• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Adam and Eve, Original Sin

ethanUNC said:
It seems to be a fictional creation of yours. There is only energy: no energy is purer than other energy.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? Couldn't use the Google brain to figure that one out?
 
grip said:
Are you sure about that? Couldn't use the Google brain to figure that one out?
Click to expand...

Let's try this again. Energy is defined as the ability to do work. It has nothing to do with "pureness" like the purity of distilled water.
 
ethanUNC said:
Let's try this again. Energy is defined as the ability to do work. It has nothing to do with "pureness" like the purity of distilled water.
Click to expand...

The end product of matter-antimatter collision are photons at low energies and massive particles at high energies. It used to be called pure energy.

"Pure energy" is used to denote any intermediate state that carries no conserved charges. So a single virtual photon is "pure energy". A virtual graviton or their pair would also be "pure energy". If a graviton exists? "Pure energy" is meant to have the property that it's not hard for other objects to absorb it (or emit it) without changing their character qualitatively.

So what is dark energy? Is it pure or not known? Tell me since you know.
 
grip said:
The end product of matter-antimatter collision are photons at low energies and massive particles at high energies. It used to be called pure energy.

"Pure energy" is used to denote any intermediate state that carries no conserved charges. So a single virtual photon is "pure energy". A virtual graviton or their pair would also be "pure energy". If a graviton exists? "Pure energy" is meant to have the property that it's not hard for other objects to absorb it (or emit it) without changing their character qualitatively.

So what is dark energy? Is it pure or not known? Tell me since you know.
Click to expand...

It's not something I'm going to entertain because your argument is fundamentally flawed. No scientific phenomena or lack of understanding offers any evidence to there being any supreme being at all, let alone one made up in a story book 2000 years ago.
 
ethanUNC said:
It's not something I'm going to entertain because your argument is fundamentally flawed. No scientific phenomena or lack of understanding offers any evidence to there being any supreme being at all, let alone one made up in a story book 2000 years ago.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, you give up. Sorry if I made you think too much.
 
grip said:
Oh ok, you give up. Sorry if I made you think too much.
Click to expand...

I saw your argument earlier--the stereotypical "I know God created it because I just can't comprehend it any other way." I assume this argument follows along a similar line, and it's a cop out--intellectual weakness.
 
ethanUNC said:
I saw your argument earlier--the stereotypical "I know God created it because I just can't comprehend it any other way." I assume this argument follows along a similar line, and it's a cop out--intellectual weakness.
Click to expand...

Why did Einstein say, "god doesn't play dice with the universe"?
 
grip said:
Why did Einstein say, "god doesn't play dice with the universe"?
Click to expand...

Einstein was doubting Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle. He essentially was asking if the universe could have begun in more than one way. Einstein was also irritated when Christians took this out context to mean a personal god.
 
ethanUNC said:
Einstein was doubting Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle. He essentially was asking if the universe could have begun in more than one way. Einstein was also irritated when Christians took this out context to mean a personal god.
Click to expand...


If he wasn't talking about a god, then what in the hell was he talking about? I assume you think Einstein had an intellectual weakness?
 
grip said:
If he wasn't talking about a god, then what in the hell was he talking about? I assume you think Einstein had an intellectual weakness?
Click to expand...

I just told you what he was talking about. Physicists like Einstein only reference God in an atheistic and poetic way (pantheism)
 
ethanUNC said:
I just told you what he was talking about. Physicists like Einstein only reference God in an atheistic and poetic way (pantheism)
Click to expand...


So now you know what Einstein meant because you were in his head? I guess he thought god didn't exist, except in an imaginary way? That would pretty much apply to everyone, since the only people that talk to Him are in the happy house.
 
grip said:
So now you know what Einstein meant because you were in his head? I guess he thought god didn't exist, except in an imaginary way? That would pretty much apply to everyone, since the only people that talk to Him are in the happy house.
Click to expand...

You are correct. Einstein was an atheist in the sense you are thinking.
 
Hiram said:
God is not tempted, Man is. You can be good by not doing evil.
Click to expand...

I never said that God is tempted? And that's the point. Evil has to be an option for good to come about.
 
phattonez said:
I never said that God is tempted? And that's the point. Evil has to be an option for good to come about.
Click to expand...

No, Good is the presence that is interrupted by evil. Reverse your thinking.:)
 
phattonez said:
Evil has to be an option for good to come about.
Click to expand...

How exactly does one prove such an assertion? Please, demonstrate that this is true. Probably start by defining "good" and "evil". Then give evidence to support that one requires the other.
 
Paschendale said:
How exactly does one prove such an assertion? Please, demonstrate that this is true. Probably start by defining "good" and "evil". Then give evidence to support that one requires the other.
Click to expand...

If there is no choice for evil, then an action cannot be good. It is like choosing a green apple or a red apple. Choosing green is not evil, and choosing red is not evil. They are neutral options. However, if you can buy an apple from a store or steal an apple from an orphanage, then clearly in this scenario buying the apple is the good choice while stealing the apple is the evil choice. If there is no evil choice, then even something as good as saving the life of another would not be good if that was the only option available. If you had no choice but to save the child from being hit by a car, then what should you be commended for. However, if you saved the child instead of standing idly by, the evil choice, then you have done good.

Without choice there cannot be good.
 
If Eve doomed the entire human race over one apple, I wonder what she would do for a Klondike bar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom