Total Posts:176|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What counts as a god?

keithprosser
Posts: 2,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 8:23:58 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
What are the minimal requirements of something to be a god? The Big Bang did (in a sense) create the universe which is a job usually reserved for deities, but I don't think the BB is a god in the full sense of the word god, even if it has a debatable claim to being a 'creator'.

While I think the big beard is merely optional, I think may be a god has have 'conscious thoughts'. The BB is certainly awesome and the source of all the wonders in the world, but it was never will be conscious and won't hear or answer prayers nor welcome dead souls of the blessed into its bosom when they die so isn't a god as I understand the word 'god'.

So what is it that theists believe exists and atheists believe doesn't exist?
Skeptical1
Posts: 693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 8:28:09 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 8:23:58 PM, keithprosser wrote:
What are the minimal requirements of something to be a god? The Big Bang did (in a sense) create the universe which is a job usually reserved for deities, but I don't think the BB is a god in the full sense of the word god, even if it has a debatable claim to being a 'creator'.

While I think the big beard is merely optional, I think may be a god has have 'conscious thoughts'. The BB is certainly awesome and the source of all the wonders in the world, but it was never will be conscious and won't hear or answer prayers nor welcome dead souls of the blessed into its bosom when they die so isn't a god as I understand the word 'god'.

So what is it that theists believe exists and atheists believe doesn't exist?

How about "God is whatever it takes to give me legitimacy when I seek to impose my will upon yours"?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 8:40:23 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 8:23:58 PM, keithprosser wrote:
What are the minimal requirements of something to be a god? The Big Bang did (in a sense) create the universe which is a job usually reserved for deities, but I don't think the BB is a god in the full sense of the word god, even if it has a debatable claim to being a 'creator'.

While I think the big beard is merely optional, I think may be a god has have 'conscious thoughts'. The BB is certainly awesome and the source of all the wonders in the world, but it was never will be conscious and won't hear or answer prayers nor welcome dead souls of the blessed into its bosom when they die so isn't a god as I understand the word 'god'.

So what is it that theists believe exists and atheists believe doesn't exist?

The consciousness from which all other things came from.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 8:51:00 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 8:28:09 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
How about "God is whatever it takes to give me legitimacy when I seek to impose my will upon yours"?

There is that, but I have come to realise that religion cannot be explained so rationally as a being primarily a means of social control. Quite simply - tho' its hard to believe - some people actually do believe in god. It isn't faked or a veneer - it is built into their very being that god exists.

It is also notable that societies that practice the greatest level of social control are communist states such as Stalin's Russia and N Korea explicitly eschew theistic religion as a tool.

In Catch 22 Yossarian argues with Lt Scheisskopf's wife about the sort of god they disbelieve in. She says '[T]he God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He's not the mean and stupid God you make him out to be."
What sort of god do/don't you believe in?
keithprosser
Posts: 2,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 8:53:41 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 8:40:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The consciousness from which all other things came from.
Does that mean a god has to be conscious?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 8:58:42 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 8:53:41 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 11/23/2016 8:40:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The consciousness from which all other things came from.
Does that mean a god has to be conscious?

Yeah.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 9:05:02 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 8:23:58 PM, keithprosser wrote:
What are the minimal requirements of something to be a god? The Big Bang did (in a sense) create the universe which is a job usually reserved for deities, but I don't think the BB is a god in the full sense of the word god, even if it has a debatable claim to being a 'creator'.

While I think the big beard is merely optional, I think may be a god has have 'conscious thoughts'. The BB is certainly awesome and the source of all the wonders in the world, but it was never will be conscious and won't hear or answer prayers nor welcome dead souls of the blessed into its bosom when they die so isn't a god as I understand the word 'god'.

So what is it that theists believe exists and atheists believe doesn't exist?

The unmoved mover.
Not a being, but being itself.
Not powerful, but power itself.
Whose nature is truth and love.

That is a good start.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 9:13:40 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 9:05:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
The unmoved mover.
Not a being, but being itself.
Not powerful, but power itself.
Whose nature is truth and love.

That is a good start.

I would say that the BB at least comes close on 1-3. Is it necessary that a god's nature is true and love? I can envisage a god who was all about lies and hate - it would still be a god. I'm not so interested in what the qualities of the Abrahamic god has had superimposed on him but what qualities an entity has to have to be a god.

Can a god have a such natures without having the capacity for conscious thought?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 9:34:15 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 9:13:40 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 11/23/2016 9:05:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
The unmoved mover.
Not a being, but being itself.
Not powerful, but power itself.
Whose nature is truth and love.

That is a good start.

I would say that the BB at least comes close on 1-3. Is it necessary that a god's nature is true and love? I can envisage a god who was all about lies and hate - it would still be a god. I'm not so interested in what the qualities of the Abrahamic god has had superimposed on him but what qualities an entity has to have to be a god.

Can a god have a such natures without having the capacity for conscious thought?

Define conscious thought.

Additionally I see no difference between the necessity of the Abrahamic God and the definition of a god.

If you can conceive of something greater than God, then what you think is God isn't.

It is a logical truism that you cannot give what you do not have. Thus God cannot be exceeded by us in any way. Thus if we desire justice it is because God is perfectly just. One can easily apply this principle to love, mercy, intellect, humility, etc.

