On Dec 8, 4:57 pm, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > Not to mention that "work" is also kinetic energy! ;) >
There is nothing that isn't energy. Well, to my knowledge, I, nor no one of which I know, has discovered anything that isn't some form of energy. The only argument I can think of that may lead someone there is if someone demanded that 'nothing' had to consist of some underlying substance (although I view that argument as a false premiss, as nothing is simply that which does not exist and has NO substance). If one conceded an underlying substance to 'nothing', then that substance could be called 'non-existence' and MAY, in a twisted way, be viewed as something other than energy; but, as non- existence, by definition, does not exist, one would never find anything--even to the inclusion of a 'nothing'--that would be made of it. Like I said, it's the only arguent that leads anywhere close; but, I thik it's a black hole of an idea in that the idea sucks so much, it sucks itself to oblivion. ;-) > On Dec 8, 8:47 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 8, 6:59 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > WOW! I get Ash you work so that is proof of your exist. What greater > > > proof > > > does one need than that. > > > Allan ( ",) > > > Hmmm, now let's see how I can bend/twist that into my theory: > > > 1) Work, technically, is an act of force performed BY an object made > > of energy UPON an object made of energy. > > 2) Energy exists. > > 3) People are made of energy, thus, able to perform 'work' given > > something made of energy on which to 'work'. > > > Yup, it's pretty tight, although now we all know it takes 3 steps to > > make it a decent (WARNING: SELF_FLATTERY!!) proof. ;-) > > > PS Self-flattery is allowed in a system where there is only one object > > made of energy because there is only one object; thus, all flattery is > > a form of self-flattery, even though the 'seeming' individuals don't > > realise it. ;-) > > > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I have to be short right now, you are right that what I said doesn't > > > > negate your original or following statements. > > > > > Time, time, time... Duty calls- > > > > > On 12/6/2010 7:05 AM, RP Singh wrote: > > > > > Why think of time in any sense at all , but doesn't it seem reasonable > > > > to > > > > believe that there have always been universes and life and death will > > > > continue in infinity whereas it is accepted that this universe began and > > > > will end. My point is that like God Creation with a chain of universes > > > > will > > > > continue in eternity. > > > > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> RP I don't think that time exists in a substantial sense, except to > > > >> explain sequences of events or provide reference states/events. From > > > >> what we > > > >> do know of it, if I am correct, time is relative, and I am beginning to > > > >> think of it similarly to gravity. In my view the present can and the > > > >> past > > > >> has been affected by the future. Through this I accept causality but > > > >> deny > > > >> determinism. > > > > >> Now why cloak explanation in very human terms like happiness and > > > >> loneliness? What is pleasurable and painful to this trans-being? This > > > >> implies to me a changeful One, not eternal and omnipotent in the linear > > > >> senses usually attributed. But something alive, with living parts > > > >> which have > > > >> an impact on the whole. Sorry if I am putting words in your mouth, > > > >> care to > > > >> clarify more? > > > > >> On 12/5/2010 11:14 PM, RP Singh wrote: > > > > >> Ash my meaning is that God finds his happiness in his creation and > > > >> therefore , though universes have a beginning and an end , Creation > > > >> has no > > > >> beginning and no end as there would always be universes before and > > > >> after the > > > >> present universes. In other words there would be no beginning or end of > > > >> time. > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:25 AM, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> This leads us to the question of the existence of our universe at > > > >>> all, > > > >>> if a being existed: omnipresent, omniscient, eternal; what point > > > >>> would there > > > >>> be to creating our universe? > > > > >>> On 12/5/2010 12:12 PM, RP Singh wrote: > > > > >>> Francis , if creation were to have a beginning and an end the > > > >>> eternity of > > > >>> God would have no meaning as it is in creation that God's presence is > > > >>> felt. > > > >>> God would have become a very lonely fellow. > > > > >>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:08 PM, frantheman < > > > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>> RP, I've asked the question before and I'll ask it again: > > > > >>>> Who sez? > > > > >>>> Any of us can make pronouncements ... about anything. The trick is to > > > >>>> back them up. > > > > >>>> Francis > > > > >>>> On 5 Dez., 16:09, RP <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>> > There is no beginning or end of God. He is eternal. There is no > > > >>>> > beginning or end of creation. Before this universe there were other > > > >>>> > universes and after this universe there will be other universes. In > > > >>>> > fact there is no point in time when there was a first universe or > > > >>>> > there will be a last universe. God and Creation are both eternal , > > > >>>> > it > > > >>>> > is us beings that are finite. > > > > -- > > > ( > > > ) > > > I_D Allan > > > > If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken > > > Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
