What is the binding force of an atom? My question arises from this; It is well known that in the nucleus of an atom there are protons and neutrons, protons being positively charged and neutrons having no charge (neutral) and of course electrons having a negative charge float freely about the nucleus on thier respective valances. What keeps the nucleus from repeling apart? Like polarities repel and neutrons have no charge so cannot cancel the protons positive charge out. The electrons are free even to join with other atoms so what keeps all matter from just flying apart into oblivion?
On May 26, 7:36 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26 May, 03:31, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Well Pat, it seems I'm not alone in recognizing your fruitless efforts > > in portraying a simple set of faith based beliefs as being anything > > other than the delusive conjuring that it is. > > Fruitless? Methinks you've judged this a tad quickly. Let's revisit > that in another 20 years. > > >But let's have another > > look at what might be a plausible viewpoint concerning the spiritual, > > metaphysical and cosmological world in which we live. Perhaps it is > > simply the cause and effect of human telepathy and interaction with a > > collective consciousness that has evolved and expanded throughout > > time, ergo: the advancement of humanity via the communicative ability > > of the consciousness with that of the collective consciousness and > > subconsciousness. In 386 BC no man woke up one morning and discovered > > laser technology but in time it was discovered through the "collective > > knowledge of the collective subconscious". > > Doesn't exactly explain how the Earth came into being, though. So, I > think there's a distinct lack of 'cosmology' to that viewpoint. > > > I know you are desperate to prove the existence of a supreme being > > that created the universe and out of your desperation you conjure > > ideas just as did the ancients who were desperate to have explanations > > for lightning, thunder and the solar eclipse. I can only be impressed > > by the tenacity with which you hold onto these antiquated ideas of > > what life is all about. Like I said earlier, it can be quite amusing. > > Always glad to put a smile on someone's face!! ;-) > > > Vam is right in identifying your approach as totally anthropologically > > based. > > Yet, actually, I've proved that false. But, as you liked it, you too > are wrong. > > >You actually think that because humans have intent in action > > there must be a creator who has intent. > > No, rather, the existence of intelligence and awareness is evidence > that there is intelligence and awareness at work. I simply have > joined the dots. > > >You are simply an advanced > > organism among the other organisms on the planet that ingest, digest > > and excrete. (don't forget the toilet paper) > > What I would really like for you to answer is this.................... > > Exactly where does this "Great Creator" come from? > > Energy is neither created nor destroyed. > > > Who made the "Great Creator"? > > Energy is neither created nor destroyed. > > > The Super Creator of Great Creators? > > Energy is neither created nor destroyed. > > > Where does it end? > > As soon as you get it through your head that energy is neither created > nor destroyed and that energy is the 'stuff' of which God is made. > > > I can answer that, it ends right here because it is simply another > > which came first chicken or egg question. > > IF there is a God then WHO created God and Who created the God who > > created the God who created God? > > I refer you to energy. Science is happy with the fact that energy is > neither created nor destroyed. So, I ask YOU, who created energy? No > one. Energy exists. It is that simple fact that stands as the > underlying axiom. > > > Imagination is a wonderful thing until we take it seriously! Imagine > > you can fly then jump out the window. Then you will realize the > > reality of your fantasy. That is if you live and I'm hoping you > > aren't taking this suggestion seriously but if you are I hope you are > > living on the first floor or better yet jump out of the basement > > window. LOL > > Of course, as I'm in the UK, the first floor is one floor above the > ground floor. But, I'm not suicidal. Death catches us all > eventually, it's completely fair in that regard. Whilst some may take > issue with which HOW death catches us, that is their problem in that > it takes omniscience to understand why things must be the way they > must be. Although it does NOT take omniscience to understand that it > takes omniscience to understand the previous statement; just decent > insight. ;-) > > > > > On May 25, 7:48 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 25 May, 02:23, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You talk about it all with such affirmation but in all actuality it is > > > > something that you have bought into and choose to believe based on > > > > some written text. What makes you think that book is any different > > > > from any other book, I see no difference between you and a Jehovah > > > > Witness. What makes your belief more believable. There is absolutely > > > > not a shred of evidence that even suggests the existence of a god or > > > > supreme being that is a creator of the universe and life. Even if > > > > there was one I don't see why such a great creator would have to say > > > > something through the writings of a bunch of ignorant desert dwelling > > > > sheep and goat herders. There is no evidence of any heaven or hell or > > > > anything that suggests consequential