supersystemsnig:


If you're not a materialist, then you must admit that all things emanates from the atomic existence, and if we dug further, what lies insides the nucleus is pure energy, hence what is material is first of all immaterial. As whatever is made, is made from which isn't seen. It is first of all, objectivity than relativism,hence critical analysis and evaluation should be carried out about the origins of these ideologies less they become contraptions for the not-so-fee-minded thinker...

The very fact the you seem to be accusing me of saying otherwise indicates that you never got my point. You obviously didn't see where I pointed out to the other guy that the whole of existence CAN'T be matter. I never argued against this. I asserted that whatever predates the physical universe must be SOMETHING, since nothingness is impossible. Obviously, if the physical universe is material, whatever predates it must have been immaterial. Isn't that what makes the distinction possible in the first place?

If the universe has no beginning, then why are we all arguing about nuclear catastrophy? Doesn't this point to an end? Suffice to say, if there's no beginning should there be an end? Or perhaps the beginning stretches beyond your cognitive reach or can't be defined by the thesis of your self-implied notions. See the universe stretches beyond personal understanding and using the self knowledge to constrain the universe itself is problematic, chaotic and flawed.

A nuclear catastrophe can only destroy the earth at worst. I don't see what brings the universe itself into it. There's no connection. Anyways, the earth wouldn't be destroyed in the sense that it would be reduced to NOTHING - nonexistence. It could only be broken down into tiny fragments that made it up in the first place - which aren't nothing, but SOMETHING. So, there's no point in this.

The whole existence isn't matter but science alludes that matter is the beginning of all things, and upon exploration of matter lies energy deep within it...you are not thorough in this field my brother. It has taken e over 22 years of scientific investigation to understand these principles, you need to do more research before continuing the path of self-induced objections...

Science isn't infallible. And I'm NOT arguing based on science!

If the universe can't be made from nothing, then you don't understand nuclear fission. Go and study and you'll find out that just two hydrogen molecules alone when combined can lead to massive split of quanta, great released of energy, and the aftermath would be sub-atomic particles and an existence...Trust me...Read this patiently.


Emeritus Quantum Physicist and Chemist

I don't understand how two hydrogen molecules equate NOTHING.

---

Tozara

ToZaraWithaZ:
The very fact the you seem to be accusing me of saying otherwise indicates that you never got my point. You obviously didn't see where I pointed out to the other guy that the whole of existence CAN'T be matter. I never argued against this. I asserted that whatever predates the physical universe must be SOMETHING, since nothingness is impossible. Obviously, if the physical universe is material, whatever predates it must have been immaterial. Isn't that what makes the distinction possible in the first place?



A nuclear catastrophe can only destroy the earth at worst. I don't see what brings the universe itself into it. There's no connection. Anyways, the earth wouldn't be destroyed in the sense that it would be reduced to NOTHING - nonexistence. It could only be broken down into tiny fragments that made it up in the first place - which aren't nothing, but SOMETHING. So, there's no point in this.



Science isn't infallible. And I'm NOT arguing based on science!

I don't understand how two hydrogen molecules equate NOTHING.

You wont understand... Lol..i've left, other guys will answer..later

supersystemsnig:


You wont understand... Lol..i've left, other guys will answer..later

I'm telling you that two hydrogen molecules CAN'T be NOTHING.

Alright. See ya.

ToZaraWithaZ:
I'm telling you that two hydrogen molecules CAN'T be NOTHING.

Alright. See ya.

I really wished i had time.. You know what, let me upload some videos, in some hours, i will patiently try to reply you..I know what you mean but you're getting things wrong..You're one of the most intelligent minds ive met in recent times, you're so so close, but you're making some mistakes..I'll comment later, i hope i have time sha

ToZaraWithaZ:
If you're asking that we go ONLY by established scientific fact, then this discussion becomes POINTLESS. Since science can neither prove nor disprove either of our assertions. So, what's the point? No theory has established that the universe has a creator, so that's just YOUR ASSUMPTION as well, and I'm not indulging it. So, let's forget philosophical arguments, since empirical science renders them MEANINGLESS. You just destroyed the credibility or validity of your own arguments with that statement of yours.

