A Civil Religious Debate

Energy and charge are different, I just used charge as an example. I was just saying that positive and negative charge both exist, but they also cancel each other out, so the total charge is zero.

Yes they are all theoretical. All I am doing is there are models in which the universe is eternal. All our models before Planck time are theoretical, they are all hypothesis, and at this moment cannot be tested. So people shouldn't take them as facts, because they are not.

There may be in a couple, but I haven't heard these problems. I don't think they would lose energy, just because energy is conserved. I don't know what you mean by overheat.

One way to picture it could be to do with charge. An electron has a negative and a proton has a positive. However the overall charge is zero.

The example Hawking gave in his programme was digging a hole. when you dig a hole you end up with a pile and a hole. n and u, if you put the pile n back into the hole u, then it levels out.

I hope this helps you.

So it seems you are taking the part about the land being laid waste to mean some small retaliations.

What I am saying in response to that is; if you look at the text, you would not get that from it. There appears to be many different interpretations of that verse you could use.

1) It could be before or during Jesus' life.

2) It could be big battles or small retaliations.

3) The cities could or could not be destroyed.

The prophesy appears to be ambiguous, which would make it a bad prophesy.

It says before the boy could discern right from wrong which could practically mean any time frame from birth to conscious thinking thought, some could even argue before birth. But if we must continue the Jews were already under Roman rule and essentially crushed in comparison to the state Israel was in the time if Isaiah.

I would say this is a prime example of trying to fit an event to a prophesy. essentially crushed and some could even argue before birth.. When the prophesy doesn't fit, expand it so it does.

If we take what you are saying, then the prophesy is ambiguous. You can take it as before or during Jesus' life. You can take the laid to waste part and meaning, under the rule of a group of people or the main cities being destroyed. There are probably other interpretations I could give. A prophesy which is ambiguous, is not a prophesy at all.

Let's even say you reject this suggestion. Their were several Jewish revolts that were crushed by the Romans and the "land laid to waste" could be the revolts being crushed because they were laid to waste, so their you go.

Can you provide Jewish revolts, against the Romans?

The earliest one I can think of occurred in 66 CE .

I do enjoy this, you can never respond to an argument. If you think your arguments are strong, why can you not defend them?

You constantly resort to swearing and abuse, all that does is make people think you cannot respond to the criticism.

We'll see who's right, in this life or the next.

Why will someone provide some evidence for God?

Also I highly doubt there will be a next life, when we die, there is nothing that can live on.

Vampires, unicorns, tooth fairy, these matter not. We're talking about God, not a philosophical debate about how to not prove something is there. You're the one clumping them altogether as if they're nearly the same thing.

The vampire example is just there to show, that just because something cannot be disproved, it doesn't mean it is reasonable to believe it.

Also you said "God is not a fairytale, "fairytale" is just a word people like you (a non believer) enjoys saying as if you've got proof that no God is there."

Vampires, fairies and leprechauns are all fairy tales, and you cannot disprove them.

Also they are some similarities. Both are supernatural and both have poor or non existent evidence, yet people still believed in them.

To you they're all fantasy, to me God is much more than a fantasy. To me, santa claus is a fantasy. To me, unicorn is a fantasy.

Why do you consider Unicorns and vampires are a fantasy?

There may be a few books and accounts for vampires, and perhaps one time one guy saw a unicorn, however, what does this have to do with me, amongst billions of people that believe in any God? Now we're talking apples and oranges, not fruit altogether.

Many cultures throughout history believed in vampires, it isn't just a few books. Just like Gods, Vampires, witches and many different supernatural beings have been part of our history. Millions possible billions of people in history have believed in witches and vampires, so if numbers of people who believed in it matters, then these should also be considered.

Further, there are many more people that can agree that vampires, true vampires that can fly, that can drink blood to live, vampires that are 1,000 years old, do not exists. There are few people whom claim that unicorns exist.

And so on the premise, yes I am using numbers for this particular case to point on, no body gives a shit about vampires and unicorns and tooth fairies and santa claus, those are not important.

It doesn't matter if people care about Vampires, Unicorns and so on. The point is you say they don't exist and you cannot prove that they don't. Yet you say that God exists and then say I can't prove he doesn't. Just because something cannot be disproved, it doesn't mean it is reasonable to believe it. If it did, then vampires, fairies, witches and unicorns are all reasonable beliefs.

You, and others, are attempting to clump them all together and state "They're just the imagination of people, like people believing in santa claus, tooth fairy ect"... These things do not matter and are not valuable to the human being!

Why does it matter if they are valuable to humans? If they are in the imagination of people, it doesn't really matter if they are important or not.

OBVIOUSLY, there holds more grounds and value when speaking about God. God in the sense of a "deity", or "creator", or whatever; GOD. God is far more valuable to a person than a fucking vampire!

It may be more valuable, I agree it is a more important matter whether God exists. However it doesn't matter if it is more valuable, when trying to determine whether either one is true or not, you should not have one rule for one and another rule for the other. Which you seem to be doing when it comes to not being able to disprove something.

And further, I can picture one saying "Well, just because it's valuable does not mean it exists" or "Just because billions of people believe it to be true, does not mean it exists" and so and so and so.

I agree.

I am glad you agree with this.

On the mere fact that people have MANY different Gods and the human imagination is almost infinite and is a wonderful thing. Who can prove that God is not real? Fuck the vampires, santa claus, and the others. Again, they hold little to no value.

The whole point of the Vampire example was that just because you cannot disprove something, does not make it reasonable to believe it.

You say Who can prove that God is not real? , I flip it and say who can prove vampires or witches are not real?. it matters not if one is more valuable than the other, what matters is you are being inconsistent.

However, to me and to many others in whatever God they believe in, God is real, and is tangible and is logical, and is rational. Who are you to say otherwise?

To people in history Zeus, vampires and witches were all real. That doesn't matter, what matters is what evidence is there for those beliefs. The evidence for all of them is poor to non existent, just like the God of the bible.

The energy would be zero, because gravitational energy is negative and it counteracts the positive energy ( light, matter and anti-matter).

Stephen Hawking describes why Gravity is considered negative energy, I will put what he says below.

"Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less [positive] energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together".

Since it takes positive energy to separate the two pieces of matter, gravity must be using negative energy to pull them together. Thus, "the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."

How is an infinite number of big bangs impossible?

There are cyclic models, in which the universe is infinite.

There are also models in which we are just one universe, in an eternal multiverse.

I am not saying any of these models are correct, all I am saying is there is that, there are models in which the universe is eternal, and we do not know whether it began or not.