Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/10/05 05:25 PM, Dinodoode wrote:

At 6/7/05 12:53 AM, Ravariel wrote:

All the planets were either meteorites or clumps of debri joined together. The sun has a gravitational pull so earth couldnt of been formed when the universe was made because you need to have the source of gravity before you can have planets.

I haven't laughed this hard in a while.

Ok, if this is the case, how did 8 of the 9 planets all find an orbit on the exact same plane? How is it that galaxies are built much the same way? How is it that other solar systems have all of their planets on the same plane as well? Logic dictates that most planets, if they were just picked up in passing, and not part of the original cloud that formed the solar system (including the sun), would all orbit on a different plane. If the solar system didn't all form at the same time, planets and star, then there is almost NO way for all of the planets to orbit on the same plane. How can you even defend such a position, when we have observational evidence that this is exactly the same all over the galaxy, from dozens of solar systems?

Also, everything has gravity, even the smallest particle. Gravity is already there, you don't need some immense gravity well like a star to get planets. If such was the case, how would stars, themselves, form? I strongly suggest you brush up on your science before coming here trying to sound smart.

While I'm certainly not against luxury taxes, to tax everyone back 15 years for what they drive now is freaking ludicrous. One grand PER YEAR back to 1990? As much as I am for higher taxes (especially on the wealthy), that's ridiculous.

VCV, don't make me teach you what the second law of thermodynamics REALLY means again...

If you're going to argue science, please do us all a favor and LEARN the science. I am all for you using science to prove your points. Just make sure it's legit, and not some loose interpretation of someone biased against it.

At 6/9/05 04:24 PM, Toadenalin wrote:

At 6/7/05 12:53 AM, Ravariel wrote: What I have a hard time accepting is people claiming there's logic behind their beliefs.

Have you, who claim there is no proof for God, seen any proofs regarding the existance of God? Admittedly most of them have been totally discredited, but that might only be because some people devote their lives to picking holes in them.

That's what logic does, it tries as hard as it can to pick holes in an argument. Once it does, the argument is no longer valid. Nothing can be proven to an absolute certainty, but things CAN be disproven. Einstein said it best, "No amount of experimentation can prove me right, yet a single observation can prove me wrong."

Wikipedia would be the place to be if you want to take a gander.
There are also Pascal's arguments basically regarding the probability of a God exsisting here

I have no problem with you believing what you believe, but please check before you make statements like that.

Logic dictates that one of three features of all christian faiths MUST be incorrect. THAT is why logic must not be behind their beliefs. They might experience someting that they cannot explain... and thus believe it to be something supernatural. That is not logic, that is assumption. There may be some steps of logic within areas of faith, but faith, by definition, is belief without proof. I have absolute faith in my own free will. I have no proof, and know there can BE no proof... and yet still I believe... in fact, many scientific theorems point toward free will being impossible... still I believe.

Sorry if this comes across as intolerant, that wasn't the idea

No offense taken, and I hope none given. I wasn't trying to be intolerant either. Belief and faith are difficult things to discuss civily, it seems.

At 6/8/05 10:01 PM, Elfer wrote: The dimensions beyond three-dimensional space are compact dimensions that loop back on themselves.

It's theorized that three-dimensionsal space also loops back on itself, but it may be infinite in magnitude, we're not sure.

Yes. This is one of the properties that has spawned the No Boundary Proposal. The thought that 3 + 1 dimensional space is finite, but without bounds (Think of a sphere, that is a 2-dimensional plane that is finite but boundless (no edges)) and that it curves back upon itself much like the lecture I linked to talks about. Of course there is the possibility that it is finite WITH bounds, and merely curves only a slight amount (think of a saddle shape), or that it is Infinite without bounds. It will be extremely interesting to see where this new development takes us.

At 6/8/05 08:57 AM, PhysicsMafia wrote: the big bang theory has not been disproven, nor has it been proven, thats why its a theory and its the most commonly accepted theory in society today.

After doing some research I have realized I was mistaken. I't not that the Big bang has been disproven, it's that the singularity from whence the bang came has been disproven. In the normal Big bang theory, when the universe starts it's collapse, time will reverse. Instead, the new theory, called the "no Boundary proposal" predicts that the flow of time will not reverse at the collapse, but will continue forward.

From a Stephen Hawking Lecture... Source (can also be found in his book Black Holes and Baby Universes.

"The no boundary proposal, predicts that the universe would start at a single point, like the North Pole of the Earth. But this point wouldn't be a singularity, like the Big Bang. Instead, it would be an ordinary point of space and time, like the North Pole is an ordinary point on the Earth, or so I'm told. I have not been there myself."

much more widley accepted than say the steady state theory which has been completly ridiculed.

Yeah, that went out the window when the Hubble telescope saw doppler red shifts of stars.

and i know all about the creation of anit particles and their inihilation but thats nor creatin matter as most ppl would think, its to difficult to explain here but check this link

http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/

Interesting site, but that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about THIS.

as for time travel, i think it will in the future be possible to travel forward in time (sort of) as time is not a constant, ie it passes at different speeds depending on how fast you are traveling and your position in the universe ect. so say it some one was to be traveling close to the speed of light for a year (by their time) around the earth and was then to land many years may have passed for those on earth.

Hell, it's technologically possible now. A relatavistic flight is possible with our current technology. And that's basically what would happen with my Negative Matter example. You would gain crazy relatavistic properties without actually having to travel relatavistic speeds. If your Negative Matter tube were long enough, you couls travel between galaxies in an instant. Theory predicts that you would basically shoot back in time, because of the relatavistic effects.

traveling back in time i do not think will ever ber possible however as you need to be able to tavel faster than the speed of light which is not possible for anything larger than a photon and mass increases with an increase in energy so anything larger than a photon would reach its terminal velocity before it reached the speed of light.

Read up on the no boundary proposal. Imaginary time... at right angles to observed time. How much fun can we have with THAT?

At 6/7/05 10:36 PM, Dranigus wrote:

At 6/7/05 09:52 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 6/7/05 09:30 PM, Dranigus wrote:

But what do the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth dimensions are suppose to represent?