As for your ASSUMPTION that the universe requires a process [but, the concensus is that the process is the BIG BANG? How can a "process" be a person? Don't you mean a CREATOR?], I'll be giving you the alternatives to your single intelligent designer.

- A lizard looking alien from another universe probably created our universe during a laboratory experiment

- There's not a single intelligent creator or first cause - rather the universe was created by MANY intelligent beings

- The creator transformed himself into the physical universe

- The creator died after creating the universe

Need more alternatives?

I am walking on two premises, if you are really following me..one on the contegency and the other on probability....

Natural philosophy is the most accepted means of thruth...therefore we can't have a discussion without it. Though I agree it has limitations...


philosophy is the eye glass of natural philosophy... An intelligent natural philosopher must work under the perspective of mainstream philosophy... Meaning scientists need to work with a particular attitude towards or way of regarding something by using sophia(wisdom)

So , lets treat your alternative one by one according to how you list them. Using both natural philosophy and mainstream philosophy...


..1 it can't be a lizard... A lizard isn't intelligent enough to create a universe like ours..

A lizard can not create a being more intelligent than it(human)

2...multi intelligent being can't be possible, it will lead to confusion and disagreement.... One may wish to create a universe where there will be no darkness and another may wish to have a universe with multiple of brightness... This will lead to serious chaos and anarchy....


3 the creator can't transform himself to a physical universe.. Why?

he will be subjected to the same universe theory he created and that will render the transformation useless.. he is external

4 the creator can not die.. Why?


He is not a contingent being.... He is a Necessary things and a neccasry thing cannot either come to be, nor cease to be. Only contingent things, like us, do that...


Your alternative will not be possible..




So should i post you my hypothesis base on the law of probability





1

supersystemsnig:

If the universe has no beginning, then why are we all arguing about nuclear catastrophy? Doesn't this point to an end? Suffice to say, if there's no beginning should there be an end? Or perhaps the beginning stretches beyond your cognitive reach or can't be defined by the thesis of your self-implied notions. See the universe stretches beyond personal understanding and using the self knowledge to constrain the universe itself is problematic, chaotic and flawed.

What nuclear catastrophe are we arguing about that is capable of ending the universe?

The whole existence isn't matter but science alludes that matter is the beginning of all things, and upon exploration of matter lies energy deep within it...you are not thorough in this field my brother. It has taken e over 22 years of scientific investigation to understand these principles, you need to do more research before continuing the path of self-induced objections...

As an emeritus quantum physicists and chemist, do you really believe that "science alludes that matter is the beginning of all things"?

If the universe can't be made from nothing, then you don't understand nuclear fission. Go and study and you'll find out that just two hydrogen molecules alone when combined can lead to massive split of quanta, great released of energy, and the aftermath would be sub-atomic particles and an existence...Trust me...Read this patiently.

Emeritus Quantum Physicist and Chemist

Few more questions, prof:
(1) What do you mean by "massive split of quanta"?
(2) What is the physical product of a nuclear reaction between two hydrogen molecules?
(3) Is this product nothing?

AgentOfAllah:

What nuclear catastrophe are we arguing about that is capable of ending the universe?



As an emeritus quantum physicists and chemist, do you really believe that "science alludes that matter is the beginning of all things"?


Few more questions, prof:
(1) What do you mean by "massive split of quanta"?
(2) What is the physical product of a nuclear reaction between two hydrogen molecules?
(3) Is this product nothing?

Chai I am studying oh...OMG...

Will try find time for this, i love your response by the way, speak to Toza, we have been talking about the nuclear catastrophe basedon the nuclear capaity power of the world at the moment...Gotta run, back to studies

AgentOfAllah:

What nuclear catastrophe are we arguing about that is capable of ending the universe?



As an emeritus quantum physicists and chemist, do you really believe that "science alludes that matter is the beginning of all things"?


