FOLYKAZE:


Since energy is God, we arrive back at God. And that there is no nothingness or zero except the negative state of a particle.

Do tell, isn't energy or pure energy or whatever you choose to call it same thing as matter?



No offense in not knowing.

Energy is not God, that's your personal definition of God which is different from the universally accepted definition

Workch:
We don't know all things but we know what will happen to humanity if we don't leave this planet to mars.

Yea, that's true. Thanks to futurists like Elon Musk, it's possible to establish a human colony on Mars in the next two decades or thereabouts.

Workch:
Energy is not God, that's your personal definition of God which is different from the universally accepted definition

There's no universally accepted definition of God or anything in existence. All concepts and names used on Earth are man-made and are peculiar to our world and characterized by our level of perception and brainpower (generally speaking).

A001:

There's no universally accepted definition of God or anything in existence. All concepts and names used on Earth are man-made and are peculiar to our world and characterized by our level of perception and brainpower (generally speaking).

I know, but he knows what I mean.

His definition of God includes even a lifeless chicken

Workch:
I know, but he knows what I mean.

His definition of God includes even a lifeless chicken

Yes, I understand you.

I also understand his own position as well. In African spirituality and the Otemic philosophy, everything in existence (both living and non-living) is God, which means a great source of energy with no specific form or a great consciousness in the latter philosophical approach.

A001:

Yes, I understand you.

I also understand his own position as well. In African spirituality and the Otemic philosophy, everything in existence (both living and non-living) is God, which means a great source of energy with no specific form or a great consciousness in the latter philosophical approach.

OK, but he hasn't accepted that a chicken is also a god by that logic.

He quoted the Bible

Workch:
Energy is not God, that's your personal definition of God which is different from the universally accepted definition

Lol

You are the one that have a warped definition of God in your mind defined to suit your atheistic stance. Creating a shadow you can box... You had wanted God to be superhuman living behind the wind.

You wrong Buddy! Check pantheism... Everything is God in this philosophy

Workch, you don start to dey find trouble

Workch:
We don't know if the universe comes from nothingness. That's not what big bang says.

According to the law of conservation of mass and energy, there havs to be antimatter.

Matter+Antimatter has to equal zero. Well, that brings us to nothingness

This is just wrong science my friend. Matter + Antimatter will annihilate each other leaving zero mass plus lots of energy equal to the sum of their masses multiplied by the square of the velocity of light. This way, matter/antimatter and energy is conserved.
You will be left with energy and not nothingness.

dorox:


This is just wrong science my friend. Matter + Antimatter will annihilate each other leaving zero mass plus lots of energy equal to the sum of their masses multiplied by the square of the velocity of light. This way, matter/antimatter and energy is conserved.
You will be left with energy and not nothingness.

You just repeated what I said, maybe you are just in a haste to find errors

dorox:


This is just wrong science my friend. Matter + Antimatter will annihilate each other leaving zero mass plus lots of energy equal to the sum of their masses multiplied by the square of the velocity of light. This way, matter/antimatter and energy is conserved.
You will be left with energy and not nothingness.

Brilliant and apt.

FOLYKAZE:


Lol

You are the one that have a warped definition of God in your mind defined to suit your atheistic stance. Creating a shadow you can box... You had wanted God to be superhuman living behind the wind.

You wrong Buddy! Check pantheism... Everything is God in this philosophy

Ok I agree if that’s your definition of god.

It means a dead rat is also god, right?

Workch:
Ok I agree if that’s your definition of god.

It means a dead rat is also god, right?

Dead or not, are they not condensed energy?

Moreso, the death is biological.

FOLYKAZE:


Dead or not, are they not condensed energy?

Lol, condense energy is mass. Are you confuse?

E=mc^2 means that mass is condensed energy, and in its purest form, energy is light. ... In photons, all energy is kinetic, equal to mc^2, while they have no mass- energy. If matter is condensed light, then its mass is actually condensed kinetic energy.


A dead rat is condensed energy

Workch:
Lol, condense energy is mass. Are you confuse?

E=mc^2 means that mass is condensed energy, and in its purest form, energy is light. ... In photons, all energy is kinetic, equal to mc^2, while they have no mass- energy. If matter is condensed light, then its mass is actually condensed kinetic energy.


