God=Energy

[Richi07]

See, I have this theory. I think God and Energy are the same thing.

I started to think this since I saw "The Secret" movie. They said that if you want something you just ask the universe for it and it will give it to you. They also compared Energy with God. For example: God wasn't created and God can't be destroyed; Energy can't be created or destroyed.

I once heard a guy saying: "If Matter=Energy (E=mc2) and Energy can't be created or destroyed (Law of Conservation of Energy), then the universe doesn't need a creator." But I thought: "Unless the Creator=Energy." There are new physics theories that claim that matter is just "frozen" Energy, so you could say the universe is made up of Energy or that Energy created the universe. And God created the universe.

Energy is everywhere. God is everywhere. So that means I'm part of God? Well, yes, I've always been told that God is in 4 main places: the word, the Eucharist, the priest and within every human.

I'm not trying to make you believe in this. I just say it is something I think. Of course, I can't be certain about it, but it makes sense to me. What do you think?

[Death]

Well, that goes against everything that the Bible has said about God. In fact, if that were true, then there would be no point in having religion or praying, since God would just be everything that exists and would not react to your futile attempts to contact him in any way.

[Richi07]

Well, that goes against everything that the Bible has said about God. In fact, if that were true, then there would be no point in having religion or praying, since God would just be everything that exists and would not react to your futile attempts to contact him in any way.

Well, you know, "The Secret" says that you should ask the universe for what you want and it may give that to you. If my theory is correct, then that's the same as praying, so there is some sense in that. Or not?

[Death]

Depends on if your 'prayers' are going to actually yeild an answer. Surely God would have to be person for that to be possible? No?

[Richi07]

Depends on if your 'prayers' are going to actually yeild an answer. Surely God would have to be person for that to be possible? No?

I don't think so. I believe that the human mind is more powerful than we think. Einstein only used 20% of his brain, I think. Maybe, if our brain waves are strong enough we could get a response from Energy acording to what we want. Maybe.

[INFERNO]

I once heard a guy saying: "If Matter=Energy (E=mc2) and Energy can't be created or destroyed (Law of Conservation of Energy), then the universe doesn't need a creator." But I thought: "Unless the Creator=Energy."

Why do you propose the creator equals energy? You have certainly shown similarities between them, such as cannot be destroyed nor created, however, the Christian god (I'm assuming you're using this one) is an intelligent conscious being, while energy is not. So why are they equal?


Energy is everywhere. God is everywhere.

I'm assuming that by "God" you're referring to the Christian god. In that case, the bible is definitely valid but like many things in the bible, there's several passages that imply god is not everywhere. However, given that your view seems to be different than what traditional modern Christianity is, it's only fair if I ask you this: do you accept the entire bible or parts of it (which parts)?

I don't think so. I believe that the human mind is more powerful than we think. Einstein only used 20% of his brain, I think. Maybe, if our brain waves are strong enough we could get a response from Energy acording to what we want. Maybe.

If god/energy is always around us and is us, then wouldn't any strength of brain waves be sufficient? Why do they need to reach a certain threshold in order to have the desired response?

[Richi07]

Why do you propose the creator equals energy? You have certainly shown similarities between them, such as cannot be destroyed nor created, however, the Christian god (I'm assuming you're using this one) is an intelligent conscious being, while energy is not. So why are they equal?

Yes, I'm talking about the Christian God and I propose He equals Energy because of that (and this is something I didn't say): "If matter is Energy (E=mc2) and Energy can't be created or destroyed (Law of Conservation of Energy) then the universe doesn't need a creator."

I'm assuming that by "God" you're referring to the Christian god. In that case, the bible is definitely valid but like many things in the bible, there's several passages that imply god is not everywhere. However, given that your view seems to be different than what traditional modern Christianity is, it's only fair if I ask you this: do you accept the entire bible or parts of it (which parts)?

OK, you've got a point there: I haven't read the entire Bible. Maybe I should read it before I start thinking in the existence or not existence of God. The only Bible book I've read completely is the Apocalipse (is that how you write it?) and I've read part of the Genesis.

If god/energy is always around us and is us, then wouldn't any strength of brain waves be sufficient? Why do they need to reach a certain threshold in order to have the desired response?

Because brain waves are different for every person. And maybe any strength would be sufficient for any result but you want a specific result to happen, so you need a specific strength. No?