Be enlightened by their nature? Sheesh, try talking about something that wasn't created out of someone's imagination. Anyways you were right, dark matter is just matter that makes up alot of the universe and we know little about it.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/violence/darkmatter.html

But please stop being an insensitive dickhead.

I'm just saying that you can't "visualize" these extra dimensions. Which is what you seemed to be asking for. Unless you know the math, you really can't understand what they are and how they work. And, in fact, one of the (Five, i think it is?) version's of String theory has like 32 dimensions or something crazy like that. Well, I'm not really a string-theory guy. I know the basics, but I've spent my time more on Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. But I'm sure you can find books on the subject that can explain it all far more clearly than I can.

At 6/7/05 09:30 PM, Dranigus wrote:

But what do the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth dimensions are suppose to represent?

Learn the math and be enlightened to their nature.

The whole string theory or should I say hypothesis, is nothing more than fallacious bull crap that was invented to challenge the dark matter theory, which I might add has been proven rather successfully.

Oh? Source?

Unlike the string theory, which is bogus, the dark matter theory suggests that all matter can be compiled in opposite charges, so a dark proton would be negative and a dark electron would be positive. Dark matter is also called anti-matter. But the only problem with calling it anti-matter, is that anti refers to word against or not. So I believe dark matter is a better term.

Um, no. Antimatter is antimatter. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are something COMPLETELY different. Scientists haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what dark matter and energy are, much less actually DETECTED any. The only reason they believe it exists is because the Universe's expansion is accelerating, which goes against every current known possibility. Thus they figure something (this Dark Matter/Energy) is the source of the force that is expanding the universe against the compression force of gravity.

But however, the problem with understanding the dark matter theory is that there is all this dark energy. Well hello, maybe the dark energy is like this chi/ki stuff that is suppose to be full of in the universe. Sheesh!

Use the Force, Luke! Please, keep the metaphysical bullcrap out of a discussion about physics.

Anyways back on topic, yes a proton is quite interresting. Especially since it is made of subatomic particals, known as quarks.

Also, I'd like to point out that, before they were even theorized, Sub-quarks were found in a particle accelerator (shit, they hadn't even found Top Quark yet, when this happened). Once I find the article, I'll link it.

At 6/7/05 07:41 PM, ShadowFlux wrote: As far as i can think, there have to be more than just ten dimensions. Our technology is far too primitive to actually detect anything beyond the tenth dimension. For example, Black Holes. As said by scientists are basically a whirpool with a huge fucking gravity well. That swallows everything including light itself. But though the bottom of the black-hole maybe small. Nevertheless it could have an exit. Which could either A) lead to another galaxy. B) Lead to another Universe or C) lead to another dimension that is not within our database of knowledge.

We have technology able to DETECT the other 6 dimensions? News to me. Source please.

Black holes tearing the fabric of spacetime is a thoery that is VERY shaky. Especially since normal physics breaks down within their event horizon.

Its not impossible, its improbable. To time travel for example, here are the basic ingredients:

1. Take the entrance of the wormhole and drag it into the Orbit of a neutron star. The gravity created by neutron star is far greater than a black-hole. I think, not sure entirely though.

If a neutron star's gravity were greater than that of a black hole it WOULD be a black hole.

2. Using the same tractor ship drag the other end- exit/entrance to a Colonized system or a space station. Keep the wormhole a few hundred thousand kilometers from the station itself.

3. Take the test ship and send it through the wormhole on the neutron star side.

4. When the ship enters, the neutron star's gravity well and particle releases would distort the space-time continium within the wormhole itself. Therefore creating a temporal gateway to another time so to speak. The ship continues its journey and goes through the wormhole and appears on the otherside to either find a planet far younger than it already was with no space-station around it or it finds a planet older, maybe dead with a derelict space station in orbit.

Man, where to start... Now while this procedure COULD create time travel there are several features you have conveniently omitted.

First: Wormholes have event horizons much like Black Holes. Basically, only information can pass through the horizon, not matter (without being annihilated).

Second: This isn't exactly a practical application of the theory, because there is NO way to predict exactly what kind of temporal shift would occur. Nevermind the technological problems with moving ends of a wormhole (which are rooted in the very fabric of spacetime).

As a matter of fact, there is an easier way to do it, that only requires a certain amount of an as-yet-theoretical substance: Negative matter. Negative matter has this interesting property that, much like a wormhole, the space inside it is zero. So basically if you stretched it out into a ring and then into a tube, while outside of the tube would be normal distance, there would be zero distance within the tube. With a long enough tube, you could basically gain relatavistic properties, outrun causality and effectively "go back" in time.

There is a Sci-fi novel about this vary subject, but it's name escapes me at the moment. VERY interesting hard-science book. I'll post the name if I can find/remember it.

At 6/7/05 07:23 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote:
things are not in perfect balance, ever heard of the expanding universe or chaos theory?? if things were in perfect balance there would be no change, ever.

Umm, no. Perfect balance means that the forces are set up in such a way that everything works perfectly. Had they been different, chances are VERY good that no star could survive long enough or burn hot enough to support any sort of life.

and as the universe is the way it is, that means there was only one way for it to be like this, any slight difference at the beginning would have lead to vast differences in it today, the butterfly effect (not the film, the actual theory)

Actually that's a bastardization of the Weak and Strong Anthropic principles, but you're sorta right.

well if they were inteligent life forms and had traced the history of time back as far as we had (mili seconds after the big bang) then they to would wonder what started the explosion and more so, what put the matter there in the first place as the law of conservation of energy states that energy cant be created and as mass is condensed energy mass cant be created either. this would suggest that it was put there from somewhere other than our universe, hence the presence of a creator

Gonna blow yer mind here: The "law" of conservation of matter and energy is more of a rule of thumb ("we figger'd the code was more like guidelines than actual rules"). It gets broken all the time. Particle/antiparticle pairs are continuously created and destroyed in vacuum. In fact, it is a variation on this (already proven and observed) phenomenon that is the basis for the current theory of the origin of the universe.

Gonna blow your mind again: The Big Bang has been disproven by the very man who thought it up, Stephen Hawking.

thank you, try again (when u have actually studied the subject above a remedial level)

Want a shoehorn? Nah, just take your own advice.

I have zero problem with a child of any age watching/seeing pornography. As long as they are taught what it is.

