Breathe!

You say: It’s impossible. God says: All things are possible (Luke 18:27[\

You say: “I’m too tired.” God says: I will give you rest. (Matthew 11:28-30)

You say: “Nobody really loves me.” God says: I love you. (John 3:16 & John 13:34)

You say: “I can’t go on.” God says: My grace is sufficient. (2 Corinthians 12:9 & Psalm 91:15)

You say: “I can’t figure things out.” God says: I will direct your steps. (Proverbs 3:5-6)

You say: “I can’t do it.” God says: You can do all things. (Philippians 4:13)

You say: “I’m not able.” God says: I am able. (2 Corinthians 9:8)

You say: “It’s not worth it.” God says: It will be worth it. (Romans 8:28)

You say: “I can’t forgive myself.” God says: I FORGIVE YOU. (1 John 1:9 & Romans 8:1)

You say: “I can’t manage.” God says: I will supply all your needs.(Philippians 4:19)

You say: “I’m afraid.” God says: I have not given you a spirit of fear.(2 Timothy 1:7)

You say: “I’m always worried and frustrated.” God says: Cast all your cares on ME. (1 Peter 5:7)

You say: “I don’t have enough faith.” God says: I’ve given everyone a measure of faith.(Romans 12:3)

You say: “I’m not smart enough.” God says: I give you wisdom. (1 Corinthians 1:30)

You say: “I feel all alone.” God says: I will never leave you or forsake you. (Hebrews 13:5)

Advertisements

99 thoughts on “Breathe!

  1. Bryan you Copy & Paste those statements and make claims your perception of the universe has ZERO faults in judgements.
    A one percent certainty your more important to the universe than a collection of atoms of equal mass.
    And you arrived at that judgement in your brain that has many many structural short
    comings.
    Short comings everyone has !
    That,s how Penn & Teller confuse people.
    Then we have the more important side highlighting the short comings of people
    This :-
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35421439.
    Summary :-
    Only a fool you claim to know the real truth

    Like

    • A fool by your standards maybe, but better to be thought of as a fool and to know the reality of a living, loving Creator and just how much He loves us, than to have no hope or value and think life futile.

      Like

    • Without God, your life as an atheist has no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose, as it all ends in death. What an utterly depressing way to live. On the other hand, belief in a loving, caring God gives me hope, value, purpose, meaning, insight, peace and joy, even in the midst of great darkness at times.

      No CB, the world you espouse to leaves me cold. Why? Because it is a lie which snuffs out ‘life’ like no other. I choose life.

      Like

      • Monica :-
        Without God, your life as an atheist has no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose, as it all ends in death.
        Typical !
        A judgement based upon ASSUMPTION from a clouded bias mind.
        Then Monica you add this:-
        Because it is a lie which snuffs out ‘life’ like no other. I choose life.
        So just because you chose something that makes others views or posabilities a lie.
        We have a family behind us that has three children under six years old .
        Al three the two boys one girl are loud but the parents are being ruled by the girl who has learnt to throw temper tantrums .
        She can turn them on for any amount of time she likes or off instantly.
        The parents did not chose to stop her at the start.
        They should have pointed out from the start one does not get what one “BELIEVERS” they demand of wish for.
        Some never grasp that their entire life so they pass it on to after their dead.

        Like

      • Okay CB,

        Not quite sure what you meant by “passing it on after we’re dead”. Do you mean it’s a learnt response/belief/behaviour from our parents? If that’s the case, well then yes, I’m inclined to agree with you when it comes to believers like me who were brought up in their parents’ religion. But that’s just the initial process of belief in God. If a believer just gullibly accepts what they are taught and stays at that level without further investigation as to the veracity of their belief, then they are just ‘pretend’ believers as far as I am concerned.

        But there are atheists who were brought up in an atheistic household who become Christians. No-one influenced them as young children, and yet they eventually came to the realization that God exists. Obviously a lot of thought went into their decision to follow Jesus Christ.