[Obscene Eyedeas]

Yes, I'm talking about the Christian God and I propose He equals Energy because of that (and this is something I didn't say): "If matter is Energy (E=mc2) and Energy can't be created or destroyed (Law of Conservation of Energy) then the universe doesn't need a creator."

Energy can be created from nothing as far as recent studies have shown. Particles that jump in and out of existence without being prompted by anything. (named dark matter) you're suggestion would involve God being equal to energy that does not exist at times and that god is always expanding like the energy making up the universe.

OK, you've got a point there: I haven't read the entire Bible. Maybe I should read it before I start thinking in the existence or not existence of God. The only Bible book I've read completely is the Apocalipse (is that how you write it?) and I've read part of the Genesis.

So from such little knowledge you deduce a theory which holds little hold over the word of the bible which is God's teachings on earth.

Because brain waves are different for every person. And maybe any strength would be sufficient for any result but you want a specific result to happen, so you need a specific strength. No?

No. One must expel greater energy then is needed if one needs a specific strength. You must take into account the actions behind the releasing of that strength and take that into account. If god though is truly everything, why do we need to go to places of worship when we could celebrate God anywhere, when we could speak our thoughts to god anywhere

[Insanity Fair]

OK, you've got a point there: I haven't read the entire Bible. Maybe I should read it before I start thinking in the existence or not existence of God. The only Bible book I've read completely is the Apocalipse (is that how you write it?) and I've read part of the Genesis.


By the Apocalypse, I'm assuming you mean, Revelation, Daniel, Zechariah, Isaiah, and Malachi? Revelation is usually thought of as the only prophetic book of the bible because the whole book is entirely vague prophecy. But there are many books of the bible, (most taking place in the latter area of the old testament) that prophesy the end of days. By saying you've read the Apocalypse you aren't specifying a certain book. You are implying you've read every aspect of the bible that tells of the end of days which I have a hunch isn't true.

Also Interesting Debating Tip:
Don't inform someone that you know nothing of what you're talking about then try to prove your point.

[Richi07]

If god though is truly everything, why do we need to go to places of worship when we could celebrate God anywhere, when we could speak our thoughts to god anywhere

Well, I've always been taught that we do can speak our thoughts to God anywhere. The other day, the priest said that. And that's what I do.

[Richi07]

By the Apocalypse, I'm assuming you mean, Revelation, Daniel, Zechariah, Isaiah, and Malachi? Revelation is usually thought of as the only prophetic book of the bible because the whole book is entirely vague prophecy. But there are many books of the bible, (most taking place in the latter area of the old testament) that prophesy the end of days. By saying you've read the Apocalypse you aren't specifying a certain book. You are implying you've read every aspect of the bible that tells of the end of days which I have a hunch isn't true.

No, in my Bible (the one I have at home) there is a book called "Apocalypse". It is the last book.

[Sage]

I started to think this since I saw "The Secret" movie.

This is where you lose credibility.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Energy can be created from nothing as far as recent studies have shown. Particles that jump in and out of existence without being prompted by anything. (named dark matter) you're suggestion would involve God being equal to energy that does not exist at times and that god is always expanding like the energy making up the universe.

Matter cannot be created, nor destroyed.

Modern Theory of Matter
The modern theory of matter dates from the work of John Dalton at the beginning of the 19th cent. The atom is considered the basic unit of any element, and atoms may combine chemically to form molecules, the molecule being the smallest unit of any substance that possesses the properties of that substance. An element in modern theory is any substance all of whose atoms are the same (i.e., have the same atomic number), while a compound is composed of different types of atoms together in molecules.

Physical and Chemical Changes
The difference between a mixture and a compound helps to illustrate the difference between a physical change and a chemical change. Different atoms may also be present together in a mixture, but in a mixture they are not bound together chemically as they are in a compound. In a physical change, such as a change of state (e.g., from solid to liquid), the substance as a whole changes, but its underlying structure remains the same; water is still composed of molecules containing two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom whether it is in the form of ice, liquid water, or steam. In a chemical change, however, the substance participates in a chemical reaction, with a consequent reordering of its atoms. As a result, it becomes a different substance with a different set of properties.