Since God is an unmoved mover and he has perfect attributes then he must also by definition have a perfect will. Lies and hate are effectively manifestations of evil. Evil is something against God's will. As a perfect will must be unchanging in nature it becomes illogical that God would be evil.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 9:50:11 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 8:23:58 PM, keithprosser wrote:
What are the minimal requirements of something to be a god? The Big Bang did (in a sense) create the universe which is a job usually reserved for deities, but I don't think the BB is a god in the full sense of the word god, even if it has a debatable claim to being a 'creator'.

While I think the big beard is merely optional, I think may be a god has have 'conscious thoughts'. The BB is certainly awesome and the source of all the wonders in the world, but it was never will be conscious and won't hear or answer prayers nor welcome dead souls of the blessed into its bosom when they die so isn't a god as I understand the word 'god'.

The first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. So it would seem that if energy cannot be created, then it always was, and If it can never be destroyed, it always will be. Therefore, according to this law, energy must be eternal, having neither beginning or end. Energy can be and is converted to matter. In fact, this material universe at the time of the Big Bang was pure energy which has been converted to matter only to be reconverted to its original form as energy during the phase of the Big Crunch.

According to the ancient cultures, we live in an eternal oscillating universe that expands outward and contracts back to its beginning in space time, a living universal being who is all that exists, and in who, all that is, exists. A universe that exists in the two states of visible matter and invisible energy=anti-matter. "

"Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non being, and again from non being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence." ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122."

If you believe that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and "coded chemistry"? Then you must accept that it is the eternal energy which has neither beginning or end, that has become this material universe and has developed a mind that is capable of comprehending mind.

So what is it that theists believe exists and atheists believe doesn't exist?

The singularity that is all that exists and in who All exist.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 10:19:26 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 8:23:58 PM, keithprosser wrote:
What are the minimal requirements of something to be a god? The Big Bang did (in a sense) create the universe which is a job usually reserved for deities, but I don't think the BB is a god in the full sense of the word god, even if it has a debatable claim to being a 'creator'.

While I think the big beard is merely optional, I think may be a god has have 'conscious thoughts'. The BB is certainly awesome and the source of all the wonders in the world, but it was never will be conscious and won't hear or answer prayers nor welcome dead souls of the blessed into its bosom when they die so isn't a god as I understand the word 'god'.

So what is it that theists believe exists and atheists believe doesn't exist?

I predict you will receive no concrete and agreed upon definition of god.

This is the reason I do not label myself as a "strong atheist" in regards to god in general. In the past, and maybe in modern times as well, "god" didn't necessarily mean creator or all powerful, omniscient.... being. God-concepts change and morph according to the culture or individual and (barring specific falsifiable claims) there is no way to determine if any of these concepts are any more valid than others. I think it is irrational to accept an arbitrarily defined concept. Also, I consider asking for "evidence" of the arbitrary just as irrational.

To answer your question, I reject god-concepts which make testable claims and fail to deliver evidence that can be reasonably expected from these claims. Of the god concepts I'm aware of a deistic god is the most reasonable, but, as pointed out above, I consider even this to be an irrational belief.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Gentorev
Posts: 2,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 11:11:11 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 10:19:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/23/2016 8:23:58 PM, keithprosser wrote:
What are the minimal requirements of something to be a god? The Big Bang did (in a sense) create the universe which is a job usually reserved for deities, but I don't think the BB is a god in the full sense of the word god, even if it has a debatable claim to being a 'creator'.

While I think the big beard is merely optional, I think may be a god has have 'conscious thoughts'. The BB is certainly awesome and the source of all the wonders in the world, but it was never will be conscious and won't hear or answer prayers nor welcome dead souls of the blessed into its bosom when they die so isn't a god as I understand the word 'god'.

So what is it that theists believe exists and atheists believe doesn't exist?

I predict you will receive no concrete and agreed upon definition of god.

This is the reason I do not label myself as a "strong atheist" in regards to god in general. In the past, and maybe in modern times as well, "god" didn't necessarily mean creator or all powerful, omniscient.... being. God-concepts change and morph according to the culture or individual and (barring specific falsifiable claims) there is no way to determine if any of these concepts are any more valid than others. I think it is irrational to accept an arbitrarily defined concept. Also, I consider asking for "evidence" of the arbitrary just as irrational.

To answer your question, I reject god-concepts which make testable claims and failyou believe that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and "coded chemistry"? to deliver evidence that can be reasonably expected from these claims. Of the god concepts I'm aware of a deistic god is the most reasonable, but, as pointed out above, I consider even this to be an irrational belief.

I believe that it is irrational to think that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and "coded chemistry" in the short period of a mere 14 billion years? What say you?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 2:34:31 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 11:11:11 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/23/2016 10:19:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/23/2016 8:23:58 PM, keithprosser wrote:
What are the minimal requirements of something to be a god? The Big Bang did (in a sense) create the universe which is a job usually reserved for deities, but I don't think the BB is a god in the full sense of the word god, even if it has a debatable claim to being a 'creator'.

While I think the big beard is merely optional, I think may be a god has have 'conscious thoughts'. The BB is certainly awesome and the source of all the wonders in the world, but it was never will be conscious and won't hear or answer prayers nor welcome dead souls of the blessed into its bosom when they die so isn't a god as I understand the word 'god'.

So what is it that theists believe exists and atheists believe doesn't exist?

I predict you will receive no concrete and agreed upon definition of god.

This is the reason I do not label myself as a "strong atheist" in regards to god in general. In the past, and maybe in modern times as well, "god" didn't necessarily mean creator or all powerful, omniscient.... being. God-concepts change and morph according to the culture or individual and (barring specific falsifiable claims) there is no way to determine if any of these concepts are any more valid than others. I think it is irrational to accept an arbitrarily defined concept. Also, I consider asking for "evidence" of the arbitrary just as irrational.