Few more questions, prof:
(1) What do you mean by "massive split of quanta"?
(2) What is the physical product of a nuclear reaction between two hydrogen molecules?
(3) Is this product nothing?

Phuck studies, one a second look, i love your comment...Do you know the beginning of this universe and what happened ? Why many will say subjective and speculative according to information available to the scientific community, this universe was said to have been the aftermath of just two ph.ucking molecules, that's how this world came to being, just two sub-atomic particles ( NOT MOLECULES- PARDON MY EARLIER ERRORS ) were added up..Guess what the two sub atomic particles are?

vaxx:
if you check My op. You will realize I made myself as a contigent... That will require an external cause to exist...which I even demonstrate that my external cause is my parent..

My parent are not me...we are different entity..I require my parent to exist but my parents do not not require me to exist



The same logic is use with the universe... The physical universe has an external cause.. This external cause do not require the universe to exist but the universe require the external cause to exist....


So who is the external cause?

the external cause is the first causer of the physical universe ,therefore it is not bound with the same theory of the universe..


The question once again...why do you put the exrernal cause in a box when you can't put natural philosophy and mainstream philosophy in a box!

True but they required their parents to exist....

vaxx:
The external cause is not the same with physical universe, therefore it is not limited to the theory of the physical universe which demand a cause to have a causer .. It is the first causer, therefore every other cause depend on him..


Long chain of infinite explanation is useless, it will render the whole philosophical explanation useless...

Every question you know has a potential of infinite explanation.... You should know..so arguing from that angle is terrible to natural philosophy and mainstream philosophy .


If you can't put natural philosophy and mainstream philosophy in a box ,why are you putting external cause in a box...

Natural philosophy explain that the universe was sparked by the big bang.why don't you question the caused and likewise question the cause of the caused if big bang has a caused...you will realised doing so will make the theory called big bang useless..



As a I said who is the external cause Or what should we call it

It may be useless. It may be terrible. But that doesn't mean one should deny the fact or run away from it if it is true.

boringnigerian:


True but they required their parents to exist....

sure, the long explantion will lead to the final explanation. Which is the external cause.. The external cause can not be bound by the same theory...

He must be necessary..

vaxx:


He must be necessary..

Why?

vaxx:
sure, the long explantion will lead to the final explanation. Which is the external cause.. The external cause can not be bound by the same theory...

He must be necessary..

Well, I suppose. I guess someone's point here is that we cannot arbitrarily pick a point in the chain to terminate it and say that's where the chain started from simply because we can't see beyond that point.

vaxx:
I am walking on two premises, if you are really following me..one on the contegency and the other on probability....

Natural philosophy is the most accepted means of thruth...therefore we can't have a discussion without it. Though I agree it has limitations...


philosophy is the eye glass of natural philosophy... An intelligent natural philosopher must work under the perspective of mainstream philosophy... Meaning scientists need to work with a particular attitude towards or way of regarding something by using sophia(wisdom)

So , lets treat your alternative one by one according to how you list them. Using both natural philosophy and mainstream philosophy...


..1 it can't be a lizard... A lizard isn't intelligent enough to create a universe like ours..

A lizard can not create a being more intelligent than it(human)

2...multi intelligent being can't be possible, it will lead to confusion and disagreement.... One may wish to create a universe where there will be no darkness and another may wish to have a universe with multiple of brightness... This will lead to serious chaos and anarchy....


3 the creator can't transform himself to a physical universe.. Why?

he will be subjected to the same universe theory he created and that will render the transformation useless.. he is external

4 the creator can not die.. Why?


He is not a contingent being.... He is a Necessary things and a neccasry thing cannot either come to be, nor cease to be. Only contingent things, like us, do that...


Your alternative will not be possible..




So should i post you my hypothesis base on the law of probability





1

My grandparents were NECESSARY for my existence, but they died, didn't they?

budaatum:

It may be useless. It may be terrible. But that doesn't mean one should deny the fact or run away from it if it is true.

then if we should attempt it...the whole purpose of science and philosophy will be meaningless...in science there are some establish theory you don't query again.... The cell theory, theory of relatively...any attempt to further investigate this theory will be impossible...no need to question it again...it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be true...


