Mr_Anony:
Obviously the question: where? already presupposes space much like the question: when? presupposes time. So where in space exactly?


I wanna play too this is so much fun I find it hard to resist. let's play together shall we?


Can energy exist when matter does not exist? If yes, how and in what form? If no, can matter be created or destroyed?

Matter is condensed energy. or , Matter is energy at low frequency.
Matter and energy are interconvertibile.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, there you are. Have you found an answer to my challenge yet?

Juvenile antics. Challenge to prove what, that roast beef is what....?

Ihedinobi:

Funny question. Science currently knows of no method by which energy may be created or destroyed.

Regardless, I do not hold that
energy is eternal. I hold that
God alone is eternal.

So indeed till it is proven otherwise and Einstein debunked..Matter is Eternal QED unless of course you tell us why you think matter is not eternal..

Ihedinobi:

Funny question. Science currently knows of no method by which energy may be created or destroyed.

and therefore...............?

God is not the only thing that is eternal.

Mr_Anony: I wanna play too this is so much fun I find it hard to resist. let's play together shall we?

Absolutely, bro. Good. Now I'll have me some real fun kick*** some backsides......like, ahem, Plaetton's

Ihedinobi:

Absolutely, bro. Good. Now I'll have me some real fun kick*** some backsides......like, ahem, Plaetton's

Big yawn!

^^^
Another big Yawn.

plaetton:

Matter is condensed energy. or , Matter is energy at low frequency.
Matter and energy are interconvertibile.

I think I like the phrase "Matter is energy at a low frequency"
Well my friend, for something to be at a frequency at all, an event has to be occurring and not occurring interchangeably at intervals.

Could you please be so kind as to tell us what exactly is this event that is occurring at intervals which when it occurs slower it becomes matter.

Mr_Anony:
I think I like the phrase "Matter is energy at a low frequency"
Well my friend, for something to be at a frequency at all, an event has to be occurring and not occurring interchangeably at intervals.

Could you please be so kind as to tell us what exactly is this event that is occurring at intervals which when it occurs slower it becomes matter.

BAM!!! Yeah!

mkmyers45: So indeed till it is proven otherwise and Einstein debunked..Matter is Eternal QED unless of course you tell us why you think matter is not eternal..

How does matter get to be eternal because energy is?

plaetton:

and therefore...............?

God is not the only thing that is eternal.

How's my answer indicate immortality for energy, dude?

Ihedinobi:

How does matter get to be eternal because energy is?

The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept, mass is a property of all energy, and energy is a property of all mass, and the two properties are connected by a constant. So they are constituents of each other..but to disassociate this discuss from a state of confuse i limit it to Energy which is Eternal.

mkmyers45: The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept, mass is a property of all energy, and energy is a property of all mass, and the two properties are connected by a constant. So they are constituents of each other..but to disassociate this discuss from a state of confuse i limit it to Energy which is Eternal.

lol that formula really doesn't help you in this case because if we follow your logic, every formula that has a constant would immediately result in the variables being the same thing.
For instance: velocity = distance x 1/time. Since time is constant in this equation, does it mean that velocity and distance are the same? or that distance is a property of all vecity while velocity is a property of all distance?

Think my friend, think.

jayriginal: Deep Sight, I was reading from the side and enjoying the thread. I have no wish to jump into the argument here with both feet as I have made my position extremely clear before now. My comments were made with a sense of humour (being as I then was, "in the spirit" ).

However, I'll reply certain points.



Not at all. One is free to discuss every topic under the sun.

My objection is so simple and so logical that you do not see it for what it is and that is quite exasperating. Its namely this; that something seems to be correct or feels correct does not mean as it is so. As a matter of fact, if you would put your uncaused cause argument in proper terms, you should immediately see what the problem is.

You are taking certain things for granted (making assumptions) and on those grounds, assert a very positive statement, excluding any kind of exception.

Reality must not conform to your expectation. That is all I have said. This is very basic.



I was joking of course.

Now listen, sometimes I follow a discussion up to a point and then a particular line interests me. Then I go after it. Nothing wrong with that. It could be a single line in the third page of a thread. Some threads I read and never comment. As far as our debates go, if you think I deviate, I assure you I dont. It is only because you refuse to recognize the basic hurdles in your path.

