[B0ycey]

I have you examples of different forms of energy.
Do you know what it was at Urenco?

I cant say I have heard of the company. But if it works with Uranium, probably Fission. Energy within atoms. Why don't you research it. By the nature of the company they obviously won't go into detail but perhaps they might give you a flavour.

[Besoeker]

I cant say I have heard of the company. But if it works with Uranium, probably Fission. Energy within atoms. Why don't you research it. By the nature of the company they obviously won't go into detail but perhaps they might give you a flavour.

I don't need to research it. I was directly involved on their flywheel energy storage systems.

[B0ycey]

I don't need to research it. I was directly involved on their flywheel energy storage systems.

And yet you know nothing about energy. So you're a liar. You think you're going to be able to pull that one on me. You think I'm so gullible to think that some company like that deals with uranium hires/contracts someone who has just found out there is more than one type of energy today. Jog on. You can bullshit behind your keyboard if you like. But I know you are lying. Now bye bye.

[Besoeker]

And yet you know nothing about energy. So you're a liar. You think you're going to be able to pull that one on me. You think I'm so gullible to think that some company like that deals with uranium hires/contracts someone who has just found out there is more than one type of energy today. Jog on. You can bullshit behind your keyboard if you like. But I know you are lying. Now bye bye.

No lying from me, matey.
For Urenco I did the design of the initial 1500V, 600A ultra low ripple DC supply to power their flywheel test lab. Then a 1500Vdc chopper to be able to export the energy.
For Wavegen I did the feasibility study for wave power off the islay of Ilay in Scotland. It was the first commercial wave power system in the world.
For Smith Anderson we did a lot of work on getting a water turbine (500kW) back into operation. That one was a challenge.
So, do tell what projects have you been involved with in the energy field?

[Agent Steel]

Actually @jakell has a point. Your previous thread had a very poorly constructed and full of holes "argument" that got scrutinized (and basically destroyed) after just a handful of posts and all you did was complain that we were doing it wrong. Now, trust me I support the point you are trying to make, but you are using the wrong tools and poor logic to advance that point and even though it is the same point I agree with I will be part of the opposition every time you make a foolish claim.

This is ridiculous.

[B0ycey]

Nothing you can't get off the internet. I thought you said you dealt with thermodynamics and combustable engines when you got gravity wrong. You work in all fields when you are trying to weasel out of an argument. Probably an unemployed troll who is in his teens to early twenties by your writing style. I have noticed you troll alot on here. Like I said, lie behind your keyboard if you like. What do I care. You don't know me or what I do. And apart from doing lots of fictional jobs, I don't know you. But like all your lies, you have a big problem. Why do these companies use fly wheels to store energy if energy is created from nothing. Your claim. Not mine.

[Besoeker]

Nothing you can't get off the internet. I thought you said you dealt with thermodynamics and combustable engines when you got gravity wrong. You work in all fields when you are trying to weasel out of an argument. Probably an unemployed troll who is in his teens to early twenties by your writing style. I have noticed you troll alot on here. Like I said, lie behind your keyboard if you like. What do I care. You don't know me or what I do. And apart from doing lots of fictional jobs, I don't know you. But like all your lies, you have a big problem. Why do these companies use fly wheels to store energy if energy is created from nothing. Your claim. Not mine.

I didn't say energy is created from nothing.
At least try to get your facts straight.

[B0ycey]

I didn't say energy is created from nothing.
At least try to get your facts straight.

It goes back to the "something from nothing" notion.

[Besoeker]

But I didn't claim that it was something from nothing.

[Nonsense]

During the Big Bang event, the primary mix in that soufflé recipe was pure energy, the first matter arising from that epoch was Quark-Gluon Plasma, an extremely hot state of matter consisting of the primary particles that formed atoms as they cooled.

The very reason that the universe exist at all, is because, as some folks know, there were tiny differences(fluctuations) in the 'balance' between matter-anti-matter, which, had they been exactly in balance, would have annihilated each other, leaving no Baryonic Matter in which we are ourselves formed along with everything else in the universe, in other words-no 'universe'.

Matter- energy are constantly being interchangeable.

When an object in space is at rest, it has zero energy, it acquires energy(Kinetic)when it moves as a result of the attraction between itself & another source of mass.
That energy increases at the greater distance between such sources of matter that are influencing each other & diminishes to zero at the centre of the largest attractive source of matter.

Should one of those sources of matter just enter into orbit about the larger body of mass, the 'potential' energy is still there in fact, whereas, should it impact the larger body of mass, it's energy will be released on impact, creating more matter in the process & the energy state will revert to zero.

I think that people misunderstand the Big Bang, it is in fact, the 'inflation' that was caused by the quantum fluctuations of a pair of virtual particles in an infinitely tiny amount of space that 'ballooned' into the universe that we inhabit.

With that fluctuation arising in the quantum particle pair, the timing, of which was simply a result of uncertainty, the release of pure energy was the effect that started the inflation.

It's important to acknowledge that such an event may have happened countless times with no effect, simply because the pair particles annihilated each other leaving no trace of those event.
It's simply the incomplete annihilation of the pair particles arising from charge polarity violations that allowed that energy to inflate into our universe along with an imbalance in the decay rate of those particles, the conditions were there on cooling to allow energy-matter conversion(E=mc2).

[Vlerchan]

I am sure it has already been said, but since I'm on a roll,

In order for theism to be a plausible worldview, it would need to be shown that we have some direct way of accessing new information through God.

This argument fails, at least as far as the title of this thread is concerned, because,
1. it first does not demonstrate athiesm, which is important in the light of the fact that,
2. it is not necessary for god to commune with individuals in order for god to exist.

Show me one instance of an observed phenomenon in which the religious explanation has progressed ahead of the scientific one in terms of plausibility.

I also can't be the only one who saw 'plausibility' but read 'confirmation bias'.

[Besoeker]

2. it is not necessary for god to commune with individuals in order for god to exist.

So what would be a sound basis to support the existence of a god?

[Agent Steel]

This argument fails, at least as far as the title of this thread is concerned, because,
1. it first does not demonstrate athiesm, which is important in the light of the fact that,
2. it is not necessary for god to commune with individuals in order for god to exist.

1. It makes atheism look like the far more plausible explanation given the failure of prayer.
2. Again, the failure to advance knowledge forward through prayer makes theism a lot less probable than atheism.

[Vlerchan]

So what would be a sound basis to support the existence of a god?

I don't believe there is one.

I suppose some of the more sophisticated arguments from motion are competent enough, but I don't think we can seek to apply reason outside of the extents of our universe.

1. It makes atheism look like the far more plausible explanation given the failure of prayer.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't demonstrate that theism is any less likely.

At most, it merely demonstrates that a certain conception of theism that requires practitioners be capable of communing with god and god can, through this channel, transfer new knowledge, is unlikely to be true.

But, to be clear here, you are pigeonholing theism here insofar as you're insistent on defining it along the narrow lines of the Christian conception. Even then, basically every competent Christian argument you'll come across will argue that (1) god exist and (2) that god exists as per the bible, separately. So, this argument wouldn't even begin to faze a Christian either, since she wouldn't argue for the existence of god along those terms.

[Vasili Blokhin]

Whether he exist or not is irrelevant

[Besoeker]

Whether he exist or not is irrelevant

I imagine it's relevant to theists.