first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.
how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?
does it make one make more sense then the other to you?
Next question: how did the energy get there?
The total energy of the universe is zero. And, it appears that there is no such thing as nothing, an absence of everything and anything and that, were it possible to create such a thing, it's incredibly unstable.
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
My opinion of Ayn Rand is that she was an extraordinary genius with extraordinary flaws. She was always the smartest person around which must have driven her quite mad with frustration. She had a tough time suffering fools.
Mine is that she thought she was the smartest person around with extraordinary flaws on top of that and that, far from suffering fools, she surrounded herself with them and in the end, proved to be one.
So, I say to you Viviane, Rand may be your encounter at the oasis. Why go thirsty?
I have read her books, her philosophy, many personal observations about her. I find nothing of value there. Why assume I am thirsty just because I don't find value in Rand?
first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.
how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?
does it make one make more sense then the other to you?
Since the big bang is considered to be the "beginning" of the known universe, it would be logically incorrect to assume this law would have governed the the big bang itself. In other words, the big bang is largely responsible for the creation of such laws.
Other universes likely exist, and are not governed by the same laws that govern ours.
That is one of the greatest questions in physics. If there are other universes, could they have other rules? Are the rules we see in this universe a consequence of existence, could they be different or are these rules we see around us the only possible configuration? What drives the rules being what they are?
No one knows, but they are trying to find out!
first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.
how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?
does it make one make more sense then the other to you?
starting from zero, you would have to push I unit and pull another unit the other way to get the 2 unit separation. just because the thing snaps pack to zero, when your exertion stops, does not take away from the fact that two units were required to bring about the interesting "There is something" state. 2what? fisherman;--- 2 halves of the immense energy embodied in the Universe.
Yeah. No. That's just stringing words together in a nonsensical way.The total energy of the universe is zero.
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
Ayn Rand, the person, interests me very little. The person who designed the chair I sit in so comfortably may have been an asshole; should I sit on the floor instead?
Terry, the topic is asking what our opinion of Ayn Rand is. Also, no, don't sit on the floor. Buy a chair from someone that isn't an asshole :)
first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.
how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?
does it make one make more sense then the other to you?
The total energy of the universe is two
Yeah, no, it's not.
1 for mass/gravity, 1 for energy: radiation, movement od expansion. The two are ~balanced, given the illusion of 0. It's 1=1, but 1+1=2' If all the energy would be converted to mass (or anti-matter) too, and the twain should meet, you would have another #2 bang, BIG.
That's literally nonsensical gibberish.
first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.
how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?
does it make one make more sense then the other to you?
For the big bang, it would not make sense that this energy came out of nothing and seems to violate that
Why? The total energy of the universe is zero.
To me....if God exists then if energy always is and can't be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another then it would fit in with God, and would mean that everything in existence came from his power.
You just stipulated that energy cannot be created. Why could "god" energy have always existed but not some other, non-god form of energy?
Where did the energy initially come from since the law prevents it from being created? Doesn't make any more sense then God always having been.
Again, the total energy of the universe is zero, in balance. You're assuming some energy was created that remains.
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
The point is no one should FORCE someone to do with their own money what someone else thinks they should.So, I should be able to opt out of taxes?
I approached Rand's writings for this reason: their claims to be OBJECTIVE.
human aggression could bring civilisation and humanity to an end , says stephen hawking.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-space-travel-will-save-mankind-and-we-should-colonise-other-planets-10058811.html.
compare ecclesiastes 8:9.
Stupidity is the more likely answer.
I thought you were done preaching.
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
Thank you for understanding what I said.
For what it's worth, I have not missed your argumentativeness.
Of course I have an argument. This is a thread asking for opinion on a topic on a discussion forum. I am not sure why you would expect me to not have an argument. If you have a differing opinion, please present it. Focusing on style rather than substance doesn't move the debate anywhere. No one has been insulted, no strawman arguments made.
You seem to confuse "directness not wrapped in sugary words and backed with facts" with "argumentative".
