Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/16/07 03:36 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 4/16/07 03:26 PM, AntiSkeptic wrote: the blind arrogance of atheism never ceases to amuse me

Look at your text and tell me who is arrogant?

Uhhmm, both of you?

At 4/16/07 03:26 PM, AntiSkeptic wrote: the blind arrogance of atheism never ceases to amuse me

Why doesn't someone just ban the Al-Queda troll already?

I mean, it is already visible from every post of his that he just going to post one liners for the rest of his posting life and fap at the attention.

At 4/16/07 03:41 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

At 4/16/07 03:36 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 4/16/07 03:26 PM, AntiSkeptic wrote: the blind arrogance of atheism never ceases to amuse me

Look at your text and tell me who is arrogant?

Uhhmm, both of you?

Yea, I'm arrogant but I'm not an atheist.

At 4/16/07 03:42 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Yea, I'm arrogant but I'm not an atheist.

;
Hey ,Brick I was in a ah discussion with a woman recently who told me I was an atheist.
I told this person that I believed in God, I just didn't think the way I was taught by my religion was correct & I held no faith in any religions views on god.

Well, you would think I grew horns & started hurling fire around. This woman who didn't even know me ,this so/self called Christian called me a 'tool of the devil, 'hoped I would burn for all eternity', it was 'what I deserved'.
It was kind of shocking actually, I have seen this type of self righteous anger on the news & the net befor but not like this whacko.
So you may not be an atheist, won't stop a whack job from calling you one.

At 4/16/07 04:14 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Hey ,Brick I was in a ah discussion with a woman recently who told me I was an atheist.
I told this person that I believed in God, I just didn't think the way I was taught by my religion was correct & I held no faith in any religions views on god.

Well, you would think I grew horns & started hurling fire around. This woman who didn't even know me ,this so/self called Christian called me a 'tool of the devil, 'hoped I would burn for all eternity', it was 'what I deserved'.
It was kind of shocking actually, I have seen this type of self righteous anger on the news & the net befor but not like this whacko.
So you may not be an atheist, won't stop a whack job from calling you one.

Acually I just made a thread about that. Or you probably know already.....

I find it funny people will instantly brand your beliefs and ideas with little to no acual contact or disscussion with you.

:)

Just stop arguing about it. You don't know. Science doesn't know. Does it really matter in the end? The answer is no.

At 4/16/07 04:55 PM, Mr-Money wrote: Just stop arguing about it. You don't know. Science doesn't know. Does it really matter in the end? The answer is no.

Well, it'd be nice to know. You're right, though. Other than gaining knowledge, it really doesn't change much.

I for one believe in th 'closed universe' theory. It says that the universe expands until a point where it can only shrink into itself. It keeps on shrinking till there's just a tiny speck of pure energy/matter. That will explode and create a new universe. Thus creating a new cycle of expanding, shrinking and exploding.

At 4/16/07 05:37 PM, Kidiri wrote: I for one believe in th 'closed universe' theory. It says that the universe expands until a point where it can only shrink into itself. It keeps on shrinking till there's just a tiny speck of pure energy/matter. That will explode and create a new universe. Thus creating a new cycle of expanding, shrinking and exploding.

Why does it seem people now a days believe in what ever the first random thing they hear at some point in there life...

I say cups are gods and who ever throws away a cup is going to cup hell.
-Founded by SuperDeagle :P

Believe it bitches.

At 4/16/07 05:37 PM, Kidiri wrote: I for one believe in th 'closed universe' theory.

;
For another idea, that is quite different & interesting check out -John G. Cramer 'Big Rip at the End of Time'.
He has some other works that are worth the time as well.

I understand it doesn't actually solve the problem of where matter and energy came from, but it does solve the issue of the beginning of the universe. And like I said, it's just a theory and I came up with some of it myself (someone probably did before me) without any research. And I don't call myself an expert on such matters.