Same thing with the topic at hand. As a beliver , the first causer is an establish concept for the believer(mind you, the believer is not working with science alone)...A believer is working with three major importance of knowledge which is our senses, experiences and perception.... All this evidence can be rely own.........


The premises might not be scientifically verifiable, but it is not a problem with logic..

.

supersystemsnig:



Phuck studies, one a second look, i love your comment...Do you know the beginning of this universe and what happened ? Why many will say subjective and speculative according to information available to the scientific community, this universe was said to have been the aftermath of just two ph.ucking molecules, that's how this world came to being, just two sub-atomic particles ( NOT MOLECULES- PARDON MY EARLIER ERRORS ) were added up..Guess what the two sub atomic particles are?

Adam and Eve?

NairalandSARS:


My grandparents were NECESSARY for my existence, but they died, didn't they?

your grandparents is a contingent, your grandparent require their parent to exist...and likewise their parent require another parent to exist...they are contigent.

supersystemsnig:


Chai I am studying oh...OMG...

Will try find time for this, i love your response by the way, speak to Toza, we have been talking about the nuclear catastrophe basedon the nuclear capaity power of the world at the moment...Gotta run, back to studies

Okay. But before we misplace ourselves in the vastness of the universe, let's come back down to earth.

Presently, there are ~15,000 nuclear bombs in the world. Let's assume the worst case scenario, which is that all these bombs are hydrogen bombs.

Now, the total energy given off by a powerful hydrogen bomb is ~50 PJ, that is ~ 50 X 10¹⁵ Joules.

If all these bombs were to be donated in the same location at exactly the same time, the total energy that would be given off is ~ 7.5 X 10²⁰ Joules.

The lower limit of energy required to rip the earth apart is ~ 1.25 X 10³² Joules

As you see, all the nuclear bombs combined may cause Earthquakes, induce a few volcanoes, perhaps. Sure, they may probably even wipe out all terrestrial life, but they will not as much as shake the world. They will probably not even come close to wiping out all life on earth.

Clearly, the worst possible nuclear catastrophe cannot bring the earth to an end, let alone the universe. To even come close to completely destroying the earth, we'll need about a trillion of those H bombs, and I'm fairly certain we can't achieve that feat! And the earth is not even qualified to be called a dot on the universal landscape, so you may drop that talk about nuclear catastrophe.

boringnigerian:


Well, I suppose. I guess someone's point here is that we cannot arbitrarily pick a point in the chain to terminate it and say that's where the chain started from simply because we can't see beyond that point.

is there any guaranty the Chain exceed beyond the point? Am willing to learn...


It is better we work with empirical evidence...

AgentOfAllah:


Okay. But before we misplace ourselves in the vastness of the universe, let's come back down to earth.

Presently, [url=http://web.net/~cnanw/a3.htm]there are ~17,500 nuclear bombs in the world[/url]. Let's assume the worst case scenario, which is that all these bombs are hydrogen bombs.

Now, the total energy given off by a powerful hydrogen bomb is ~50 PJ, that is ~ 50 X 10¹⁵ Joules.

If all these bombs were to be donated in the same location at exactly the same time, the total energy that would be given off is ~ 8.8 X 10²⁰ Joules.

The lower limit of energy required to rip the earth apart is ~ 1.25 X 10³² Joules

As you see, all the nuclear bombs combined may cause Earthquakes, induce a few volcanoes, perhaps. Sure, they may probably even wipe out all terrestrial life, but they will not as much as shake the world. They will probably not even come close to wiping out all life on earth.

Clearly, the worst possible nuclear catastrophe cannot bring the earth to an end, let alone the universe. To even come close to completely destroying the earth, we'll need about a trillion of those H bombs, and I'm fairly certain we can't achieve that feat! And the earth is not even qualified to be called a dot on the universal landscape, so you may drop that talk about nuclear catastrophe.

longest time bro...

supersystemsnig:



Phuck studies, one a second look, i love your comment...

