mrmayor:

If indeed the Universe had a cause, then the creator ( Cause) must have a cause or trigger.

How, When and Where did (Cause/Trigger) Creator/God/Allah/ Yahweh etc come into existence?

Let's not derail this thread too far. There is a thread titled "the definition of God" currently ongoing and the cosmological argument on the existence of God is being addressed there. Please refer to it.

But very briefly note that only things which have a beginning require a trigger or cause. Self-existent things such as time do not require such a trigger or cause as they do not begin at any point. They are.

Deep Sight:

Let's not derail this thread too far. There is a thread titled "the definition of God" currently ongoing and the cosmological argument on the existence of God is being addressed there. Please refer to it.

But very briefly note that only things which have a beginning require a trigger or cause. Self-existent things such as time do not require such a trigger or cause as they do not begin at any point. They are.

Your use of Time is wrong, time is anything but self existent. Time cannot exist independent of space, time and space came into existence at the same instant. Remember the physics definition of time is distance traveled per unit velocity.

Also since we do not know the true beginning of the universe (we only have an idea of when it began to expand), why can we not assume that the universe is self existent and so do require a trigger (according to your argument).

Deep Sight:

I am surprised that you say this. Might I ask you what you make of the term "logic"? Logic is that which rationally and consistently follows through - like a pattern, you might say.

When you think about it properly you might see that one thing causes another - one thing follows from another, and as such it is utterly impossible for anything to be illogical.

A pure illogicallity, therefore, cannot exist. - And this holds true in terms of any form of existence.

It is for this reason that logic is a strong tool for understanding all that exists - beacuse everything is predicated on cause and effect, or for self-existent things, on rationale: therefore on logic. Thus an understanding in the physical world that 1 + 1 = 2 is and remains an excellent platform to form and build accurate spiritual understandings as well.

In a few posts above I called you a philosopher/theologian. You know what? I don't think that we can apply strict logic to these things without having them break to a thousand pieces.
For example you said something to the effect that the immaterial can bring about the material (so that the things that are were made out of the things that be not). I would not argue it until I state something.

Simple logical sequences:
Aristotelian Deductive: All men have P, John is a man, therefore, John has P.
Hypothetical: If G then S, G therefore S.
Equality: A = H = L, therefore A = L
Relation: When the head of a dog, therefore the presence of a dog.
**My examples might not be perfect in all cases.

These 4 logical types can hardly be applied to the spiritual (or immaterial above) without a huge burden arising from application because they involve strict universal application. Only the corrupt type called Inductive Reasoning can be used in such matters, and the very nature of it permits endless wrangling.

Now to the point: I don't think you would accept all the logical implications of stating that the material was formed from the immaterial. But there are also serious problems when we discountenance the spiritual in science, for even Charles Darwin in his "Origin of Species" said at the end " I do not believe that all these could have happened uncaused, I think there is a hand". . .bla bla bla.
Now my point is, Do you want us to discuss this as pure science or as philosophy/theology (in natura naturata). These two cannot agree at all.
Make your point sir. But I like this your username: Deep Sight

Holla!

justcool:

@thehomer
I finally read the link you gave. Everything in that wikipedia page is right and I fail to see how it helps your case.

This is from the wikipedia page you gave.
Reread the above and tell me how it helps your case.

I read the article before recommending it to you.

In thermodynamics, work performed by a system is the quantity of energy transferred by the system to another that is accounted for in a particular way; namely, by changes in the external generalized mechanical constraints on the system.

The external generalized mechanical constraints may be chemical[1], electromagnetic[1][2][3] (including radiative[4], as in laser power), gravitational[5], or pressure/volume or other simply mechanical constraints[6], including momental[4], as in radiative transfer. Thermodynamic work is defined to be measureable solely from knowledge of such external macroscopic constraint variables. These macroscopic variables always occur in conjugate pairs, for example pressure and volume[6], magnetic flux density and magnetization[2], mole fraction and chemical potential[1]. In the SI system of measurement, work is measured in joules (symbol: J). The rate at which work is performed is power.

I'm talking about the chemical aspect of the quote. The person holding up the stone is converting chemical energy to mechanical energy which means he is carrying out work.

The major difference is that what you're referring to is mechanical to mechanical transfer of energy but I'm considering the person transferring chemical to mechanical energy.

Also, the very first line of the article implies that mechanical work is a subset of what I'm referring to.

thehomer:

I read the article before recommending it to you.

I'm talking about the chemical aspect of the quote. The person holding up the stone is converting chemical energy to mechanical energy which means he is carrying out work.

The major difference is that what you're referring to is mechanical to mechanical transfer of energy but I'm considering the person transferring chemical to mechanical energy.