If we were to go down the road and jump from "the Universe is caused" to "god is the cause" you would meet more hurdles.

As for putting a foot forward, I assert that which I know, and I know little. Never will I make the kind of broad, all encompassing statements you make. It is wiser to listen more and talk less, and speak of what you know. If you think x is x, say you think so. Dont scream x is x. Your thoughts may be right or they may be wrong. If you dont know, dont say you do. Express yourself in the most appropriate terms. Seek to show why you think your opinion is right rather than telling us your opinion is fact.

That is all. Im not saying no one should discuss, Im saying discuss properly and in perspective.



Thats the point !
How you make your points matter.

I say why do we spar because we agree on this, yet when it comes to the cosmological argument, you ignore it.

Again, you are free to explain yourself, but recognize your limitations in so doing.



Why would I go about claiming things I do not know of ?

If you do so, you should expect to be called upon to prove your claims. In other words, he who asserts, must prove.



You need to get over yourself.
If anything, you are the one who has a mysterious angst against me. You've been downright rude to me on more than one occasion. Stop playing the victim jare.

You are still bringing nothing to the table, you know?

plaetton:

Juvenile antics. Challenge to prove what, that roast beef is what....?

I honestly cant believe you call his question juvenile - and yet assert that the FSM question is not?

Please reflect. His question is actually at the pith of the materialist viewpoint. It shows very simply that the view that holds only material things as existent is wrong. Did you read the red post I extracted from Prizm? I beg you desperately: read it.

Martian:

It describes the expansion from a state of "infinite" energy density and doesn't even attempt or presuppose anything before that. Big bang is based on the observation that galaxies are moving away from each other therefore they must have been closer before.It doesn't make any claims about how that singularity began. Also, since dark energy is part of the universe and is said to be accelerating the rate of expansion, why can't the cause of the big bang be an intrinsic part of the singularity(universe) just like dark energy is part of universe?



You have to know how the singularity happened to be the state it was in before it expanded, then you can start infering about the cause, first or otherwise. What you argue for is a cause for the big bang, which you've termed the "first cause" or god. It is god of the gaps because current knowledge is limited to planck time and you think it's reasonable to bring in a first cause at this particular juncture while. You also view the universe as existing within time instead of time being a part of the universe.

So long as there is a timeframe for that EVENT, then that presupposes a beginning. You can't wriggle out of that. Period.

The silly theory actually negates your statement to the extent that you use the word "before", because it holds that time did not exist before the expansion, and this is inherently illogical, as it would mean that nothing existed before the expansion, and as such, there was NO singularity to expand.

Nonsense, really.

Mr_Anony:
lol that formula really doesn't help you in this case because if we follow your logic, every formula that has a constant would immediately result in the variables being the same thing.
For instance: velocity = distance x 1/time. Since time is constant in this equation, does it mean that velocity and distance are the same? or that distance is a property of all vecity while velocity is a property of all distance?

Think my friend, think.

Shemantics Shemantics..Energy is eternal true or false?

mkmyers45: Shemantics Shemantics..Energy is eternal true or false?

Lazy brains hehehehe

Ihedinobi:

Lazy brains hehehehe

Bro no joke..you gave up easily?

mkmyers45: Bro no joke..you gave up easily?

Actually no, I didn't. Me and my battery ehn, we tend to disagree on what's important sometimes: I say, let's kick some atheist and deist backside and it says let's go get some recharge. It can be infuriating too, I'll grant you.

Regardless, I meant my previous post

Ihedinobi:

Actually no, I didn't. Me and my battery ehn, we tend to disagree on what's important sometimes: I say, let's kick some atheist and deist backside and it says let's go get some recharge. It can be infuriating too, I'll grant you.

Regardless, I meant my previous post

Your battery sure makes you lazy brained..

mkmyers45: Shemantics Shemantics..Energy is eternal true or false?

Is material energy eternal in the past? If so, why did the big b@ng occur?

As usual, when really deep and heavy stuff is produced, there is absolute silence from our baby atheists. No comment whatsoever. Telling, very telling.

Deep Sight: On the issue of limiting existence to material things, as well as on the issue of the existence of numbers, I present to Macdaddy and cohorts the following post from one of the best minds ever to grace this forum, Prizm.