        Anyway, God bless you and your family CB. It’s never too late to change your mind and turn to God. 🙂

        Like

    • “Only a fool you claim to know the real truth”

      Is this statement of yours absolute?
      Is it thus absolutely true?
      Then you have called yourself a fool.
      If it is not then the statement is not true.
      But even less likely to be true because of “all our shortcomings”
      You have trapped yourself in your own wisdom.

      Like

    • Monica
      The vast majority of people believe they deserve something better.
      The parents should have pointed out from the start it does not mean you get what you believe your wish fore .
      A year later and they and others in the area are paying for their lack of ability.
      Could be they believe they will get something better even if they are dead.
      The basis of creating a entity to deliver what you and others believe you deserve.

      Homo Sapiens have industries sprouting out reasons they are so important.
      Every time I insert the word “”BELIEF ” you replace it with the word god.
      Monica and others
      If you did not have a “”BELIEF ” you are important why would you require a entity.
      And also you failed to grasp the contents of the link .

      Like

      • If there is no eternal meaning in life, as the atheist philosophy suggests, then this world might seem hopeless. And your own mortality might seem frightening.

        The great psychologist Carl Jung said a third of his cases suffered no definable clinical neuroses.

        They merely felt the senselessness and emptiness of their lives. This he described as “the general neurosis of our time’’.

        Jung talked about the hunger of humans to live as they are meant to live, to know they have used their time on Earth well and not wasted it.

        To know the world will be different for their having passed through it.

        Like

      • “If there is no eternal meaning in life, as the atheist philosophy suggests, then this world might seem hopeless. ”

        Why ?

        Like

  2. LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT

    As Christians our faith tells us that Christ died as payment for our sins. We believe He actually rose from the grave as proof that He was indeed sent by God. Yet it is also our conviction that, upon this resurrection event, not only were the sins of mankind atoned for but through Christ a second Genesis began.

    Paul explains, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). The word Adam means “man” and is representative of “mankind.” There are now two Adams or two species of man. The first species of man is the descendant of sinful Adam. His life orbits around his carnal or “natural” desires. He carries both the DNA of Adam’s nature and the consequences of Adam’s sin. This natural man is focused upon fulfilling the needs of his soul. He is indeed a “living soul,” but he is controlled by fears, physical needs, intellect boundaries, cultural environment and sin.

    The second species or race of man is Spirit-centered. His thoughts, dreams and experiences originate primarily from the Holy Spirit who lives in union with him. The highest aspiration of the Spirit-centered man is not on attaining natural successes but upon attaining conformity to Christ. While the first man lives to receive from the world around him, the last species of man, the Christ-man, lives for what he can give to those around him: he is a “life-giving spirit.” The first Adam engendered descendants with problems; the spiritual descendants of the last Adam, Christ, provide the world with answers.

    New Creatures

    While men divide over many things — culture, skin color, language or social status — from God’s view mankind is only truly divided into two subsets: those controlled by their souls and those controlled by the Holy Spirit. One race is dead in sin; the other is alive in Christ. One species of man is destined to perish; the other will live forever. Just as the first Adam passed sin, weakness and death to his children, so the second Adam, Christ, passes virtue, power and eternal life to the children of God.

    “Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Cor. 5:17).

    “For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Gal. 6:15).

    You see, we are not merely men of flesh temporarily acting spiritual, but we are spiritual beings temporarily living as men of flesh. If you have received Christ into your life, you are part of the second Genesis. You possess a new nature, which is the actual life of Christ’s — a life-giving Spirit.

    Ps. F. Frangipane

    Like

  3. I am as My servant thinks (expects) I am. I am with him when he mentions Me.
    If he mentions Me to himself, I mention him to Myself;
    and if he mentions Me in an assembly, I mention him in an assembly greater than it.
    If he draws near to Me a hand’s length, I draw near to him an arm’s length.
    And if he comes to Me walking, I go to him at speed.’” -(Sahih Bukhari)

    Liked by 1 person

  4. bryanpattersonfaithworks
    on February 8, 2016 at 14:40 said:
    If there is no eternal meaning in life, as the atheist philosophy suggests, then this world might seem hopeless. And your own mortality might seem frightening.

