Bishopkingsley:


You blame Google for not acknowledging your lies

You can blame Google here as well

Pastafari:
You can blame Google here as well

I told you not from Google but from gospel coalition

Bishopkingsley:


I told you not from Google but from gospel coalition

Mine is also not from Google.

The flying spaghetti monster was discovered 300,000years ago and he's the oldest God on earth.

Bishopkingsley:


Before I will apologize you have to say to me that my definition was not complete

Not saying no which is totally wrong

Admit it correct but not complete even in school any teach will score me 80% at least

Sorry, but saying "power is the amount of energy transferred" is like saying speed is the amount of distance travelled. It's not incomplete, it's plain wrong.

Speed is the rate at which distance is traversed and power is the rate at which energy is transferred. When you add that to you confusing these with force as well, it adds up to a rather obvious lack of understanding.

Bishopkingsley:





What I wrote is still up there read it again
Let me send it to you read it again below before you comment

In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."

Bible show devil is the negative energy

Again, you're saying that the devil is negative energy. And in the previous paragraph, you identified negative energy with gravity. So you're saying the devil = gravity. Exactly like I said you did.

Why do you deny having said it? It is obviously exactly what you said. If A = B and B = C, then A = C.

Pastafari:
Mine is also not from Google.

The flying spaghetti monster was discovered 300,000years ago and he's the oldest God on earth.

I told you gospel coalition wrote the article

Show me your articles on Google

Bishopkingsley:


I told you gospel coalition wrote the article

Show me your articles on Google

Show me where google said Flying Spaghetti Monster is not 300,000years discovery

Tamaratonye1:

Sorry, but saying "power is the amount of energy transferred" is like saying speed is the amount of distance travelled. It's not incomplete, it's plain wrong.

Speed is the rate at which distance is traversed and power is the rate at which energy is transferred. When you add that to you confusing these with force as well, it adds up to a rather obvious lack of understanding.

No matter what you say I have told you what energy is

Bishopkingsley:


Who created gravity or I don't know what you are talking about now

Maybe you don't know the answer or gravity has it own intelligence

If you don't know the answer it means

Any force can create the universe

Am waiting for the answer who created gravity why was it not created

You have given no reason to think there was a "who" that created gravity. Are you are just going to reject the valid objections and questions I raised about your fallacious loaded question by using an argument from ignorance and double down on the same error? That will be incredibly dishonest of you

I can only repeat my questions as they remain unanswered and/or unaddressed

[1] When and how did you establish that gravity required any "creating"?

[2] When and how did you establish that, assuming it had to be created, that it was a "who" that created it and not a "what"?

Bishopkingsley:


Funny.... It shows you don't know

And when one doesn't know, one can just say "the god I happen to believe in did it", right?

This is your entire modus operandi. Your argument is a pitiful travesty. Fallacious from start to finish.

Bishopkingsley:
tr

The next question is who created gravity

Why do you think there was a 'who' involved? And what would it even mean to say that gravity is 'created'? What makes you think it was?

Bishopkingsley:


I don't think you understand English language and I don't think you understand physics

Power means a lot of things in physics Because English language is interchangeable

No, the term 'power' has a very specific meaning in physics . it represents the *rate* of energy transfer.

I gave you one definition of power you say no does that not mean you don't know both physics and English properly

I repeat

In physics, power is the amount of energy transferred...

No, it is NOT
In *physics*, power is the *rate* of energy transfer. it is an amount of energy divided by the time it takes. So, it is quite possible to have very little energy transfer, but have a large power, if the transfer takes only a small amount of time.

Now I want you to fight with the picture below and fight with Google and physics

After you fight with the pictorial evidence below it is either you apologize for not knowing what all the definition of power is or you continue to lie

Clearly, it is you that does not understand the physics definition of the term 'power'. I can point you to some good physics books if you want to learn more.

