You can say that it has always been there, but if you really, really think about it, matter had to have come from somewhere, at least that's what makes sense to me. I'm just curious as to your theories of how it came into existence *assuming it hasnt always been there*. Note, it may have always been there, I guess I'm just curious as to explanations of how it could have come to be if that's how it occured. Thanks!

P.S. I'm new here :D Hello everyone!

Originally posted by Zelicaon
You can say that it has always been there, but if you really, really think about it, matter had to have come from somewhere, at least that's what makes sense to me. I'm just curious as to your theories of how it came into existence *assuming it hasnt always been there*. Note, it may have always been there, I guess I'm just curious as to explanations of how it could have come to be if that's how it occured. Thanks!

P.S. I'm new here :D Hello everyone!
Welcome to sciforums, Zelicaon. That's quite a question you pose there. The most popular explanation is that matter came from fluctuations in a pre-existing quantum vacuum. These fluctuations are caused by virtual particles that simply pop into and out of existence.

The properties of virtual particles are described by the uncertainty principle and the law of conservation of matter and energy. In a low-energy environment, massive particles cannot borrow enough energy to exist in any quantity for any minute amount of time. This is why we do not observe the creation of these particles in our everyday life.

However, in a high-energy environment such as that which existed at the beginning of the universe, there would have been adequate energy for the creation of massive particles. Massive particles have actually been created by scientists by using high-energy accelerators. The creation of matter from nothing (a quantum vacuum), is a testable scientific fact.

Hope this helps.

In religious terms, this is a red herring. If matter came from X, where did X come from. If X doesn't need a source, why does matter?

Until we see matter pop out of 'nowhere' (quantum flux) we have no reason to assume we know the source. Now the question is just "Where'd the flux come from?"

Originally posted by Persol
"Where'd the flux come from?"
Where indeed? Some would say it must have come from a creator. But then we are left with the question of where the creator came from. Better just to wonder where the flux came from. No reason to attribute phenomena to that for which there is no evidence.

Exactly!

I don't know. Therefore?

that's easy, zelcaon- by god's spoken word did all matter come into existance
eg: genesis: and god said....

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
Welcome to sciforums, Zelicaon. That's quite a question you pose there. The most popular explanation is that matter came from fluctuations in a pre-existing quantum vacuum. These fluctuations are caused by virtual particles that simply pop into and out of existence.

The properties of virtual particles are described by the uncertainty principle and the law of conservation of matter and energy. In a low-energy environment, massive particles cannot borrow enough energy to exist in any quantity for any minute amount of time. This is why we do not observe the creation of these particles in our everyday life.

However, in a high-energy environment such as that which existed at the beginning of the universe, there would have been adequate energy for the creation of massive particles. Massive particles have actually been created by scientists by using high-energy accelerators. The creation of matter from nothing (a quantum vacuum), is a testable scientific fact.

Hope this helps.


Your understanding of matter creation is quite lacking. In accelerators, they take pre-existing particles, and slam them together, and the kinetic energy creates larger particles, using a energy to mass conversion, but one still had to start with at least two particles to begin with.

One could also look at the compton effect where a high energy gamma passing near a heavy nucleus (e.g. lead) will produce an electron, and a positron. But no particle larger that that can be produced. This is not getting something from nothing, because that one had to start out with a source for that high-energy gamma, and needed a heavy nucleus, to begin with.

the speed of light is spiritual- hope that helps.

Zelicaon:

Since you chose to post this in the Religion forum rather than the Physics forum, I take it you probably have one particular solution in mind. Do you?

I pose a question in response to Jade's Post:

Where indeed? Some would say it must have come from a creator. But then we are left with the question of where the creator came from.
Atheists argue, based on occam's razor, that if you're going to say that the creator has always existed, you might as well just say that the universe has always existed and cut out the middleman. Sure, makes plenty of sense to me, but think hard about it:

Isn't it easier to accept that a spirit/force has always existed than to accept that matter has always existed? Try to imagine an eternal force/spirit having always existed, something with no physical properties, something existing purely outside of the physical realm, and then try to imagine matter having always existed.

What I'm getting at is that it seems easier to believe that something non-physical has always existed than that matter has always existed, at least to me. Not that it makes sense, but that it makes more sense that something matterless could have always existed.

I am by no means saying that this justifies that a nonphysical being is responsible for the universe, but that there is a reason why some people feel the need to include this nonphysical middleman.

Here's a site which better explains my point:

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/WhoCreatedGod/WhoCreatedGod.html

agnostic, man's not smart enough to make up the bible

Originally posted by firingseeds
agnostic, man's not smart enough to make up the bible

But they did! Of course with the help and encouragement of Saul/Paul. That's why none of it is true.

I don't know, nor do I need to know. What I do know is that I'm a sentient, rational, logical being who lives in a vast universe filled with mystery and wonder. I live on a world where my species has risen to prominence and I live in an area of luxury. I have a billion choices with which to build my future and a long life ahead to make those choices. I have other sentient, mostly rational, sometimes logical beings to share my experiences with. I live each day trying to do what makes me happy and what I believe to be right. What more do I need to know? Who cares if matter existed forever? It's here now and that's the important thing.

The topic of this thread is a very old and rhetorical question used by theists.

Basicly the theist says "Where did the universe come from"

then the atheist has to say "We really dont know"

then the thist asserts "Well that means that not only does my god exist, but that everything in this book is true"

and assumes that questions like "where did god come from" are invalid because they are not posted in the book.

Originally posted by firingseeds
agnostic, man's not smart enough to make up the bible Just imagine the depths of wisdom and intelligence required to fabicate talking snakes, six-winged angels, giants, virgin births, suicidal pigs, and saints crawling out of their graves and strolling through Jerusalem.

the other assertion is just as mind-boggling- the earth made itself, the universe all came together perfectly, the sun and stars just slotted into place; and soforth.

exactly! man ain't got it- only fairy stories :D

Originally posted by biblthmp
Your understanding of matter creation is quite lacking.Jade Squirrel was referring to virtual particles which come into existence from literally nothing and shortly return. Their effect of their existence is known as the Casimir effect.

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/9/6

The theory that the Universe could have occurred from such a vacuum fluctuation was first proposed by Edward Tyron in 1973. The theory has been expanded upon since by such notables as Stephen Hawking who hypothesizes that the Universe is a self-contained fluctuation wherein references to "before" are simply meaningless (similar to asking what is south of the South Pole).

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=541

~Raithere

Originally posted by SyllacrosticAgnostic
Isn't it easier to accept that a spirit/force has always existed than to accept that matter has always existed?'Easier to accept' has nothing to do with it. Evidence is the key element. There is no reliable evidence what-so-ever to support the notion of a 'spirit/force', the best one can come up with are anecdotal stories where the assumed cause for some phenomena or event is spiritual or supernatural. On the other-hand there is really no driving reason to assume that matter/energy is not eternal. Energy changes form but never disappears.

Originally posted by firingseeds
the other assertion is just as mind-boggling- the earth made itself, the universe all came together perfectly, the sun and stars just slotted into place; and soforth.By what measure do you define your use of 'perfectly' here? Do you have something to compare this Universe against to determine its level of perfection? The Universe simply is the way it is...

~Raithere

hi, raithere
this perfect universe- my yardstick, ( should i seek another?)
i would 'imagine' God has done the best He could.

Originally posted by Raithere
Jade Squirrel was referring to virtual particles which come into existence from literally nothing and shortly return. Their effect of their existence is known as the Casimir effect.

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/9/6

The theory that the Universe could have occurred from such a vacuum fluctuation was first proposed by Edward Tyron in 1973. The theory has been expanded upon since by such notables as Stephen Hawking who hypothesizes that the Universe is a self-contained fluctuation wherein references to "before" are simply meaningless (similar to asking what is south of the South Pole).

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=541

~Raithere

Just becasue there is a force, known as the casmir effect, does not mean that these short lived particles have mass, they could be massless particles, similar to photons, which are the carriers of electromagnetic energy.

The article that was posted said that these forces known as the casmir effect only have a range on the scale of nanometers. If you want to believe that all of the universe's diversity was caused by this, I must question, who has the more incredible fairy tales, and leaps of faith?

Until you have actually observed 'nothing' (which you can't), I wouldn't postulate it. Anyone who claims that everything came from nothing ought to get their head checked. According to psychotic superstring theory our current universe emerged from the collapse of a 10 dimensional eternity that wasn't in it's lowest energy state. It's hard for someone to conceive of infinity, or a universe that always existed because we cannot process infinity. A five dimensional being could theoretically conceive of infinites, yet such a being is theoretical itself.

Now there are four mind bending problems:

1. We can't conceive of nothing
2. We can't conceive of infinity
3. We can conceive of these mathetmatically.
4. We haven't observed either outside of math.

So where does that leave us?

Pathetic human sensory organs! Blast this mind!

Originally posted by biblthmp
Your understanding of matter creation is quite lacking. In accelerators, they take pre-existing particles, and slam them together, and the kinetic energy creates larger particles, using a energy to mass conversion, but one still had to start with at least two particles to begin with.Originally posted by Raithere
Jade Squirrel was referring to virtual particles which come into existence from literally nothing and shortly return. Their effect of their existence is known as the Casimir effect.