    Bryan was it frightening to not have existed a hundred years ago.a thousand years ago, fifty million years ago, a billion years ago, ten billion years ago or even before time even started “13,700,000,000” years ago.
    I just don,t get it !
    You spend so much effort copy & Paste from the past.
    At a time you did not exist.
    Did the universe miss not having you exist ?
    Some how you manage to ignore that part .
    All I am doing is moving that part of non existence state to the other end of my time line.
    To affirm my thoughts as to how important I judge myself I just ask myself this .
    If I was that important why was I not around to view the formation of the universe to start with.
    Clearly I am not .
    And that link gives a good reason why.

    Like

    • Bryan here is another perspective .
      Everything in this universe is confined & defined by the dimensions
      .The four we are held in :- 3D and the passing of time that only goes in one direction.
      Time in this universe is not separate to the other three.
      It can not be taken away from the other three or left behind by the three .
      Could you possible imagine removing one of the three dimensions and placing this universe upon a two dimension existence.
      Or taking that one dimension out of this universe.
      Of course not .
      But somehow you believe time can be separated and extracted out of this universe.
      Even more astonishing is the properties of time.
      It is not meant to go on without end .
      Time is ENTROPY .
      And everything in this universe is a product of entropy

      Like

      • TIME, as Albert Einstein once said, is always relative.
        He explained it this way. When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes, but when you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it seems like two hours.
        “That’s relativity,’’ he said.

        Like

      • The real illusion is to imagine that the complex nature of our planet could be created by chance, in a few billion years.
        The illusion is that human nature is all determined by the environment or genetics, with no choice how a person acts or lives.
        It’s a self-reinforcing delusion. that will continue to be believed in the face of contrary evidence.

        Like

      • We tend to think of our time in a chronos mindset. We think of having 24 hours in a day. Being conscious of our minutes and seconds is a good thing. We should number our days as the scripture says. Our time on earth is so brief, and we want to be good stewards of every second that we have to glorify God on this earth.

        But ironically, this chronos mindset can make us miss what Paul is saying in Ephesians 5. Paul instructs us to redeem the kairos – to pay attention and take advantage of the opportune times and seasons.

        Like

      • Well said Bryan.. In the New Testament kairos means “the appointed time in the purpose of God”, the time when God acts (e.g. Mark 1.15, the kairos is fulfilled). Kairos (used approximately 81 times in the NT) seems to be an indeterminate time, a “moment” or a “season,” whereas another Greek term chronos (used 54 times) refers to a specific amount of time, such as a day or an hour (Acts 13.18, 27.9, etc.).

        Like

    • TIME, as Albert Einstein once said, is always relative.
      “”Well I never knew that”
      But hold a moment !
      Are not the GPS SATELLITES just atomic clocks.
      And if that formula of relativity was not taken into consideration the accuracy would be more than a thousand times worse off.
      Now back to my point :-
      Basically the word time could be replaced by the word ENTROPY.
      The downward spiral of everything to it,s lowest state.
      Entropy is a ONE DIRECTION factor that drives the universe .
      It is a intrinsic part of the universe and is effected by what is in the other dimensions .

      Like

      • Entropy and causality used as a proof for God’s existence
        by Matt Slick

        The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy decreases. In other words, the purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos–not order, and available energy necessary for work is lost (mostly as heat) in this process. Eventually, the universe will run down, and all life and motion will cease because all the energy that exists will be, more or less, evenly distributed so that no work can be performed and no life can exist. This is the natural tendency of all things. Batteries run down, machines break, buildings crumble, roads decay, living things die, etc. Left to the natural state, all things would eventually cease to function.
        1.The universe is not infinitely old because it has not “run down.”1.If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy was gone.
        2.But, we are not in this state, therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.

        2.Because the universe had a beginning, it is not infinite in size.1.It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand, therefore, it is finite in size.

        3.All events have causes.1.There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.1.We’ve already established that the universe cannot be infinitely old.
        2.If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state of unusable energy, which it is not.
        3.If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.

        4.Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.1.A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.1.Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than–or equal to–itself.

        2.Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.1.An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist.
        2.Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.

        3.An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe, which is finite.1.An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.