In your picture, you failed to notice the phrase 'in a unit time'. That means that power is NOT energy, but a RATE of energy transfer

Bishopkingsley:


No it can't be similar because the definition of God and energy is it can never be created or destroyed

Even science never described unicorn like that or did I miss that part in the dictionary

Angular momentum can also not be created nor destroyed. Same for linear momentum or electron number, or any number of other conserved quantities.

Identifying God, a supernatural entity, with energy, a physical property, is rather silly, don't you think?

Bishopkingsley:


It is an adequate analogy

If you tell me that the wind can write a poem then I will believe you that an un intelligent thing can create the universe

The room is inversely proportional to the universe which means there must be an infinite invisible being who the universe is a room to....



Indulge me teach me tell me how the universe formed

One possibility is a quantum fluctuation.

Another is that it 'simply exists': that it is neither created nor destroyed.

Why would it have to be an 'unintelligent being'? You are assuming a being--a living thing. Why? Maybe there is no 'cause' to the universe at all. Maybe there is a 'cause', but it is simply a quantum fluctuation. Maybe there is a 'cause' and there are multiple universes all of which interact producing new universes.

Defaulting to a supernatural entity is a LARGE leap

Bishopkingsley:


In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."

Bible show devil is the negative energy
Devil is the opposer of God and opposition to God what ever God does devil want to do and pervert it

That why the total is zero

But God promised us there will be a time when the devil will be destroyed and there will be no more evil no more negative energy

By that time the sum total will be infinite

Clearly wrong. Any potential energy, like with gravity, has 'negative' energy associated with it. That has nothing to do with moral character nor even any particular myths of the supernatural. It is simply a result of where we define zero energy to be.

Bishopkingsley:


Nothing can function without a creator

Why would you think that?
Many things operate just fine with no intelligent agent intervening. the sun, for example, operates quite well without requiring an intelligent agent to 'create' it: all that is required is gravity and the properties of the materials.

Bishopkingsley:
Who created mass

Again, why would you think a 'who' is required?

Mass is one property that things have. Energy is another. Momentum is another, etc. These properties help determine how things interact and thereby what happens.

But more importantly, intelligence (a 'who') is a very complex system that is based on the operation of the underlying physical materials. Without those physical properties and physical laws, intelligence itself would be impossible.

Bishopkingsley:


Who created gravity or I don't know what you are talking about now

Maybe you don't know the answer or gravity has it own intelligence

If you don't know the answer it means

Any force can create the universe

Am waiting for the answer who created gravity why was it not created

Why would you think any 'intelligence' is involved at all?

Bishopkingsley:


I want to learn kindly summarize what the link said created the mass and gravity

I am not here to learn for you.... I have shown you the links...
The ball is in your court to do the needful...

Bishopkingsley:



I did not lie it was a typing error so all you had to do was say that definition is not complete then I would have cross check you just said it not the definition

There is a big difference

That was not a typing error. If it was you would have acknowledged my correction instead of calling me a liar. So not only did you score an F. Your response would have earned you a trip to the principal's office.

Tamaratonye1:

You have given no reason to think there was a "who" that created gravity. Are you are just going to reject the valid objections and questions I raised about your fallacious loaded question by using an argument from ignorance and double down on the same error? That will be incredibly dishonest of you

I can only repeat my questions as they remain unanswered and/or unaddressed

[1] When and how did you establish that gravity required any "creating"?

[2] When and how did you establish that, assuming it had to be created, that it was a "who" that created it and not a "what"?

Now I understand you you are trying to say nothing created anything

That means men did not even manufacture any thing on earth

Well that does not make sense to me

If you believe anything can appear on it own then we can't make any progress

Because you will always win a car can appear on it own automatically

If this is your area of interest then nope you have won the conversion

But at the end of time we shall see who wins the battle

Matthew 28:19 ►
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Bishopkingsley:


Now I understand you you are trying to say nothing created anything

I said no such thing. Doesn't your bible say something about bearing false witness? You made a statement. I challenged said statement and clearly, you are very unwilling to meet the challenge.