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/9/6

The theory that the Universe could have occurred from such a vacuum fluctuation was first proposed by Edward Tyron in 1973. The theory has been expanded upon since by such notables as Stephen Hawking who hypothesizes that the Universe is a self-contained fluctuation wherein references to "before" are simply meaningless (similar to asking what is south of the South Pole).

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/qu....php?number=541Thank you, Raithere. I was also referring to the following:

"...it was necessary to spend millions of dollars souping up the CERN accelerator until it could inject enough energy into the vacuum to make a few Ws [W bosons] appear and survive long enough to trigger Carlo Rubbia’s detector."
-- Timothy Ferris, Coming of Age in the Milky Way, 352-353

"The notion of pair production from a 'vacuum' state of a quantized field (both as a virtual process and as a real materialization of particles), is also a central building block in the modern field theory of strong interactions, quantum chromodynamics (QCD)."
http://www.nobel.se/physics/articles/karlsson/

"The basic idea is that, once you pump enough energy into the 'vacuum', you can knock the Higgs boson out of the condensate."
http://sandman.berkeley.edu/129A/SM.pdf

"In this experiment, W bosons are only produced as virtual particles but higher energy experiments have produced real W bosons both individually and in pairs."
http://www-e815.fnal.gov/wma-lab-web/writeup.html

biblthmp, please do some research before commenting on my understanding of matter creation.

Originally posted by biblthmp
Just becasue there is a force, known as the casmir effect, does not mean that these short lived particles have mass, they could be massless particles, similar to photons, which are the carriers of electromagnetic energy.
As indicated above, there is evidence to suggest that vacuum fluctuations can become real particles with mass at high enough energy states.

The article that was posted said that these forces known as the casmir effect only have a range on the scale of nanometers. If you want to believe that all of the universe's diversity was caused by this, I must question, who has the more incredible fairy tales, and leaps of faith?
I don't recall either Raithere or myself ever stating that it was our belief that this theory is true. I refer to my original comment about how our understanding of how the universe came into existence is by no means complete, but arbitrarily attributing it to a creator for whom there is no evidence is pointless, especially when we are left with the same question of whence the creator originated.

I originally introduced the "quantum fluctuation" theory because of its popularity in the field of cosmogony. This cosmogonic theory does, however, have a much stronger basis in reality than does the Christian genesis account, which I presume by your handle and your stated occupation you would be more likely to espouse.

Originally posted by SyllacrosticAgnostic
Isn't it easier to accept that a spirit/force has always existed than to accept that matter has always existed? Try to imagine an eternal force/spirit having always existed, something with no physical properties, something existing purely outside of the physical realm, and then try to imagine matter having always existed.

What I'm getting at is that it seems easier to believe that something non-physical has always existed than that matter has always existed, at least to me. Not that it makes sense, but that it makes more sense that something matterless could have always existed.
You raise an interesting question. In addition to Raithere's excellent comments, I'd like to address your question from my own perspective.

It is not easier to believe that an eternal force/spirit may have always existed when there is no reason to believe that an eternal force/spirit exists even now. Besides, just because it doesn't make sense that matter has always existed doesn't mean it can't be true. Quantum physics has shown us that a lot of things that don't make sense are, in fact, true (e.g. wave/particle duality). I'm not asserting that matter has always existed, but we are safer to discuss the history of what we know exists rather than speculate on something for which there is no evidence.

Originally posted by firingseeds
this perfect universe- my yardstickRather circular, don't you think? How can you measure something by itself?

i would 'imagine' God has done the best He could."Imagine" being the functional element here. I can imagine all kinds of things; this has no bearing on their validity.

Originally posted by biblthmp
I must question, who has the more incredible fairy tales, and leaps of faith?Not leaps of faith but reasoned hypotheses there is a tremendous difference.

~Raithere

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Just imagine the depths of wisdom and intelligence required to fabicate talking snakes, six-winged angels, giants, virgin births, suicidal pigs, and saints crawling out of their graves and strolling through Jerusalem.
:D A very appropriate response chock-full of admirable wit!

reasoning power, and perception, are gifts from above. i'm not bright, enjoy quantum theory- and don't underwrite it; but at the same time, know the reality that god exists. i accept the view he does not, but that view means very little to me. in my terms, faith is built, not blind- and, i believe, it's a natural occurrence.
i would rather be on the inside looking out, than on the outside looking in. on the inside is peace of mind, on the outside, confusion.
...i don't know that much about god, either...

god- the god of genisis- is the yardstick! my 'imagine' was being low-key about it.

yeah, agreed, wit- admirable.
the beauty of the garden.

Firingseeds,

reasoning power, and perception, are gifts from above.From the blob just above your neck, right?

i'm not bright, Have you considered this probably negates your argument?

know the reality that god exists.Something more from the blob above your neck.

in my terms, faith is built, not blind-You are talking about trust, a common mistake. But you are right that blind faith such as religious faith is built, but from indoctrination and lazy thinking.

and, i believe, it's a natural occurrence.To be unable to think is quite natural and very common, most animals do not do a good job, but this is where man does sometimes make an effort to overcome these primitive tendencies.

i would rather be on the inside looking out, than on the outside looking in. on the inside is peace of mind, on the outside, confusion.More accurately, the fantasy of self-delusion versus the confusion of reality. This is why so many billions choose the comfort and the fantasy of religion, it makes them feel comfortable, but has no bearing on reality.

Another popular theory in cosmogony:

"Another idea is from Stephen Hawking and James Hartle. Hawking proposed a description of the Universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it. The description is timeless, in the sense that one set of equations delineates the Universe for all time. As one looks to earlier and earlier times, one finds that the model Universe is not eternal, but there is no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of 10-43 seconds, the approximation of a classical description of space and time breaks down completely, with the whole picture dissolving into quantum ambiguity. In Hawking's words, the Universe 'would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.'"

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=541

Originally posted by firingseeds
enjoy quantum theory- and don't underwrite it; but at the same time, know the reality that god existsGod and quantum theory are only incompatible if you insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Science observes the Universe and attempts to explain how it works. If you insist upon God as the Prime Mover then Science is quite simply the study of God's handiwork. What I don't get is why so many theists then insist upon limiting God. A few simplistic chapters falls a bit short of the reality that is before us yet Creationists insist upon turning God into some sort of super Fairy-godfather magically popping things into existence. Personally, if I'm going to entertain the notion of a Creator God I'd like him to be a bit more complex and developed than your average fairy-tale.

i would rather be on the inside looking out, than on the outside looking in. on the inside is peace of mind, on the outside, confusion.It's funny but I hear things like that all the time yet I find myself to be far less confused and agitated than most of the theists I know.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Raithere
It's funny but I hear things like that all the time yet I find myself to be far less confused and agitated than most of the theists I know.
Ditto. :)

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
Ditto. :)It comes from accepting reality as it is and not trying to force it to conform to our own desires and prejudices.
Most Christians spend an awful lot of time and energy attempting to get the world to behave properly.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Raithere
It comes from accepting reality as it is and not trying to force it to conform to our own desires and prejudices.
Accepting reality for what it is, or at least what we can know it to be, has provided me with more contentment than I have ever known with any system of faith (second only to the contentment I feel with my "soul" mate, Jane).

It seems to me that religion serves two purposes. It gives a simple answer to the question "why", when in reality there are likely no simple answers. Secondly, it alleviates the tremendous human fear of our own mortality. Happiness, for me, comes with accepting that we do not know the answers at this stage of technological and human cognitive development, and accepting death as an inevitable part of life. No system of faith could replace that kind of contentment.

hi,
what quality of reasoning power and perception are we talking about, chris. i have what u have- worldly reasoning, if i may term it such- and i also have the blessing of spiritual perception, which is not gained litely, but worked for. now, don't get me wrong with this spiritual perception stuff, as i stuff up a lot, vanity also is involved, and one man's depth can be another man's shallow. what i'm trying to say is that i have a good, basic foundation- a skeleton- to build upon, for, as the good lord say's, when the wind blows, the sand crumbles, but the rock stands forever.
'bright'- i'll let u decide on that one.
the reality of god is right before u, chris. just because u cannot see it, should 'we' be lumped with the same tar? it matters not to god if u see him, or not- for why should it? if u have a good heart, why worry so? i know the reality of god, and i can become unsettled about my fate, at times. innoccence ( or ignorance ) is a blessing.
a tree reveals it's fruit- whether it be bitter, or whether it be sweet.
cheers
i can't speak for the millions u refer to, but i can say this, what are u doubting? why doubt at all? if i didn't 'believe' in god, i wouldn't doubt, or search, one iota, but trust in my own strength of purpose... sadly, or gladly, that was just hypothetical.

a created thing builds upon created idea's, and it seems u have a way to go, yet, to discover that god may be a bit more complex than what u can imagine. did u know that truth is strength? can u realize that god made u so? can u realize that u have no real choices in life- none whatsoever? can u realize that advancement of humanity is also part of creation.
put i doll in a bath-tub, bring it to life. it will know nothing but the input that it receives. no passion, no love, no hate etc. give it love, it will never understand love until an opposite has been introduced. that's a magnificent creation taking place, but the doll only knows what it knows. the reality of jesus is , u may become an observer, and not the participant. no matter what i say, u will still absorb good fruit.
theists, creationists, what matter- it's who u know, not what u know.

ohh, by the way, i'm only working at about 3%- this is all elementary. no bragging, just strait fact.
glory to lord jesus.