At 4/16/07 10:43 AM, Vaebn wrote:

At 4/16/07 10:33 AM, Elfer wrote: You're right, one unanswered question invalidates all fields of science.

Actually it doesn't.

blah blah blah

O RLY THANK U SIR I DID NOT REALIZE.

At 4/16/07 11:52 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Nothing as complicated as the creation of the universe is "provable" through science. Science itself isn't even entirely certain because those theories you talk about constantly evolve and keep getting contradicted, and reiterated over and over.

And even then, a human being, who can't even fathom a minuscule fraction of the universe can't be counted upon to claim anything with certainty. Hell, humans can't even prove that we exist, how then can humans claim to prove or disprove the existence of something as complicated as God?

Humans can't even control their own destiny, anyone could die tommorow and could do nothing about it. Humans are powerless, weak, and irrelevant in the whole scope of the Universe, how can something as fallible and intangible as human thought be counted upon as "proof"?

Alright.. Although I'm pretty ignorant in the subject of matter and energy, whilst I peered through these posts, I've got a few things to say to you.

You're right about theorys constantly changing, but you speak about our species as though we really ARE weak. I'm not saying we're almighty, but we deserve credit where credit is due. Don't compare us to other, non-exsisting variables. (Intelligent life that has yet to be found)

The one thing that we have which gives us power over the other animals is the ability to realize what we're doing. A conscious, if you will. And I'm not saying that animals lack conciousness. They just have a different kind of awareness. They know when they're in danger, and they know when they're loved, and other simple feelings.

Humans have the ability to adapt to their enviornment. We're quite improvisational.. Our bodies, If trained, have the ability to dish out a great deal of energy and defend ourselves. We can adapt to intense physical conditions that may have previously been unattainable. Are we weak when compared to any of the species on this planet? In this galaxy? No. We're not. I have no idea who/what you think is "relevant" to the universe, but if it isn't us, it's nothing. Nothing but the universe itself. We all just exsist within it.

And, although a human being is quite ignorant when it comes to the universe, you might as well ask a fucking ant to discover everything about an infinite series of tunnels. It just won't happen. (Not for a couple billion zillion years, at least.) If we COULD learn about every aspect of the universe, we could easily comprehend it through a shitload of research. We just can't reach every inch of the universe, especially since it's still expanding.

Death may be common for our species, but it is for every other species as well. The only shitty tradeoff that you get for awareness is the realization of death. It is only natural for all beings to have an inexpressible fear and hatred of death.

In the future, we'll probably be able to freeze the neccessary organ for survival (the brain) and be able to duplicate it, atom for atom. I've read a VERY persuasive webpage that gave reasons as to why and why it wouldn't work. I found it very believable because it gave you both sides of the situation. But, it will EVENTUALLY be possible, meaning that we can evade death. The only way of death would be through short-term trauma to the brain, which even then may be solved with microscopic assisting repair cells, or somthing like that.

And I'm SO sure that the other 'relevant' intelligent species of the universe (wherever they are..) know every god damn thing about the universe. They don't know about us, do they? If they were so powerful, we'd be on their planet as slaves, sucking them all off right now.

I could be wrong with any of my arguments, but with the research and common sense that I HAVE, I'm fairly confident in my opinions.

At 4/16/07 04:55 PM, Mr-Money wrote: Just stop arguing about it. You don't know. Science doesn't know. Does it really matter in the end? The answer is no.

So the whole concept of decifering purpose is inevitably futile?

In that case, lets all come to my house and have a massive suicide rave!

I'll bring the glow sticks

At 4/16/07 06:06 PM, Kidiri wrote: I understand it doesn't actually solve the problem of where matter and energy came from, but it does solve the issue of the beginning of the universe. And like I said, it's just a theory and I came up with some of it myself (someone probably did before me) without any research. And I don't call myself an expert on such matters.