To answer your question, I reject god-concepts which make testable claims and failyou believe that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and "coded chemistry"? to deliver evidence that can be reasonably expected from these claims. Of the god concepts I'm aware of a deistic god is the most reasonable, but, as pointed out above, I consider even this to be an irrational belief.

I believe that it is irrational to think that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and "coded chemistry" in the short period of a mere 14 billion years? What say you?

Believing that "mindless matter" can only result in mindless matter is a logical fault (fallacy of composition). That would be like saying atoms are invisible and anything made up of them must be invisible or individual molecules of water do not boil so a pot of water cannot boil. There are many examples why this type of thinking is faulty.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Gentorev
Posts: 2,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 4:57:47 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 2:34:31 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/23/2016 11:11:11 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/23/2016 10:19:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/23/2016 8:23:58 PM, keithprosser wrote:
What are the minimal requirements of something to be a god? The Big Bang did (in a sense) create the universe which is a job usually reserved for deities, but I don't think the BB is a god in the full sense of the word god, even if it has a debatable claim to being a 'creator'.

While I think the big beard is merely optional, I think may be a god has have 'conscious thoughts'. The BB is certainly awesome and the source of all the wonders in the world, but it was never will be conscious and won't hear or answer prayers nor welcome dead souls of the blessed into its bosom when they die so isn't a god as I understand the word 'god'.

So what is it that theists believe exists and atheists believe doesn't exist?

I predict you will receive no concrete and agreed upon definition of god.

This is the reason I do not label myself as a "strong atheist" in regards to god in general. In the past, and maybe in modern times as well, "god" didn't necessarily mean creator or all powerful, omniscient.... being. God-concepts change and morph according to the culture or individual and (barring specific falsifiable claims) there is no way to determine if any of these concepts are any more valid than others. I think it is irrational to accept an arbitrarily defined concept. Also, I consider asking for "evidence" of the arbitrary just as irrational.

To answer your question, I reject god-concepts which make testable claims and failyou believe that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and "coded chemistry"? to deliver evidence that can be reasonably expected from these claims. Of the god concepts I'm aware of a deistic god is the most reasonable, but, as pointed out above, I consider even this to be an irrational belief.

I believe that it is irrational to think that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and "coded chemistry" in the short period of a mere 14 billion years? What say you?

Believing that "mindless matter" can only result in mindless matter is a logical fault (fallacy of composition). That would be like saying atoms are invisible and anything made up of them must be invisible or individual molecules of water do not boil so a pot of water cannot boil. There are many examples why this type of thinking is faulty.
The first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. So it would seem that if energy cannot be created, then it always was, and If it can never be destroyed, it always will be. Therefore, according to this law, energy must be eternal, having neither beginning or end. Energy can be and is converted to matter. In fact, this material universe at the time of the Big Bang was pure energy which has been converted to matter only to be reconverted to its original form as energy during the phase of the Big Crunch.

According to the ancient cultures, we live in an eternal oscillating universe that expands outward and contracts back to its beginning in space time, a living universal being who is all that exists, and in who, all that is, exists. A universe that exists in the two states of visible matter and invisible energy=anti-matter. "

"Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non being, and again from non being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence." ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122."

A series of worlds following one upon the other-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it.

If you believe that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and "coded chemistry"? Then you must accept that it is the eternal energy which has neither beginning or end, that has become this material universe and has developed a mind that is capable of comprehending mind.
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 11:23:03 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/23/2016 8:23:58 PM, keithprosser wrote:

What are the minimal requirements of something to be a god? The Big Bang did (in a sense) create the universe which is a job usually reserved for deities, but I don't think the BB is a god in the full sense of the word god, even if it has a debatable claim to being a 'creator'.

While I think the big beard is merely optional, I think may be a god has have 'conscious thoughts'. The BB is certainly awesome and the source of all the wonders in the world, but it was never will be conscious and won't hear or answer prayers nor welcome dead souls of the blessed into its bosom when they die so isn't a god as I understand the word 'god'.

So what is it that theists believe exists and atheists believe doesn't exist?

This is such a good question. And some replies here are so frustrating! We are trying to find out what is it "that theists believe exists and atheists believe doesn't exist" (excellent way to put it) and people are pettily trying to show they don't believe in God.

We don't care for now whether you believe or not. We don't care whether you think there is evidence or not for God. The topic in question is, whether you believe or not, what is it that you claim to believe exists or does not exist?

The concept. Whether you believe it actually exists or not is immaterial for now. What is that concept?

God is a title. Which is why God has a name. His name is not God, just as Obama's name is not Mr. President. So what is God?

God is the only entity who is necessarily necessary. (God must exist)
God is wholly internally logical (God is non-contradictory in essence and behavior)
There can be only one God. (There cannot logically be more than one God)

Denying any of the 3 definitions above renders the concept of God illogical.

The entity God must have these 5 qualities or the entity is NOT God. The reason for this is that any deviation from this configuration renders the entity illogical.

1. God must be Omnipotent. (All power is sourced from Him)
2. God must be Omnipresent (All points in space/time must exist within Him)
3. God must be Immutable (God irreducible and cannot be increased)
4. God must be Eternal (God exists before and after all things)
5. God must be Omniscient (God's knowledge and reality are the same thing)

We don't have time to get into the logic in detail, but remove any one of the 5 qualities mentioned above and you will see that the other 4 quickly renders the entire concept illogical. (ie - an non-omnipotent "god" could not be immutable) And an entity without these qualities would essentially be no different from any other entity so then why would he be God?