Originally posted by firingseeds
what quality of reasoning power and perception are we talking about, chris. i have what u have- worldly reasoning, if i may term it such- and i also have the blessing of spiritual perception, which is not gained litely, but worked for. now, don't get me wrong with this spiritual perception stuff, as i stuff up a lot, vanity also is involved, and one man's depth can be another man's shallow. what i'm trying to say is that i have a good, basic foundation- a skeleton- to build upon, for, as the good lord say's, when the wind blows, the sand crumbles, but the rock stands forever.
Sounds like you're talking about Christian faith. Personally, faith is useless to me since it tells me nothing about reality and only serves to quell the perturbations of the ignorant.

the reality of god is right before u, chris. just because u cannot see it, should 'we' be lumped with the same tar? it matters not to god if u see him, or not- for why should it? if u have a good heart, why worry so? i know the reality of god, and i can become unsettled about my fate, at times. innoccence ( or ignorance ) is a blessing.
a tree reveals it's fruit- whether it be bitter, or whether it be sweet.
Oh, boy. :rolleyes:

what are u doubting? why doubt at all? if i didn't 'believe' in god, i wouldn't doubt, or search, one iota, but trust in my own strength of purpose... sadly, or gladly, that was just hypothetical.
Doubt because the claims of Christianity are preposterous, especially given what we have learned about how the universe works since this monstrous work of fiction was concocted. What is wrong with putting your trust in your own strength and purpose, rather than in some mythical sky pixie?

a created thing builds upon created idea's, and it seems u have a way to go, yet, to discover that god may be a bit more complex than what u can imagine. did u know that truth is strength? can u realize that god made u so?
Can you ever entertain the notion that your beliefs are nothing more than a well-concocted fantasy? A lie?

can u realize that u have no real choices in life- none whatsoever?
That sounds just like the perverse statement of unaccountability I would expect from a devout Christian.

and2000X,

Until you have actually observed 'nothing' (which you can't), I wouldn't postulate it. Anyone who claims that everything came from nothing ought to get their head checked.


ANS: I'll be sure to check in and have that done.:D

Some here don't like it but it actually seems rather simple.

Where "0" represents "Nothingness"


0---------->(+n)+(-n). that is mathematically you can bifurcate "0" into two opposites entities of "Somethingness" and not violate any conservation principles.

You also do that without requiring a God. It hasn't been here for eternity or infinite time, that still requires a point of creation some infinite amount of time ago. Those are no answers.

The above seems a logical answer. It also sounds a great deal simular to a fluctuation.

Persol's "Flux" would not be "Nothing". The absence of time and space is "Nothing".

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

the gospel teaches us, that if they ain't told, how can they hear, then how can they be saved?
:rolleyes:

what i stated was reality- my reality, ( plus or minus 5% ).
quantum theory states that u can only ever know 50%, so what's so perfect about your self-doctrine, that which u use to edify yourself? what do u know? what makes u so superior to me? intelligence?
what do u know about the workings of the universe? u can't even admit it's a mystery. u are in denial. yes, it's true! u can escape to cinderella land- if that is what u want? yes, it's true! u can hide under the rug. stop flagellating yourself... and live:D
it's beneath me to reply to your version of non- accountability. sheeesh!

Posted by:Jade Squirrel

"The basic idea is that, once you pump enough energy into the 'vacuum', you can knock the Higgs boson out of the condensate."


Where is Persol we we need him?

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by firingseeds
the gospel teaches us, that if they ain't told, how can they hear, then how can they be saved?
:rolleyes:
Well, touché, I guess.

quantum theory states that u can only ever know 50%
Perhaps you are referring to wave-particle duality, which is the characteristic of energy and matter simultaneously exhibiting the properties of waves and particles. Once observed, however, the wave function collapses. This deals with the microscopic world and has no direct bearing on the probability of us knowing something to be true.

so what's so perfect about your self-doctrine, that which u use to edify yourself? what do u know? what makes u so superior to me? intelligence?
Discernment, perhaps.

what do u know about the workings of the universe? u can't even admit it's a mystery. u are in denial. yes, it's true! u can escape to cinderella land- if that is what u want? yes, it's true! u can hide under the rug. stop flagellating yourself... and live
Sure it's a mystery. I'm not denying that. But you think you have it solved: goddidit. I'm surprised to hear one who ascribes to the fairy tales of the Bible assert that I am in "Cinderella Land" for not believing said fairy tales. I'm not hiding. I am open to whatever scientific and peer-reviewed evidence is presented to me. I also don't consider not believing in God to be a form of self-punishment. Quite the opposite, in fact. I am quite happy with my life without the psychological crutch of a magical sky pixie.

it's beneath me to reply to your version of non- accountability. sheeesh!
I think it's a valid concern. Does a Christian really need to be accountable for his or her own actions with the "knowledge" that Jesus will provide his unconditional forgiveness provided the Christian accepts him as his or her personal lord and savior?

Originally posted by MacM
"The basic idea is that, once you pump enough energy into the 'vacuum', you can knock the Higgs boson out of the condensate."


Where is Persol we we need him?
Is Persol an expert on quantum "condensation" or is this an inside joke that has gone way over my head. :confused:

Originally posted by firingseeds
it seems u have a way to go, yet, to discover that god may be a bit more complex than what u can imagine.Don't worry about me, I'm way past that. My comment about simplicity was not about what I believe but what I observe others professing to believe.

did u know that truth is strength?In what context?

can u realize that god made u so? can u realize that u have no real choices in life- none whatsoever?Then I should not be held responsible for anything I do. Anyone who punishes a machine for doing what they built it to do is either an idiot or a lunatic.

put i doll in a bath-tub, bring it to life. it will know nothing but the input that it receives. no passion, no love, no hate etc. give it love, it will never understand love until an opposite has been introducedFalse dichotomy. A thing is known by its properties not by its opposite. Having never tasted bitter one can still know sweet.

theists, creationists, what matter- it's who u know, not what u knowOnly if the who you are referring to is one's self. That is strength.

~Raithere

ahh, no, i was talking about theory of quantum, itself.
touche to u, too- about discernment. ( ouch! )
if u had any real discernment ,u would'nt discount what i have said.
i was saying- i repeat- i was saying- u can hide under a rug- or 'cinderella land'- if that is your wish; but it was an offering, not a subjective observation of your comprehension. ( always room for improvement. )
u are accountable to god, whether u know it, or not; whether u accept it, or not. bible: for the whole duty of man is to serve god, ( and also meaning not yourself ).
the modern roman empire we live in, just as jesus did, 2000 years ago, republic upon republic, babylon upon babylon, roman laws, babylonian depravity. depth of understanding comes from the bible, the word of god. this is for your benefit- i gain nothing.
reminds me of a friend. she is rich, i am poor. she always needs building, and, of course, i give as she needs. u would think it would be the other way round:rolleyes:

one can know sweet but without an opposite one would also be brainless. same with adam and eve- they didn't 'evolve' until an 'opposite' was introduced.
anyone who punishes a machine...ahh, but, raitheres, life is for the living.
truth is a defence, raitheres. without a defence one be like a leaf blowing in the wind. here today, gone tomorrow.
self is worthless without a blessing, for who cares what u may believe, or what others may believe? 'tis only love why one cares and respects. y'see, i actually learn't about love and respect from the gospel- it wasn't originally a learn't behaviour in me from society.

Originally posted by firingseeds
can u realize that god made u so? can u realize that u have no real choices in life- none whatsoever?Originally posted by Raithere
Then I should not be held responsible for anything I do.
firingseeds, this is also what I was referring to regarding lack of accountability.

Originally posted by firingseeds
ahh, no, i was talking about theory of quantum, itself.
Strictly speaking, quantum theory is "based on the concept of the subdivision of radiant energy into finite quanta and applied to numerous processes involving transference or transformation of energy in an atomic or molecular scale". What does this have to do with the probability of knowing something to be true in the macroscopic world?

if u had any real discernment ,u would'nt discount what i have said.
On the contrary. It is through the application of discernment that I have discounted your claims.

u are accountable to god, whether u know it, or not; whether u accept it, or not. bible: for the whole duty of man is to serve god, ( and also meaning not yourself ).

...

depth of understanding comes from the bible, the word of god. this is for your benefit- i gain nothing.

You are entitled to hold that belief, as I am entitled to reject it as mere superstition. Cheers.

Originally posted by firingseeds
one can know sweet but without an opposite one would also be brainless.Would you care to elaborate upon this a bit more. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

same with adam and eve- they didn't 'evolve' until an 'opposite' was introduced.What or who is the opposite of Adam and Eve?

anyone who punishes a machine...ahh, but, raitheres, life is for the living.Well, if we have no choice then I would say that life is more like a Ferris wheel for the soul. It may be kind of fun but it's not very interesting and not at all interactive.

truth is a defence, raitheres. without a defence one be like a leaf blowing in the wind. here today, gone tomorrow.Actually, I find certainty to be more of a problem than a benefit. Absolute truths are quite hard to come by and most assertions of truth are relative or passing. Attempting to cling to them as if they are absolute causes all kinds of problems.

self is worthless without a blessing, for who cares what u may believe, or what others may believe? 'tis only love why one cares and respects. y'see, i actually learn't about love and respect from the gospel- it wasn't originally a learn't behaviour in me from society.I agree that love is a good thing, I'm just not sure how it fits in with the rest of what you are saying.