Basically it comes down to this: The human body and the act of sex are both wonderful things, and should not have the stigma they do in todays society. Some 10-year-old seeing a naked woman or man, or even a strongly sexual situation is nothing to be afraid of. Granted, that is with parents open-minded enough to not freak and tell them that it's evil, but instead teach them the beauty that is the human form and the act from which we are born.

Even the creepier stuff, like Goatse and tubgirl, i think can be seen by children and, if not understood (shit, *I* don't really understand that), then at least comprehended. Keeping people from knowledge is how wacky fetishes come about (well, that and sometimes crossed wires in the old noggin).

Something I DO habve a problem with, however, is violence. In this country there is a huge taboo about sex, and yet violence spews from media like blood from a severed artery. Becoming desensitized to violence is never a good thing. Becoming desensitized to the "evil" of nudity and sex IS.

We's got to get our priorities straight.

By the way, I'm all for the .xxx url for pornographic sites. I think it's the best idea people have had about it in a long-ass time. This way, those parents that don't feel like parenting can turn on the block and go to their church group while their 6 year old stays home alone... and those that DO feel like parenting can teach their child about life.

At 6/7/05 06:33 AM, Die_Hard_Romantic wrote: everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

personally im not all into LBs music but i did like behind blue eyes.

Funny how everyone's best material seem to be cover songs, isn't it?

Nirvana: Man Who Sold the World and Lake of Fire.
RHCP: Love Rollercoaster and Higher Ground.
LB: Behind Blue Eyes

etc, etc.

At 6/7/05 11:55 AM, TimeFrame wrote:
What's sad is that same thing can be said about a religous person trying to talk some sense into an athiest. But i dont see a lot of religous people being dicks and saying, "hey you pathetic athiest, your logic is flawed, let me help you".
Believe it or not, i dont like religous people who wont leave someone alone when they guy says "no thanks, im fine where i am".

Yeah... dicks are dicks, whoevers side they argue :/

I base my logic of what i take in around me and my beliefs.
Acually, the only reason why i care is because some athiest punk is trying to be a pethetic asshole. I always try to avoid this topic unless someone has a question, or there's some moronic religous or athiest person who thinks he/she's always right and starts being a jerk.

See above >.>

I shouldnt have put the word meaningless. what i mean is that after all the good and hard things you do, all you get is nothing in the end.

Fair enough. Personally I would LOVE to be able to believe in a god. Unfortunately, I'd have to leave either my logic and/or free will behind. And for that very reason. Nonexistance scares the bejeezus out of me. I'd almost prefer finding out I was wrong and chilling (despite all accounts, I do believe Hell would be cold, not hot, but that's another thread) in hell than to simply end. But I have a feeling that the true nature of the universe and consciousness is something completely different that we currently imagine.

im sorry i put worthless, i was kind of pissed at the time. Id just rather think of getting something in return for all of the good things i do instead of laying there rotting away in the ground.

Meh, it's the journey, not the destination that is the reward. I understand people's need to believe that death is not the end. Hell, I feel it myself. it is rooted in our most primal survival instincts. It will be interesting to find out what really lies on the other side (if something does).

I'd also like to thank you for arguing a position oppsed to mine in a calm and rational manner. There is so little of that nowadays... especially on this board... which I guess is what brought this up in the first place. >.>

Cheers!

At 6/6/05 01:34 PM, The_Happy_Cheese_Guy wrote:

At 6/6/05 01:32 PM, Ravariel wrote: I find it amusing that you diss LB, then put SoaD and AFI as bands that are good.

XD

<3 Irony.

SOAD and AFI have a good sound in their music and don't rely on a cheesey DJ beat along to crap lyrics before having a short guitar riff with no imagination and an unrelated chorus.

Got you there :P

I mean, I guess you could like their "sound"... I personally find both their lyrics and music to be shallow and annoying. Swear to god, if I hear the line "sacred silence" one more time, I'mma smash my radio. I'd also like someone to teach SoaD something about musical cohesiveness. They have none (and you're the one talking about unrelated choruses... have you HEARD SoaD's new single? "INSERT CRAZY ARHYTHMIC POLITICAL SCREAMING HERE FOR THE VERSE" Chorus, lets have a smooth and groovy: "Everybody's going to the party, have a real good time." wtf?). AFI just blows. Seriously. You may sympathise with them, just as I loved power ballads when I was growing up. It's what teenagers do... grab all the angst in popular music that they can and say it's the greatest thing ever. You're 14... take some time to listen to some real music. You'll see where these bands are lacking very quickly.

At 6/7/05 12:53 AM, Ravariel wrote:
And I think the word you're looking for is "ignorant" becaus ethat is WAY more apropriate. though I have to admit, "incompetent" doesn't exactly miss the mark.

orz... self-pwn'd.

Ahem: And I think the word you're looking for is "ignorant" because that is WAY more appropriate. Though I have to admit, "incompetent" doesn't exactly miss the mark.

Go spelling errors in a grammar-nazi post. I'll be leaving now... >.>

At 6/5/05 09:37 PM, Dinodoode wrote:

At 6/4/05 11:27 AM, Captainstarbucs wrote:

The Earth was probably a metorite that was pulled into the suns gravitational feild and from the new source of heat became a giant sea of molten lava. over time the magma cooled and formed the continent of pangea. Then oceans formed and the microscopic bacteria evolved over millions and millions of years into the prehistoric lifeforms and the continents split into the familiar ones we have today and evolution lead up to humans who (in shear stupidity) made gods to explain the ways of the earth (example: animals, rain, sunshine).

Yeah... only no.

Where do you get your info? Seriously... the Earth a Meteorite? X to the D. Sorry, buddy but a meteorite would not have the required makeup to create life. Nevermind entering the solar system on the EXACT plane of the ecliptic. No, the Earth was formed when the solar system was formed (though I think either Neptune or Pluto, cant remember which, has an orbit off of the plane of the ecliptic, so is most likely an astral body picked up in passing).

At 6/6/05 10:53 PM, TimeFrame wrote:
Why the hell is it that when we find something similar between 2 species, we think they have a common ancestor?

Because they usually do.

"Hey, this flying thing has feathers wings and a beak... might it be related to this other flying thing with wings feathers and a beak?"