When the Bible speaks of God, this is what it means.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 11:47:10 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/23/2016 8:23:58 PM, keithprosser wrote:
What are the minimal requirements of something to be a god? The Big Bang did (in a sense) create the universe which is a job usually reserved for deities, but I don't think the BB is a god in the full sense of the word god, even if it has a debatable claim to being a 'creator'.

While I think the big beard is merely optional, I think may be a god has have 'conscious thoughts'. The BB is certainly awesome and the source of all the wonders in the world, but it was never will be conscious and won't hear or answer prayers nor welcome dead souls of the blessed into its bosom when they die so isn't a god as I understand the word 'god'.
Anyone can say "god" is subjective and plug whatever they want into it.
So what is it that theists believe exists and atheists believe doesn't exist?
The greatest conceivable being....so take every level of intelligence humans recognize and a God has the single greatest example of intelligence conceptualized by the sliding scale people have created. Take the idea of what in nature is the most "powerful" thing within a particular subject matter and Gods power is the greatest conceivable example of any of those powers. I could go on based on what people use as a sliding scale to measure subjects, God is the greatest conceivable example of what the top of the scale would be.
uncung
Posts: 3,454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 12:02:02 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/23/2016 8:23:58 PM, keithprosser wrote:
What are the minimal requirements of something to be a god? The Big Bang did (in a sense) create the universe which is a job usually reserved for deities, but I don't think the BB is a god in the full sense of the word god, even if it has a debatable claim to being a 'creator'.

While I think the big beard is merely optional, I think may be a god has have 'conscious thoughts'. The BB is certainly awesome and the source of all the wonders in the world, but it was never will be conscious and won't hear or answer prayers nor welcome dead souls of the blessed into its bosom when they die so isn't a god as I understand the word 'god'.

So what is it that theists believe exists and atheists believe doesn't exist?

The God ignited the Big bang.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 12:02:37 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
The Greek word "LOGOS" which has been translated as "WORD", should be seen as "The thoughts in the mind which are to be expressed.

John 1: 1; In the beginning was the Word=Logos and the Logos [The supreme personality or controlling mind within the invisible body of God] was one with God. All things came into existence through him, by him and for him. Without him nothing exists.

The root to the word "BRAHMAN" originally meant "SPEECH", much the same as the "LOGOS" is said to mean "WORD," but our words or our speech, is merely the expression of the thoughts that are stored in the minds that are we. Both Logos/word and Brahman/speech, should be seen as the gathered information that is waiting to be expressed. The two are one and are in fact, the invisible living universal mind, in which is gathered all of the information of every universal body throughout all eternity. Brahman and Logos, should be seen as the essential divine reality of the universe the eternal spirit from which all being originates, and to which all must return.

You are body, soul and spirit. Your body is created from the universal elements, and it is activated by the universal soul, which is the animating principle that pervades the entire universal body, activating everything within the universe, from the wave particles to the subatomic particles that make up the atoms which are the building blocks of the molecules from which the universal body is created. It is to the universal soul=LIFE-FORCE, that all information = SPIRIT is gathered.

"YOU" the mind, are spirit. The body in which you, [The mind] are developing as the supreme head and controller of that body, is made up of the universal elements, which is activated by the soul [Animating life force] to which all the spirit [gathered information] of all your ancestors, human and prehuman, has been gathered in its evolution to become who you are, and that parental spirit dwells behind the veil of the flesh to the inner most sanctuary of its earthly tabernacle=tent, which is your body.

If that body in which your parental spirit dwells, were born without the sense of sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, etc, then no information whatsoever could be taken into the brain, and "YOU" who are spirit [Gathered information] could never have begun to develop and the living body, in which the parental spirit dwells, would soon die, never having developed a personality = "CONTROLLING GODHEAD" to that body, which godhead should be an obedient servant to "WHO YOU ARE."

Then of the Thee in Me who works behind
The veil, I lifted up my hands to find
A lamp amid the Darkness; and I heard,
As from Without__ "The Me within Thee is blind.".... By Omar Khayyam.
,
When the body in which you [the mind] are being formed, dies, [This is the first death] and your body: "skin, flesh, muscle, blood, bone, brain matter etc, etc," has returned to the universal elements from which it was created, all that remains, is a shadow or rather, a facsimile of YOU = the mind=spirit, that has been imprinted into the universal life force=soul, from which it will be resurrected in the next cycle of universal activity."Unless of course, the information=spirit that is "YOU" has condemned your indwelling parental spirit, "WHO YOU ARE" and is divided from the universal life-force, which is the second death. For the spirit=information that is you, can be divided from the universal soul. Hebrews 4: 12.---------"For the word of God is alive and active, sharper than any two edged sword. It cuts all the way through to the division of the soul and spirit."

Today I became the one I am, the one that I was yesterday is gone
The one I"ll be tomorrow I will be: but today I found "I AM Who I Am."

For I am who I am and may I never lose sight of the fact that I am "Who I Am" day and night
I"m not who I was nor who I will be, for "Who I Am" is the name My God gave to me.

So get behind me you Swamies, you priests and you shams
For I am true to my God, to MY God, "WHO I AM."