~Raithere

raithere,
if u only ever see red, that is all u will ever know. this simple premise of one basic element, referring to bi- polarization, relates to the building blocks of life and knowledge, just as cars have developed, 10 speeds to mountain bikes, etc. ( if i did not err, what would i learn? )
in the garden, bi-polarization ( an opposite ), was introduced over purity- purity meaning innoccence. as i said, raitheres, it's the living that benefit from the truth- not the dead, as god is an absolute truth.
i don't care if one doesn't believe, and i'm not trying to tear down walls; but just introducing the equipment to topple the wall one'self. love is about building, not destroying. love of truth and knowledge is the only qualitative of debate. my own basic reasoning skills are biblically developed.

about accountibility, god saith, who is the clay to say of the potter, what hast thou made me for? squander of resources- even intellectual one's- is sin. vanity is worthless- where are u heading with your own prognosis in regards to disregarding god- who made u? if u know life is a mystery, how can common-sense disregard god? that is very limited thinking. u forget i know your ways, but u know not my ways. common-sense shows u the limitations of your thinking. if life was a mystery, why would u discount god?
quantum, ultimately deals with chaos, in regards to order.
about your sense of discernment- are u being true to yourself?
by qualifying my arguement as belief, u arrogantly disqualify any intellect. u may find flaws in my arguement, but i see flaws in your thinking; which also should show u your limitations. u need to develop a stronger case to life, and the bible will give u further development- if u so wished.

Originally posted by firingseeds
if u only ever see red, that is all u will ever know.Ah, but there is a difference between knowing only one thing and knowing a thing by its opposite. As far as one thing goes, I agree. We will, for instance, never know what non-existence or partial existence is like for there is only existence for the self. Still this does not logically necessitate opposition only variance. One might, for instance, know only varying levels of sweetness. Or light, for which darkness not antithetical but only the absence of.

in the garden, bi-polarization ( an opposite ), was introduced over purity- purity meaning innoccence. as i said, raitheres, it's the living that benefit from the truth- not the dead, as god is an absolute truth.And this I do agree with (metaphorically) but it puts the question to which, in God's mind, is the greater good; to know or to obey? God's actions indicate that knowledge is the greater good.

i don't care if one doesn't believe, and i'm not trying to tear down walls; but just introducing the equipment to topple the wall one'self. love is about building, not destroying. love of truth and knowledge is the only qualitative of debate. my own basic reasoning skills are biblically developed.But the walls will come down. Better that they come down brick by brick than all at once. Love, truth, knowledge, all of these I am in agreement with. But I would assert to you what I postulated to Flores elsewhere; the literal interpretation is not important, the truth lies in the depths of the work.

"Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."

~Raithere

ah! i agree. about the first thing, tho, may i just add, that if u never experience pain, then u will never know, feel, or understand, what pain is. i think a bit of pain will certainly make one more aware. rather than walking into a punch, one may then be inclined to duck.
cheers

Originally posted by firingseeds
ah! i agree. about the first thing, tho, may i just add, that if u never experience pain, then u will never know, feel, or understand, what pain is.It's all good; the happiness, the suffering, all that we perceive and feel.
This is what it means to be human; this is what it means to exist.
The alternative is oblivion.

~Raithere

"You can say that it has always been there, but if you really, really think about it, matter had to have come from somewhere, at least that's what makes sense to me. "

I am unable to understand this perspective which many people seem toi feel instinctively. I honestly see no reason to assume that matter or at least energy hasnt always existed. as far as we know it only transforms, and isnt created and destroyed.

yes, ele, matter comes from energy. god spoke, and energy became matter. simple, so simple.

Originally posted by firingseeds
god is an absolute truth.
So you say...

where are u heading with your own prognosis in regards to disregarding god- who made u?
I am heading wherever life takes me. And I don't believe that there is a God to have made me, so I cannot answer your question to your satisfaction.

if u know life is a mystery, how can common-sense disregard god? that is very limited thinking.
Because there is no evidence on which to base belief in such an entity. Just because I accept that life is a mystery doesn't mean that I will accept anything proposed about its existence without evidence. This is not limiting myself, but filtering out all the gobbledygook.

u forget i know your ways, but u know not my ways.
What would you presume to know of my ways?

quantum, ultimately deals with chaos, in regards to order.
You still have not shown how the behavior of quanta can affect the probability that something is true in the macroscopic world.

about your sense of discernment- are u being true to yourself?
Yes.

by qualifying my arguement as belief, u arrogantly disqualify any intellect.
That doesn't even make sense.

u may find flaws in my arguement, but i see flaws in your thinking; which also should show u your limitations.
If you see flaws in my thinking, then please share them with me.

u need to develop a stronger case to life, and the bible will give u further development- if u so wished.
What do you mean by "stronger case to life"? I take it you believe that I could only develop a "stronger case to life" by accepting as truth the silly notions of your antiquated book of fairy tales. No thanks!

Originally posted by firingseeds
god spoke, and energy became matter. simple, so simple.
I would agree with the use of the term "simple", although not in the same context in which you are using it.

the seeds planted today are the trees of tomorrow.

Originally posted by firingseeds
the seeds planted today are the trees of tomorrow.
I'll agree to that. :) Part of the reason for your nick?

yep :)

anyway, here's a little something from the gospel. 'by trusting, we understand that the universe was created thru a spoken word of god, so that what is seen did not come into being out of existing phenomena.'
that piece of info is like touring the universe on a cadillac...with jesus as the chauffeur :)

God made it so. :D Welcome.

Originally posted by firingseeds
anyway, here's a little something from the gospel. 'by trusting, we understand that the universe was created thru a spoken word of god, so that what is seen did not come into being out of existing phenomena.'
that piece of info is like touring the universe on a cadillac...with jesus as the chauffeur :)
Whatever works for you. Personally, I prefer to drive my own vehicle. ;)

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
But they did! Of course with the help and encouragement of Saul/Paul. That's why none of it is true.
You really believe that none of the bible is true?
You poor thing! :(
Originally posted by SpyMoose
Basicly the theist says "Where did the universe come from"
then the atheist has to say "We really dont know"
then the thist asserts "Well that means that not only does my god exist, but that everything in this book is true"
and assumes that questions like "where did god come from" are invalid because they are not posted in the book. [/B]
Please show an example. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Raithere
Jade Squirrel was referring to virtual particles which come into existence from literally nothing and shortly return. Their effect of their existence is known as the Casimir effect.

Where did the energy come from to form these "virtual particles."
Originally posted by Cris
Firingseeds,
You are talking about trust, a common mistake. But you are right that blind faith such as religious faith is built,but from indoctrination and lazy thinking.
Trust is one aspect of faith and blind faith does not equal religion, i thought maybe the websters description of blind-faith would teach you something, but it seems you accept your foolish description no matter what. BLIND FAITH. :p
Originally posted by ele
I am unable to understand this perspective which many people seem toi feel instinctively. I honestly see no reason to assume that matter or at least energy hasnt always existed. as far as we know it only transforms, and isnt created and destroyed.
Good point.
Matter, according to all bona-fide religions, is not created, but is formed. In the vedic literature, matter exists in 2 conditions;
1) unmanifested
2) manifested.

Love
Jan Ardena.

'what is seen did not come into being out of existing phenomena.'

edit: sorry! I don't know why I disagreed with you. I think I posted the wrong quote actually! You are right. :)

praise the lord for his mighty works that he hath given for the son's of man.
shalom

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Where did the energy come from to form these "virtual particles."There is no evidence that indicates that it had to have 'come from' anywhere.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Raithere
There is no evidence that indicates that it had to have 'come from' anywhere.

~Raithere

So in what way is this speculation scientific?

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
So in what way is this speculation scientific?It's not speculation, its called the First Law of Thermodynamics which states that energy is always conserved, it can neither be created nor destroyed. This fits all known observation.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Where did the energy come from to form these "virtual particles."

The energy is "borrowed" from the quantum vacuum. A quantum field can never maintain a precise zero value. It contains energy fluctuations that are described by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and demonstrated by the Casimir effect.

Originally posted by Raithere
It's not speculation, its called the First Law of Thermodynamics which states that energy is always conserved, it can neither be created nor destroyed. This fits all known observation.

~Raithere

So what is creating the energy?

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
The energy is "borrowed" from the quantum vacuum. A quantum field can never maintain a precise zero value. It contains energy fluctuations that are described by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and demonstrated by the Casimir effect.


How can a vacuum be saturated with “quantum fields and become subject to fundamental fluctuations?
And if something exists in a vacuum, how can it be called a “vacuum.”??

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
So what is creating the energy?
If by this you mean where did all the energy/matter come from in the first place, that is the trillion dollar question that is the subject of this thread. Several theories have already been discussed, but there is no firm answer at this point.

How can a vacuum be saturated with “quantum fields and become subject to fundamental fluctuations?
Honestly, I can't explain any further why it is that way.