Many people on the forums believe that science, or the observations of seemingly objective entities, is what will produce solutions to everything. Logically, that's impossible. Everything revolves around a single postulate, which to me makes sciences no more than arts.

I actually meant for this thread to be in the general section haha

At 4/16/07 06:43 PM, pt9-9 wrote:

At 4/16/07 04:55 PM, Mr-Money wrote: Just stop arguing about it. You don't know. Science doesn't know. Does it really matter in the end? The answer is no.

So the whole concept of decifering purpose is inevitably futile?

In that case, lets all come to my house and have a massive suicide rave!

I'll bring the glow sticks

Suicide if you want. I do not need a purpose defined by a third party to enjoy life, I make my own purpose, free.

So empty us the place, we can find use for it.

At 4/16/07 06:59 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 4/16/07 09:38 AM, Vaebn wrote: A) From nothing.

If you believed in the Principle of Energy Conservation, you would know that all energy always existed, but it had to come from somewhere. It's very hard for something to just come out of "nothing". Cause and effect, and such.

But w/e, I'm not a scientist, I'm just saying.

I concur with what you're saying. Nor am I a scientist. I just believe in cause and effect myself. It's very complicated. #_#

Although there was dark matter and other simple substances before the big bang, what was there before the dark matter and such came into exsistance? If the universe has an age, then how has it always exsisted? If the universe is EVERYTHING AND ALL, how does everything that is both tangible and intangible and on all planes just "come into exsistance", or it has "always exsisted"? It's definetly not a question we'll have an answer to any time soon.

The universe may not be EVERYTHING. It may have been created by somthing bigger, and I'm almost certain that such a theory has been established.

At 4/16/07 06:59 PM, Grammer wrote: If you believed in the Principle of Energy Conservation, you would know that all energy always existed, but it had to come from somewhere. It's very hard for something to just come out of "nothing". Cause and effect, and such.

But w/e, I'm not a scientist, I'm just saying.

Yeah, well if you look at pair creation and stuff, maybe there's just a whole bunch of antiparticles out there somewhere.

At 4/16/07 07:12 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 4/16/07 06:59 PM, Grammer wrote: If you believed in the Principle of Energy Conservation, you would know that all energy always existed, but it had to come from somewhere. It's very hard for something to just come out of "nothing". Cause and effect, and such.

But w/e, I'm not a scientist, I'm just saying.

Yeah, well if you look at pair creation and stuff, maybe there's just a whole bunch of antiparticles out there somewhere.

Not a bad idea, although that'd make things even more complicated, wouldn't it? Pair creation would mean that they both contributed to their creation, or what? Even then, how did the antiparticles come into 'exsistance'? There really is no such plane as 'exsistance', then.

Am I making any sense? Trying not to confuse myself. :P

*bows* I too have had deep philosophical thoughts over pair production.

Especially the bit about when one of the virtual particles being called into existance from nothing, gets actualized near a black hole horizon and escapes. So in other words, these particles have the capability to be very very real.

Now, in order for conservation of energy to be maintained, they say that the "other" particle of the pair (that was from the other side of the horizon) aquires "negative" mass in order to compensate for the energy that was "added" to the universe with the actualization of the particle that escaped. And so it lowers the mass of the black hole.

This is the principle behind the Hawkings radiation and how black holes lose their mass. And we will see if it is true when we fire up CERN because if they don't, and they don't evaporate boy are we up for a surprise hehehehe.

But my problem, is that the universe seems to had no problem creating particles from nothing to begin with, as long as they were "self-canceling" but, waitaminute ok. I mean, that's already an act of creation of something rite. If I say that it has a "negative" copy it's all ok?

I mean, imagine then, if at the moment of big bang a "negative universe" appeared, which. That if you imagine the universe as a big wavemorph, that is exactly the opposite. Since +1 + (-1) = 0 with the same logic that is allowed in pair production someone could say that no conservation of energy law has been violated no? Since the total sum, of the closed system of the "energy" and "anti-energy" of the two universes would be zero.