Also, the very first line of the article implies that mechanical work is a subset of what I'm referring to.

@thehomer,
I wish not to go round and round on this issue. Refer to the definition of work(thermodynamics) in the article you gave:

Thermodynamic work is a generalization of the concept of mechanical work in mechanics.

In thermodynamics, work performed by a system is the quantity of energy transferred by the system to another that is accounted for in a particular way; namely, by changes in the external generalized mechanical constraints on the system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(thermodynamics)

By holding a stone you have not transferred any energy to the stone as such. The chemical changes in your muscle is a different thing altogether different and immaterial to our argument.
Work is done on the muscle, just as it is perpetually done on any muscle. Even holding your hand up whitout any stone involves thermodynamic work in the muscle. But no work is done between you and the stone. No work is done on the stone.
Also thermodynamics involves two or more systems; the stone in this case is not a system. And if we regard it as a system; then the two systems involved is you(the man holding the stone) and the stone. No work has been done between the man and the stone. And no change, whatsoever has been done on the stone; definitely no chemical change.

Sufice also for me to add that the term thermodynamics came from two terms; 'thermo' and 'dynamics'.

'Thermo' usualy refer to heat, or energy. 'Dynamics' usually refer to movement, motion of bodies, or change.

Without any movement or any change in the system, work has not been done on that system.


That is all I will  say about work(thermodynamics) on this thread; this will derail the thread to much which will be unfair to Deepsight. If you want us to go deeper into this issue, open another thread just for thermodynamics and work. I doubt if such a thread will be appropriate in the religion section.

justcool:

@thehomer,
I wish not to go round and round on this issue. Refer to the definition of work(thermodynamics) in the article you gave:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(thermodynamics)

Well neither do I.

justcool:

By holding a stone you have not transferred any energy to the stone as such. The chemical changes in your muscle is a different thing altogether different and immaterial to our argument.

I think that is the whole point of the argument. The person with the muscles is doing work due to the chemical changes.

Thermodynamic work is a generalization of the concept of mechanical work in mechanics.

In thermodynamics, work performed by a system is the quantity of energy transferred by the system to another that is accounted for in a particular way; namely, by changes in the external generalized mechanical constraints on the system.

justcool:

Work is done on the muscle, just as it is perpetually done on any muscle. Even holding your hand up whitout any stone involves thermodynamic work in the muscle. But no work is done between you and the stone. No work is done on the stone.
Also thermodynamics involves two or more systems; the stone in this case is not a system. And if we regard it as a system; then the two systems involved is you(the man holding the stone) and the stone. No work has been done between the man and the stone. And no change, whatsoever has been done on the stone; definitely no chemical change.

But you see work has been done and continues to be done holding up the stone because as long as the stone is being held, chemical energy is being converted to potential mechanical energy which is what you put in bold.

justcool:

Sufice also for me to add that the term thermodynamics came from two terms; 'thermo' and 'dynamics'.

'Thermo' usualy refer to heat, or energy. 'Dynamics' usually refer to movement, motion of bodies, or change.

Without any movement or any change in the system, work has not been done on that system.

That is all I will  say about work(thermodynamics) on this thread; this will derail the thread to much which will be unfair to Deepsight. If you want us to go deeper into this issue, open another thread just for thermodynamics and work. I doubt if such a thread will be appropriate in the religion section.

Guess I'll leave it at this now too since I'm not sure of the Thermodynamics being referred to. I hope Deep Sight comes back to continue the discussion.

@thehomer and justcool. . . I think it's time to quit this talk about work since rigidity of opinion has entered into it. We need to go individually and research on it and any result should remain with the individual for future reference.
I also think that definition of work might not contribute much here because the nature of this discussion leads more towards Metaphysics.
Finally, can Deep Sight come here and give direction to things so that we can move forward.

Holla!

Chai. You guys have digressed so much that I'm at a loss whether to address the initial issue or join the current course of discussion. Who says I can't do both? I'll read the thread again

Arggh. I lost patience jare. I'll just give my two cents on the much i've read.

E=MC² is my favourite equation. Has it been disproved or people are ignoring it here. But as far as know M not equal to E/C². In order words energy cannot be made to form matter or we do not have the technology yet or I am unaware about it. Consequently, energy cannot be destroyed and matter cannot be created. In the same vein, energy can be created and matter destroyed. Anyways, this is immaterial to the discussion. Analissa talks like a scientist (are you?) and I'd like to know her views (and everyone else's) on antimatter.

