DevilSolution

I dont understand why people need discuss religion for the justification of god. Any attempt at justifying god by religion is fallacious in terms of its definition not being your own.

The era that english language goes to war with mandarin, fails and society self destructs under the weight of 1984...... the era of epci fails......and bi-winning

what's your thought?

"Every time you move your moving through time, time is also an object constantly in motion." i suppose all you need to verify a good part of your theory is some form or mathematical proof that shows the selected text, if you can show that time has no end and began at the big bang you will be in luck, but if your not irish then..... HOWEVER time is NOT an object, objects are sets of something generally on a hierarchy and are not unique, time itself is the cause of and caused by motion and therefor acts more functionally than an object. Think of it like this, time is not like a planet, time is like the multiplication function that requires two numbers then adds the second number the first amount of times, that is it requires input and output and is not in a constant state such as an object. " And how you enter a different time dimension would recquire the technology able to bend space so much in order to enter a higher level, which would be the only way to really know what created out universe. You would see the exact second what made the atom split." multi-verse and little-verse? i like the concept and although its instinctive to think in this way (i too think this way) the technology is a far way from being reached, so this will be a theory far beyond our life times. Your attempt at saying by scaling *out* to see the cause of the atom split is interesting but i offer this to you.....what if we was able to somehow escape our own universe and observe ourself from some higher dimension, do you not think something similar to what we currently perceive may exist?, lets work with the 10th not 10-13th dimension, on the 10th perhaps we would observe something that replicates quantum mechanics, if this holds true dimensions are pointless because its a cycle, the rules or laws must be set below not above so you'd have to keep scaling inwards to an impossible level, weather or not the laws could be found the creation wont be, the creation if it existed (theres a philosophy that doesnt require creation for existence, probability plays its own games apparently) would have been a spontaneous occurrence of a basic substance in which certain laws held by the uni-verse would then take over and create more elements and eventually make way for life. "So how you can create a universe is by splitting an atom. " nien, if it keeps repeating infinitely then an atom on a smaller level too could create a universe? Start with a fractal, E=MC2 will get you the exact energy in the universe where the mass is calculable, so by splitting an atom we can calculate the expected force, put the two together and you might have something similar to what your looking for. This will ovcourse will be false because e != mc2 but theoretical scietists may give you a minute of their time.

In Norse mythology, Ragnarök is a series of future events, including a great battle foretold to ultimately result in the death of a number of major figures (including the gods Odin, Thor, Týr, Freyr, Heimdall, and Loki), the occurrence of various natural disasters, and the subsequent submersion of the world in water. Afterward, the world will resurface anew and fertile, the surviving and reborn gods will meet, and the world will be repopulated by two human survivors. Ragnarök is an important event in the Norse canon, and has been the subject of scholarly discourse and theory. NARRRRRR thor died, you seem like loki

I agree with "greatest i am", if one cannot judge god by its so called actions then its not a level playing field, god too must be accountable to the so called morals it itself created in all the so called holy books. God is however supposed to be all forgiving depending on which book you want to read which means we too could be of its contradictions. The concept of hell should never be seen as good, but it doesnt mean it wont be, from a subjective view point i could wish hell upon someone which in return makes hell good for me...ovcourse i would wholly have to believe hell exists in the first place which i dont. what really confuses me is the definition "the greatest i am" gave to god, if god is an imaginary place holder for our dreams, aspirations and idea's then why base an argument on scriptures you obviously dont follow? (if you do claim too then your contradicting yourself, scriptures do specify god as an actual being rather than an imaginary place holder) perhaps your trying to provoke a reaction from someone who holds an opposed opinion but dont forget the ONLY ammo you have is theirs. By this i mean your not going persuade someone that god is evil for punishing the innocent or ignorant or that god (as most religions depict) is self contradictory. I mean all you can do is twist what the scriptures say to contradict their belief, you do not convey your own belief which is a very .... condescending approach, you attack weak parts and leave out any good i got into a fight last week, well it was forced on me somewhat but i could have ran in retrospect, he went for me like a pitbull but i got a good punch in and put him down, i could tell he was partially intoxicated, his friend starting shouting "do it bro dont take that", the next thing i know he had a 7" butterfly knife in his hand and was approaching rapidly, without a conscious thought he was on his back with blood pouring down the nearest drain pipe, i tried to run but got knocked over by a car with extreme pressure. this is all i remember. when i went to heaven god said to me "ahhh, alas, here he is, how was hell?" i replied rather shocked "it was awful, from the moment of birth i was forced to have thought, yet the choice too kill didnt feel like mine, how can i be in heaven?" god replied to me with a smile "heaven was never a test, just a safe house for your deepest thoughts, now back to hell with you boy and be more careful what you think this time" moral of the story? heaven and hell are what you make of them......

