No, I don't get it. Not at all.
What is the common factor between "classical mechanics" and "particle physics" or "quantum physics" or plain cosmology? Are you suggesting we take the Universe as a closed or isolated system?
TBH, I dont know, and I dont care. Why are you introducing new and irrelevant science questions? I am not hawkings. You are the one who subscribe to the zero energy universe not me. You should tell me these answers...
You need to make up your mind.
1. Conservation of energy (and ultimately conservation of mass) is the basis for the "sum of everything is 0" theory. Please read hawkins' work.
2. no he doesn't mention it by name
3. Why should I read about it when it is not mentioned???
He doesn't spell it out for you as the book is written for the lay. He is saying that mass energy - Gravity must be 0. What law is he talking about here? How is this possible without the law of conservation of energy?
So the claim of a “zero energy” universe is based on inflation theory, which states that the universe underwent a short, accelerated period of expansion shortly after the Big Bang. This produced both gravity as well as mass energy. You can not produce energy out of nothing, this would violate the first law of thermodynamics.
Are you sure you know what you are talking about?
I guess I don't... You CLAIM that the sum of everything is 0... you still haven't explained to me how can that be without the first law of thermodynamics. I ask again... how can the sum of everything be 0, without using the law of conservation of energy? quantum fluctuations obey thermodynamics
You said: "Allah" or "God" = "physical truth" = "objective reality" = "the universe" = "existence" = "the sum of every proton, electron, neutron, photon right now" and now you tell me that YOU get to define and decide what truth, reality and existence are?
When did I make such a claim? When did I decide what truth, reality, and existence are? Please show me where this happened...
Like i said before. Existence is not Allah. Allah is existence.
I regret using the English word "God" now. I can finally see abdun noor's point. See this thread if you want to learn the difference between God and Allahhttp://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599046.0
Ah, bazinga, yes. That explains it. Did you watch a couple of episodes of TBBT and now think you understand quantum physics
Oh no, my secrets out!
What is the word "truth" doing in your statements? It is nonsensical. Truth is a value or status statement.
Truth is not an attribute but a qualitative statement. Truth is a fact. Testable. Verifiable. Demonstrable. Measurable. Falsifiable.
Truth is not just a statement as I explained in my last post. Please stop posting the same thing again and again. You keep making argument without any proof or evidence. Where is your proof?
In the manner I am using it to explain "Al-Huq ul-Mubeen" in today's language, it is "the body of real things, events, and facts".
Do any of these attribute apply to a god?
No, this does not apply to gods. Allah is not a god.
Please, don't lie or spread untrue rumours. Why do you claim I did not know "what Allah was"? How can you say such a thing?
Also, from a logical point you can't reject what has not yet been proven to exist.
You keep saying that "this and that are nonsensical", like you know what Allah is. You were never even able to quote a single statement which was nonsensical. Can you quote me just 1 statement which is nonsensical? I am only asking you for 1 statement, please choose the most nonsensical of the lot and reply back.
Again? Again a wrong assumption? By me? I don't recall having worked under a wrong assumption.
Yes, you though that i was making claims.
How is the definition you provide so different from mine?
I don't know what you are talking about. What are you talking about? Why do you keep asking random questions?
You don't answer my questions
Besides your rhetorical questions, which question have I left unanswered for you? Please post it and I will answer it.
...and try to push your point based on a word used many centuries ago in the Koran and assign it the meaning we have today. Is that legitimate?
Yes it is legitimate. When you translate an old Arabic document into modern English, you use the vernacular of today so people understand the translation.
I don't know what people who used the word "truth" when the Koran was written, but I know that today it not correct to assign a descriptive term or adjective as a noun.
"Truth" is a noun. "Reality" is a noun. "Allah" is a noun.
I keep telling you that Allah is reality. Which adjective did I assign to a noun??
Why are you asking me what a god is?
I am just trying to find out what you believe.
How could I possibly know?
Why are you asking me this? Or is this another one of your rhetorical questions?
You are saying that a god is fact, so you should know what fact is and what is not fact.
When and where did I say "god is fact"? Why are you lying and spreading rumors about me?
I just try and find out why you believe what you believe and you go into science and etymology without any reason as far as I can make out.
Bottom line Allah is reality.
When did i go into etymology? Of which word's history and origin did I start the discussion about?
As far as science, I was trying to answer your question about thermodynamics. You seem to think that thermodynamics has nothing to do with conservation of energy.
Life is one big Bazinga, and then you die...