Thanks, but you didn't answer my final three questions. Could you please answer, I'm really curious!

Do you know the beginning of this universe and what happened ?

No, not really.

Why many will say subjective and speculative according to information available to the scientific community, this universe was said to have been the aftermath of just two ph.ucking molecules, that's how this world came to being, just two sub-atomic particles ( NOT MOLECULES- PARDON MY EARLIER ERRORS ) were added up..Guess what the two sub atomic particles are?

Really?? What are the two subatomic particles that produced this universe? And is it molecules or subatomic particles sef? I'm confused!?!

vaxx:
longest time brol...

How're you doing?

AgentOfAllah:


Okay. But before we misplace ourselves in the vastness of the universe, let's come back down to earth.

Presently, [url=http://web.net/~cnanw/a3.htm]there are ~17,500 nuclear bombs in the world[/url]. Let's assume the worst case scenario, which is that all these bombs are hydrogen bombs.

Now, the total energy given off by a powerful hydrogen bomb is ~50 PJ, that is ~ 50 X 10¹⁵ Joules.

If all these bombs were to be donated in the same location at exactly the same time, the total energy that would be given off is ~ 8.8 X 10²⁰ Joules.

The lower limit of energy required to rip the earth apart is ~ 1.25 X 10³² Joules

As you see, all the nuclear bombs combined may cause Earthquakes, induce a few volcanoes, perhaps. Sure, they may probably even wipe out all terrestrial life, but they will not as much as shake the world. They will probably not even come close to wiping out all life on earth.

Clearly, the worst possible nuclear catastrophe cannot bring the earth to an end, let alone the universe. To even come close to completely destroying the earth, we'll need about a trillion of those H bombs, and I'm fairly certain we can't achieve that feat! And the earth is not even qualified to be called a dot on the universal landscape, so you may drop that talk about nuclear catastrophe.

Thanks you so much, oh you made my day, time is limited.


Now, with over 14,000 Nuclear war heads with over 20 Million Kilotons of power, it will destroy life supporting systems and will push the earth towards almost total destruction. Now, the Nuclear war heads released over Japan has taken over 50 years for signs of recovery with a tiny release of energy compared to the current total number of nuclear war heads.

Let me move further away from nuclear war heads and talk about H-Bomb, The H-Bomb, or energy of the sun as its commonly called, has the same power or touted to have the same burning and scorching energy of the sun, it is been experimented in two countries, France and Germany, and is near perfection, this is the final card and not even nuclear head, as it destroys everything completely...

Now with an end in sight, it is okay to say there must have been a beginning that spans before time, which is why i like to go back to sub-stomic hydrogen molecule.

Now for this universe or rather the multi verse to be in its current form, required a sudden burst of energy,matter which is what a fission reaction represents, now because of the highly unstable nature of sub atomic hydrogen molecules, combining them requires extremely high amount of energy, by which once they combine releases massive amount of energy and sets of a nuclear fusion, the aftermath is a continuous chain reaction that leads to the release of new elements, energy and the world as we see it. Infact, this planet is the product of the cooling that took place by just this two sub atomic particles. The entire world does not have the energy to combine them in a repeated manner, why? It requires the exact amount of energy in the sun to combine them, which further stipulates that the genesis has an independent inventor that supplied the force needed for the start to even begin...


hence the echos, google up the echos that beams throughout the universe, the same what the scientist call big bang echo that initiated the while chain reaction is still in play, now i just want to summarize by saying, an expected end means there was a beginning if we are to balance the scales mathematically, and since there was a beginning, it is fair enough to trace it and come up with objective deductions about the series of events that took place.

From radioactivity, to half life, to death, to decline in age, biological functions, it is not difficult to see that relativity cuts across through life and one thing is sure happening and is beyond any dispute, which is a steady decline ( half life ) of every thing on this plabe,t which means death...certain death, like the universe is racing towards an expected end...if such is the case, then the universe has a will and destiny it must fulfill and guess what, it is towards an objective...hence the undisputed objections that there is a sovereign controller it wills its interest and purpose to..