outcomes to action. We suspect > > > > and give in to superstition in fear of it being real when all the time > > > > we know it is false without foundation. > > > > LOL!! You know, I was up last night just hoping you'd have written > > > something like this. OK, lets look at the atheistic alternative. > > > This whole 'cause and effect' universe was an accident--an effect with > > > no cause. There is no evidence whatsoever that would lead any > > > rational thinker to believe in an effect without a cause. With > > > respect to 'purpose', this whole universe is without one (by atheistic > > > viewpoint). Yet, as an intelligent entity, when you do something, is > > > it 'without purpose'? How often do you act without purpose? So, > > > again, (y)our own experience seems to point to intelligent beings > > > doing things with purposeful intent. Yet the atheist argument is that > > > this causeless effect is without purpose; yet they feel it is their > > > purpose to point that out. No dichotomy there, oh no! Not even > > > you're own existence stands as any evidence to the committed atheist. > > > As for there being nothing that suggests consequential outcomes to > > > action, I refer you to Newton's 3rd Law of motion: For every action > > > there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you think you have > > > disproven THAT by mere disbelief, then I applaud you. However, I'm > > > not clapping, because I think you see, quite clearly, just how > > > ridiculous your argument sounds. Effects without causes and no > > > reactions to actions? What universe do you live in? > > > > > On May 24, 6:30 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 21 May, 22:36, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Your in dreamland DB, I don't need any god to do any work on me. > > > > > > Why > > > > > > do I have to have a god to something to me? > > > > > > > Did you ever consider that your "God" might just want people to > > > > > > enjoy > > > > > > life, to eat drink and be merry, to just live and "Stop" trying to > > > > > > kiss god's ass? > > > > > > If He did, He would have said so...but that's NOT what He said. > > > > > > > I find it all so pathetic. > > > > > > You're supposed to. It's a test. You may be failing. How would you > > > > > know? > > > > > > > On May 21, 11:57 am, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I agree that there are many unanswered questions/unexplained > > > > > > > phenomena > > > > > > > and the like which can easily be fit into a nice little man made > > > > > > > "God > > > > > > > box". It does seem all too convienient while looking at the world > > > > > > > through eyes such as yours. I also look for "proof" and I often > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > it in the human experience. Truly I do not count this as empirical > > > > > > > though the numbers are convincing.HA! One might conclude this is > > > > > > > mass > > > > > > > dilusions of grandure on a global scale but the diversity of the > > > > > > > numbers is what is convincing to me. You see, many of these > > > > > > > "believers" are the same scientists that have you hooked on your > > > > > > > lack > > > > > > > of beleif! What they are not telling you is the very same thing > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > they "know" to be fact! And in the very same way your are bound in > > > > > > > your unbelief they are promoting false "Gods" and have the > > > > > > > believing > > > > > > > masses blinded by "light" and worshiping "myths"! It comes down to > > > > > > > hegamony! Yes the lust for continued power and control and greed > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > material riches. In anothr thread our friend, ash, spoke of "the > > > > > > > Beligerent Dimurge" and that is who is being worshiped. It is not > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > true "God" as I understand God. Far be it from me to try to > > > > > > > convince > > > > > > > you of anything as it is beyond my capacity but I am certain that > > > > > > > God > > > > > > > shall do his own work with you. > > > > > > > > On May 21, 11:22 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I had no doubt that we would differ, Pat. What you say still > > > > > > > > evokes > > > > > > > > the question of a consciousness with intent. To say what IS > > > > > > > > just IS > > > > > > > > can be viewed as a truth, like the big boulder outside my > > > > > > > > window. You > > > > > > > > have created the box by imposing a set of inferences. When > > > > > > > > looking at > > > > > > > > the whole there doesn't have to be a box, which essentially is > > > > > > > > a human > > > > > > > > construct stemming from the need to address the unknown. > > > > > > > > We deal with physical science, the proof of things, a sort of > > > > > > > > macro- > > > > > > > > religion which defines everything in terms of what we see and > > > > > > > > experience with our physical senses while the natural world > > > > > > > > leaves > > > > > > > > open ended areas which we have no answers for. This is the > > > > > > > > point at > > > > > > > > which the constructs begin to take form because there is no > > > > > > > > proof > > > > > > > > otherwise, eg; the Gallileo experience. Without scientific > > > > > > > > proof > > > > > > > > anyone can say anything, purport truth from dust and create > > > > > > > > "Myth". > > > > > > > > Storms, lightning and thunder are no longer angry gods and > > > > > > > > sacrificial > > > > > > > > human lambs are no longer necessary but for some reason > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