"I dunno George. Just kill it and help me build this cross."

"Durp a durr. Ok."

Humans are poorly physically built but our brains evolved. We learned how to creat. God is a fricken thing that MAN created!

Another thing i dont understand, why the hell does it bother some athiests that others believe in God? I mean, according to them there really isnt anything after death usually so what's the point in arguing with religous people? I mean, you're always about freedom yet it bothers you so much. why?

Because you claim it's logical and makes sense. Logic is usually the driving force behind the mind of an atheist/agnostic (some are just as nutty as the psycho-exztremist religious folk, but we all have our Uncle Eds)... We try for a bit to talk sense, but most religous folk will have none of it. One friend of mine basically put it this way: Your logic is perfect, but I believe anyway. that I can accept. What I have a hard time accepting is people claiming there's logic behind their beliefs. And while I can't speak for others, the reason I care about this argument is the same reason you care about yours. I want you to see the true nature and wonder of the universe.

My God, you are incompitant prick.

Heh... irony.

And I think the word you're looking for is "ignorant" becaus ethat is WAY more apropriate. though I have to admit, "incompetent" doesn't exactly miss the mark.

You rot in the friecken ground.

well if you want to believe that life is pointless, go right ahead. You know what's cool about religion? That you dont have to fear death, i mean, how cool is that? Do you really just want to go thru life and then have everything you've ever accomplished be worthless?

Well, umm... if you say so. I don't really understand why people think that their actions will only have meaning if they are able to watch the consequences afterwards. The point in life is to GIVE it a point. You make your own worth. You don't follow some predetermined path to heaven or hell. You get X amount of years to learn/be/do the most that you can and try as hard as you can to have a blast doiing it. If you call that worthless, than I really do pity you.

And you don't fear death, eh? I'd bet all of the internet cookies in china (gogo mixed metaphors) that if someone mugged you at gunpoint you'd beg for your life as tearfully and hard as any atheist. Few people are so comforted by their faith that they truly do not fear death... and most of them aren't christian. Hell the Pope drove around in a bullet-proof limo. If he's afraid of getting capp'd... what the **** chance to WE have?

Way to own, Twinx0r!

*cheers*

I find it amusing that you diss LB, then put SoaD and AFI as bands that are good.

XD

<3 Irony.

At 6/6/05 02:39 AM, capn_g wrote: The thing I find most interesting and indeed somewhat disturbing is that once you get down to the subatomic level you find the universe is made of mostly nothing. Much like space itself, vast tractless expanses of nothing occasionally dotted with stars or gases but otherwise nothing. It's just really weird and it gets weirder and more unsettling the longer you think about it.

What's even weirder is what happens in the nothing. >.>

The more nothing you have the more somethings are about to happen. Particle/antiparticle pairs spontaneously created and mutually destroyed... dark matter and energy... spooky stuff.

At 6/6/05 02:50 AM, TurnipClock wrote:
When you split the nucleus of an atom you have an nuclear explosion :P

the thing about the ten dimensions is wrong, so far science is trying to prove the existence of a fourth dimension. grammar would help it to be read easily.

The fourth dimension is Time. And yes, it acts just like a physical dimension for the purposes of the math. Look into Light Cones for reading material ont he subject.

Sorry for the double-post but this was posted while I was typing.

At 6/6/05 01:47 AM, darknezz1 wrote: It was kind of hard to read your post. But, there is no question, or arguement to be made. It seems like you're trying to let people know about this. Which is good becuase it edgucates people, but at least try to challenge someone with the theory. I wish you could edit posts becuase I would have suggested it but you can't. So maybe you should make a post after mine that says "I challenge (insert person, group here) against the theory.

Werd to the post editing... The rest... meh. I wouldn't try to challenge any groups, religious or otherwise with this. They have th ultimate inarguable trump card: omnipotence. Ends the argument posthaste without even having to be right or give evidence :/

But there are more than Ten universes (I think), where there is space, there is something. There can't be nothing where there is space. It would then come to the question what is outside of these ten universes? Is there nothing? If we walked out side of the outer universe, what would happen?

Actually I don't think that there is a limit to the number of other universes currently theorized. Most models happen to have an infinite number. And I think they've even calculated how close the next one with human (yes, HUMAN) life is. Man I wish I could remember which book I read that in, so i could point people to it. Absolutely fascinating stuff.

But this should be left to the people who know physics (or at least can explain things in scientifical equation better to explain this. Or a model.

Oh, jezus... you want the MATH!? Crap, I have a math minor and I can't even scratch the stuff you need to discuss this. Yeah, it's hard talking about it in layman's terms... even my spin example is only... sorta explained right. There's a lot more mechanices to it than I put forth... but again, even I'm a little fuzzy on the math (especially since it's been years since my last math class).

Also, we should talk sometime more, if you know any forums that deal with this post the site up so everyone can check it out. Or even just a site.

Hell yeah... if anyone has one that's not filled with crazy-level equations, yes, please do post it. I'd love to see one. It'd be nice to discuss physics again, instead of Dubya and religion.

Yeah, only string theory goes beyond 4 dimensions... and there are multiple theories that require differrent numbers of dimensions. Work has been made on a unifying string theory that uses parts of all of the other ones, but most scientists agree that String theory has gone about as far as it can. It's a useful tool for understanding some stuff, but is not a real working model for universal mechanics.

And if you think that protons popping in and out of existance is fascinating, think about electrons. An electron is NOT a particle. Well, that's not entirely true. It shares the same wave-particle duality that light does, and we've seen them (in particle form) when we blast one off of an atom in a Supercollider. But when on an atom, it is merely a cloud of varying probabilities based on its current energy level. It's basically a little cloud of maybe. it might be here, it might be moving in this way... we can't tell. But the probabilities point in varying degrees to here, here, and here, moving in this way, or maybe this other way.

Let's think some more about electrons. Spin, for instance, is a feature of electrons (and other subatomic particles). There are 3 types of spin, Spin 1, 2 and 1/2. Spin 1 requires a 360-degree revolution to reach it's starting point. Think of the globe, spin it 360 degrees and you're back where you started, savvy? Now spin 2 requires only 180 degrees of rotation to return to the starting point. Whataminute, what? 360 is the full rotation, how can something only spin 180 degrees and be back in it's starting position? Well, think of it like a playing card. If you hold it by the center, and turn it upside down, it looks the same as when it did when you started, and you only turned it 180 degrees. It is similar with electrons, only they dont just LOOK the same, that IS their starting state. Now if you think that's weird, spin 1/2 will rock your world. Spin 1/2 requires 2 full revolutions to return to the starting state... that's right, 720 degrees. It has to spin TWICE to end up where it started (why scientists labeled them backwards is a mystery to me). Imagine a circular Mobius strip, where you need to travel 720 degrees to reach your starting point... but then try to imagine something that has to spin that far... absolutely amazing.

And that's not even half of the coolness of spin. There can be a positive or a negative modifier, and the math for it is... intense to say the least.

For those interested to know a little more about the universe without taking 10 years of college level math, I would suggest A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. The book is a little dated, and some of what is in it has since been disproven (such as the occurrence of the Big Bang, and the "blackness" of black holes)... but it gives an excellent introduction to the wonders of theoretical physics. And all with only a few equations (namely E = mc squared).

At 6/4/05 11:42 AM, revexe wrote:

At 6/4/05 03:00 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 6/3/05 09:13 PM, revexe wrote:

At 6/3/05 03:23 AM, Ravariel wrote: God only created ONE path for each person.

I think you just avoided your blasphemy situation.

Well, boy am I relieved to hear that. >_>

I´m telling you damn it! We CAN NOT know, so shut up.

I'm not talking about knowing, I'm talking possibilities. Stop avoiding the question.

Is all based on miracles? I´m talking about Jesus and apostols teachings, they are all based on logic and the proof of that is that if everyone follow his teachings this would be a perfect world. Besides, you are confusing the logic concept on miracles, I think you mean "cientific explanation" dont you? Cause I can see logic in miracles since I believe in God.

WHAT proof? "The bible says so" is not proof. In fact, I find much of the christian morality to be absolutely abhorrent. Exclusive, elitist, bigoted and all-around intolerant. If everyone followed that code, our society would be one of the most closed-minded and intolerant ones ever concieved.

Are you so sure that I only believe trough faith? Of course, I have always believed in God, I knew it was too obvious. But some time later, I was able to see a miracle, besides, I ´ve met some magicians able to make miracles in the name of God (Of course, I know how they prepare to do such a miracles and is forbidden). But the fact they can do it is proof enough of God´s existance. I can tell you, we can see God´s miracles everyday, you can see the sky, the birds singing to God every morning, the sunrise and sunset, all of those miracles of God are proof enough of his existance.
I bet your inferior logic will reject this.

There is no such thing as "inferior" logic. Logic isn't bent around a person's personal beliefs. Logic is truth in its most basic form. It is cause and effect. It is MATH. Math =/= science. Science uses math, yes, but math is the basically the language of the Universes Operating System. If A then B. Not If A then sometimes B. Not A = B, B = C, C =/=A. IF A, THEN (always, no esceptions) B.

You believe what you believe with no proof. You saw things you couldn't explain... and have attributed their occurrence with the influence of God. You call it logic, I call it faith. Faith and logic are, as we have already shown, almost completely mutually exclusive.

According to your undelevoped mind, yes, it is impossible.
BESIDES, how can you theorize about God if you doubt about his existance?
God himself told us we DO have freewill. And God has infinite intelligence so, you fail.

By that reasoning, humans are not bound by logic... and nor is the entire universe we live in. Only by forsaking the very nature of the universe that created us can such a statement actually be true. If you believe that this universe has no logical laws, and that logic does not apply to us, then we're done here. I cannot argue logic to someone who claims that no logic actually exists.

Your points are moot. You fail. Your ability to completely ignore arguments is stronger than my will to repeat them in different ways until you understand. Good day sir, feel free to have the last word... Cheer with Afflix and VCV about how you've beaten back the dreaded agnostic through sheer force of will/pigheadedness. Congratulations, I will not be returning.

On a completely unrelated note, I typoed math up there and said "Meth is basically the universes operating system." Now THERE'S a topic for discussion. >.>

At 6/3/05 09:13 PM, revexe wrote:

At 6/3/05 03:23 AM, Ravariel wrote: God only created ONE path for each person.

According to who? you?, well, according to the apostols we DO have free will. Are you saying your logic is a lot better than Jesus logic? Cause Jesus teached them everything they must know and ALSO he gave them the holy spirit. Are you saying that Jesus toughts combined with the holy spirit are inferior to your logic? That sounds like blasphemy to me.
You should read the bible sometimes.

I'm not usually a grammar nazi here, but I have to say: the word you're looking for is "thoughts". Toughts is too close to a typoed taught (past tense of teach) and I've had to double-take a few times reading your posts.

Thought =/= logic. Logic is not personal. It does not change depending on who says it. Logic is the thought pattern that guides us from one truth to another. Logic dictates that if someone has observed my actions prior to them happening, then those actions are predetermined. God has observed my actions prior to their occurrence. Thus God has (even indirectly) caused my future to be predetermined. If my future is predetermined free will is an illusion.

That is logic. "We say this so it's true" is not.

Oh damn it! I seriously doubt you are over 140 IQ. I said we dont know what eternity is. Why are you saying that Im saying eternity could have time? I never said that. geez.

So it can't have time? Make up your mind. Is there a POSSIBILITY that it has time? or are there no possibilities because it is "eternity".

Blind faith? Jesus and apostols teachings are pure blind faith!? (Confirmed, you are not above 140). The all of that is based on logic. Highlight one single Jesus/apostols teaching wich´s not based on logic.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! The bible is based on logic... whoo... that's a rich one! XD I especially like the dig about belief in god having something to do with IQ. And they say there's no humor in the politics board!

There is no proof of god. Thus there can be no logic that points to his existance. NONE of the bible is based on logic, it is ALL based on miracles (events which defy all logical explanation) and hearsay. Since the only possible reason you can believe in something that has NO logical basis is through blind faith (or, just faith if you're insulted by the "blind" part, whatever), then yes, it IS faith. You have no proof, yet still you believe. That is the basest definition of faith.

God is omniscient and I have no free will = possible.
God is omniscient, but bound by time and I have free will = possible.
God is NOT omnisceint and I have free will = possible.
God is something completely different than anyone thinks = possible.
God doesn't exist = possible.