And if something exists in a vacuum, how can it be called a “vacuum.”??
Good question. It was originally called a vacuum before the discovery that the "vacuum" was not really empty at all, but was a frothing ocean of virtual particles coming into and out of existence. It seems that it just hasn't been renamed? *Shrugs*

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
So what is creating the energy?As far as we can tell; nothing. Energy has never been observed either coming into existence or leaving, it just is. Sometimes it is borrowed (which might account for the creation of our material Universe) but it must eventually return to the background state.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Raithere
Energy has never been observed either coming into existence or leaving, it just is. Sometimes it is borrowed (which might account for the creation of our material Universe) but it must eventually return to the background state.

~Raithere

Raithere, that is an excellent description of energy. I'd like to add that this also describes the mechanism of how our energy (soul/spirit) comes and goes between birth and death. Of course, there is no death to the spirit (energy), it just moves from where it was "borrowed" for the physical body back to the whole human interconnectedness. Ultimately, there is no death to energy, so there is no death to the soul.

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
Raithere, that is an excellent description of energy. I'd like to add that this also describes the mechanism of how our energy (soul/spirit) comes and goes between birth and death.Thanks. I have a thought for you to consider:
What if matter/energy and soul/sprit are not really the separate things people assume them to be? What if we are simply expressions of energy?

~Raithere

Originally posted by Raithere
Thanks. I have a thought for you to consider:
What if matter/energy and soul/sprit are not really the separate things people assume them to be? What if we are simply expressions of energy?

~Raithere

I believe this to be true. We are energy/spirit first and foremost with a physical body. The whole interconnectedness with the entire human race is what I call the one "soul."

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
Of course, there is no death to the spirit (energy), it just moves from where it was "borrowed" for the physical body back to the whole human interconnectedness.The whole interconnectedness with the entire human race is what I call the one "soul."Medicine*Woman,

Another question for you. Do you believe that the energy/spirit/soul limits itself to humanity? What would exclude this energy from being recycled in other animals, plants, or rocks?

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
Medicine*Woman,

Another question for you. Do you believe that the energy/spirit/soul limits itself to humanity? What would exclude this energy from being recycled in other animals, plants, or rocks?

Most definitely NOT! This energy encompasses everything from a grain of sand to god. The only difference is with the molecular rate of speed. Please don't ask me to explain this. Physics was my hardest subject in college. Everything vibrates at a different resonance, but everything is energy and everything is god. The human race has the highest mental capacity to do good for humankind.

Now I've just thought about other parts of this spiritual energy. What about the portions of the soul that linger after death? You've heard it said about pregnant women having that special "glow," well, that's spiritual energy!

Any comments?

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
The human race has the highest mental capacity to do good for humankind.
Agreed, at least on this planet.

What about the portions of the soul that linger after death?
My definition of soul is analogous to the definition of love, something that is merely a manifestation of the intricate and complex system of neurons and synapses in our brains. My view is that once the brain dies and decays, what was our "soul" is gone.

Any comments?
While I do not see the need to ascribe actual divinity to the universe (I do, however, experience the subjective feeling of reverence toward the universe in all its marvels), I respect your pantheistic world view. You might call me a scientific "pantheist".

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
Good question. It was originally called a vacuum before the discovery that the "vacuum" was not really empty at all, but was a frothing ocean of virtual particles coming into and out of existence. It seems that it just hasn't been renamed? *Shrugs*
Very interesting description. Is this your own description or is it standard (frothing ocean), as it fits right into the vedic description of cosmology.
Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
Do you believe that the energy/spirit/soul limits itself to humanity? What would exclude this energy from being recycled in other animals, plants, or rocks?
It is said that the spirit-soul is made entirely of consciousness, and when it is mixed with matter, matter then becomes animated. Consciousness, through matter has 6 types of transformation.
1) comes into being
2) grows
3) produces by-product
4) stays for sometime
5) dwindles
6) vanishes
So yes, I believe the soul/spirit exists within animals and plants, not sure about rocks, as they do not undergo the transformation process.
Originally posted by Raithere
As far as we can tell; nothing. Energy has never been observed either coming into existence or leaving, it just is. Sometimes it is borrowed (which might account for the creation of our material Universe) but it must eventually return to the background state.
Something must be generating this energy, otherwise it is a total non-scientific process.
Originally posted by Raithere
What if matter/energy and soul/sprit are not really the separate things people assume them to be?
I know this is a hypothetical question, but it is not an assumption in certain circles, they are indeed understood to be separate.
What if we are simply expressions of energy?

I believe we are, but there are different types of energy. In the sciptures, they are generalised down to 3 types, material, marginal and spiritual.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by firingseeds
anyway, here's a little something from the gospel. 'by trusting, we understand that the universe was created thru a spoken word of god, so that what is seen did not come into being out of existing phenomena.'
that piece of info is like touring the universe on a cadillac...with jesus as the chauffeur :)



The Law, the Spoken Word of God, Freedom.

The Law, only the whole of a single reality is Free to occupy a given moment of Time in Space.

Because of God's Spoken Word, the Law, the Freedom of motion within differentiation, a multiplicity of Singularities, becomes Finite, determined by the cause and the effect of Freedom, the Chaos of Evolution, survival of the Fittest.

Freedom for a singularity alone in the Emptiness, uncertainty, Freedom of motion, is fully Random, Fully Turbulent.

The Fully Turbulent Freedom of motion within differentiation becomes, chaotic, and then highly ordered Freedom of Motion, Motion than is no longer uncertain, not chaotic.

Chaos Creates order of Motion within the Differentiation through the Evolution of a differentiation returning to Singularity, the Multiplicity of Singularities, the differentiation, acting as the Whole of a Single Reality
.

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
I believe this to be true. We are energy/spirit first and foremost with a physical body. The whole interconnectedness with the entire human race is what I call the one "soul."The interesting thing here is that what we call the physical or material world is really only an emergent property of the energy that we are talking about. There is no separation; the physical world is literally a manifestation of energy and the fundamental forces.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Something must be generating this energy, otherwise it is a total non-scientific process.Umm... No, that would be incorrect conclusion. Science does not work that way. That would be a baseless assumption.

I know this is a hypothetical question, but it is not an assumption in certain circles, they are indeed understood to be separate.No, it is an assumption. Unless you can provide empirical proof of 'spiritual energy' and then proceed to demonstrate how it differs from natural energy. That 'spiritual energy' exists at all is purely conjecture.

I believe we are, but there are different types of energy. In the sciptures, they are generalised down to 3 types, material, marginal and spiritual.Then please show us where these 3 types of energy are evinced. As it stands I see evidence of only natural or to use your term 'material' energy.

~Raithere

Singularity, First Matter is Immaterial, without meaning, doesn’t matter.

A Singularity alone in the Emptiness is without meaning, without effect, without Cause, because its motion is uncertain, has not reached its moment of momentum, has no Angular Momentum, is inert.

Not until Two Singularities become one, the Whole of a Single Reality, a Singularity, will a Singularity reach its moment of inertia, gain momentum,straight angular momentum, will a Singularity have Effect, will the existence of a singularity become, meaningful, Matter.

Originally posted by Raithere
Umm... No, that would be incorrect conclusion.

What would be the correct conclusion then?

That would be a baseless assumption.

Why? If there is energy/force, then why is it wrong to assume it is being produced?

No, it is an assumption. Unless you can provide empirical proof of 'spiritual energy' and then proceed to demonstrate how it differs from natural energy. That 'spiritual energy' exists at all is purely conjecture.

Can you provide empirical evidence that energy just is?

Then please show us where these 3 types of energy are evinced. As it stands I see evidence of only natural or to use your term 'material' energy.

Material energy; the elements, electricity, atoms...ect.
Spiritual energy; pure unadulterated consciousness.
Marginal enery; combination of material and spiritual energy.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
What would be the correct conclusion then?That science is based upon observation and it would be fallacious, or at least hypothetical, to assume that energy must have come from somewhere when no one has ever observed energy coming into or going out of existence.

Why? If there is energy/force, then why is it wrong to assume it is being produced?It's not necessarily wrong but it is an assumption. It is not something that has been proven or is even really suggested by the evidence.

Can you provide empirical evidence that energy just is?Directly, no. But energy is everywhere and at no point has anyone been able to discern its coming into the world or leaving it. It's not impossible that it has a source but there is no reason to assume it does.

Spiritual energy; pure unadulterated consciousness.Sorry, but I just don't see it. Consciousness, IMO, is a 'material' phenomenon. I can find no reason to invent an entire realm of existence in order to explain it.

~Raithere

basic science is provable, but theory is just that- theory. as to the earth, and it's beginnings, common sense says it will always be speculation and theory- which is better reasoning than trying to prove the unprovable. we exist because god made it so. that is a law! science enjoys the study of this law- that's what science is about- the study of god's creation.
u see an ant, relate that to god and man. our view is a pinprick in his spiritual domain.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Very interesting description. Is this your own description or is it standard (frothing ocean)
I believe I had heard the "frothing ocean" description used to describe the quantum vacuum before.

as it fits right into the vedic description of cosmology.
Interesting.

Something must be generating this energy, otherwise it is a total non-scientific process.
Currently, science cannot provide a definitive answer as to the origin of matter/energy, as any scientific theory of this nature would be very difficult to test.

Originally posted by Raithere
The interesting thing here is that what we call the physical or material world is really only an emergent property of the energy that we are talking about. There is no separation; the physical world is literally a manifestation of energy and the fundamental forces.
Nice description.

