Evolutionism explained. How to explain the existence of matter?

That's wrong. We believe that god created the world and the heaven. And we are not a weapon in the hand of militant atheists and/or social darwinists against anyone who believes in god the creator. Laudate dominum.

[video=youtube;JmD6jkZWAMQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmD6jkZWAMQ[/video]

 

Where do you get these definitions and assertions? There being no energy does not mean it does not exist. Being able to cause something isn't the definition of existence either (though some argue that it is indistinguishable from non-existence). Also, causing things does not require net energy. It may require local energy, but not net energy. We can separate the energy and the corresponding negative energy and thus cause things with the positive energy. Not sure what you mean by "our own illusion".

The creator god hypothesis is simply the hypothesis that a god created the world.

 

I call it "my brain" - sometimes "person". From time to time I say also "I" under special conditions to me - for example if the sun is shining or not shining. By the way: the only thing I know without any doubt is my own existance - but where my intuitions are coming from is even for me myselve a miracle. But from time to time I'm happy about some of my ideas.

If something has no energy then it is not existing because it is not able to cause any form of intercommunication or interaction. Something what has no possibility to cause something is not existing. That's evident in the reality all around.

Sorry - I'm speaking about energy not about strange ideas. Specially I don't speak about anything what has only a little to do with the word "net" if I speak about energy.

The question is clear: Are we able to be our own illusion? Perhaps I could also ask: Are we dead while we don't know that we are dead? I could say in such a context for example: Are we dying our lifes? And this sentence seems to be as true as we are able to say "We are living our lifes".

"God created the world" is our belief and not a hypothese. A religion knows nothing about a hypothese of natural science and how to test such an hypothese in the way natural science is testing such a form of hypothese. We are not able to create god who is creating a universe. That's beyond our possibilities. And I also don't know anything about that phycisists are using a "god created the world" hypothese or theory. It would be on similiar reasons senseless to do so. Very easy: We believe that god created the world. In former times people spoke about such themes on a campfire - today we are using monitors. That's the only difference. The existance of god is the same today as it was billions of years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z2M7H_Zxi8

 

For people questioning the authenticity of this: google is your friend. It comes from this pdf published by "Positive Action for Christ":
http://homeschoolcafe.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/byg_sm.pdf

It appears to be the textbook used by at least one school: Hilltop Christian School, NC.
http://quizlet.com/13369083/bible-test-1-flash-cards/

 

Firstly: what is your obsession with nazis and hitler? Are you on a crusade to ensure godwin's law gets implemented to the fullest?

Secondly: if your post is to be taken seriously (and i hope it is not intended that way) then you look like a schizophrenic paranoiac to me.

 

I'm sure I would have a better chance of accepting it if I could decipher it.

 

One huge vacuum fluctuation. Actually, it is pretty sexy - at least the math is rather pretty - if ya have 20 years to look at the mathematical picture and get a glimpse of how and why it's painted in the way that is. Multiverse cosmologies offer some interesting possibilities, too. This isn't the time or place, though...

 

I used to puzzle over the idea that you can't take something from nothing and you can't make something nothing.

After many years of thought on the subject I came to a conclusion. Something and nothing are the same thing.

It may be wrong but it works for me.

After all... does the math have to be equal on both sides of the equation?

 

the same way some explain the existence of a God... it always was?

which is more likely to always have been?

which is more likely to pop into existence? a God or a speck of matter?


.

 

Fascinating - not your ignorance on god - not your ignorance on the existance of matter - but your psychological structure.

There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle. Albert Einstein

http://www.youtu.be/VLeyCX3Em-c

 

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses. What about if you would firstly learn something and secondly learn something before you are misusing an expression like "schizophrenic paranoiac".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YVgpzvJsA4

 

Decipher ... ah: "decipher" - "dechiffrieren" ... Why did you say I have to change my thoughts if you don't understand what I think? Whatever. If you like to know something try it with questions - if not not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzEbY2IJSHE

 

Your question is nonsensical. Science deals in "how" not "why".

 

Energy and subatomic particles.

 

Sorry, was it not clear to you what opinion I was expressing?

 

Bye bye.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGdFHJXciAQ

 

So: How is it possible that matter is existing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6s6YKlTpfw

 

Energy becomes matter particles when it "cools".

 

So, in other words, you just made it up?

Net is a borrowed term from economics and refers to total energy. Negative energy can be seen as a "loan" of energy and is present whenever an attractive force, gravity for instance, exists. This frees up positive energy which can be used for whatever you want. In this analogy, your argument is like saying that you can't use loaned money because you have a loan which should be paid off.

I'm not sure what interactions you are talking about or how you would assess the properties of an object which has no energy, but such an object would, for instance, be able to interact with another object by draining energy from that other object.

I'm not sure I'm following. Sure, our lives could be an illusion, is that what you mean? We define us and our reality (a "more real" reality than ours cannot exist since that would exist outside of our reality, which is what we mean by the word "real"). How is switching "living" for "dying" an argument for anything?

How is this all relevant? I was referring to the concept of believing in a god, campfires and monitors does not aid the understanding of that.

 

So: Why is not everything matter now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pReugefoB30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHFf7NIwOHQ

 

In other words: Why's scratching a flea when he scratches himself?

Economy? ...

... Good grieve. An economist says everything what he likes ot say as long as he has the hope to be able to earn some money.

As far as I heard it is completly unclear wether "negative energy" has anything to do with real physics. Gravity is always gravity never antigravity. And also in case if a positrons and antipositron are destroying each other then the result is some energy and not nothing or a negative energy.

Are you still alive? http://www.youtu.be/17hEcSsv57g

Money is an illusion.

The german word is "Wechselwirkung". If you are livingh for example in the center of a sun and this sun is not interacting with you (no gravjty, no heat, no physical interaction in generell) then nithgin happens to you - with other words: this sun is physically not existing.

If you are able to identify something as an "object" then it has some energy.

Again: My existance is the only thing I really know without any doubt.

I define nothing in case of me and my reality. I am - that's all.

It makes no fun to die. If this universe here is without energy in total then it is dead (=not existing) for everythign what we could call "future". For me it makes a very big difference to live in a dead prison or to live a lovely world where I'm able to dream and to find what I'm looking for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Mb9tsnYLU

 

Because matter also converts back into energy.

Really, this is physics 101. If you don't already know this stuff then you are too ignorant to make claims about science.

 

I really can't.

But it has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution has to do with the biological changes of life forms over time.

Not how the universe was created.

 

I have no idea how it came into being, and neither do you.

 

"Came into being" is also nonsense. We have no evidence of matter and energy not being.