Once again, I can only repeat my questions:

[1] When and how did you establish that gravity required any "creating"?

[2] When and how did you establish that, assuming it had to be created, that it was a "who" that created it and not a "what"?

Bishopkingsley:


No matter what you say I have told you what energy is

If you're going to appeal to energy conservation, then you need to use the scientific definition. Trying to identify that with a god is bizarre because, as I always say, energy isn't even a thing in itself, it's a property and it depends - for it to exist at all - on time, the laws of physics, said laws not varying with time, and on physical systems in the universe to be a property of.

The conservation of energy is a common feature in many physical theories. From a mathematical point of view it is understood as a consequence of Noether's theorem, developed by Emmy Noether in 1915 and first published in 1918. The theorem states every continuous symmetry of a physical theory has an associated conserved quantity; if the theory's symmetry is time invariance then the conserved quantity is called "energy". The energy conservation law is a consequence of the shift symmetry of time; energy conservation is implied by the empirical fact that the laws of physics do not change with time itself. Philosophically this can be stated as "nothing depends on time per se". In other words, if the physical system is invariant under the continuous symmetry of time translation then its energy (which is the canonical conjugate quantity to time) is conserved. Conversely, systems that are not invariant under shifts in time (an example, systems with time-dependent potential energy) do not exhibit conservation of energy – unless we consider them to exchange energy with another, an external system so that the theory of the enlarged system becomes time-invariant again. Conservation of energy for finite systems is valid in physical theories such as special relativity and quantum theory (including QED) in the flat space-time.
...
With the discovery of special relativity by Henri Poincaré and Albert Einstein, the energy was proposed to be a component of an energy-momentum 4-vector.
...
Thus, the rule of conservation of energy over time in special relativity continues to hold, so long as the reference frame of the observer is unchanged. This applies to the total energy of systems, although different observers disagree as to the energy value.
...
In general relativity, energy–momentum conservation is not well-defined except in certain special cases. Energy-momentum is typically expressed with the aid of a stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor. However, since pseudotensors are not tensors, they do not transform cleanly between reference frames. If the metric under consideration is static (that is, does not change with time) or asymptotically flat (that is, at an infinite distance away spacetime looks empty), then energy conservation holds without major pitfalls. In practice, some metrics such as the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric do not satisfy these constraints and energy conservation is not well defined. The theory of general relativity leaves open the question of whether there is a conservation of energy for the entire universe

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy#Noether's_theorem]Conservation of Energy[/url] [Emphasis mine]

Energy is not some sort of eternal 'stuff'. To the extent it is conserved (see above), it's a quantity we can calculate that keeps track of the fact that the laws of physics don't vary with time. It certainly can't exist without time, the laws of physics, and some 'stuff' for it to be a property of.

Quite unlike any notion of the Christian god that I'm aware of.

Bishopkingsley:
❤️❤️
Energy
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. ... In other words, energy cannot be created or destroyed.


You said you wanted scientific evidence about God

And I am now showing you how science discovered an area of God


Now am saying and
Stating that God is many things and that God is power and since power is energy

Therefore since science says
. Energy can not be created or destroyed

There for God exists

Because science shows that there is a force that can not be created and that force can not be destroyed

They called that force energy


While Bible calls that force God


My brother the linkage is very clear for all to see the evidence from scientists research


If science never found this force then Bible theories maybe said to be lying but here science found it and science explain it exactly the way Bible explains it


God can not be created and God cannot be destroyed same as energy definition

Philippians 2:13-23 MSG
Bible / Bible Versions / MSG / Philippians / Philippians 2 / Philippians 2:13-23

13 That energy is God's energy, an energy deep within you, God himself willing and working at what will give him the most pleasure. 14 Do everything readily and cheerfully - no bickering, no second-guessing allowed! 15 Go out into the world uncorrupted, a breath of fresh air in this squalid and polluted society. Provide people with a glimpse of good living and of the living God. Carry the light-giving Message into the night 16 so I'll have good cause to be proud of you on the day that Christ returns.