Many of the physical properties and much of the behavior of matter can be understood without detailed assumptions about the structure of atoms and molecules. For example, the kinetic-molecular theory of gases provides a good explanation of the nature of temperature and the basis of the various gas laws and also gives insight into the different states of matter. Substances in different states vary in the strength of the forces between their molecules, with intermolecular forces being strongest in solids and weakest in gases. The force holding like molecules together is called cohesion, while that between unlike molecules is called adhesion (see adhesion and cohesion). Among the phenomena resulting from intermolecular forces are surface tension and capillarity. An even larger number of aspects of matter can be understood when the nature and structure of the atom are taken into account. The quantum theory has provided the key to understanding the atom, and most basic problems relating to the atom have been solved.

The Relationship of Matter and Energy
The atomic theory of matter does not answer the question of the basic nature of matter. It is now known that matter and energy are intimately related. According to the law of mass-energy equivalence, developed by Albert Einstein as part of his theory of relativity, a quantity of matter of mass m possesses an intrinsic rest mass energy E given by E = mc2, where c is the speed of light. This equivalence is dramatically demonstrated in the phenomena of nuclear fission and fusion (see nuclear energy; nucleus), in which a small amount of matter is converted to a rather large amount of energy. The converse reaction, the conversion of energy to matter, has been observed frequently in the creation of many new elementary particles. The study of elementary particles has not solved the question of the nature of matter but only shifted it to a smaller scale.

From http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0859538.html

The first subatomic particle to be discovered was the electron, identified in 1897 by J. J. Thomson. After the nucleus of the atom was discovered in 1911 by Ernest Rutherford, the nucleus of ordinary hydrogen was recognized to be a single proton. In 1932 the neutron was discovered. An atom was seen to consist of a central nucleus—containing protons and, except for ordinary hydrogen, neutrons—surrounded by orbiting electrons. However, other elementary particles not found in ordinary atoms immediately began to appear.

In 1928 the relativistic quantum theory of P. A. M. Dirac hypothesized the existence of a positively charged electron, or positron, which is the antiparticle of the electron; it was first detected in 1932. Difficulties in explaining beta decay (see radioactivity) led to the prediction of the neutrino in 1930, and by 1934 the existence of the neutrino was firmly established in theory (although it was not actually detected until 1956). Another particle was also added to the list: the photon, which had been first suggested by Einstein in 1905 as part of his quantum theory of the photoelectric effect.

The next particles discovered were related to attempts to explain the strong interactions, or strong nuclear force, binding nucleons (protons and neutrons) together in an atomic nucleus. In 1935 Hideki Yukawa suggested that a meson (a charged particle with a mass intermediate between those of the electron and the proton) might be exchanged between nucleons. The meson emitted by one nucleon would be absorbed by another nucleon; this would produce a strong force between the nucleons, analogous to the force produced by the exchange of photons between charged particles interacting through the electromagnetic force. (It is now known, of course, that the strong force is mediated by the gluon.) The following year a particle of approximately the required mass (about 200 times that of the electron) was discovered and named the mu meson, or muon. However, its behavior did not conform to that of the theoretical particle. In 1947 the particle predicted by Yukawa was finally discovered and named the pi meson, or pion.

Both the muon and the pion were first observed in cosmic rays. Further studies of cosmic rays turned up more particles. By the 1950s these elementary particles were also being observed in the laboratory as a result of particle collisions produced by a particle accelerator.

One of the current frontiers in the study of elementary particles concerns the interface between that discipline and cosmology. The known quarks and leptons, for instance, are typically grouped in three families (where each family contains two quarks and two leptons); investigators have wondered whether additional families of elementary particles might be found. Recent work in cosmology pertaining to the evolution of the universe has suggested that there could be no more families than four, and the cosmological theory has been substantiated by experimental work at the Stanford Linear Accelerator and at CERN, which indicates that there are no families of elementary particles other than the three that are known today.

So you don't get the idea that elementary particles are new matter. Also from the same site.

[Insanity Fair]

No, in my Bible (the one I have at home) there is a book called "Apocalypse". It is the last book.

What religion are we speaking of then?

[INFERNO]

Yes, I'm talking about the Christian God and I propose He equals Energy because of that (and this is something I didn't say): "If matter is Energy (E=mc2) and Energy can't be created or destroyed (Law of Conservation of Energy) then the universe doesn't need a creator."


You ignored entirely what I said, so I'll try again: for the purposes of this debate with you, I'll agree energy cannot be made nor destroyed. However, god is a conscious intelligent being and energy is not conscious, is not intelligent and is not a living being. So, why do you then say energy is all of these things in order for energy = god?