Consciousness, IMO, is a 'material' phenomenon. I can find no reason to invent an entire realm of existence in order to explain it.
I completely agree. There is no reason to believe that the energy that is involved in consciousness is fundamentally any different from the energy that makes up all matter.

Originally posted by firingseeds
basic science is provable, but theory is just that- theory. as to the earth, and it's beginnings, common sense says it will always be speculation and theoryFirstly, you misunderstand the word theory as it applies to science. It does not mean 'guess' as it does in the vernacular. A scientific theory is a testable hypothesis that fits all known data and is contradicted by none. A hypothesis is more speculative but is still not quite the same thing as a guess. Hypotheses must be carefully worded so as to be testable, un-testable statements are worthless to science.

which is better reasoning than trying to prove the unprovable.We have certain data and various theories that fit this data and explain certain things about the world. The question may ultimately be irresolvable but these theories are far more useful than pure guesses. And who knows, we might get lucky. Each day we find out more who can say what the limit is?

we exist because god made it so. that is a law!Not a scientific one.

science enjoys the study of this law- that's what science is about- the study of god's creation. There is no need for religion and science to be in opposition as long as religion does not attempt to provide answers that run contrary to the facts. The same thing goes for science but science is more careful with its answers.

~Raithere

Originally posted by firingseeds
we exist because god made it so. that is a law!Originally posted by Raithere
Not a scientific one.And, thankfully, not a legal one either. ;)

Originally posted by Raithere
That science is based upon observation and it would be fallacious, or at least hypothetical, to assume that energy must have come from somewhere when no one has ever observed energy coming into or going out of existence.

Without the application of some force or act, how can energy be produced?

Sorry, but I just don't see it. Consciousness, IMO, is a 'material' phenomenon. I can find no reason to invent an entire realm of existence in order to explain it.

The spiritual realm (as you call it) is not invented, not anymore than the material realm anyways.
In your opinion, tell me what consciousness is, as to you, it is a material phenomenea.

Firstly, you misunderstand the word theory as it applies to science. It does not mean 'guess' as it does in the vernacular.

Dr. Stephen Hawkin,

“……a scientific theory is just a mathematical model: it exists only in our minds.”

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
[quote]Interesting.

eeeerily interesting!

Currently, science cannot provide a definitive answer as to the origin of matter/energy, as any scientific theory of this nature would be very difficult to test.

So to presume that this universe is not the creation of an intelligent being, is only speculation.

I completely agree. There is no reason to believe that the energy that is involved in consciousness is fundamentally any different from the energy that makes up all matter.

Why don’t you see a reason?
Do you know what consciousness is?

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
----------
Without the application of some force or act, how can energy be produced?
----------
(Jan, I would like to offer my thoughts on this subject. These are personal thoughts and not scientific.)
----------
The spiritual realm (as you call it) is not invented, not anymore than the material realm anyways. In your opinion, tell me what consciousness is, as to you, it is a material phenomenea.
----------
("The spiritual realm" is what I call "energy." Yes, it exists in the physical realm, too. this "energy" encompasses everything in creation to one degree of speed or another. Matter is all the same thing. It just depends on the number of molecules and how fast they exist. Again, this is not a scientific description.)
----------
So to presume that this universe is not the creation of an intelligent being, is only speculation.
----------
(For now, let's presume that the universe was created by this already existing "energy field." It becomes stars, planets, galaxies, universes, plants, animals, humans, etc. This "energy field" is what I call the Spirit of God. It is everywhere, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. We are the bearers of the Spirit of God "energy.")
----------
Do you know what consciousness is?
----------
(Consciousness is the "energy" we have in our physical bodies. Since there is no death to this "energy," when we become unconscious the "energy" starts to flow in and out of our bodies. Again, there is no death to this "energy." It is our physical bodies that are temporary, not the spirit. As the "energy" leaves the body, the body become unconscious. The spirt can return, however. Wouldn't this be called a "resurrection?")
----------
(The question was, how do we create more "energy." Quite simply, the formula for creating "energy" is this: Heat(sun) created life(humans) + human emotion = passion = love. Love x humans = energy. The more we love, the more energy is created. Just think where we would be as a human race if we had more love for our fellow man? In turn, we would have more love for God which dwells within us, which creates a greater manifestation for the Spirit of God on Earth.

Jan,

Without the application of some force or act, how can energy be produced?From observation; new energy is not produced, energy is only transferred from one type to another. It is neither created nor destroyed.

This is a current law of physics and so far there is nothing that indicates that this is not universal, although that is not proof that it is. However, you would have to provide some observation of new energy being produced to warrant a replacement theory.

Jan,

So to presume that this universe is not the creation of an intelligent being, is only speculation.Yes in exactly the same way that it is speculative to presume that –

Leprechauns didn’t create the universe.

A super race of aliens didn’t create the universe.

The universe is not a matrix on someone’s’ computer.

Or an infinite variety of other baseless ideas for the cause of the universe.

Without some form of observation or evidence we simply do not know how it began or if it had a beginning. To choose one fantasy over another is largely arbitrary.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Without the application of some force or act, how can energy be produced?Cris already nailed that one. No one has ever observed energy being produced; only changing form.

The spiritual realm (as you call it) is not invented, not anymore than the material realm anyways.I meant conceptually invented, unless you have some evidence that such a realm actually exists it is merely presumed to exist in order to provide answers to certain questions. I find such a presumption to be extraneous and unnecessary.

In your opinion, tell me what consciousness is, as to you, it is a material phenomenea.Cris repeated my most concise thoughts on the matter in another thread:

Consciousness seems to be a self-affecting condition of internal and external isomorphism (awareness of self and the external world) within a neural network.

Consciousness is a gestalt experience that occurs beyond a particular threshold of escalating complexity and interaction.

Dr. Stephen Hawkin,
“……a scientific theory is just a mathematical model: it exists only in our minds.”Yes, this agrees with what I've said; it's just a different way of saying it.

~Raithere

Jan,

The spiritual realm (as you call it) is not invented, not anymore than the material realm anyways.The material realm can be directly touched, sensed, and otherwise observed. An alleged spiritual realm cannot.

How then can such a realm be said to exist outside of human imagination? What criteria can be used to determine its existence?

Raithere,

Sorry for butting in.

Cris,

Not at all, your input is always very welcome

~Raithere

what are u smiling about:D

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
So to presume that this universe is not the creation of an intelligent being, is only speculation.
What Cris said.

Why don’t you see a reason?
What Cris said in response to your assertion that the spiritual realm is no more invented than the material realm.

Do you know what consciousness is?
What Raithere quoted Cris as saying in response to your question to him about what consciousness is.

Wow, that was easy. Thanks, guys! :)

Originally posted by firingseeds
what are u smiling about:D
I'm not sure what you're referring to.

J,

Wow, that was easy. Thanks, guys! Ahh teamwork.:cool:

2nd law: yes, it's true! a blind man can't see.
y'know, u are given a positive- god created us- and nothing u say in opposition even comes close to answering it. u all end up practically saying it's true- and yet still deny. why?... it is answered in the 2nd law.
have u seen a headless chicken?

Originally posted by firingseeds
2nd law: yes, it's true! a blind man can't see.
y'know, u are given a positive- god created us- and nothing u say in opposition even comes close to answering it. u all end up practically saying it's true- and yet still deny. why?... it is answered in the 2nd law.
I'm not sure how the idea of entropy proves the existence of God.

there is no degradation or disorganization of the universe. that is just what is observed. how can that make it a reality?
i will show u a glimpse of spiritual reality. u smack a child with matches, and growl him; but in reality u love him. another: u smile at someone who smiles at u, but underneath u don't really want to.
beyond the 5 senses is a deeper awareness, and perception. people seek wisdom- god gives freely. only delusion casts out truth, and knowledge- and defends delusion.

Originally posted by firingseeds
there is no degradation or disorganization of the universe. that is just what is observed. how can that make it a reality?
Can you show that reality is any different?

only delusion casts out truth, and knowledge
No argument here. We just seem to have a differing opinion on truth.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
Good question. It was originally called a vacuum before the discovery that the "vacuum" was not really empty at all, but was a frothing ocean of virtual particles coming into and out of existence. It seems that it just hasn't been renamed? *Shrugs*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also referred to as a Cloud of uncertainty.

u are facing reality. the birds sing, fish swim, sun rises and goes down, man walks his long walk...
think of science as the name of a ship. never sail the ocean on an incomplete vessel, and consider that that isn't delusion.

Originally posted by Cris


Ahh teamwork.:cool:
Plato's prisioners of 'material cave' strongly believing in shadows..:D

Cris, you changed your biological avatar. looks like something to indicate nuke.

Originally posted by firingseeds
u are facing reality. the birds sing, fish swim, sun rises and goes down, man walks his long walk...
Again, no argument here.
think of science as the name of a ship. never sail the ocean on an incomplete vessel, and consider that that isn't delusion.
There are certainly more things to my life than science. Science is just what I use to help me understand how the universe works.

Originally posted by everneo
Plato's prisioners of 'material cave' strongly believing in shadows.Better the shadows of reality than pure imaginative fantasy.