@Deep Sight. Now to the original post. On a cheeky note, not everyone will debate whether a rodent has any class of a soul or spirit but this is besides the point for a dead man might not be a palatable picture. Anyway, I assume the point you are trying to make is that there is an essence which has left the rodent and its leaving is responsible for its death. Tudor has made some points that I share only she didn't make it articulate enough. You're treating the rat as though it just dropped dead like that, snap! Something killed it. Either it had a heart attack, or it got poisoned or something. You can liken the rat to an electric generator. If the generator was a perfect machine with 100% efficiency with unlimited supply of fuel, it will run forever. Once something goes wrong, it will go off. It never had a soul before or after. But a rat has a circulatory, respiratory, digestive, nervous etc systems that makes it able to repair itself and find fuel for it's survival. That's the only difference. An animal or plant or whatever we call living things are nothing but extremely efficient machines.

I believe in the soul and spirit and whatever but I don't think it is energy, the kind that is scientific. It is of a different kind. This should be easy to accept except you believe God came into existence with the big bang which I think not. Therefore spiritual entities are not made of the traditional kind of energy.

^^ ha no not a scientist unfortunately i would be too impatient to make any worthwile discoveries. I'm afraid i'm just one of those people who want to know all they can and read physics textbooks for fun.

I'm not sure what you're asking for when you say opinions on antimatter but i've never really considered it so my thoughts are more questions than opinions.
I don't know much about it other than the basic fact that it is obviously the opposite of matter formed by the similar particles with an opposite charge.
Something that's always puzzled me about antiparticles is antineutron. antiparticles have the opposite charge of a particle but a neutron is neutral. what's the opposite of a neutral charge? technically an antineutron should just be a neutron which then leads me to ask why would an antineutron and a neutron annihilate each other when they are both basically neutrons?
Also i dont know how much help these antiparticles would be for the scientists currently attempting to create antimatter as they only live for a short amount of time before the annihilate.
Although i must admit that i am intrigued by the idea of annihilation. Not that i wish destruction on the earth as i am quite fond of it but if big enough antimatter was successfully created would it be enough to annihilate our planet? ofcourse it would have to be the size of the earth but i'm just wondering if it is possible.
Or is there an already existing galaxy with planets of antimatter? being from another galaxy would mean they had no chance of coming into contact with us but it would be an interesting thing to witness if it did. Would we annihilate in an explosion of energy or would it be boringly anticlimatic and we just vanish from existence?

As i said i'm not very familiar with antimatter mostly because it had only ever been of passing interest to me, nothing i read details into but its definitely an interesting one to consider.

vescucci:

Arggh. I lost patience jare. I'll just give my two cents on the much i've read.

E=MC² is my favourite equation. Has it been disproved or people are ignoring it here. But as far as know M not equal to E/C². In order words energy cannot be made to form matter or we do not have the technology yet or I am unaware about it. Consequently, energy cannot be destroyed and matter cannot be created. In the same vein, energy can be created and matter destroyed. Anyways, this is immaterial to the discussion. Analissa talks like a scientist (are you?) and I'd like to know her views (and everyone else's) on antimatter.

Hey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I had to search for hours to find the phone number of a math Professor after reading the above.

E=MC2 has not been disproved and never will it ever be disproved because it is a tested theory. Keep in mind that a theory is never proven right. Inventions have been made basset on it. The only thing disputable is the numbers and the ratios of energy to mass. Thus accuracy of the covertion is questionable and not the fact the theory itself which has witstood all scrutinies

Did you read these articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxAZ_FLudKc

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/emc2/emc2.html

If the following link is what you are referring to then you are kidding: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100513043734AAoiCYe


Please if you will be kind enough to provide us with the link where this theory has been disproved. Who is the scientist that did it, where and when? I'm really very eager to learn these facts; it will turn my views around.

Ah, calm down Justcool. I was trying to be funny. People have been talking on this thread as if Einstein never proposed that theory. I've heard preposterous things like matter can never be destroyed. I was just reminding everyone about the equation not that I think it has ceased to hold true. We are together, me, you and our professor

@Analissa. I was actually hoping to jump start a discussion on anti-matter. If we hold the big bang as correct, I'd imagine that for every bit of matter spurting forth from the big bang, there's an equivalent amount of anti-matter. I don't believe we can create it if it doesn't exist in nature. People like to point to black holes but those are point of extreme gravitational pull that is even strong enough to deflect or suck up light all together. But what is responsible for this amount of gravity? Is there such a thing we can call anti-energy?

I don't think there will be an explosion if anti-matter comes in contact with matter except if it is highly compressed.

vescucci:

Arggh. I lost patience jare. I'll just give my two cents on the much i've read.