OK, you've got a point there: I haven't read the entire Bible. Maybe I should read it before I start thinking in the existence or not existence of God. The only Bible book I've read completely is the Apocalipse (is that how you write it?) and I've read part of the Genesis.


There is no book in the bible called the Apocalypse, there is however, pieces of various books that do refer to the apocalypse, such as the book of Daniel and of course the Revelations (the last book). As everyone knows, there are books that were excluded so if you are referring to those particular books, none are called Apocalypse. Some may refer or talk about it but they do talk about other things as well just as the other books of the Bible do. Perhaps it's a book that is about the Bible written by some people documenting the apocalypse in the bible?

Either way, you have a very limited knowledge of the Christian god. You don't need to read all of the bible but reading only parts of Genesis doesn't really show what the god in your belief, what jesus, what Satan and other philosophical elements and characters do.


Because brain waves are different for every person. And maybe any strength would be sufficient for any result but you want a specific result to happen, so you need a specific strength.

You re-iterated in very similar wording what my question was but haven't answered it. My question was WHY do these varying strengths be needed if God/energy is within all of us and can grant us our desire?

No, in my Bible (the one I have at home) there is a book called "Apocalypse". It is the last book.

What is the name of your bible you have at home?

[Richi07]

You ignored entirely what I said, so I'll try again: for the purposes of this debate with you, I'll agree energy cannot be made nor destroyed. However, god is a conscious intelligent being and energy is not conscious, is not intelligent and is not a living being. So, why do you then say energy is all of these things in order for energy = god?

OK, let's define first: conscious, intelligent and living being. I would define them like this:

conscious: being intentionally aware of one's existence
intelligent: having the capacity for thought and reason
living being: organism made up by 1 or more carbon-based cells, that is capable of being born, grow, reproduce and die.

Acording to these definitions, I would say that I don't know if Energy is conscious or intelligent, but it could be. Why not? And the definition of living being doesn't fit with Energy but it doesn't fit with God either.

There is no book in the bible called the Apocalypse, there is however, pieces of various books that do refer to the apocalypse, such as the book of Daniel and of course the Revelations (the last book). As everyone knows, there are books that were excluded so if you are referring to those particular books, none are called Apocalypse. Some may refer or talk about it but they do talk about other things as well just as the other books of the Bible do. Perhaps it's a book that is about the Bible written by some people documenting the apocalypse in the bible?

You see, I'm a Spanish speaker so, I read the Bible in Spanish. And on the Bible I have the last book is called "Apocalipsis" which is Spanish for "Apocalypse".

It is the book that is very, very metaphorical; the one that talks about a God with iron legs, a bright face as sunshine, a tongue like a sword, etc.

Anyway, this book has nothing to do with the original topic, I think we've turned the topic a little bit.

You re-iterated in very similar wording what my question was but haven't answered it. My question was WHY do these varying strengths be needed if God/energy is within all of us and can grant us our desire?

Hmm... You have a good point. I guess God doesn't want to grant us all of our desires...

[INFERNO]

OK, let's define first: conscious, intelligent and living being. I would define them like this:

conscious: being intentionally aware of one's existence
intelligent: having the capacity for thought and reason
living being: organism made up by 1 or more carbon-based cells, that is capable of being born, grow, reproduce and die.

Acording to these definitions, I would say that I don't know if Energy is conscious or intelligent, but it could be. Why not? And the definition of living being doesn't fit with Energy but it doesn't fit with God either.

According to your definition, god is conscious and intelligent. As to whether he is a living being, it is a yes-no answer because certain lines of thought state that Jesus, Holy Spirit and God are all one being expressed differently or that God and Jesus are one in the same, or that they're all separate beings. It's arguable but it's definite that god is conscious and intelligent. The bible was written in god's name or god wrote the bible (whichever you choose), shows that god has intelligence and throughout the bible, he keeps demanding one worship him so he must know he exists.

Energy on the other hand is none of these.

I'm confused as to why you believe god is not conscious and intelligent as I keep getting the feeling we're not on the same page of discussing the same god.


Hmm... You have a good point. I guess God doesn't want to grant us all of our desires...

Then what is the point of praying and sending out the brain waves if god isn't going to grant them all. When you pray, there usually is a 50-50 chance of it being granted but if god is dead set against it, you have no chance of getting what you desire so why bother praying? We may not know what he won't grant but if we've prayed and prayed yet nothing has happened, seems reasonable that god just isn't going to grant your prayer so should pray for something else or not at all.