Take your pick.

(note, I believe in free will as blindly and far more strongly than you believe in your god, so while the nonexistance of free will is technically possible, it is abhorrent to my mind)

afliXion already answered this

Except, that Onmiscience + free will = IMpossible. Which has been my entire point this thread. Until you can prove it IS possible, then I think we're done here.

At 6/3/05 08:31 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 6/3/05 08:01 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 6/3/05 05:13 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

::

How did we not choose to sin in the Garden? Though Satan tempted Eve, it was her decision to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil... no one else's. We can't just blame it on Satan saying, "The devil made me do it!" God holds us accountable for our actions.

I did not eat the fruit, nor did you. An ancestor however many years ago did, and yet MY soul carries that stain. Had I lived a completely sinless life, I still would not be considered sinless... and for sin I did not choose. My point is that if that sin can affect me, a sin done out of ignorance can, too. To put it another way: Sociopaths have no concept of right and wrong. If they sin, they don't know it's a sin by their very nature. Is what they do then considered a sin? Or do they get a pass because they didn't know they were sinning?

At 6/3/05 05:13 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:
If we don't understand that what we are doing is wrong, then I don't believe God considers it sinning. From my understanding, sinning is willfully doing wrong, not just doing wrong.

2 words: Original Sin.

If we bear the stain of a sin we did not choose, we certainly bear the stains of the sins we chose in ignorance.

At 6/3/05 12:33 AM, revexe wrote:
Yes, and that carve of wood has many paths, just as many endings, God know´s all of those endigs, but he granted us the opportunity to choose what we like more.

God only created ONE path for each person. To create multiple paths for us to choose between would imply that he didn't know which we would choose. I'm fine with this concept... are you?

Ok, fine. The combination of eternity and omniscience, still you missed the point. We dont know how eternity is, we cant get those conclutions.

So you're basically saying that eternity COULD have time? That god, himself is bound to a temporal pace? Because the only way for what you claim to be true is for god to be bound, as we are, to time, or for his knowledge to be limited.

Oh! there are! In my last post I gave you a verse. Jesus tells to Peter to remain strong. He also tell him to guide people. And there´s also some intersting verses.

Acts 14, 16-17
"who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways . Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness."

1 Timothy 2:3-4
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Couldnt be any clearer.

So basically, because the Bible says something, it trumps all possible logic? Blind faith in a bottle... right there. Sorry, I choose reason over believing an obvious fallacy anyday.

Oh, and hitting page 2 does not constitute a dead thread. God forbid (heh) someone come in here and skewer your faith with reason. BTW, Aflixx... I asked a couple questions to you that got preempted by my discussion with revexe... i'm still interested to hear you opinions on the possibility of God being temporal, which could change the entire direction of our discussion.

But if you want to kill the thread then so be it. You can continue to believe what you do, I really don't care. Just don't come around and claim it makes sense or is actually possible by the laws of logic. I will continue to disbelieve the impossible, and instead keep my mind open to all possible explanations. Until one of you can come in here and give me a real reason (i.e. not bible verse, as I find that to be nothing more than hearsay) as to how this paradox can be solved, I will continue to argue the point.

God is omniscient and I have no free will = possible.
God is omniscient, but bound by time and I have free will = possible.
God is NOT omnisceint and I have free will = possible.
God is something completely different than anyone thinks = possible.
God doesn't exist = possible.

Take your pick.

(note, I believe in free will as blindly and far more strongly than you believe in your god, so while the nonexistance of free will is technically possible, it is abhorrent to my mind)

At 6/2/05 01:00 AM, revexe wrote:

God is eternity you idiot. Eternity and time are unequals, so until you know what´s eternity is stop saing illogical stuff.

I'm not the one saying illogical things. I am asking illogical questions, yes, to someone who claimed that omniscience didn't require knowledge of the future. Please read more carefully.

omniscience...in spanish is "omnipresente", there´s the word "presente" wich means present.

Present as in present tense (time), or present at is "he was present at the party" (place)? Gotta love English sometimes... -.-

To be such is to see ALL time as though it were the present.

Hold on, I´m not sure to understand this words (That´s it! I´ll study english!). But as far as I get it, looks like your confusing eternity. Some people think that eternity is just an infinite amount of time, wich is wrong, is totally different, wich make´s it impossible to argue about it since our life, our universe, is runned by time.

No, eternity is not an infinite amount of time. It is a difficult concept to put into words because of the nature of our universe, and the omnipresence of time. Let me try to put it another way. God, being outside of time (eternal) means that the beginning of the universe is the same to him as the end of it. If you can visualize the universe as being a length of ornately carved wood, that God has created (metaphor time!). One end of the sculpture represents the beginning, the other end is the endd. Each grain of wood describes the path that a human will take in their life. Now, to us, traveling from one end to the other takes many many years, but to god, it's just another part of the sculpture.

We're arguing the same point here, I'm sorry if my words didn't make that clear to you.

The combination of the two make any free will illusory, because every choice we make has been seen to occur,

What two? time and eternity? but if we dont know how´s eternity, how could we argue about that?

The combination of eternity (god) and omniscience.

So, according to your theory, God controls us, we are puppets. Right?

God created our paths when he created the universe. To us, it seems like we have free will... and in fact there is no way for us to be able to tell if our choices are, indeed free. But if God has the characteristics he must have, then our free will is an illusion. God might not control us like puppets, per se, but he built the maze with only a single solution for us to run through like mice.

Basically, the train of thought is this: Since god has infinite intelligence, he knew where everyone would end up even before he created the universe.

Heaven or hell. Our choice. Challenges in life are to strength our spirit.

Might seem like our choice, but the outcome was determined long before we ever actually got to make our choices.

And considering the number of people who qualify for entrance to heaven by his laws (and by scripts in the bible that aflixxion has already posted)

"considering the number of people who qualify for entrance to heaven by his laws", what laws? If you see the post quoted to aflixion you´ll see what laws. The most important thing you need is love.

No, the most important thing you need is faith. Tons of people are filled with love, but, by not being christian, do not qualify for entrance to heaven.