Is this not marvelous in our eyes


Glory to God

If you want to quote the1st law of thermodynamics then quote it properly.

Tamaratonye1:

I said no such thing. Doesn't your bible say something about bearing false witness? You made a statement. I challenged said statement and clearly, you are very unwilling to meet the challenge.

Once again, I can only repeat my questions:

[1] When and how did you establish that gravity required any "creating"?

[2] When and how did you establish that, assuming it had to be created, that it was a "who" that created it and not a "what"?

Any thing that Is not God was created that Is when I established it according to the Bible

Only a person can create so it a who from what I established

Tamaratonye1:

If you're going to appeal to energy conservation, then you need to use the scientific definition. Trying to identify that with a god is bizarre because, as I always say, energy isn't even a thing in itself, it's a property and it depends - for it to exist at all - on time, the laws of physics, said laws not varying with time, and on physical systems in the universe to be a property of.


[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy#Noether's_theorem]Conservation of Energy[/url] [Emphasis mine]

Energy is not some sort of eternal 'stuff'. To the extent it is conserved (see above), it's a quantity we can calculate that keeps track of the fact that the laws of physics don't vary with time. It certainly can't exist without time, the laws of physics, and some 'stuff' for it to be a property of.

Quite unlike any notion of the Christian god that I'm aware of.

What quality do energy have that the Christian God don't have

You have not shown why u can't relate it to God

Science said what was in Bible in their own terminology

And I explained it in a simple way

LordReed:


If you want to quote the1st law of thermodynamics then quote it properly.

Is it different from the one on my post

Did I mis state the law

Pin point the area I did not quote properly

Bishopkingsley:


What quality do energy have that the Christian God don't have

Easy. Off the top of my head, [1] Being an entirely physical property of things in the universe, [2] Only really 'existing' because of the unchanging laws of physics, [3] Not being able to think, plan, create the universe, [4] Be incarnated as a human, [5] Be morally good, or omnipotent.

Frankly, you might as well try to identify god with momentum.

Bishopkingsley:


Any thing that Is not God was created that Is when I established it according to the Bible

Ha. So your statement was just an expression of religious belief. In that case, it's not very intellectually honest of you to posit said statement as a factual truth-claim. Since you asserted it without evidence, I'll just reject it without evidence in that case.

Bishopkingsley:


Only a person can create so it a who from what I established

Who creates snowflakes? The ice in my freezer? H2O?

You should think things through. Stuff is created by non-personal processes all the time. Your statement is demonstrably wrong. Not that you care, I think.

Tamaratonye1:

Easy. Off the top of my head, [1] Being an entirely physical property of things in the universe, [2] Only really 'existing' because of the unchanging laws of physics, [3] Not being able to think, plan, create the universe, [4] Be incarnated as a human, [5] Be morally good, or omnipotent.

Frankly, you might as well try to identify god with momentum.

But you can see I said God is many things and I actually meant energy has one type of characteristics of God

That what am trying to say

Now all the things energy has do God have them?

Tamaratonye1:

Ha. So your statement was just an expression of religious belief. In that case, it's not very intellectually honest of you to posit said statement as a factual truth-claim. Since you asserted it without evidence, I'll just reject it without evidence in that case.


Who creates snowflakes? The ice in my freezer? H2O?

You should think things through. Stuff is created by non-personal processes all the time. Your statement is demonstrably wrong. Not that you care, I think.

you should not base your evidence on who created snow flake rather ask who created what created the snow flake
And it man, man made the fridge

So no whenever you see some things that come from non personal processes what you should ask as a thinker is what then created or manufactured the non personal process which we all know is man


Now when it comes to things that exist before man then we can absolutely Say God created it