2. A person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity sure, this is provable, the great thing is within this definition your "soul" could be bad, because ovcourse not everyone follows religious doctrines for morals and hence ones morals can act according to the *greedy algorithm* or even the old testament which as we should all know isnt exactly the greatest moral path finder. This would certainly provide evidence for us evolving a *soul* because almost every human attribute can be dissected from how we evolved, according to science the brain evolved a moral tendency and an emotional area of the brain to help us survive as a species. the above has zilch to do with religion but everything to do with science, and weather or not 2. is an agreeable definition of a soul is debatable, but im not debating it, im showing the skilled noob the proof of the pudding. number 1 has no place in science, one item is not material and material simultaneously and thats an "idea", ideas are infinite but have nothing to do with religion. perhaps a more appropriate definition of a soul is that we encompass idea's that have no proof within the place holder of "god" therefor the soul could simply be the creation of the "idea" and any "idea" that cant be proven at the present moment in time would go into the soul. Where and how we became imaginative and creative is a totally different ball game.

"Einstein once said, the past and the future are only an illusion. " <-- i dont like him much space and time constrict everything from happening at once, time therefor must have some physical rule for which its constrained too, the question about quantum mechanics and general relativity is answered when you imagine what happens if you had bernards watch, if when you click the button gravity stops we know general relativity is what controls it, if however gravity still works but the atomic clock stops we know that quantum mechanics control time...the answer i believe is somewhere in-between. Our perception of it is based on our evolution to our physical surroundings which means the flow of time or perception of such a thing is pretty much based on a built in clock that works with our gravity and sun. If however we could imagine being inside a quark or such, the smallest scalable thing that can be broken, and we now exist inside this quark, time will still exist in exactly the same way. This seems to say that the quantum world creates a much larger world BUT the rules that exist must be the same and therefor so are the results. in other words your size, your energy and your conditions will give you your perception of time, indistinguishable of what it is were calculating. if what is small is big then what results from the quantum gives us gravity and can as such to a point be described as indistinguishable (one and the same). So when we click the button on the watch they both stop because one is the result of the other and its the other is which holds the rule. the results from that are pretty strange because it would mean time is calculable too not solely but predominantly gravity and in which the quantum is almost pointless because although the rules are set from this POV, they are not lived in this POV or shall we say calculable to it. the way i understand time in my mind is simply an iteration of change, if no change occurs no time occurs, the sole cause of change in our universe is gravity (and the big bang) gravity is most likely caused by or indistinguishable from the quantum world (where the rules of physics are made) and therefor if time is the result of gravity and other forces / energy / constant and variable states it could simply be defined as an objective perception calculable to every given circumstance thats physically possible |~~{()}~~|

neither i prefer this one "Afterward, the world will resurface anew and fertile, the surviving and reborn gods will meet, and the world will be repopulated by two human survivors. Ragnarök is an important event in the Norse canon, and has been the subject of scholarly discourse and theory." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k As far as TOK goes, one can not be blamed or praised for ones instinctive nature, if it were natural of ourselves to eat from the TOK then god would have known we had no choice....which makes the whole thing pointless. I can only assert that by eating from the TOK we caused conflict externally (such as conflicting ideology's and ovcourse not taking A + E factually) this gave rise to a persons belief system or persona as such, like in old mythology, no 2 characters are the same, therefor eating from the TOK gave us individuality which could only cause external (perhaps once internal?) conflicts. "Whose interpretation of Eden do you think makes more sense and is better for mankind?" From my POV it doesnt matter which religion said what and who's right, no-one can be right if everyones wrong and no-one can be wrong if everyones right. My TOK paragraph shows theres no exact answer for whos right, its simply two sides of one story and other explanations or perceptions do exist. mankind finds it too difficult to function as a whole which also just adds to there being no right answer, the best answer i can give is that the fact we can "interpret" at all makes us very special.

AHA, oh time how we love to calculate you! Time is perception but more confusing is that its not subjective as nothing scientific is. Time therefor must have an exact perception for every given circumstance thats physical possible (which is far to complex for me to understand or attempt to explain), this would obviously include all current forces in the universe, all energy's, all constant and variable states and will all have some logical output for how time at any given circumstance would be perceived (also we require some form of conscious being for that perception). The real question about time is not how we perceive our own time, this is fairly constant and constrained to our physical conditions that we have evolved too, but moreover how we perceive other people's time. As far as the camera goes, though i dont know or claim to know about black holes i would say the video feed would be relative whats happening to the camera in the black hole, if it does slow down...so will the feed. im sure this is all speculative though, maybe it helped?

I see no "None of the Above", seems similar to an electoral form tbh The "belief" in god is the "belief" in or of existence, if by all conceivable logic one comes to the conclusion that their existence is somehow false or void of purpose or penultimately existence of life itself is pointless then generally so will their belief in a "god", there can be a good argument made for this when god is defined in these terms (existence and purpose). Personally my justification is simply my belief in my own conscious existence, this doesnt create any super natural being that must have some great design to its creation. It simply rationalises conscious existence as the highest plane of the spiritual hierarchy, hence creating a "god".....space and time constrain the rest. God is a concept we attach to the manifestation of our alter ego, its going from what *"is"* too what should *"be"* without any definite definition of what *"be"* is, we simply stamp *god* onto it and feel some sense of righteousness from it. (Religion works on a similar premise however it has a constraining undertone as well as a sense of solidarity) on a side note, the internal belief system doesnt require justification, usually the justification we use for our beliefs are sub-conscious and arent actually accessible by our conscious self. An example of this is that you have a belief that cats are intrinsically evil by nature but justification for this is un-determined, yet consciously you still dislike cats, it could be that a cat bit you at an early age, it could be an irrational fear of cats, either way you dont know why you believe cats are evil, so any justification is only a conscious attempt at explaining the sub-conscious (false assertion). Ovcourse alot of beliefs are based on conscious perceptions, such as your belief the shop will be open by 9:00am. God doesnt come into this "perceptual evidence" category, unless you know something 99.9% of the sane part of society doesnt. summary: God exist's by its own definition (each to his own) No justification of God is required (entering the sub-conscious) Religion causes a set strand of idealism which then causes conflicts without compromise (its not who's Right, but who's Left) The original question super imposes religion when declaring god (and so the seed was planted) I apologise for my bad grammar. Final note "Because it just makes sense, in a philosophical sort of way?", i presume most people would admit to being in this group but this too is false. We all subconsciously rationalise our existence and purpose its just that we struggle to understand it. So it rarely "just makes sense" but it would feel instinctively natural, your still consciously confused as to why you believe. Perhaps a more appropriate tag would be "I believe in god but i find it hard to rationalise why"

Great explanation of the thought, i think you broke it down to its simplest form and put it into words my mind would over think. After some more consideration i dont think escape velocity is being used in the same context as the theory itself specifies, i means there is plausibly(mathematically) an escape velocity from one object to another object however not in the context of everything. So it makes sense that an object can have enough propulsion and constant acceleration to exit one objects atmosphere and orbit another (forever gone) but when your talking about everything, you can look at it from an extreme view (complete expansion of every angle with identical acceleration) too %'s of mass, like 70% going in xy and 30% in zx (with any amounts in any direction but not same speeds in every direction , imagine big groups(alot less extreme)) there will be a point in time when the gravity from one side of the universe to the other becomes greater than its propulsion.((Something *can't* escape itself) & With No other objects) Supposing the universe is finite is just defining the "uni"-verse. If other versions of spontaneous existence subside elsewhere then were talking multiverses, which automatically requires the need of evidence as proof and would then make resources infinite. By saying universe im using someone else's assumption and agreeing. Im also assuming resources burn out, even dark energy, or get transferred to a different state which become obsolete under its circumstance (Frozen... carbonated) I dont feel i know enough about dark energy to give any sort of reasonable answer as to why its still accelerating the universe, personally i just put it down to misinterpretation of dark energy itself and time. Our perception of time is so tuned to ourselves that the universe could be at the very beginning of its existence, we could have 18 446 744 073 709 551 616 years left as a universe but were lucky as human's to have 60 of them, let alone 64. So were just a slow part of the explosion and were calling dark energy the impact and continued propulsion of the implosion(a force that could still be increasing). i dont pretend the above is real, but it has as much logic as dark energy (human interpretation)