A dead rat is condensed energy

What is mass. What is condensed energy and what is matter?

I thought I was conversing with a brilliant chap

FOLYKAZE:


What is mass. What is condensed energy and what is matter?

I thought I was conversing with a brilliant chap

matter is anything that has mass.

You are just looking for a way to validate your opinion instead of seeking the valid point.

I’m not here to win arguments o

FOLYKAZE:


What is mass. What is condensed energy and what is matter?

I thought I was conversing with a brilliant chap

Mass/matter is condensed energy.

It’s basic physics dude

Workch:
I have made a lot of arguments, some are trolls while some are kind of intellectaul. Today, I want to give you scientific reasons why a creator most likely doesn't exist.

I am going to explain this using the lawof conservation of energy, law of conservation of mass and theory of relativity. I will try and synchronize them to make my point clear.

The law of conservation of energy states that in close system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another. This means that a system always has the same amount of energy, unless it's added from the outside. ... The only way to use energy is to transform energy from one form to another.

The law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as the system's mass cannot change, so quantity can neither be added nor be removed.

What this means is that, if the universe is a closed system, it means that mass and energy have always remained constant, since the universe is 100% energy and mass, it means that the universe has always existed, it was never created and cannot be destroyed. The keyword here is "closed system" it brings us to the question of whether the universe is a closed or open system. Before we discuss that, we have to chip in the mass/energy equation from the theory of relativity, which says energy is directly proportional to mass E=mc^2. So wherever you see matter, it means it's energy and vice versa.

Is the universe a closed system? If the universe is a closed system it means that the universe can always exist on its own without a creator. If the universe is an open system, it means that it gets energy input from outside which also implies that the law of conservation energy also applies from that source of energy. For the purposes of your question, the answer is probably "closed". You could have come to that answer just by asking yourself why it is that you care whether it's open or closed. The reason you care, I assume, is because you want to know whether the law of conservation of energy and similar laws apply. So then, why does whether it is open or closed affect that? Because an open system might have energy added to it or subtracted from it by an external source/sink of energy. So then, shouldn't it be obvious that if you think the universe isn't connected to anything else, or you define the word "universe" so that it includes everything that could possibly affect anything, then there's no reason (at this level of discourse) the laws of thermodynamics wouldn't apply?

So thermodynamically, the universe cannot be an open system, whatever causes the exchange of energy with the universe is automatically part of the universe and that realm clearly still operate within the confines of the law of thermodynamics.

So it doesn't make sense scientifically that the universe was created.

Let me help you deflate your balloon!

Let's assume a closed system (which excludes every other thing from the outside space), we are left with the gravitational Singularity and nothing else!

It is scientifically known that the Entropy of the Universe has been increasing and in a future time, all the energy of the universe would be dispersed evenly within ALL the space defining our universe.

If you can project backward, was there ever a time when the entropy of the Universe was ZERO?
(negative entropy cannot exist without help from outside the system)

Workch:
matter is anything that has mass.

You are just looking for a way to validate your opinion instead of seeking the valid point.

I’m not here to win arguments o

Since you've been boxed in the corner, you are the one grasping earnestly at straw.

The whole thread from inception is to disprove the existence of Creator or God. And I have shown that Universe cannot come from nothing. As a matter of fact there is nothing like nothingness or zero in the universe. All we have is simply positive and negative state of a particle.

You posited that when these two different states of a particle collide, they become nothing. I have shown it is impossible. Although they annihilate each other mass but leave behind huge energies.

Whatever it is, these energies are what some folks call God, the Creator and Cause.

FOLYKAZE:


Since you've been boxed in the corner, you are the one grasping earnestly at straw.

The whole thread from inception is to disprove the existence of Creator or God. And I have shown that Universe cannot come from nothing. As a matter of fact there is nothing like nothingness or zero in the universe. All we have is simply positive and negative state of a particle.

You posited that when these two different states of a particle collide, they become nothing. I have shown it is impossible. Although they annihilate each other mass but leave behind huge energies.

Whatever it is, these energies are what some folks call God, the Creator and Cause.

what you proved is that even a dead rat is god.

Nothing more or less

Workch:
Mass/matter is condensed energy.