... well, I'll let you puzzle that over yourself.

puzzle? But is very simple.
God does not controls us, is very simple, otherwise; why would he send many people, including his son, to make people change?. why would Jesus pray for our faith? Read Luke 22:31-32. why would he waste his time on doing so?

That's an excellent question. It points to the possibility that god is one of two things:

a) Temporal (bound by time) and/or
b) Has limited knowedge

Because the combination of atemporality (eternity) and omniscience requires our paths to be predetermined, these actions are, indeed, illogical. So what conclusion can we draw from this? That one of the supposed characteristics of god must not be true.

Why would God say "stay strong", "Dont let them decieve you", "have faith", etc. Would be better to say "Do as you want, do as think you should do, you are destined to hell/heaven anyway".
"Is the process, it´s the way it works" you could say.
Can you imagine how boring would be totally alone in nothingness like God did before the creation? Well, he created all of it including man, so he could share with him. Now, if you want to share some time with someone, would you share it with a programmed robot??
He granted us freewill, or life has no meaning.

"before the creation" has no meaning. Time doesn't exist outside of the universe. One can't get bored, because boredom implies time passing with nothing to do.

I'm sorry, but the logic is inescapable.

ahh, I remember people back then, they used to say that the earth was flat, "is obvious the earth is flat" hehe

That wasn't logic, this is. There was plenty of evidence to be had that the Earth was round (it's shadow on the moon, sails disappearing over the horizon after the keels of boats had. That people didn't look logically at the evidence isn't my fault. The evidence in my argument is plain as day. If god exists exactly as he is supposed to, then our free will is an illusion. If our free will is, truly, free, then god's characteristics MUST be different than stated. You can't have it both ways.

At 6/1/05 03:09 PM, revexe wrote:

Let me ask you a few straight up questions: Do you believe god to be a temporal being? Do you believe him to change over time? Do you believe he ages (i.e. is older now than "when" he created the universe)?

Answer those to yourself before reading the next paragraph (I'd be interested to hear your answer, too).

God is eternity you idiot. Eternity and time are unequals, so until you know what´s eternity is stop saing illogical stuff.

I'm not the one saying illogical things. I am asking illogical questions, yes, to someone who claimed that omniscience didn't require knowledge of the future. Please read more carefully.

*sigh* I wonder how´s your IQ.

Petty insults only diminish any point you might have.

And for your information, I don't know what my IQ is, I've never taken the tests. But considering my level of scooling, and my ability to problem solve and think logically, i would estimate it to be between 140 and 170. Not that it matters.

God knows our toughts, our acts are based on our toughts. (You should know what I´m talking about by know...unless your IQ is as low as I tought) As our toughts changes, our actions may change and consequently our path may change, and God see this. then our path are changed until we change our mind. God can see every path we are walking trough and every possible variation; so God knows every possible path and every possible ending, you see? He granted us free will, we are not toy soldiers, otherwise It´d be unfair. Why would God send someone to hell if he knew he´ll end up like that? Dont be stupid! God have infinite intelligence; he wouldnt create teh world as you think it is. (Please try to excersice your mind). If you read my freewill/destiny topic you´ll understand a bit better (or I´ll confuse you even more)

Man, I dont know if Im clearly enough, I wish I could speak english as I speak spanish.

I think since English isn't your first language that I might have confused you with all of the temporal/atemporal stuff. God is atemporal, which means "outside of time" or "eternal" as you put it. To be such is to see ALL time as though it were the present. God is also omniscient. The combination of the two make any free will illusory, because every choice we make has been seen to occur, including every change of heart, change of mind and change of "path". There is nothing we can do to change the path we will take. Free will and omniscience are mutually exclusive.

Basically, the train of thought is this: Since god has infinite intelligence, he knew where everyone would end up even before he created the universe. And considering the number of people who qualify for entrance to heaven by his laws (and by scripts in the bible that aflixxion has already posted)... well, I'll let you puzzle that over yourself.

I'm sorry, but the logic is inescapable.

At 5/31/05 02:47 PM, afliXion wrote:

At 5/31/05 06:50 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 5/30/05 12:26 PM, afliXion wrote:

:: Your still missing the point. I NEVER said that the Spanish translation was a bad one. I did not criticize it. Not once. I would have no problem with someone post a verse in spanish. (just as long as they tell me what verse it is so I can look it up in english.) So your making the same mistake you did earlier, that is criticizing me for something that I never even did/said. Your right, I don't know the original text says.... maybe its cause no body ever posted what verse they were refering to....

And I quote: I don't care what the spanish translation says. Its not important. What is important is what the original language says. But unfortunatly I don't know where I can find out.
You can't prove your point by a spanish translation. Because that probably isn't what the original text meant.

Your words. "You can't prove your point by a spanish translation." Then stop trying to prove yours with an English one.

yes... there called adjectives. I didn't know you went to Yale.

Oh, what's that? I seem to have dropped my bag of WHOOOOSH.

I don't interpret the Bible. I just read it. Its meaning is quite clear. It requires no further input on my part. And your right, I don't have to answer to anyone else. But, the people who do interpret Scripture are in danger, for they will have to answer to God for that interpretation. For example: Revelation 22:18
"And I solemnly declare to everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book."

Everyone interprets the bible. You, me, priests, theologens, linguists, everybody. And it's funny you should mention that line of scripture... since the bible was edited by men. Holy texts written by the prophets were left out of the bible. Your holy book is not the full scripture sent by god. One wonders what are in those books that people saw fit to leave out?

Right right... cause its not like the sea was parted or God appeared in a blaze of fire during the Exodus! The inscriptions that confirm the events of the Exodus confirm the things that to you are 'unbelievable.'

Look, your source was an amazon.com page for a book. While it certainly might be interesting, my ability to buy it, read it, research its sources and the such is rather limited for the purposes of this discussion. If you wish to point out exactly the events these inscriptions talk about, I'd be happy to discuss it.

By the way, several scientific explanations have been offered as to the reason for the parting of the red sea, the most sound being an undersea earthquake. Also, any number of things could have looked like "god appearing in a blaze of fire" to simple people without much worldly knowledge. These weren't folk who could research auroras or stellar events, or even natural and geologic events. Hell, lightning could have struck a tree for all I know, and they might have thought it was god making an appearance.