The term, "THE WORD OF GOD," pertains to the sense that is identical to the term "LOGOS" or the mold. The mold by which the whole sense of a thing is given. In other words, the very plan from the outset. In Sanskrit the similar meaning is given in the use of the word 'vach.' Vach means word. But in Sanskrit teachings of the Sanatana Dharma, vach has many levels. Including where the word is first considered as being in the mind as a thought, not as the spoken word or speech.

We humans, may express in our spoken words, all the information that has been gathered through the senses of our bodies in the creation of the invisible minds=spirits that are "WE". Our word is the expression of "Who we are." Your words are the expression of the spirit that is "YOU" the mind.

But the "LOGOS=WORD" and BRAHMAN=SPEECH" who are the gathered universal information=spirit of the aeons, express the information that has been gathered to the universal soul as another universal body, which is in the image and likeness to the previous universe, [The Resurrection] in which the eternal Spirit=mind has and can, continue to evolve.

You can see the intricate living body in which I the mind have developed as the controlling godhead to this body, but you cannot see the spirit that is me.
Nor can you see God! You can see the complex and intricate universal body in which He, the controlling Godhead has developed, but you cannot see the spirit that is God.

Romans 1: 18; God"s anger is revealed from heaven against all the sin and evil of the people whose evil ways prevent the truth from being known. God punishes them, because what can be known about God is plain to them, for God himself made it plain. Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature have been clearly seen in the creation, [which is the expression of all the information that has been gathered to the evolving mind in the eternal invisible being.]

In the Pseudigraphia of the Old Testament, The Lord God says to Adam, "Dust you are and to dust you must return, but when the resurrection comes around again, [The next cycle of universal activity] I will raise you and all of your seed etc." This is the reality of the resurrection.

The "LOGOS=BRAHMAN," is the essential divine reality of the Universe, the eternal spirit=mind from which all being originates and to which, all must return. The LOGOS is today as it always was, and will be into all eternity. It is the only true constant in that it is constantly evolving. Show to me a mind that has ceased to evolve, and I will show to you a mind that has ceased to exist...

John 1: 1; In the beginning was the Word=Logos and the Logos [The supreme personality or controlling mind within the invisible body of God] was one with God. All things came into existence through him, by him and for him. Without him nothing exists. In him [God] was life=personality, and that Life was the "LIGHT OF MAN".

At the close of each period of universal activity, the Godhead or the compilation of all the minds of the Most-High species to have evolved in that period, enters into Brahman or Logos, as the supreme personality of godhead. [The Light of Man] or all the knowledge, wisdom and insight gathered by the androgynous body of mankind, who is the Most High on the ladder of evolution in the physical creation, the life or controlling personality in Brahman or Logos."

To the Hindu, it is Krishna, the eighth manifestation of "Vishnu the Saviour", who enters into Brahman at the close of this particular cycle of universal manifestation as the evolved mind in the eternal evolving Brahman God."To the biblical believer, it is their indwelling Lord, to who is gathered all the spirits of the righteous, who will enter into the Logos God as the supreme personality of Godhead, the LIGHT and Life within the eternal evolving God.
Willows
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 12:44:54 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/23/2016 8:51:00 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 11/23/2016 8:28:09 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
How about "God is whatever it takes to give me legitimacy when I seek to impose my will upon yours"?

There is that, but I have come to realise that religion cannot be explained so rationally as a being primarily a means of social control. Quite simply - tho' its hard to believe - some people actually do believe in god. It isn't faked or a veneer - it is built into their very being that god exists.

It is also notable that societies that practice the greatest level of social control are communist states such as Stalin's Russia and N Korea explicitly eschew theistic religion as a tool.

You might like to visit Saudi Arabia for a while, come back, then rewrite the above sentence.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 2:18:02 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 4:57:47 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/24/2016 2:34:31 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/23/2016 11:11:11 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 11/23/2016 10:19:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/23/2016 8:23:58 PM, keithprosser wrote:
What are the minimal requirements of something to be a god? The Big Bang did (in a sense) create the universe which is a job usually reserved for deities, but I don't think the BB is a god in the full sense of the word god, even if it has a debatable claim to being a 'creator'.

While I think the big beard is merely optional, I think may be a god has have 'conscious thoughts'. The BB is certainly awesome and the source of all the wonders in the world, but it was never will be conscious and won't hear or answer prayers nor welcome dead souls of the blessed into its bosom when they die so isn't a god as I understand the word 'god'.

So what is it that theists believe exists and atheists believe doesn't exist?

I predict you will receive no concrete and agreed upon definition of god.

This is the reason I do not label myself as a "strong atheist" in regards to god in general. In the past, and maybe in modern times as well, "god" didn't necessarily mean creator or all powerful, omniscient.... being. God-concepts change and morph according to the culture or individual and (barring specific falsifiable claims) there is no way to determine if any of these concepts are any more valid than others. I think it is irrational to accept an arbitrarily defined concept. Also, I consider asking for "evidence" of the arbitrary just as irrational.

To answer your question, I reject god-concepts which make testable claims and failyou believe that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and "coded chemistry"? to deliver evidence that can be reasonably expected from these claims. Of the god concepts I'm aware of a deistic god is the most reasonable, but, as pointed out above, I consider even this to be an irrational belief.

I believe that it is irrational to think that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and "coded chemistry" in the short period of a mere 14 billion years? What say you?