E=MC² is my favourite equation. Has it been disproved or people are ignoring it here. But as far as know M not equal to E/C². In order words energy cannot be made to form matter or we do not have the technology yet or I am unaware about it. Consequently, energy cannot be destroyed and matter cannot be created. In the same vein, energy can be created and matter destroyed. Anyways, this is immaterial to the discussion. Analissa talks like a scientist (are you?) and I'd like to know her views (and everyone else's) on antimatter.

The Einstein E=mc2 still valid just as all theories stay valid until a new whizkid enters the scene. But there is something bright about his position there only that the numbers are staggering.
I just want to talk about antimatter. The first time I came across this term and the meaning, I accepted it without looking into the implications for modern science. But I think that at present there is something about antimatter that is not easy to swallow. In all I've read about it I haven't seen anyone that claimed he discovered it in nature, instead it is said to annihilate itself very quickly naturally. If it does, it means that thought created it and laboratory is in the race to validate it by reproducing it. Now how do we know that what is reproduced is the exact counter of the matter or that the charge of an antiproton is negative but still have the same nature as proton except in the charge.
I accepted this concept based on the fact that almost everything I know have their opposites, so I concluded that matter might also have it's opposite. But if we consider that antimatter is as difficult to prove as spirit is, even more difficult because it's mostly unintelligible, then the reproductions in laboratories should go by any other name, or we take it that antimatter is not the EXACT opposite of matter.
There is also another position that when antimatter react with matter of equal volume total annihilation occurs but when I examined it in the light of every other opposites I know, I found that antimatter then is not an opposite but something different (which I won't give a name yet). You might know that when glycerin reacts with a mix of Nitric and Sulphoric, annihilation occurs giving out enormous energy which might be explosive if packaged in conducive way.

Holla!

Hmmn. Your take is interesting. I do not know what exactly happens when glycerin reacts with a mix of Nitric and Sulphuric acid but I wouldn't use the term annihilation. It ought to just be an exothermic reaction and not annihilation. As regards to the detectability of antimatter and your reluctance to call it so, I'm afraid is not so convincing. Anti-matter is after all just a name and opposites are of different types. It's moot. I do not believe there's anything thing or any phenomena we can create that does not exist somewhere, somehow already in the universe. We are advancing and learning to artificially replicate many things already around.

For your current misgivings about anti-matter, maybe you should consider dark matter. The universe is estimated to be 90% dark matter and it is one hell of an undetectable (so far as I know) thing but it is there or everything points to its existence. At worst, it is a constant ncessary for astronomical (I mean space stuff) calculations to be correct and conform to Newtonian physics and the theories of relativity. Maybe this would be a worthy direction for your comparisons with spirit form even though I don't buy that either.

vescucci:


For your current misgivings about anti-matter, maybe you should consider dark matter. The universe is estimated to be 90% dark matter and it is one hell of an undetectable (so far as I know) thing but it is there or everything points to its existence. At worst, it is a constant ncessary for astronomical (I mean space stuff) calculations to be correct and conform to Newtonian physics and the theories of relativity. Maybe this would be a worthy direction for your comparisons with spirit form even though I don't buy that either.

Your writing reflects the ideas of someone who's full of life
But there is something I can't place my fingers on in the comment above. How can something be undetectable and still out there. That means assumptions created it then and once an assumption is overthrown, the entire house comes down like soaked bread. My views is that science should not be built on such assumptions, unless it's not science, for the nature of the word "Scientia" rejects frivolous assumptions.

Holla!

precap2:

Your writing reflects the ideas of someone who's full of life
But there is something I can't place my fingers on in the comment above. How can something be undetectable and still out there. That means assumptions created it then and once an assumption is overthrown, the entire house comes down like soaked bread. My views is that science should not be built on such assumptions, unless it's not science, for the nature of the word "Scientia" rejects frivolous assumptions.

Holla!

Not to interrupt, but the interesting problem with dark matter is that its presence is inferred from the expected mass of galaxies and other similarly large bodies from other means. It may simply be that dark matter is difficult to detect due to its nature and the current absence of appropriate tools. But one thing is sure which is that if there is a better explanation for the observed phenomena, the dark matter concept will be discarded.

I understand your consternation Precap, hence the options I alluded to of its existence either being a mathematical requirement for calculations or just tht we can't detect it but we feel its presence. thehomer sums it up nicely anyways

The OP seems to have left us alone, or he went on unplanned leave, and now it's between pure scientists (vescucci, thehomer) and poor coconut head dialectician like me. I pity myself among scientists.

Bless ya

Holla!

Ah. I envy scientists and to call me one will make me demand for an apology on behalf of the noble torchbearers.

You mean Deep Sight ba? He's gone off the deep end

More thoughts later, erh, holla!