Your first sentence is pretty confusing. Your just stating the obvious: your arguements are against Christianity.... *duh* thats what I said. This is kind of going in circles....

You attempted to draw a parallel between: me saying that all religious arguments can be used for any/every religion; and many different people arguing the same argument against christianity. In order to have an understandable parallel, your subjects need to agree. My subjects were religions, yours were people, they don't match up.

First let me just thank you for not responding to any of my points. *thanks*
We are responsible to choose our own path. Picture in your a real path in the woods. Each path is already paved, and already has an ending. Its just up to us which path we will choose. Try responding to what I wrote next time.

I didn't respond because you're jumping points. I have never talked about responsibility for actions. YOU made that inference (granted I'll be going there eventually, but we need to follow the logic chain in order for it to become clear). My entire point was predestination. That if God knows our path, it must be predetermined. God doesn't create multiple paths because he already knows which branch you'll take. Repicture your woods with paved paths and a fork in the road. The choice is, to you, a choice, but the path you don't choose ends just out of sight, because you were never going to choose that path in the first place.

I was just saying that for arguements sake. But even so, the origins of the word 'omniscient' are in present tense. I'm not at all saying that God is incapable of knowing everything, because God certainly does know the future. But since omniscience is present tense one wouldn't have to know the future to be omniscient.

"Omniscient" has no tense, past, present or future... IT'S A NOUN.

Let me ask you a few straight up questions: Do you believe god to be a temporal being? Do you believe him to change over time? Do you believe he ages (i.e. is older now than "when" he created the universe)?

Answer those to yourself before reading the next paragraph (I'd be interested to hear your answer, too).

Only to a temporal being would the word "future" even have any meaning. If god is atemporal (as he must be because time is a feature of the universe he created), and omniscient (again, QED) then he must know the "future" and "has known" it forever, even "before" he created it. All temporals are in quotes because it's the closest I can get to describing an atemporal state in a manner you might understand. Once you more fully comprehend the nature of time, we can discuss this further.

At 5/30/05 12:26 PM, afliXion wrote:

At 5/30/05 11:52 AM, Ravariel wrote:

So obviously all discussions about biblical texts can only be had in it's original aramaic. Shall we...?

Your not listening.

No, you aren't. My point, that you are clearly missing (or ignoring) is this: You criticized someone using the spanish translation for a definition of neighbor, and yet you write english bible verses as evidence of and for your own beliefs. That is, in it's barest form, blatant hypocrisy. You do NOT know what the original text said, only what it was translated as. And several passages have been translated horribly.

The death penalty is of course 'violent.' You ever heard of a 'pleasent' death penalty? My point was that violent was not in the passage, and it seemed to me you used it to make it look like they were killed or tortured in some inhumane way. Decapitation with the sword what be instantaneous and painless anyway.

Did you know that passages can be described using words that aren't in the passage itself? It's this handy little thing we as humans have, called language, that gives us descriptors and synonyms... as well as our ability to infer meaning not explicitly stated.

I'm not into religion. Religion is where everyone gets messed up. Thats where all the different denominations come from. Its not me. All I got is a relationship with Jesus and the Bible. Thats all you need. Anway,.. I'll give you just one piece of irrefutable evidence.

Handy, to be able to set aside every other interpretation besides your own. Noone to answer to except yourself. Real defensible position, especially considering what we've already went over about translations.

Some ancient inscriptions in the Wadi Mukatteb have been found in the Sinai Peninsula.
Theese inscriptions contained detailed descriptions of the events of the Exodus fro Egypt by the Israelites. I know you like many automatically thing it is a hoax, or something someone just put on there. Well, that can't be true because the historian Diodorus Siculus wrote of it in his 'Library of History' (10 b.c.) It was also described by Cosmas Indicopleustes, who wrote in A.D. 518 "at all halting places, all the stones in that region which were broken off from the mountains, written with carved Hebrew characters." So we have a genuine inscription that affirms my 'religion' or the Bible. Source.

I'm not asking for evidence of events, here. I'm not denying that Jesus existed, nor am I denying that he did many good works. What I deny is his holiness, that he is god/son of god. I deny his miracles as being tru miracles. I deny the timeline, as it has people living preternaturally long lives. Give me evidence of the UNBELIEVABLE things in your religion. I can prove that Siddhartha lived, I can prove that the Human forms of Shiva and Vishnu existed, that doesn't prove that Buddhism is right, nor does it prove that those people really were the earthly forms of Hindu gods. Give me proof like this:

In the Qu'ran is a passage that details the beginnings of human life, the embryonic stages of life, thousands of years before they had the ability to observe the growth of humans in-utero.

Source.

Every heartfelt arguement your making could be used by any body against Christianity as well. Who cares.

Umm... my arguments are against christianity, your attempt at a parallelism is rather confusing. I'll try this again: Every argument that it is possible to make for christianity is an argument that can be made for every other religion in existance. As every argument that can be made against christianity can be made against almost every other religion as well. Where you got the whole person behind the argument mattering at all is beyond me.

:: heh. You didn't understand. You see, the path is determined by the actions WE CHOOSE to make with our own free will. A consequence can not choose a path because it is a result of the path you choose with your own actions! Now, for arguements sake, lets say God does know what our actions will be. Tell me, if God knows our actions, how does that in anyway make Him responsible for them? If you built a time machine and saw the future would that mean you are responsible for the futures events?? Of course not. That is absurd.

You're jumping logical points here. We're not to the responsibility part yet. We are on predestination. You say: "Let's say God does know what our actions will be" as if you believe he doesn't. Is that true? Do you believe he really doesn't know what we will choose, but only sets the choices (and the consequences) up?

Again, even if God already knows where we're going, that doesn't make Him responsible. YOU are responsible for your OWN actions. You keep missing the point. If God knows what actions we will make, that does not mean He predestined them. He predestined the consequences of your actions. If our own actions were predestined, then Jesus would not have needed to come to earth and die, because it was already chosen who would believe. But no, Jesus came to earth, because we make the choice to believe in Him with our free will, and after we accept Him only then is it ordained that we have eternal life through Him.
(see Acts 13:47-49)

Again with the "if" god knows our actions. Do you really believe an omniscient, atemporal being incapable of knowing something?