Capppish ?


Cc: Mrphysics back me up plz

budaatum:

Why?

because he can not either come to be nor cease to be...

AgentOfAllah:


How're you doing?

am good bro... Let me come and learn some science here...

AgentOfAllah:


Okay. But before we misplace ourselves in the vastness of the universe, let's come back down to earth.

Presently, there are ~15,000 nuclear bombs in the world. Let's assume the worst case scenario, which is that all these bombs are hydrogen bombs.

Now, the total energy given off by a powerful hydrogen bomb is ~50 PJ, that is ~ 50 X 10¹⁵ Joules.

If all these bombs were to be donated in the same location at exactly the same time, the total energy that would be given off is ~ 7.5 X 10²⁰ Joules.

The lower limit of energy required to rip the earth apart is ~ 1.25 X 10³² Joules

As you see, all the nuclear bombs combined may cause Earthquakes, induce a few volcanoes, perhaps. Sure, they may probably even wipe out all terrestrial life, but they will not as much as shake the world. They will probably not even come close to wiping out all life on earth.

Clearly, the worst possible nuclear catastrophe cannot bring the earth to an end, let alone the universe. To even come close to completely destroying the earth, we'll need about a trillion of those H bombs, and I'm fairly certain we can't achieve that feat! And the earth is not even qualified to be called a dot on the universal landscape, so you may drop that talk about nuclear catastrophe.

This is flawed please



Now, the total energy given off by a powerful hydrogen bomb is ~50 PJ, that is ~ 50 X 1015 Joules.

If all these bombs were to be donated in the same location at exactly the same time, the total energy that would be given off is ~ 7.5 X 1020 Joules.

The lower limit of energy required to rip the earth apart is ~ 1.25 X 1032 Joules


Even electric bulb comes with wattage and denotes different capacitites, Nuclear bombs come with discharge capabilities, that's why we should calculate holistically using the average total number of war heads available on the planet...See, brov, from the movement of the air, the wind, the sun, all life supporting systems would be damaged, and the use of seed banks to say we want to restart the human race won't work, are we aware that the placement of the planet in the galactic system has an interplanetary force that makes it stay perfectly in the orbit to support life?

This would disrupt the entire sequence and necessitate an external force towards the end of the destruction of the entire galatic belt to savage what is left, and that being will only reveal himself at this point, but till then is watching patiently...Trust me, 25 years of studies have given me these revelations...

When two scientists meet, it is always interesting to look.....as a free thinker
Am now an observer on my own thread....

NairalandSARS:


Adam and Eve?

Looooool

I'm waiting for everyone, come back Toza and agentofallah, i'm on full mode now...Let's gist

vaxx:
When two scientists meet, it is always interesting to look.....as a free thinker
Am now an observer on my own thread....

I can't even comment. I have to just observe. To think they are both my buddies. I know who will deliver the Ko but I ain't telling.

AgentOfAllah:

Thanks, but you didn't answer my final three questions. Could you please answer, I'm really curious!


No, not really.



Really?? What are the two subatomic particles that produced this universe? And is it molecules or subatomic particles sef? I'm confused!?!

We have to delve into quantum physics to understand the theory of how just two subatomic particles joined together leads to what we see today, for this we need to understand fission, fission and quanta, quanta been the massive amount of heat released in the aftermath of a fission, bro study half life, radioactivity, it always results in the massive release of heat and sets of a chain reaction, now when two alpha sub-atomic particles are combined, that is targeted at creating streams of sub-atmoic particles that is aimed at creating more, it creates a massive continuous amount of chain reaction in a continuous flow, i'll call it a looped chain reaction, a chain reaction that produces endless chain reaction....this was the beginning, google the amount of energy needed to combine two sub-atomic hydrogen molecules and you'll confirm my claims....


Toza, this is the jutsu of the second hokage he used on obito...I'm sure you'll resonate

vaxx:
When two scientists meet, it is always interesting to look.....as a free thinker
Am now an observer on my own thread....

come join me for this corner