Believing that "mindless matter" can only result in mindless matter is a logical fault (fallacy of composition). That would be like saying atoms are invisible and anything made up of them must be invisible or individual molecules of water do not boil so a pot of water cannot boil. There are many examples why this type of thinking is faulty.
The first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. So it would seem that if energy cannot be created, then it always was, and If it can never be destroyed, it always will be. Therefore, according to this law, energy must be eternal, having neither beginning or end. Energy can be and is converted to matter. In fact, this material universe at the time of the Big Bang was pure energy which has been converted to matter only to be reconverted to its original form as energy during the phase of the Big Crunch.

I think it might be argued the LoTs have unknown explanatory power pre-universe, but I am sympathetic to the idea of 'eternal energy'. It is conjecture though.

According to the ancient cultures, we live in an eternal oscillating universe that expands outward and contracts back to its beginning in space time, a living universal being who is all that exists, and in who, all that is, exists. A universe that exists in the two states of visible matter and invisible energy=anti-matter. "

"Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non being, and again from non being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence." ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122."

A series of worlds following one upon the other-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it.

I don't think the Big Crunch is very well accepted given the acceleration of the universe/space.

If you believe that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and "coded chemistry"? Then you must accept that it is the eternal energy which has neither beginning or end, that has become this material universe and has developed a mind that is capable of comprehending mind.

Other than your 'must', I'm okay with this.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 2:28:55 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/23/2016 8:23:58 PM, keithprosser wrote:
What are the minimal requirements of something to be a god? The Big Bang did (in a sense) create the universe which is a job usually reserved for deities, but I don't think the BB is a god in the full sense of the word god, even if it has a debatable claim to being a 'creator'.

While I think the big beard is merely optional, I think may be a god has have 'conscious thoughts'. The BB is certainly awesome and the source of all the wonders in the world, but it was never will be conscious and won't hear or answer prayers nor welcome dead souls of the blessed into its bosom when they die so isn't a god as I understand the word 'god'.

So what is it that theists believe exists and atheists believe doesn't exist?

7 billion humans... you are apt to get millions of different answers.

Agape states love... the rest people can customize :)
missmedic
Posts: 387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 4:11:35 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/23/2016 8:40:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/23/2016 8:23:58 PM, keithprosser wrote:
What are the minimal requirements of something to be a god? The Big Bang did (in a sense) create the universe which is a job usually reserved for deities, but I don't think the BB is a god in the full sense of the word god, even if it has a debatable claim to being a 'creator'.

While I think the big beard is merely optional, I think may be a god has have 'conscious thoughts'. The BB is certainly awesome and the source of all the wonders in the world, but it was never will be conscious and won't hear or answer prayers nor welcome dead souls of the blessed into its bosom when they die so isn't a god as I understand the word 'god'.

So what is it that theists believe exists and atheists believe doesn't exist?

The consciousness from which all other things came from.

When gods are given attributes, gods are given limits.
http://ndpr.nd.edu...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 6:47:09 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/23/2016 9:50:11 PM, Gentorev wrote:

The first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. So it would seem that if energy cannot be created, then it always was, and If it can never be destroyed, it always will be. Therefore, according to this law, energy must be eternal, having neither beginning or end. Energy can be and is converted to matter. In fact, this material universe at the time of the Big Bang was pure energy which has been converted to matter only to be reconverted to its original form as energy during the phase of the Big Crunch.

What is energy?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 7:21:06 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 6:47:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/23/2016 9:50:11 PM, Gentorev wrote:

The first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. So it would seem that if energy cannot be created, then it always was, and If it can never be destroyed, it always will be. Therefore, according to this law, energy must be eternal, having neither beginning or end. Energy can be and is converted to matter. In fact, this material universe at the time of the Big Bang was pure energy which has been converted to matter only to be reconverted to its original form as energy during the phase of the Big Crunch.

What is energy?

In physics: a property that can be transferred from object to object (old def: ability to do work)

In metaphysics: whatever you want it to be. Soul, consciousness, God...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 7:51:13 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 7:21:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:47:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/23/2016 9:50:11 PM, Gentorev wrote:

The first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. So it would seem that if energy cannot be created, then it always was, and If it can never be destroyed, it always will be. Therefore, according to this law, energy must be eternal, having neither beginning or end. Energy can be and is converted to matter. In fact, this material universe at the time of the Big Bang was pure energy which has been converted to matter only to be reconverted to its original form as energy during the phase of the Big Crunch.

What is energy?

In physics: a property that can be transferred from object to object (old def: ability to do work)

That doesn't say what it is. It describes a property of energy.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 7:56:03 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 7:51:13 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/24/2016 7:21:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:47:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/23/2016 9:50:11 PM, Gentorev wrote:

The first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. So it would seem that if energy cannot be created, then it always was, and If it can never be destroyed, it always will be. Therefore, according to this law, energy must be eternal, having neither beginning or end. Energy can be and is converted to matter. In fact, this material universe at the time of the Big Bang was pure energy which has been converted to matter only to be reconverted to its original form as energy during the phase of the Big Crunch.

What is energy?

In physics: a property that can be transferred from object to object (old def: ability to do work)

That doesn't say what it is. It describes a property of energy.

That's because...

What is energy?

This section covers the concept of energy itself, what it actually is. In the next sections, we'll discuss its various forms, it properties, how its transferred, how we obtain it, and how we use it.

Most of us have an intuitive concept of energy that goes something like this:

Energy is the stuff we need to accomplish physical actions such as walking, lifting a glass, heating some water, or powering a television set.

Although this definition is correct, its a bit indirect because it really only conveys to us what energy is used for, not what energy is, or even how it behaves (for example, what happens to it after you use it?). A curious person might still ask questions like: Is energy a thing? Or is it a property or a condition of a thing? How do we really define it? How was it discovered? What are its properties? These are some of the questions we will try to answer in this and following sections, as completely, briefly, and simply as possible.

