Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 00:23:36 -0800
To: E*****, Nicholas P*****
From: Darwin Bedford <Darwin@atheists.net>
Subject: Re: From one atheist to another
What I am saying is that the true essence of the universe was already there. If some of it was this "negative gravitational energy" that you talk about then that's fine. Then the universe did not start with a big bang because before the big bang there were conditions that led up to it. Somehow, I still don't think that you are going to get it. Are you trying to tell me that at some point in the past there was nothing and at a later point than that there was an event in which afterwards there was a universe? I don't think so, sorry--there must have been something all along, however queer.
There are different versions of the story regarding the "turtles all the way down".
At 02:35 PM 2/17/2003 -0600, you wrote:
Negative gravitational energy gives an explaination for the lack of anti-matter as compared to matter. Given our knowledge (or lack therof) of physics under conditions produced in a singularity (big bang), the occurance of a negative force acting on the universe could be accounted for by the disappearance of the balancing anti-matter. Lets look at this, matter + anti-matter = nothing and matter or anti-matter = energy then matter + energy = nothing. Nothing created, nothing destroyed. So before you start giving a name to something that you don't understand, maybe you should do a bit of reasearch. Oh, and also in your little story about the tourtises, it was not the intellectuals that said it was turtles all the way down, but a traditionalist old lady who was arguing with Bertrand Russell.
--On Sunday, February 16, 2003 8:47 PM -0800 Darwin Bedford <Darwin@atheists.net> wrote:
You are guilty of transference, see
. If "negative gravitational energy" is the true essence of the
universe then where did it come from--was it always there?
At 01:51 AM 2/14/2003 -0600, you wrote:
I just want to say that I am about as hardcore an
atheist as you will ever find. I have debated with
many christians and atheist and others, and overall I find that
there are four groups. The atheists that don't believe in a
god because of a true scientific basis, the atheist that don't
believe in a god because of an abstract philosophic doctrine or
prejudice against religion, the religious persons who believe in
a god because they have a weak character, and the religious
persons who have chosen religion as the safest of all options.
Out of those I would definitely consider myself to be an
atheist based on science, having read numerous books on
the subject written by credible authors e.g. Stephen Hawking.
You however would rather create abstract conjectures off of the
top of your head and claim them as scientifically viable. I
respect this almost as much as I respect whoever first decided
that it must be gods that create rain and thunder. Your
creation theory is simply ludicrous, if your going to attribute
the universe to natural phenomenon you need a better background
in physics. If your going to say that it was already there,
then don't try to piss off the christians because your
explanation is just as unreasonable as theirs.
Let's try a bit of plausible reasoning, here is Stephen
Hawking's theory. "Quantum mechanics allows matter to
be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle
pairs. And where did the energy come from to create this
matter? The answer is that it was borrowed from the
gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an
enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which exactly
balances the positive energy of the matter. See, wasn't that
refreshing to have something like "The total amount of squeeze
force in the universe is finite because it is proportionate to
the true essence of the universe which itself is finite in
I just want to end by saying that when I piss christians
off, it is because they realize that my arguments hold
water better than theirs. It's much more satisfying than
turning into the very thing you hate just to feel superior for
a fleeting moment.
E*****, Nicholas P*****