        4.An uncaused cause would be separate from the universe.1.Being separate from the universe, which was caused to be, it would not be subject to the laws of the universe since it existed independent of the universe and its laws.
        2.This would mean that entropy need not be required of the uncaused cause.

        5.This uncaused cause is supernatural.1.By supernatural, it is meant completely “other” than the universe and is not the product of it.1.This uncaused cause must be incredibly powerful to bring the universe into existence.

        6.The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.1.God’s existence (in Christianity) is not an event but a state.
        2.Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
        3.This means that God is uncaused.

        7.Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
        .
        https://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence

        Like

      • If the atheist says that matter and/or energy have somehow eternally existed before the universe, just in different forms, then the same issue of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now would negate that idea. But, this explanation would pose yet another problem. If the necessary conditions for the cause of the universe have always existed within the pre-existent matter and energy, then the effect of the universe being formed is a necessary result of that matter and energy, and the universe would have been formed an infinitely long time ago. But this can’t work since it would mean the universe would have already run out of useable energy by now (entropy problem again)–not to mention the perpetual problem of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now. So, that explanation doesn’t work either.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hey Matt,

        My problem with the Christian argument is (very broadly generalised) that it seems to go along the lines of:
        1. The universe had to have a first cause
        2. That first cause was magic
        3. The source of that magic must be the Christian God.

        Seems to me to be an argument that is essentially assumptions piled on assumptions.

        Like

      • my premise.
        What,s there to answer ?

        How could I give a answer to dribble conjured up by you .
        You supply the published scientific papers you used as reference .
        Do you actually expect me to defend such dribble of your own making .

        Like

      • Matt:

        “Cutting and pasting to links doesn’t answer my premise.”

        Your argument assumes everything in the universe is assumed to have a cause but that God is free from this requirement – this is an example of special pleading.

        It also discounts the possibility of multiple first causes, observed uncaused natural phenomena and events and the possibility that the universe (depending on your definition of “universe”) has always existed in some shape or form.

        Then there is the final non- sequitur: “God is uncaused. Therefore, the God of the Bible…” Why not the God of the Koran? Vishnu?

        Like

      • Stu, I agree, but only if we hold a narrow concept of what God is. Especially one made in our image. I don’t have answers, but am willing to admit a mystery.

        Like

    • What argument .
      It is total babble .
      Not a single sentence within it have I ever produced.
      As for the link.
      The amount of scientific knowledge and the history of it is very impressive .
      I honestly thought you would be amazed at the effort over centuries.

      Like

  5. Heretical for a Christian, but some have found no evidence in the Bible that God created atoms etc. They assume he used things already in existence to create with and from. In that case he doesn’t have to be the creator of the universe. If he created the heavens and the Earth – just the solar system? Just this galaxy? The KNOWN universe.

    I believe in a creator of the universe. I could also accept that an agent of this force/being was used to form (give or take according to pedanticness ) the solar system, nature, including us and our environment, and to be a guardian and guide to us. Such an agent would be a demi-god in the light of our present knowledge, but in the past easily confused with the omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of the first .Cause/Intelligence

    Like

    • But we don’t need to know who or what God is. The worship of our concept is valid, and all that matters. Valid does not necessarily imply true, but being logical, fair; and reasonable. A valid argument has some strength.

      Like

      • And I do, know Who I worship…..

        For unto us a Child is born,
        Unto us a Son is given;
        And the government will be upon His shoulder.
        And His name will be called
        Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
        Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

        Of the increase of His government and peace
        There will be no end, (Isaiah 9:6-7)

        “Supreme authority is given in Heaven and on earth to Jesus Christ, and to no other. His Kingdom and His righteousness need to be our highest aspiration.”

        Like

      • If your Multivax were true, Bubba, that does not disprove something beyond.

        Consideration of possibilities is one way to think ABOUT God, but if we are fortunate enough to experience God, no scenario matters.

        Like

      • Hey Strewth,

        I guess if you consider what you experience to be God then yeah the scenario would be irrelevant.