What khaled said is true; im learning java and python but may have to do c++ for games. Depends what you want from the program but most higher end stuff is achievable on most modern languages and generally what you learn is directly portable although syntax and certain rules may differ. In other words for most basic tasks it doesnt matter which language you learn, infact it may be beneficial to learn both simultaneously so that you can learn yourself why a particular language is better at a particular thing (im relatively new to programming but i know both c++(#) and java give you huge library's at your disposal), i imagine familiarity will sway which language you prefer, if you learn java you will get used to doing certain tasks often.

so god must be dogma or meaningless? why cant "god" be the intermediate between what we know as far as science is concerned aswell as using our imagination to build upon it?

is this empirically correct..... god is everything...the good the bad and the ugly, yet we have some form of release from whatever we define as the "bad" by using our imagination to create something "good", could we create scientific data for this hypothesis and create a god from science?, is it possible to surpass the dogma surrounding all forms of religion by simply defining god in scientific terms as everything and then go on to say we use our imaginations to manipulate this everything? could we even go on to say that by defining god as everything in empirical terms everything is just another way of saying "everything we have learned as a combined species " , this way we dont get god confused with the unknown however we can use our imagination (generally speaking) to expand upon god....... XD

Basically most of the book defines in scientific terms why KFC is better than Mcdonalds, he then concludes his theory as using your imagination to create and collaborate with other similar minded people which then pays off in the form of sporadicating a medaclorianoid race who go to war with the medaclorianites for total domination of the energy that created the universe (ELECROLITES, as he calls them, always referenced in capitals for effect i believe) god....it wasnt that hard now was it? He also used words with "Q" far too many times, the Quickness of the Quantum Quark Quacked its way home......while Quantifying its own existence Also if your an avid reader and have a rather lucid imagination, the whole book was aucostrated in a rather monotone voice which only very slightly resembles a robot. Not that one can shout in our own mind anyway, our brains only have 1 volume.... i think hes trying to work on a theory that unifies the dimensions and energy into a single equation of relativity, i also think he took a leaf out of the wrong book made from the right apple tree.....whose seeds spread far and wide? hawking's whole persona creates a self indulgent image in my mind of a person whom required acceptance but was far too disabled too be socially adaptive and therefore used his imagination to recreate physical laws in his mind, in other words he probably cant explain a mathematical function without contradicting himself and he has no friends, the book is a good modern day adaptation for something but i dno where this is actually going so i think ill contradict myself here and say that actually hawking's was trying to define big macs as a complete opposite to Kentucky fried chicken but yet they are one and the same? what would you compare the big mac to otherwise? hawking is trying to create mathematical proof for existence by unifying the hierarchy of physics if this explanation is not up too your standard for scientific explanations then i wholly accept that my semi-retardation in the scientific framework has reached its peak and that i shall never be a true scientist, though my degree will say otherwise i guess some people may argue that computers are not science in the conventional terms of discoveries but design and creation DISCLAIMER ive not read the book...lol? i would like you too indulge me in hawking's constant if at all possible? i mean using science as a base what procedural steps do we take to come to his conclusions? what actual visual proof do we have that we cant discern as some form of illusion (in other words what equipment are we using to verify what we see) and finally this may be going 1 step too far but could you please break down the mathematical formula too its most fundamental base and explain what these numbers mean in physical terms as your defining them? something to do with black holes in the universe i believe and the release of the energy that goes into them i will be extremely appreciative of your reply and thankful at the minimum for your time reading this... :3

simply defined: a collective existence, weight is only called into play when comparisons are made and relativity deduced, i.e 1+1 holds the same space as 2+2 but 2+2 is denser ..... YO circular motion is a confusing concept ^.^

i would simply define agnostic as a belief in the unknown or probability that has not yet developed, not a belief of something definite or something undefined XD, you can create any hybrid you want i will still argue 90% of atheists are retarded agnostics .... !!??!!//##??~~~~ ~.0 ~~~~??##\\!!??!! yeh...im sure im atheist btw

beyond good is evil, good and evil dont scale in linear terms they are a circular concept, the evil only ever showed you the good. it wasnt very cryptic so i guess it must be nonsense indeed

well....it goes full circle, linear is lie and the cake was real

if its your account you should have registered a secondary email for times such as these, as well as secondary questions. In other news i hear br**e fo*c* and di*t**na*y something or others work....slowly

Why thank you my good fellow. Now i just need to know how to drop the word in the right context

dawking defines the difference between knowing and thinking you know, 90% of people claiming to be atheist simply dont know that with better education they would be more fitting to an agnostic ideology. It is simply presumed by the masses that without a solid belief in a religion you are an atheist, most dont usually take it upon themselves to build from a lack of belief to a strong personal belief.