~Raithere

why would an open-minded person- who knows the limitations of science- deny the truth of jesus?....makes no sense. truth is truth no matter where it's found.
truth leads to understanding.

Originally posted by firingseeds
why would an open-minded person- who knows the limitations of science- deny the truth of jesus?....makes no sense. truth is truth no matter where it's found.
Even as an open-minded person, I can't believe just anything that someone asserts. If there is compelling evidence to make me believe, then it will be so. In this case, there is not.
truth leads to understanding.
Sure, but we seem to have a different idea of what truth is.

Originally posted by firingseeds
beyond the 5 senses is a deeper awareness, and perception. people seek wisdom- god gives freely. only delusion casts out truth, and knowledge- and defends delusion.I am willing to challenge my beliefs daily, to put them to the hard test of reason and fact, to change those beliefs when change is indicated in the face of new knowledge, to accept that I may be (and often am) wrong.

Are you?

Originally posted by Raithere
Better the shadows of reality than pure imaginative fantasy.

reality looks to be pure imaginative fantasy from the realm of shadows.

Originally posted by everneo
reality looks to be pure imaginative fantasy from the realm of shadows.No one knows what reality looks like. The best we can hope for are congruent models of it.

~Raithere

aahh, yes, me too. and i enjoy being open-minded.
i denied jesus once- as many of us do. by reading his word, i learn't the truth. this truth doesn't come from the outside, either; nor does it come self. the dropping away of pretensions- they teach in buddha- same thing. the old zen monks walked the path of god, but they had no teaching of jesus.

if your life-raft has holes in it, then it will sink. remember to keep close to one that doesn't have holes. the law requires that u pick up all survivors:D

why would an open-minded person- who knows the limitations of science- deny the truth of jesus?....makes no sense

Let's explore that, firingseeds.

From Merrim-Webster
Open-minded: (Adj) Receptive to ideas or arguments.

Tell me, Seeds, how a man can be open-minded and accept the "Truth of Jesus" on the evidence given for it? To accept Jesus based on what facts are given, it would be the same as accepting the "Truth of Molliwogwimpiqs." In other words, utter nonsense.

truth is truth no matter where it's found.

Granted, but without any evidence to back it up, how do you know it is the truth? I'll tell you how...

Most likely, a Bible was the first religious text available to you in life, and your parents shoved it in front of you. As a young person, most likely an exceptionally impressionable one, you were walked through this story of a supreme being whom promised life eternal for all who accept it's word. Being young and impressionable, and the product of a religious houshold, you accepted it simply because this book which everyone tells you is truth says so, and so do your parents, and so does your priest. Today, a few years later, the words of your priest, parents, and this book which has been sold to you for more than anyone should pay for eternal life--your reasoning mind--you are blind to arguments against the Biblical stories. No matter how convincing they might be to anyone who can think freely and are truly open-minded, you won't hear them out.

Is this you, Firingseeds?

aahh, yes, me too. and i enjoy being open-minded.

Again, see above. Because you, sir, are not open-minded. If you were, you would not take the Bible at face value without any evidence to support it.

i denied jesus once- as many of us do. by reading his word, i learn't the truth.

So you denied Jesus...based on what? Were you thinking more clearly back then? And how impressionable are you that it took only the reading of the New Testament to convince you? I would imagine, really, that had you read the Qua'ran first, you would have accepted that instead. Simply for the fact that all you had to do was read the Bible to be sold on it.

this truth doesn't come from the outside, either;

No? But you got it from reading the Bible. How does it not come from the outside? If it had, you would never have had to read the Bible to know of Jesus.

they teach in buddha- same thing. the old zen monks walked the path of god, but they had no teaching of jesus.

I'm not sure, but I don't think Buddhism isn't a religion, nor do they have faith in a God, so to speak. But again, there is no arguing your close-minded perspective. To you, any good deeds or lives lead are done so in the name of God, be it wittingly or not.

So convienient that you believe in something which, by nature, cannot be disproven....

if your life-raft has holes in it, then it will sink. remember to keep close to one that doesn't have holes. the law requires that u pick up all survivors

Didn't God wipe out all those who didn't believe in him at one point?

JD

i have meditated for nearly 30 years on god and his word. i have not tried to make a living from it ( i am poor- and to the world i am useless. i can't even get a job at present- not even a menial one ), nor have i tried to preach it. i have just meditated it. i lived by the old testament for 20- odd years, refusing to read the new. when i did, i accepted jesus as my lord and saviour. i then looked at christianity, and the church. i can't read any church theology- find it boring- and do not even read western philosophy ( i learn't enough about the romans and the greeks when i was a kid ), which i find weak...we are living it, mostly. i don't trust most churches, but i still have an open mind. after 20 years, and with a strong foundation, i then studied buddhism teaching, zen, hinduism, daoism. can i help it if i can understand these faiths. maybe, just maybe, i put in the WORK! i have not chased money, for what can money buy but life.
i didn't grow up with a visible bible in the house, and i don't recall church, and my parents never mentioned jesus, yet i knew about god and jesus. it was only when i was 12 that i went to sunday school, and hated it. my question was the usual: who made god? ( adults ARE still asking that question ). i learn't to meditate naturally, without structured instruction, and found out years later, that was what i did.
from the bible, i have all the lord's weapons- both from the old and new- and i know how to use them, but u don't swat a fly with a shovel.
i left school when i was 12, simply becoz' i was a rebel. i am only now learning english composition.
hopefully, this will give u an open mind. u are talking to me, not your concepts. people live in mindset, hence they can't see the sun. they use human definement in all their thinking, not realizing we are created- even from the beginning 'til now..layer upon layer.
jesus truly is god.
ohh, and i grew up fighting. ohh, and i grew up in a violent household. i know about pain, suffering and violence. i know about hatred, spite, and dishonor. scholars can only theorize, they cannot live it. someone has to do the hard yards, because theory is useless, without practical application.
...i could simply use a club, but i don't.
( and...i have only wrote this coz' i thought u might want to know. )

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
("The spiritual realm" is what I call "energy." Yes, it exists in the physical realm, too. this "energy" encompasses everything in creation to one degree of speed or another. Matter is all the same thing. It just depends on the number of molecules and how fast they exist. Again, this is not a scientific description.)

“Matter” is a physical substance of sorts, “spirit” is not. Spirit is the exact opposite of matter. Spirit is described as consciousness, and it is when consciousness acts/wills, matter becomes animated. When viewing a dead body, we see all its material particles before us, but without consciousness it cannot act.

(For now, let's presume that the universe was created by this already existing "energy field." It becomes stars, planets, galaxies, universes, plants, animals, humans, etc. This "energy field" is what I call the Spirit of God. It is everywhere, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. We are the bearers of the Spirit of God "energy.")

To “know” something, there has to be consciousness, so the “energy field” of which you speak must be conscious, or there is know question of creation, omnipotence or omniscience.

(Consciousness is the "energy" we have in our physical bodies. Since there is no death to this "energy," when we become unconscious the "energy" starts to flow in and out of our bodies. Again, there is no death to this "energy." It is our physical bodies that are temporary, not the spirit. As the "energy" leaves the body, the body become unconscious. The spirt can return, however.)

But what is consciousness, and what is spirit in relation to matter?

The spirt can return, however. Wouldn't this be called a "resurrection?"

If the spirit returned to a dead body, and the body once again became animated, then it would be a resurrection of sorts. There is a great case of a woman (Pam Reynolds) who was intentionally made dead by ceasing all brain activity, including the shutting down of all neural acitivity, who came back to life in her body. This is not, however the same type of resurrection where Jesus rose again.

The more we love, the more energy is created. Just think where we would be as a human race if we had more love for our fellow man? In turn, we would have more love for God which dwells within us, which creates a greater manifestation for the Spirit of God on Earth.

I doubt whether it is possible for me to agree with you anymore than I do. That is an ideal situation, one which I think could only benefit all living beings, and is worth striving for. Thanks! ;)

Love
Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
The more we love, the more energy is created. Just think where we would be as a human race if we had more love for our fellow man? In turn, we would have more love for God which dwells within us, which creates a greater manifestation for the Spirit of God on Earth.
But its strange that you hate Jesus who prescribed love for everyone.?!

Originally posted by Cris
From observation; new energy is not produced, energy is only transferred from one type to another. It is neither created nor destroyed.

If new energy is not produced, how is it “new energy.”
If energy is a force, then there must be an application of force separate to the energy, something like cause and effect. So what is the force?
Even though the “energy” latent in a “quantum VACUUM” has not “actually” been observed, let alone deciding whether or not there is an observable energetic principle, there is no form of energy, to my knowledge, which acts without being produced by some sort of effort. So the dynamic law which you mention does not apply to the particular subject as it only deals with the nature of energy.

The material realm can be directly touched, sensed, and otherwise observed. An alleged spiritual realm cannot.

Pure consciousness may not be easily observable, it may be limited to only a few persons (if that), but consciousness can be observed very easily. So on the one hand we have dead matter like stones, and on the other hand we have conscious living beings all growing, producing effects, etc. So I disagree with you on that, the spiritual realm can be observed through the material realm, through developed intelligence.
The difference between us is that you believe consciousness is brain activity and I believe it is trancendental (in a pure state).

How then can such a realm be said to exist outside of human imagination? What criteria can be used to determine its existence?