It’s basic physics dude

Why then are you insulting my intelligence when I said dead rat is condensed energy?

I am not a physic student. But it is a subject I love cuz it is spiritual

Workch:
what you proved is that even a dead rat is god.

Nothing more or less

Have you not heard about worshipping of dead ancestors?

FOLYKAZE:


Why then are you insulting my intelligence when I said dead rat is condensed energy?

I am not a physic student. But it is a subject I love cuz it is spiritual

I am not insulting your intelligence I only corrected that a dead rat is a form of condensed energy by definition.

You are so much interested in making the definition of energy suit your definition of a god and that’s not okay because that means even bacteria are gods.

FOLYKAZE:


Have you not heard about worshipping of dead ancestors?

Yes, what about it?

TenQ:

Let me help you deflate your balloon!

Let's assume a closed system (which excludes every other thing from the outside space), we are left with the gravitational Singularity and nothing else!

It is scientifically known that the Entropy of the Universe has been increasing and in a future time, all the energy of the universe would be dispersed evenly within ALL the space defining our universe.

If you can project backward, was there ever a time when the entropy of the Universe was ZERO?
(negative entropy cannot exist without help from outside the system)

Workch... Address this

Workch:
Yes, what about it?

The dead are Gods

Workch:
I am not insulting your intelligence I only corrected that a dead rat is a form of condensed energy by definition.

You are so much interested in making the definition of energy suit your definition of a god and that’s not okay because that means even bacteria are gods.

The problem you have with the idea is that you already have a close minded view of what God is


Let me assume you are atheistic only to Christian and Muslim God

FOLYKAZE:


The dead are Gods

Well, going by your ambiguous definition of god, a carcass is a god.

Everything qualifies as a god by that definition

A001:

This post only shows your high level of ignorance about how science works. In the world of science, there are no dogmas and absolutes.

Considering these, calling science a doctrine shows you don't know what a doctrine means.

In science, no fact, law, or principle is beyond questioning. What is called a doctrine can't be questioned.

If in science no fact, law or principle is beyond questioning that means even the field of science is really a RELIGION because even it's followers does not have absolute certainty.

Hence, THEY ARE INSECURE... your researchers are your preachers and you their followers gulp every theory and pour it in nairaland! How are you different from religious people?

A white man makes a law they call in Boyle's law, charles law...
The followers quote it, preach it. Just like book of peter, james, john. The only difference is one talks about concrete things, the other virtues (not concrete and intangible).
Place of worship of science: school

SCIENCE ALSO IS A RELIGION...

ATHEIST SHOULD PROVE ME WRONG...

I CAN CITE MORE EXAMPLES TO PROVE IT...

The white men brought religion for e.g christianity to Africa, the white men also brought science.
SCIENCE IS ALSO A WHITE MAN RELIGION.

FOLYKAZE:


The problem you have with the idea is that you already have a close minded view of what God is


Let me assume you are atheistic only to Christian and Muslim God

I already accepted that energy is god.

I’m playing by your rules now, but you want to now chose when the rule applies and when it doesn’t

If energy is god then petrol is god. That’s the logic

Workch:
I already accepted that energy is god.

I’m playing by your rules now, but you want to now chose when the rule applies and when it doesn’t

If energy is god then petrol is god. That’s the logic

What is God? Can you answer that

vinceyinnovation:


[s]If in science no fact, law or principle is beyond questioning that means even the field of science is really a RELIGION because even it's followers does not have absolute certainty.

Hence, THEY ARE INSECURE... your researchers are your preachers and you their followers gulp every theory and pour it in nairaland! How are you different from religious people?

A white man makes a law they call in Boyle's law, charles law...
The followers quote it, preach it. Just like book of peter, james, john. The only difference is one talks about concrete things, the other virtues (not concrete and intangible).
Place of worship of science: school

SCIENCE ALSO IS A RELIGION...

ATHEIST SHOULD PROVE ME WRONG...

I CAN CITE MORE EXAMPLES TO PROVE IT...

The white men brought religion for e.g christianity to Africa, the white men also brought science.
SCIENCE IS ALSO A WHITE MAN RELIGION.[/s]

Read this tripe again and tell me you don't know you've an undiagnosed mental issue.

Such incoherent gibberish!