Just trying to confuse flatland even further, hehehehe

At 4/16/07 10:33 AM, Elfer wrote: You're right, one unanswered question invalidates all fields of science.

Who knows though, MAYBE IT WAS GOD. Science does not preclude that possibility, it merely doesn't consider it.

Not true. Science doesn't exclude God, it just doesn't rely on God as a magic answer to anything that is not immediately understandable.

At 4/17/07 05:08 PM, TheShrike wrote:

At 4/16/07 10:33 AM, Elfer wrote: You're right, one unanswered question invalidates all fields of science.

Who knows though, MAYBE IT WAS GOD. Science does not preclude that possibility, it merely doesn't consider it.

Not true. Science doesn't exclude God, it just doesn't rely on God as a magic answer to anything that is not immediately understandable.

Well said. Science may disprove individual parts of religion to some extent, but it has not disproven the concept of God as a whole. How do you know God didn't create the universe by using the method that scientists describe?

At 4/17/07 05:21 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Well said. Science may disprove individual parts of religion to some extent, but it has not disproven the concept of God as a whole. How do you know God didn't create the universe by using the method that scientists describe?

Well, we don't know that, but we have absolutely no reason to belive that either.

How do you know that a bunch of Goblins didn't create the universe by using the method that scientists describe? Goblins could exist on another plane of existance, which is outside time and have always existed.

How do you know that somebody didn't time travel back in time and cause the big bang, again causing the time machine to be invented later and make a person go back and cause the big bang?

Lack of proof against something does not prove the possibility in any way.

Possibility that it has always existed.

Of course that isn't a good enough answer for many people who try and ask that question. So where did God come from?

The universe is made up entirely of waves, that difract in all known and unkown directions. This creates multiple worlds where anything could have happened. However, it is important to remove the concept of time from our minds and instead see the universe as a large multi-dimensional ball. In that ball we can see the big bang, the fall of the berlin wall, 9/11 and all the other events in our own history as a stream, through the much larger ball. Alongside these events are events which didn't happen in our own universe but that have clearly happened. In other words, EVERYTHING has happened.
Now, consider our universe. It is the result of our own choices and the unconcious choices of the universe. This has determined our path. The single most fundamental unit in the universe is therefore choice.
So, there could have been the choice made to allow all of this to exist. A choice so simple as "To be or not to be?"
Now, we already know that EVERYTHING happens and that every choice is made, though only one is witnessed. So the question "To be or not to be?" must imply that there is also a not to be.
Either EVERYTHING exists or NOTHING does and so the only logical choice that could be made is that both exists. Though, nothing can not exist as it has no real properties. Instead, the concept of nothing exists and it is out there, never to be witnessed or found. Imagine finding out that nothing exists; it seems so much at paradox with the fact that everything exists that it just could not be true. If we find nothing, we haven't; what we've really found is something else.

So, to conclude what became a mess of words that I'm failing to understand, everything and nothing must exist. Nothing exists alongside everything with no real purpose other than "not to be." Everything exists, because it was the only other choice that could be made. In our universe, NOTHING is an impossible concept, which is exactly why we won't find it. Everytime a computer makes a choice, it's choice is as simple as 0 or 1; the choice between something and nothing. Either can happen but we will always only witness one of them.
So when it comes to every choice the universe needs to make EVERYTHING happens and NOTHING happens. But nothing cannot happen, so we can only be witness to one of the somethings that occurs.
The simple fact that nothing is an impossibility, means that we have to exist. However, because nothing can happen in nothing, the choice to exist must come from within EVERYTHING, creating an even bigger paradox. One that I can't be bothered writing a long, worthless argument about.

Anyway, to sum all that up in simple terms:
Everything exists, because it's impossible for it not to exist. The phrase "Everything doesn't exist" really doesn't make sense but "Nothing doesn't exist" does make sense in relation to "Everything does exist."