating that photon, time reversed. Since both processes are equally possible, how do you know what caused what?

Ciao

- viole

 

[interminable]

You are getting there. But first, I want to be sure I understand you.

Your example is perfect. Fire causes heat. I mean, everyone knows that. So, if I show you a movie of a bunch of heat collecting itself to a point in order to magically form a fire, you will know that I cheated. You will know that I played the movie in reverse. And you know that, because fire does not form magically through the concerted and synchronous collection of energetic particles into a point. The same with a hammer hitting an egg. We know that shattered eggs do not assemble themselves to form a full egg and cause a recoil on a hammer.

Therefore, it is because of that that fire caused that heat and not the other way round. Is that correct?

But suppose now that I show you a movie where you cannot say whether I cheated or not. For instance the decay of a photon into two antiparticles. If I play the movie in reverse, I see two antiparticles disappearing and generating that photon, time reversed. Since both processes are equally possible, how do you know what caused what?

Ciao

- viole

This example is very very complicated and needs to be expert to understand them even I read about photon on Wikipedia but nothing understood
But I know u want to conclude something else!
So what is that?

 

[viole]

This example is very very complicated and needs to be expert to understand them even I read about photon on Wikipedia but nothing understood
But I know u want to conclude something else!
So what is that?

Let's see if I can make it simple. Physics say that both following scenarios are equally possible. I need to get into fundamental physics because it is reasonable to assume that it was the only applicable physics at the "beginning" of the Universe.

1) One photon (one piece of light) can decay into two particles. In this case you might say the photon caused the particles

2) Two particles can annihilate each other and produce a photon. In this case you might say that the particles caused the photon.

The two scenarios are symmetrical. One is the (time) inverse of the other.

So, if I show you a movie of such an interaction, without telling you in advance if the movie is played in reverse or not, can you tell me what caused what?

Ciao

- viole

 

[interminable]

Let's see if I can make it simple. Physics say that both following scenarios are equally possible. I need to get into fundamental physics because it is reasonable to assume that it was the only applicable physics at the "beginning" of the Universe.

1) One photon (one piece of light) can decay into two particles. In this case you might say the photon caused the particles

2) Two particles can annihilate each other and produce a photon. In this case you might say that the particles caused the photon.

The two scenarios are symmetrical. One is the (time) inverse of the other.

So, if I show you a movie of such an interaction, without telling you in advance if the movie is played in reverse or not, can you tell me what caused what?

Ciao

- viole

Lady
I don't know what you are looking for but notice that u can't question causality and infinite regress by this example


According to these two laws

A photon can be the cause of those two particles
This one has no contradiction to causality or infinite regress if this is just an example not more

But when two particles producing a photon those two need causes and u have to involve with causality and infinite regress about their causes

Please pay attention that I'm not familiar with this example so say what u want to conclude
Thanks

 

[viole]

Lady
I don't know what you are looking for but notice that u can't question causality and infinite regress by this example


According to these two laws

A photon can be the cause of those two particles
This one has no contradiction to causality or infinite regress if this is just an example not more

But when two particles producing a photon those two need causes and u have to involve with causality and infinite regress about their causes

Please pay attention that I'm not familiar with this example so say what u want to conclude
Thanks

Sir,

If I tell you what I conclude, and you are not even remotely familiar with the subject, how do you intend to negate it? Just with some ancient metaphysics?

What I conclude is that causality is the emergent property of a system which is not in thermal equlibrium. A system whose time directionality is driven only by physical information tending to fill its available storage. Ergo, it is a statistically property that is nowhere to be found in the microscopic world of fundamental reality. Get small enough, and things like past and future will vanish. At that level, there is no direction of time.

And, for that reason, is not applicable to things like the Universe, unless we assume that the Universe found itself in such a macroscopic context when it was "born". Which would just move the same problem to the next level.

Ciao

- viole

 

[interminable]

Sir,

If I tell you what I conclude, and you are not even remotely familiar with the subject, how do you intend to negate it? Just with some ancient metaphysics?

What I conclude is that causality is the emergent property of a system which is not in thermal equlibrium. A system whose time directionality is driven only by physical information tending to fill its available storage. Ergo, it is a statistically property that is nowhere to be found in the microscopic world of fundamental reality. Get small enough, and things like past and future will vanish. At that level, there is no direction of time.

And, for that reason, is not applicable to things like the Universe, unless we assume that the Universe found itself in such a macroscopic context when it was "born". Which would just move the same problem to the next level.

Ciao

- viole

Don't bother
As long as I can't reject causality and infinite regress I can't understand your opinions

 

[McBell]

Don't bother
As long as I can't reject causality and infinite regress I can't understand your opinions

How do you know her opinions are wrong if you do not understand what her opinions are?

 

[ak.yonathan]

Which God?

The omnipotent One? When you use God with a capital G there can only be that possibility. Only if you used gods with a lower-case g would you need to ask which one. There is a difference between those two words even though the English language does not differentiate between them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The omnipotent One? When you use God with a capital G there can only be that possibility. Only if you used gods with a lower-case g would you need to ask which one. There is a difference between those two words even though the English language does not differentiate between them.

There's a vast spectrum of god-concepts that people slap the label "God" on. The arguments against them are different.

For instance, most of the arguments against a classical monotheist God are focused on arguing that such an entity doesn't exist. OTOH, you wouldn't argue that God doesn't exist to a pantheist (since this would imply that the universe doesn't exist); instead, you'd argue that calling the universe "God" is a misuse of terms.

 

[paarsurrey]

There is no argument if god exist or not, and that is simply what is, everything else is just made up rubbish.

And still one gives an argument?

 

[psychoslice]

And still one gives an argument?

That's not an argument, its a statement, give me proof, well your proof, and I my argue.