        Like

  6. Matt
    on February 10, 2016 at 16:39 said:
    If the atheist says that matter and/or energy have somehow eternally existed before the universe,

    So Matt where did I say that ?????
    To highlight your absurd statement you refer to matter and energy as separate items { matter and/or energy]
    They are in fact the SAME .
    “””” E = MC 2 ”””
    And you expect me to defend such dribble

    Like

    • I’ll assume you are not a scientist CB. These things are easily confused for laymen so I’ll keep it simple
      .
      Basically, Mass is a property of matter, not the same as matter.

      The formula E = mc2 depicts the relationship between matter and energy. Technically matter is not made of energy. Technically matter can be changed into energy. Saying mass is equivalent to energy is NOT the same as mass is the same as energy.

      Matter is a category of observable things. Energy is a physical quantity, basically just a number. Numbers are not observable things, they are just an idea.

      Energy is an abstract concept. A property of something, not a material it is made of. You wouldn’t say that matter is made of mass? Or that a ruler is made of length?

      In reality, matter and energy don’t even belong to the same categories; it is like referring to apples and orangutans, or to heaven and earthworms, or to birds and beach balls.

      Like

      • Greg :- In reality, matter and energy don’t even belong to the same categories;

        Well Ice ,Water and Stream are not of the same categories .
        But they contain the same atoms.
        Just the energy level is different.
        If you decrease the energy level the atoms themselves will begin to converge upon themselves blending into each other.at the point of ZERO KELVIN that being the eventual temperature of the universe.
        Bryan Cox said that works out to be in a trillion trillion trillion trillion years time when ENTROPY has done it,s job.
        And if you increase the energy level by increasing gravitational pressure the atoms break apart and the quantum partials that make up the atomic partials are set free .
        Here is an example of such massive energy as the result of atoms being converted into ENERGY :
        The size of those beams of energy is three times the distance across the Milky way Galaxy.
        A link to read as REFERENCE :-http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35473949.
        P,S
        Atomic bombs convert a very small amount of available matter into energy.
        The efficiency is only “”ONE PERCENT”.
        ALSO
        About twenty years ago they found a very very powerful X-RAY beam in space .
        They worked out it was a Neutron Star ripping matter of a Red dwarf Star and the distance was that of the Earth to the Moon.
        So powerful and high efficiency that if you throw a mash mellow you would get the energy that of the Hiroshima Atom bomb .
        The Neutron Star was ripping ONE TRILLION TONS per second off the red dwarf.

        So referring to apples and orangutans, or to heaven and earthworms, or to birds and beach balls makes ZERO DIFFERENCE

        Like

      • Where did the original “energy” come from? Seems theory can try and explain why some things seems to happen (although continuously being “revised”), but the starting point still seems unexplained

        Like

      • Matter includes anything that has mass. Energy describes the ability to do work. While matter may have energy, they are different from each other.

        One easy way to tell matter and energy apart is to ask yourself whether what you observe has mass. If it doesn’t, it’s energy! Examples of energy include any part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which includes visible light, infrared, ultraviolet, x-ray, microwaves, radio, and gamma rays. Other forms of energy are heat (which may be considered infrared radiation), sound, potential energy, and kinetic energy
        Usually matter and energy are found together, so it can be tricky to distinguish between them. For example, a flame consists of matter in the form of ionized gases and particulates and energy in the form of light and heat. You can observe light and heat, but you can’t weigh them on any scale

        Like

      • That’s right Greg. I believe, with respect, that CB has a limited layman’s understanding of the science. According to Albert Einstein, energy of any object is equivalent to its mass, not to matter. Matter is a rather loosely defined term.

        Like

      • GREG & BRIGGS

        Where did I make any reference to MASS as a being matter.
        Those words are totally within GREG posting.
        What,s with you people placing your own words within a comment then making claims they are my words

        Like

      • On 2016/02/13 at 16:52 Crushing Bones posted:

        To highlight your absurd statement you refer to matter and energy as separate items { matter and/or energy]
        They are in fact the SAME .

        No they are NOT! That was your fundamental layman’s mistake and great misunderstanding.

        According to Albert Einstein, energy of any object is equivalent to its mass, not to matter. Get it?

        Like

      • Yes, I do, “get it” Briggs.

        Thanks very much for the science lesson. Wish there were more teachers like you. From someone who finds all this scientific talk very difficult to comprehend at times. Cheers.