I know you fellas will be too lazy to read and absorb it, but try to read it all. It will offer you great illumination.

There are many shades or categories of being/existence ie to say, that when we talk of things existing, there are different senses in which to understand that. There are things which exist because they possess matter; they are physical objects. They have concrete bodies or parts and as such can be seen, touched or felt. This is the most intuitive and common understanding of what it means when one says that a thing exists for they are all around us. So for example, one can say that cars, trees, rocks, water, air, planets, stars exist. This is an understanding that comes from a naturalistic examination of our world.

But why should we say that existence is limited to just the physical things that can be empirically manipulated? Not too many people live their actual daily lives on the presupposition that the only valid things existing are those things which are physical particulars or that have material form. Take some time and think about this point. Indeed the very thing that sets human beings apart as higher-functioning creatures on this earth is the human capacity to understand, process and utilize concepts which are not readily apparent from simple sense data.

In addition to physical objects which we can see, touch/feel, smell, taste or hear we have other reliable understandings of what it means for something to exist. Consider the notion of “Space and Time”. These entities (space and time) are what physical objects are extended into; physical object (matter) obtrudes into space-time; space and time exist even though one cannot literally see, touch/feel, hear, smell or taste them. In other words, you cannot isolate or investigate space and time in some test-tube or laboratory. They are not physically instantiated particulars/objects. Some lower life forms may never rationally comprehend the existence of space or time but their ignorance of that fact does not imply that space and time therefore do not exist.

Also think of the “Equator” or “the center of gravity of the solar system”. The equator has an attribute like a certain length; one can cross the equator but the equator is clearly NOT a physical object even though it exists in time and space. The same goes for the center of gravity of the solar system which is a point moving about in space. It is not a physical/material object either. It is an abstract spatiotemporal object for theoretically the center of gravity of the solar system is a moving point in space that you can momentarily enclose in a tiny container before it passes right through the container as it moves about.

Furthermore, consider this expression “Pete went to a judo match”. This statement makes sense to you, doesn’t it? I assume it does. In other words, if I make another equivalent statement like “Mary went to a dance rehearsal”, someone listening to me will not frown and declare that the statement is meaningless. But if we use a strict naturalistic sense in interpreting what exists, in both sentences the only substances we can empirically isolate are “Pete” in the first sentence and “Mary” in the second sentence. Those two objects have physical form. The rest of the sentence would then have to be described as a meaningless combination of words which do not exist because they can’t be empirically isolated. Would we be rationally justified in taking that stance? The answer is "No". What then do we call “went to a judo match” or “went to a dance rehearsal”? It would be very absurd, to suggest that “went to a judo match” or “went to a dance rehearsal” is a property of Pete or Mary in those sentences above. These are simply events.

Events are that which can occur, have occurred or are occurring in a present active sense. They have their own legitimate ontological existence. So for example, let us say that a certain John brushed his teeth this morning. This is an event that has already taken place—which is to say that the event has already occurred or existed. That is quite different from the active and present existing event right now as you read my post on your screen. What if someone comes out then and declares flatly that the event of John “brushing his teeth” cannot exist because the entire event is not a physical object? What if he denies the existence of that event because it lies in the past and is thus no longer capable of being presently witnessed? That is about as absurd as saying that the event “Pete went to a judo match” does not exist or is unreal because from the statement all we can materially grasp at is the physical form of Pete. Once again, an event is another example of existence that is non-material.

Events may involve finite particulars or matter which can be empirically investigated but taken as a whole, events are conceptually non-material. This means that an event as a subject is not composed of or structurally made out of matter. Think about this for a moment. Think about how impossible it will be for any person who purports to be a higher-functioning human being to live his or her life as though all events in the past did not really exist because such a person is committed to the view that only concrete material objects exist; Or how absurd it will be for such a person to doubt the existence of past events because he or she was not around to empirically validate these events. Do you see how such skepticism could lead one to simply assert that the earth is just 4 minutes old but with all appearances of age simply built in? Why? This is because such skepticism over the existence of the non-material (like events) will commit the skeptic to a fundamental disbelief in the rational existence of any past events outside one’s own immediate empirically verifiable personal experience.