Apart from the above, there are a few criterea, read Bhagavad Gita. Gain understanding instead of just putting it down because it doesn’t suit your current life-style. :D

Love
Jan Ardena.

Everneo,

Cris, you changed your biological avatar. looks like something to indicate nuke.It’s a variation on the ATOM symbol but with one open orbit to indicate that we/science do not know everything yet.

It is the symbol adopted by the American Atheists organization.

http://www.atheists.org/visitors.center/logo.html

Firingseeds,

Just to reinforce Jade's observation -

i enjoy being open-minded.But you aren’t now since you have closed your mind to everything except Christianity, right?

Now that is fine if you can show that Christianity is the truth, but note that barely a third of the world maintain a Christian belief and only a fraction of them really understand the issues, that means that the vast majority of world either don't care, are sheep, or have found other 'truths'.

Now while I don’t maintain that a majority view necessarily holds the truth I can’t see that your minority position has any real strength.

And note that while you are attracted to the ideas of Christianity that doesn't mean they have to be divine. Loving your neighbor has value in its own right that we can all appreciate, and we don't need a god to tell us that.

Originally posted by Cris
It’s a variation on the ATOM symbol but with one open orbit to indicate that we/science do not know everything yet.

It is the symbol adopted by the American Atheists organization.
Cris,
The atom model where electrons orbitting the nucleus is not proper representation of atom. there are no orbits but probability clouds of the electrons. perhaps AA need to update their symbol accordingly.

Everneo,

The atom model where electrons orbitting the nucleus is not proper representation of atom. there are no orbits but probability clouds of the electrons. perhaps AA need to update their symbol accordingly.It’s a symbol not a model. Call them shells, or energy levels, or perhaps even geostationary orbits if you like.

But the symbol indicates that science grows, changes, and doesn’t know everything. Whereas theism says God did it, and claims to know everything.

hi, i'm not searching for truth, chris, if that's what u mean? but, i love knowledge and learning. do u know what i mean? the 5 senses can't disclose god to u; i believe intelligence can. so someone's limited, so what? does it really matter? the gospel is about charity, like: what comes first- truth or charity? i talk to the soul, chris, not the 5 senses...and i bumble thru new things just like the next person. i take the wealth of things, and discard the pigshit, because i have the resourses ( and defenses ) to do so.
jesus overcame the world, i, too, have followed him, and overcome- because i trusted god completely.
my favorite dream as a kid was walking and exploring the world...and no one else was present. i walk ahead of my family...
as i said to jdawg, there are no concepts with me...just me. i am open-minded, chris, coz' if i don't have an answer, then i don't have a view....and even when i have a view, i can still accept the view of others.
i'm me own boss, chris.

Originally posted by firingseeds
----------
hi, i'm not searching for truth, chris, if that's what u mean?
----------
(Then why are you here?)
----------
jesus overcame the world, i, too, have followed him, and overcome- because i trusted god completely.
----------
(Maybe you overcame your difficulties because you had inner-strength? Let me tell you a secret. If you're alive, then, as we speak, you are overcomming your trials in the world. You overcome these trials until you take your last breath, then your Earthly trials are over. This has nothing to do with your following Jesus, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. If believing in fantasies helps you in this life, then go ahead and continue believing in your fairy tales.)
----------
as i said to jdawg, there are no concepts with me...just me.
----------
(But, you lie! You adamantly credit Jesus for everything, so don't say there are no concepts with you. You're a Xian. Are you denying that now?)
----------
i am open-minded, chris, coz' if i don't have an answer, then i don't have a view....and even when i have a view, i can still accept the view of others. i'm me own boss, chris.
----------
(Why are you lying? No, you cannot accept other's views. You question everyone else who is NOT an Xian! You are biased and opinionated for Xianity. Unfortunately, I have seen you display no significant degree of intellectual thought on this website.)

your concepts about xianity are yours, mw, not mine. i'm a bit past doctrine, tradition. why am i here...enjoying myself, medicine woman. why are u here. on the terms u implied on me, then u are here seeking the truth... u get it, so u in the right place.
agreed, i am strong..u have no idea, tho, how strong. i am everything your concepts arn't.
so, u say i'm dumb. well....:rolleyes: what can i say.
jesus is my lord and saviour, medicine woman- u are adding your concepts on me. jesus is god over all, no matter what faith u are hiding under.
woman, ya'know, if u arn't bright, u won't see a thing.

Originally posted by firingseeds
----------
your concepts about xianity are yours, mw, not mine. i'm a bit past doctrine, tradition.
----------
(Yes, my concepts are mine, and if you feel I have tried to enforce my beliefs upon you, you are sadly mistaken. The concept of the One Spirit of God within all creation cannot, I repeat, cannot be enforced upon anyone. It's something you would need to come to realize on your own. I have no power over anyone but myself. Perhaps you feel threatened by me?)
----------
why am i here...enjoying myself, medicine woman. why are u here.
----------
(I am here to complete the mission that was given to me. Do you know what your mission is in this lifetime?)
----------
on the terms u implied on me, then u are here seeking the truth... u get it, so u in the right place.
----------
(Yes, I am seeking the truth, and I am the bearer of truth.)
----------
agreed, i am strong..u have no idea, tho, how strong. i am everything your concepts arn't.
----------
(If you are as strong as you say, why do my concepts threaten you? Without knowing you, I have a sense that you are a strong person. I am a strong person, too, and you don't have any idea of how strong I am.)
----------
so, u say i'm dumb. well....:rolleyes: what can i say.
----------
(In my opinion, your posts reflect a simple mind. By that, I don't mean retarded or anything. I just mean 'simple.' In other words, you are probably not one of the greatest intuitives on the planet. There's nothing wrong with that. You believe what you're told and you don't look any further.)
----------
jesus is my lord and saviour, medicine woman- u are adding your concepts on me. jesus is god over all, no matter what faith u are hiding under.
----------
(My concepts have nothing to do with needing a savior. How can you say I am adding my concepts on you? According to your belief in Xianity, this would be impossible? Or, are you afraid that my concepts may make a little sense to you and you are afraid of my concepts?)
----------
woman, ya'know, if u arn't bright, u won't see a thing.
----------
(Man, ya' know, if you've been blinded by the light, you won't see a thing.)

u are still conceptual. u are trying to put all of xianity on me, but it's just me here. i found my own way, not what u believe anything is. i don't know luther, or all your catholic doctrine...that's why i'm free. nothing enters, woman, 'til it's been scanned for viruses.
all u are doing is claiming god, and denying his son...it can't help u. i'm not reaching up to u, i'm reaching down to u. u havn't figured that out...
ahh, simplicity...thank u for observing that:)
when i say, it can't help u, i mean u can't bloom in flower if u are in the shadows- nothing to do with anything else. now, don't get angry...moderation is a fruit. show me your fruit.
u are not gonna get dumber out of this, unless u really are deluded; and there, i cannot help u.
cheers

Originally posted by Zelicaon
You can say that it has always been there, but if you really, really think about it, matter had to have come from somewhere, at least that's what makes sense to me. I'm just curious as to your theories of how it came into existence *assuming it hasnt always been there*. Note, it may have always been there, I guess I'm just curious as to explanations of how it could have come to be if that's how it occured. Thanks!

P.S. I'm new here :D Hello everyone!

Zelicaon, your assumption asserts a belief. Everyone has their particular subscribed belief(s). Those beliefs determine the answer to your question. Study them, pick one and live with it.

Using the Creationist viewpoint according to the Old Testament, matter coexisted with God before God created everything from the pre-existing soup of matter. The Old Testament theory of everything, solids formed from fluids under the guidance of God.

From the astronomical viewpoint, the soup of matter and energy can be altered but not destroyed. In addition to that, various processes change products from one element to another or from a group of elements to a molecule. Other processes mix mixtures to make new matter. Further matter manufacture can occur under the right conditions by alpha and beta decay because alpha decay emits 2 protons and 2 neutrons while beta decay emits electrons. Nuclear fission also generates new matter from existing matter. Hmmm.

You might want to read up on De Broglie waves to comprehend quantum nature of matter. The quantum nature of matter might suggest how interesting physics things happen.

Hmm, now you know Creationism and reality. Your next inquiry might lead to subatomic particles, the components of matter. That question is not answered by the Holy Bible. To find such answers look into particle physics. Those expensive atom smashers let us see the effects of smashing a neutron into an atomic nucleus to emit a gamma ray. Other tests show some relations between elementary particles and high energy electromagnetic waves. Such relations suggest elementary particles are standing electromagnetic waves. Therefore, under the right conditions a subatomic particle can be converted to an electromagnetic wave, travel at light speed to a new location, and then be refabricated. The trick with moving goods and people the same way is to know how to mix the light to get the original object instead of a soup of subatomic particles. Once we know the trick, we begin to cease to use planes, barges and trains, subways, and so on. Also, once the assembly trick is known, mass may be converted to energy and energy to mass such that nothing but replication/teleport machines would have value: one could program a machine to convert any object into energy to get the instructions to replicate it by feeding energy into the machine. Pollution would be a thing of the past.

Enjoy your learning experience.

JMG.

ahh, flawed. u forgot to add- or didn't know- the new testament account of creation....it's further back in this thread. your creationest view implies that other worlds exist. no such evidence as of yet, but nor disputed.
cheers