        Like

  7. BriggsThat’s right Greg. I believe, with respect, that CB has a limited layman’s understanding of the science. According to Albert Einstein, energy of any object is equivalent to its mass, not to matter. Matter is a rather loosely defined term.

    Look clearly !
    I have never made any such claim that GREG states.
    Greg is the person bringing up that comment.
    Read back from the start you will not find any reference confusing Mass and matter.

    Like

    • Crushing Bones, I did read back. You did start in error with a wrong claim. You said matter and energy were the same. They are NOT. .Einstein’s equation tells us that MASS and energy are related, not matter and energy. If you can’t understand that you don’t understand the science. Do you have any scientific qualifications? I wouldn’t think so..

      Like

    • Crushing Bones’ amateur mistake is understandable and excusable. In his limited understanding it looks the same but it is obviously not when you look a bit deeper with a scientific mind.. Thanks for explaining it so well Briggs.

      Like

      • So apparently one can obtain “MASS” that contains zero elements.
        How are all those obese people gaining WEIGHT without consuming MATTER [elements within molecules that constitute ] the FOOD on your plate.
        The amount of FOOD is defined as the MASS.
        And the word FOOD is given to MATTER that can be consumed .

        Like

    • 1) Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter something contains, while Weight is the measurement of the pull of gravity on an object.

      2) Mass is measured by using a balance comparing a known amount of matter to an unknown amount of matter. Weight is measured on a scale.

      3) The Mass of an object doesn’t change when an object’s location changes. Weight, on the other hand does change with location.

      Like

      • Mass is a property of matter. Matter is convertible into energy, and not all energy has mass. But all matter has mass. But mass and matter are not the same thing.

        Like

      • Matter is defined as “anything that occupies space and has mass,” and “mass” is defined as “something that represents the amount of matter in a particular space, particle or object.”

        In terms of features, matter can be seen while mass cannot. It is only quantifiable. The unit of mass is a kilogram while matter can be measured using different forms of units of measurement such as weight, mass, or volume.

        Read more: Difference Between Mass and Matter | Difference Between | Mass vs Matter http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-mass-and-matter/#ixzz40CmY70xT

        Like

  8. There is no such thing as a mass-energy relation. What does exist is a mass-energy-momentum relation. The equation Einstein came up with more than a century ago can be considered a degenerate form of the mass-energy-momentum relation for vanishing momentum. Einstein was very well aware of this, and in later papers repetitively stressed that his mass-energy equation is strictly limited to observers co-moving with the object under study. The vast majority of authors of popular science books take great liberty in applying E=mc2 to objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light, and then declare mass to increase with velocity in an attempt to recover consistency in what has become an incoherent mix of relativistic and Newtonian dynamics. Theoretical physicist Lev Okun refers to this practice as a “pedagogical virus”.

    Like

  9. So Bryan you are now editing out publishes scientific points about the universe.
    That only have to show the ignorance of some on this blog.
    Fancy not understanding that equation E = MC2
    The M REPRESENTS the amount of matter..
    And the E is the quantity of ENERGY.
    Did you by chance look at the link about the equation this one :-

    Have a good look at it

    Like

    • And that video states that matter is not mass. Anyway, believe what you want to CB. The science shows otherwise. Fancy not understanding the Einstein equation! . Do you have any scientific qualifications? I bet you won’t answer that question.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Greg:

        “I bet you won’t answer that question.”

        I’ve answered questions put by others, including Matt who was probably the origin of this particular thread if discussion, and received no reply or no reply relevant to what I actually said.

        It’s all very well to counter CBs comments, but you may want to consider that sometimes the nuances of the English language mean that words like “same”, “similar”, “related” are very much understood in context and hard to express in an online discussion.

        Not understanding the Einstein equation and not being able to express that understanding are the same thing,

        Like

      • How do you know CB has a problem with English? I still bet that he doesn’t answer the question..

        Like

      • Greg.

        “How do you know CB has a problem with English?”

        By the way he expresses himself in its written form.

        “I still bet that he doesn’t answer the question.”

        I hear your pain, but get in line.