With perhaps the exception of energy in the form of light, energy is not a thing per se. Rather, energy refers to a condition or state of a thing.

As we will discuss in more depth later, a book sitting on a table, for example, possesses energy ("potential energy") because of its condition of being able to fall if nudged off the table. A ball flying through the air has energy ("kinetic energy") because of its relative velocity with respect to the ground, and it also possesses potential energy because of its height above the ground.

But people speak of energy as if its a thing. Moreover, we all know that energy can be stored, bought and sold, and transported. The reason that energy has all these aspects is, unlike many "conditions" that objects may be subject to, energy is conserved; the condition of having energy is always passed from one object to another, never created anew or destroyed. In this way, energy is pretty unique among conditions.

MIT
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 7:59:00 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 7:56:03 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 7:51:13 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/24/2016 7:21:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:47:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/23/2016 9:50:11 PM, Gentorev wrote:

The first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. So it would seem that if energy cannot be created, then it always was, and If it can never be destroyed, it always will be. Therefore, according to this law, energy must be eternal, having neither beginning or end. Energy can be and is converted to matter. In fact, this material universe at the time of the Big Bang was pure energy which has been converted to matter only to be reconverted to its original form as energy during the phase of the Big Crunch.

What is energy?

In physics: a property that can be transferred from object to object (old def: ability to do work)

That doesn't say what it is. It describes a property of energy.

That's because...


What is energy?

This section covers the concept of energy itself, what it actually is. In the next sections, we'll discuss its various forms, it properties, how its transferred, how we obtain it, and how we use it.

Most of us have an intuitive concept of energy that goes something like this:

Energy is the stuff we need to accomplish physical actions such as walking, lifting a glass, heating some water, or powering a television set.

Although this definition is correct, its a bit indirect because it really only conveys to us what energy is used for, not what energy is, or even how it behaves (for example, what happens to it after you use it?). A curious person might still ask questions like: Is energy a thing? Or is it a property or a condition of a thing? How do we really define it? How was it discovered? What are its properties? These are some of the questions we will try to answer in this and following sections, as completely, briefly, and simply as possible.

With perhaps the exception of energy in the form of light, energy is not a thing per se. Rather, energy refers to a condition or state of a thing.

As we will discuss in more depth later, a book sitting on a table, for example, possesses energy ("potential energy") because of its condition of being able to fall if nudged off the table. A ball flying through the air has energy ("kinetic energy") because of its relative velocity with respect to the ground, and it also possesses potential energy because of its height above the ground.

But people speak of energy as if its a thing. Moreover, we all know that energy can be stored, bought and sold, and transported. The reason that energy has all these aspects is, unlike many "conditions" that objects may be subject to, energy is conserved; the condition of having energy is always passed from one object to another, never created anew or destroyed. In this way, energy is pretty unique among conditions.


MIT

All true, and none of which says what energy is. Once again it just describes what can be done with it.

I'll give you a clue. Nobody can tell you what energy IS.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 8:04:18 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 7:59:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/24/2016 7:56:03 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 7:51:13 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/24/2016 7:21:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:47:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/23/2016 9:50:11 PM, Gentorev wrote:

The first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. So it would seem that if energy cannot be created, then it always was, and If it can never be destroyed, it always will be. Therefore, according to this law, energy must be eternal, having neither beginning or end. Energy can be and is converted to matter. In fact, this material universe at the time of the Big Bang was pure energy which has been converted to matter only to be reconverted to its original form as energy during the phase of the Big Crunch.

What is energy?

In physics: a property that can be transferred from object to object (old def: ability to do work)

That doesn't say what it is. It describes a property of energy.

That's because...


What is energy?

This section covers the concept of energy itself, what it actually is. In the next sections, we'll discuss its various forms, it properties, how its transferred, how we obtain it, and how we use it.

Most of us have an intuitive concept of energy that goes something like this:

Energy is the stuff we need to accomplish physical actions such as walking, lifting a glass, heating some water, or powering a television set.

Although this definition is correct, its a bit indirect because it really only conveys to us what energy is used for, not what energy is, or even how it behaves (for example, what happens to it after you use it?). A curious person might still ask questions like: Is energy a thing? Or is it a property or a condition of a thing? How do we really define it? How was it discovered? What are its properties? These are some of the questions we will try to answer in this and following sections, as completely, briefly, and simply as possible.

With perhaps the exception of energy in the form of light, energy is not a thing per se. Rather, energy refers to a condition or state of a thing.

As we will discuss in more depth later, a book sitting on a table, for example, possesses energy ("potential energy") because of its condition of being able to fall if nudged off the table. A ball flying through the air has energy ("kinetic energy") because of its relative velocity with respect to the ground, and it also possesses potential energy because of its height above the ground.

But people speak of energy as if its a thing. Moreover, we all know that energy can be stored, bought and sold, and transported. The reason that energy has all these aspects is, unlike many "conditions" that objects may be subject to, energy is conserved; the condition of having energy is always passed from one object to another, never created anew or destroyed. In this way, energy is pretty unique among conditions.


MIT

All true, and none of which says what energy is. Once again it just describes what can be done with it.

I'll give you a clue. Nobody can tell you what energy IS.

No shlt. It's stated over and over: energy is not a thing it is a condition or act of a thing. This is physics not redefining a word.

