Our common definitions in science still lack first principal. Matter is so common until we believe that the name is first principal. Instead, matter is a conventional definition of a thing that all observes. But, what is matter? Is it a bundle of energy? Yes, but how was it formed in the first place. Or, did it always exist? Who formatted the arrangement of the bundles of energy for our existence? Is the initial format an act of procreation by our superior beings?
What came first, bundles of energy or pure energy? By the way, energy is a conventional definition of science initially based on the conventional definition of matter. Everything screams intelligent design by our superior beings to me; or rather, a superior being that we call God.
Bible says when the complete comes all incompletes are cancelled; so beware of calling a definition as being the complete.
Beelzedad, I now know that you are a layman in physicists. I wouldn't expect for you to recognize or understand frontier thinking of physics. Try reaching the outer frontier of a discipline before making such a broad assumption.
beelzedad, please stop showing your ignorant. You are foolish not because you don't have the slightest idea about how to address my questions, but rather because you attached my opening dialogue like a fool.
getitrite, what gave you the idea that I have posed a theory? How did you conclude that I think that the bible is the answer. My hell, I opened a forum with questions and statement for theoretical contemplation, and have drawn 5 straight dummies.
You are a god,you created your own principal.All you are doing is trying to justify your own way of looking at it.....that's your choice.Some are meant to know MORE than others because of personal experiences.
Some was PREDESTINE NOT to believe at all.So it is as it should be.Everything is on course........and the dye has been cast.
A better question would be why are you talking about "Physics" in a "religion and philosophy" forum. I guess it goes that you have not a lick of common sense, much be able to determine what someone knows or doesn't know.
Physics isn't either a religion or a philosophy. Which actually proves my point. Good luck though.
Cagsil, why in the world are you saying this is religion and philosophy? Man, I say that you know nothing about the forum. Why is not this a science or physics forum? Please do tell me! Read man, Read!
Wilmers, I was actually trying to be polite about asking you why you were discussing "Physics" in a Religion and Philosophy forum.
All Forums Religion and Philosophy FIRST PRINCIPAL
from the topic Religion and Philosophy
The above is from the top of the page. Maybe you should learn how to select better categories for your topics.
And as I said- physics has nothing to do with religion and/or philosophy, because it's neither of them. I am smart enough to recognize stupidity when I see it. Actually, that is what I have been telling you. Got it?
Cagsil, you are a dummy class A. I choose a topic the closest to my dialogue. Please read content. If you don't understand it just stay out of the forum and not present to me petty technicalities.
For all that you know, physics absolutely has nothing to do with philosophy. It would take me to much time to explain to a dead head dummy that at some level they are interconnected. Why in hell do you think that there is a philosophy of physics?? Why metaphysic (meta= after)? Optimum metaphysics is THEOLOGY!!!
I am going to close my forum because I am getting nothing but dummies!
I don't think a raving looney or a dummy can close a forum thread.
Meta means 'more than' in the manner of super, it does not mean 'after', that is 'post' but to get to post you have to have had a 'pre' or a 'fore' and that pre-supposes an origin and you have no original thought so you are a 're' as in re-gurgitating stuff that you have been told by another 're' as in redundant.
recommend1, meta also means after in this case even by your comments. Pre and fore implies an after. Re also implies that there is an after. "I" close out. It takes a stone fool to call something that is over their head as being nonsensical. Open up and think, you might discover original thoughts.
I bet I know more about physics than you know about grammar. Your post is essentially nonsensical. I don't know any working scientist who would write something like that and expect to be taken seriously in any forum. (And we tend to have our cutting edge discussions with our specialist peers.)
psycheskinner, tell it to a tree or some small animal...Please, you don't have the slight hint about what I stated. It's beyond you. You need to go and have your specialist peers teach you more about physics. Beware what you bet; you could be in for a big surprise. Your are the same dummy as Cagsil.
I see you are still posting rambling nonsense and then berating people for pointing it out to you. I would recommend you to a good education where most kids learn something useful instead of getting indoctrinated with twaddle. You should 'rail against the dying of the light' and get an alternative education before it is too late.
recommend1, this is a forum to discuss legitimate concepts. If you do not have the capacity to understand please stop looking like a fool to me and others that understand what I have stated. Either educate yourself to the questions or stay out of the forum. You don't qualify. The purpose of this forum is to open minds, not encourage formal, previous channels of educations. I am trying with a mohoganny log to bust the mode of dummies thinking and challenge them into the theoretical world where new ideas and concepts with time can be brought into the present to expand our minds. It's called PROGRESS. I started this hub for the purpose of theoretical comtemplation, but have drawn 4 straight dummies. What does it take? A nuclear blast?
Once again, the purpose of my forum is not to teach kids something useful. Since you have the calling, go for it! This forum is not for kids!
recommend1, I see no one mad in this forum, only dead heads. I see dummies and I think that you are number 5?. I am simply trying to get thoughts in a forum that requires theoretical contemplation. Would you believe that this is "HOW WE PROGESS" because what is theoretical today can be reality tomorrow. Please give me a brake from dummies.
What flaws have you pointed out that applies to my forum. I have only heard petty technicalities, and YA'LL screwing around or should I say "F-ing around". How in the world can you point out flaws while you don't understand anything that I am saying? Keep pushing buttons. Good bye.
It is well past that time, and I suspect both ontology and phylogeny have played their part. If our friend had the education he accused us of lacking he would have mastered a rebuttal technique more advanced than the ad hominem ad naseum.
psycheskinner, you are still stuck in the modes of thinking that you were taught. I have realized that you think that what you have learned are absolutes, and unquestionable. You haven't made one comment that apllied to my forum. You are a million miles away. Please, withdraw from the forum, you have nothing to contribute. Honey, you belong in another forum, not this one. One that you can play socialistic snake women.
In other words, no matter how much religionists start and wage wars on one another for their gods and their beliefs, they are always forced to turn to science in order to attain whatever they need to get the job done.
This not only is relevant for wars, but relevant for everything.
Then, when the dead lay strewn on the battlefield, they shift the blame to science.
I don't mind folk debating Theology and the Meaning of Life but there are some people on Hubpages who keep banging on from their electronic pulpit about Jesus and the Bible. I think it's time that Hubpages considered...
As knowledge accelerates over the past 100 years, the schools of thoughts are beginning to unify. The theory of everything is the unification of all physics prescriptions, and a continual investigation into our...
Character assassination appears to be the tactic most frequently used by those who want to ensure that only currently accepted scientific theories are used to draw conclusions in the realm of religion and philosophy....
1. God exists2. God does not exist3. Theist believe 14. Atheist believe 2[Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to betrue.]Everybody understand the first two. So I'll be...
Philosophy and Religion aren't synonymous yet when going to the "Philosophy" and Religion select Category all the options available are religious. Also, not all Philosophy is Atheistic or Agnostic.It is quite...