        Like

      • But Stu, even if he can’t be fluent in English he would surely still know the difference between mass and matter if he knew what he was talking about. He clearly does not, as evidenced by his refusal to state any scientific qualifications. I don’t intend to be mean but really!

        Like

      • “…. if he can’t be fluent in English he would surely still know the difference between mass and matter…”

        So even if he wasn’t fluent in English he would be expected to know the exact definition of words in the English language.

        Is that normally how it works ?

        Like

      • Greg – CB may or may not have a basic understanding of Einstein’s equation. Based on his use of written English, it’s hard to tell. However, in this case I think whether or he has scientific qualifications is irrelevant.

        Like

  10. My morals and behavior are way above “SOME” in the admin of all religions
    It is as””IF “” they did not believe in eternal hell.

    Notice the “”IF “” & “”SOME “”
    Try and not change those two words into positive & everyone.
    Yes that is hard but you must try !
    That,s a good boy

    Like

  11. GREG
    Please inform me as to MASS that is made of nothing ?

    In physics, mass is a property of a “Physical body”
    It is generally a measure of an object’s resistance to changing its state of motion when a force is applied.

    A “Physical body” that is refereed to as “MATTER””
    When you judge something one of the issues is it,s MASS.
    A bridge your going over above a MASSIVE gouge is the “MASS” in MASSIVE gouge able to be converted into ENERGY.
    But the “MASSIVE”” bridge your travelling upon is MATTER and the MASS in the “Physical body” [the BRIDGE} can be converted into ENERGY.
    The word MASS is the AMOUNT .
    Now if you still con not understand that go and stand upon a set of bathroom scales and look at what your weight is on this planets gravity that your MASS of the matter your made of.

    Like

  12. Energy from Matter
    E=mc2
    Einstein’s famous E=mc2 demonstrates that energy (E) is equivalent with matter (mass m). It suggests that the concept of mass is indeed, less basic than what can be believed from everyday experiences with massive bodies. In fact, energy can be transformed into massive particles, and mass can be transformed into energy. Energy in all its different appearances is a key concept in physics.

    Like

    • Crushing Bones has CUT AND PASTED his answer from Physics Forum at https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/matter-energy-equivalence.671613/

      And omittied the next sentences — -I think there are three mistakes in the sentences . First mistake is that mass and matter is not same and the text is not right . Einstein’s famous equation from 1905 E=mc2 demonstrates that energy (E) is equivalent with matter (mass m) . Second mistake is that energy can not transform to massive particles but it can convert to massive particles , because massive particles are not made of energy . Third mistake is that mass-energy are equivalence not matter-energy .

      Like

      • This piece was a test for bryan to see how selective he is and the replies from people such as you .
        The main reply was of course not posted !
        Many of my replies have not been posted.

        The main point is YOU ALL have placed the word MASS into this :-
        Crushing Bones on February 13, 2016 at 16:52 said:
        Matt
        on February 10, 2016 at 16:39 said:
        If the atheist says that matter and/or energy have somehow eternally existed before the universe,

        So Matt where did I say that ?????
        To highlight your absurd statement you refer to matter and energy as separate items { matter and/or energy]
        They are in fact the SAME .
        “””” E = MC 2 ”””
        And you expect me to defend such dribble

        LOOK CAREFULLY
        There are zero words with two “”S”” Letters beside each other .So how could I say what you say I have .

        and MAZ it did not come from that link
        look harder

        Like

      • You posted someone else’s thoughts as a test? Pleeeeeze!!!!!!
        You can’t blame your lack of English expression on that. You obviously have no answer. And you are hiding from the reality of your ignorance.

        Like

    • Cmon guys, Let’s just drop the whole thing. CB is not going to give a direct answer, It may be that he doesn’t understand English or doesn’t understand science. Or he can’t express what he really thinks. It’s just going around in circles. So let’s just stop.

      Like

  13. Not enough spanners in the works I say. According to dictionary.com the first definition of mass is

    noun
    1.
    a body of coherent matter, usually of indefinite shape and often of considerable size:

    Like

  14. Pingback: For Dutch speaking readers #1 On the first component of a triptych – Relating to God

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s