I love when people don't read and try to play gotcha.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 8:32:19 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 8:04:18 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 7:59:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/24/2016 7:56:03 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 7:51:13 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/24/2016 7:21:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:47:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/23/2016 9:50:11 PM, Gentorev wrote:

The first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. So it would seem that if energy cannot be created, then it always was, and If it can never be destroyed, it always will be. Therefore, according to this law, energy must be eternal, having neither beginning or end. Energy can be and is converted to matter. In fact, this material universe at the time of the Big Bang was pure energy which has been converted to matter only to be reconverted to its original form as energy during the phase of the Big Crunch.

What is energy?

In physics: a property that can be transferred from object to object (old def: ability to do work)

That doesn't say what it is. It describes a property of energy.

That's because...


What is energy?

This section covers the concept of energy itself, what it actually is. In the next sections, we'll discuss its various forms, it properties, how its transferred, how we obtain it, and how we use it.

Most of us have an intuitive concept of energy that goes something like this:

Energy is the stuff we need to accomplish physical actions such as walking, lifting a glass, heating some water, or powering a television set.

Although this definition is correct, its a bit indirect because it really only conveys to us what energy is used for, not what energy is, or even how it behaves (for example, what happens to it after you use it?). A curious person might still ask questions like: Is energy a thing? Or is it a property or a condition of a thing? How do we really define it? How was it discovered? What are its properties? These are some of the questions we will try to answer in this and following sections, as completely, briefly, and simply as possible.

With perhaps the exception of energy in the form of light, energy is not a thing per se. Rather, energy refers to a condition or state of a thing.

As we will discuss in more depth later, a book sitting on a table, for example, possesses energy ("potential energy") because of its condition of being able to fall if nudged off the table. A ball flying through the air has energy ("kinetic energy") because of its relative velocity with respect to the ground, and it also possesses potential energy because of its height above the ground.

But people speak of energy as if its a thing. Moreover, we all know that energy can be stored, bought and sold, and transported. The reason that energy has all these aspects is, unlike many "conditions" that objects may be subject to, energy is conserved; the condition of having energy is always passed from one object to another, never created anew or destroyed. In this way, energy is pretty unique among conditions.


MIT

All true, and none of which says what energy is. Once again it just describes what can be done with it.

I'll give you a clue. Nobody can tell you what energy IS.

No shlt. It's stated over and over: energy is not a thing it is a condition or act of a thing. This is physics not redefining a word.

I love when people don't read and try to play gotcha.

Yet energy is interchangeable with matter which is "a thing". The universe is defined by the matter and energy contained within it - making it a thing. Energy is something but we cannot say what it is because you'd have to see what it is from the outside of the universe. From inside we cannot say what it is.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 8:35:51 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 8:32:19 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/24/2016 8:04:18 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 7:59:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/24/2016 7:56:03 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 7:51:13 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/24/2016 7:21:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:47:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/23/2016 9:50:11 PM, Gentorev wrote:

The first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. So it would seem that if energy cannot be created, then it always was, and If it can never be destroyed, it always will be. Therefore, according to this law, energy must be eternal, having neither beginning or end. Energy can be and is converted to matter. In fact, this material universe at the time of the Big Bang was pure energy which has been converted to matter only to be reconverted to its original form as energy during the phase of the Big Crunch.

What is energy?

In physics: a property that can be transferred from object to object (old def: ability to do work)

That doesn't say what it is. It describes a property of energy.

That's because...


What is energy?

This section covers the concept of energy itself, what it actually is. In the next sections, we'll discuss its various forms, it properties, how its transferred, how we obtain it, and how we use it.

Most of us have an intuitive concept of energy that goes something like this:

Energy is the stuff we need to accomplish physical actions such as walking, lifting a glass, heating some water, or powering a television set.

Although this definition is correct, its a bit indirect because it really only conveys to us what energy is used for, not what energy is, or even how it behaves (for example, what happens to it after you use it?). A curious person might still ask questions like: Is energy a thing? Or is it a property or a condition of a thing? How do we really define it? How was it discovered? What are its properties? These are some of the questions we will try to answer in this and following sections, as completely, briefly, and simply as possible.

With perhaps the exception of energy in the form of light, energy is not a thing per se. Rather, energy refers to a condition or state of a thing.

As we will discuss in more depth later, a book sitting on a table, for example, possesses energy ("potential energy") because of its condition of being able to fall if nudged off the table. A ball flying through the air has energy ("kinetic energy") because of its relative velocity with respect to the ground, and it also possesses potential energy because of its height above the ground.

But people speak of energy as if its a thing. Moreover, we all know that energy can be stored, bought and sold, and transported. The reason that energy has all these aspects is, unlike many "conditions" that objects may be subject to, energy is conserved; the condition of having energy is always passed from one object to another, never created anew or destroyed. In this way, energy is pretty unique among conditions.


MIT

All true, and none of which says what energy is. Once again it just describes what can be done with it.

I'll give you a clue. Nobody can tell you what energy IS.

No shlt. It's stated over and over: energy is not a thing it is a condition or act of a thing. This is physics not redefining a word.

I love when people don't read and try to play gotcha.

Yet energy is interchangeable with matter which is "a thing". The universe is defined by the matter and energy contained within it - making it a thing. Energy is something but we cannot say what it is because you'd have to see what it is from the outside of the universe. From inside we cannot say what it is.

If you are hinting at the metaphysics connection, you might be surprised I agree. I was just answering the 'what is energy' as it relates to the laws of physics. Simple enough.