Nevertheless we have other philosophical (metaphysical) and equally valid understanding of what it means for something to exist. These would include things like properties (size, color, weight etc), relations (being taller than, being sweeter than, being faster than, being greater or less than, being equal to etc), numbers or number sets (the set of all integers from negative infinity through zero to positive infinity), logic, propositions or mathematical proofs/theorems which are not concrete but abstract. These things have abstract existence unlike the way physical objects have concrete existence. This means that because these things exist in abstract form you could not possibly test them by empirical methods—which is to say that you cannot touch, taste, see, smell or hear them. They exist independent of any physical observer. In other words, these things exist whether or not there are human beings around to apprehend this abstract realm. But of course we do apprehend this abstract realm; and I’ll put it to you that no sane and higher-functioning human being lives his or her life as though the abstract does not exist.

On the issue of numbers, one is correct in a sense when one says that numbers can be used to express some understanding of the physical world. But that naïve view does not invalidate the idea that numbers themselves exist. Otherwise they cannot be employed in any meaningful way by humans who purport to make rational and logical sense of the world. By some of the arguments here, numbers will cease to exist if the only things existing in the world were simple-celled micro-organisms incapable of apprehending the existence of numbers. That idea is simply absurd. Aggregates, a collection of units or sum totals of quantities (or Numbers) exist whether there are sentient or intelligent life forms around to count. It merely redounds to our credit as intelligent humans that we can apprehend a realm of numbers and as such can count things or represent numbers pictorially or visually with numerals.

Just think about this: Did the number 4 simply begin to exist the first time some first intelligent human existing some distant time in the past looked around and counted out 4 objects? As you can see the answer is clearly “No”. There are many other examples to illustrate the point. No one thought up or invented numbers. Numbers are not the product of our creative imaginations or abilities. The correct view is that humans are relatively more advanced life-forms who can comprehend the realm of numbers and as such can invent or think up a visual representation for numbers as numerals and apply them in their day-to-day life.


https://www.nairaland.com/prizm/posts

Deep Sight: As usual, when really deep and heavy stuff is produced, there is absolute silence from our baby atheists. No comment whatsoever. Telling, very telling.

What did you expect?

Deep Sight:

Is material energy eternal in the past? If so, why did the big b@ng occur?

What do we know pre-big b@ng? Nothing but moronic, pseudo-philosophical, semi-religious, quasi-scientific
implausible answers is what we get so its impossible to know if the present eternal state of energy [as we know it] is a continuation of its previous state that did kick start a new universe by interactions within itself at diffrent rates...

Deep Sight:

Is material energy eternal in the past? If so, why did the big b@ng occur?

Is it possible to say exactly what substratum matter comes bieng that matter itself is a substratum from which other things arise? Or is it the Uncaused?

mkmyers45: What did you expect?

It is very nauseating that nobody will read or comment on Prizm's profound write-up, but tomorrow, on another thread we will see them arrogantly jumping up and down with silly phrases like "epic fail" and "argument from ignorance". . . . . . I dey laff.

Deep Sight:

It is very nauseating that nobody will read or comment on Prizm's profound write-up, but tomorrow, on another thread we will see them arrogantly jumping up and down with silly phrases like "epic fail" and "argument from ignorance". . . . . . I dey laff.

lol.


why do you hate me so?

Deep Sight:

It is very nauseating that nobody will read or comment on Prizm's profound write-up, but tomorrow, on another thread we will see them arrogantly jumping up and down with silly phrases like "epic fail" and "argument from ignorance". . . . . . I dey laff.

Are you willing to debate about the existence of numbers in reality on a new thread? Can you?

Deep Sight: As usual, when really deep and heavy stuff is produced, there is absolute silence from our baby atheists. No comment whatsoever. Telling, very telling.

Interesting. Both write-up and observation.

mkmyers45: Your battery sure makes you lazy brained..

Oh no, you don't. How d'ya make me you, dude? Lazy brains is you, buddy

MacDaddy01:


lol.


why do you hate me so?

Hate is such a strong word. To be honest I actually like you: you're funny and entertaining and energetic, but sadly you are not yet rigorous in thought or logic. Please read and comment (line by line) on Prizm's.

Because it is lazy comebacks;s like this one that convince me that you guys have not even bothered to think deeply about the issues you wish to debate.

How can you then be taken seriously?