- 10,758
- 6,491
How is that a '''semantics''' argument? That's what I'm asking.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because you're literally creating a universe, duh.The God Of Procrastination said:Because?
That's balantly false, the universe itself have an energy, even in considering only his mass, creating an universe is Universe level, dunno why it's even a debate. i guess E=MC┬▓ is also a lie since the energy of creation is zero.The God Of Procrastination said:Well, the total energy of the universe is zero...
The God Of Procrastination said:
The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity | ||
~ Link |
You are literally fighting common sense with your arguments, dudeAndytrenom said:Yeah very sad indeed, and lamenting about a discussion as if the opposition is just being stupid is as worthless of a thing to do as it has always bee
Because in your exemple, you just create the stars when for the destruction, it cross the space between the stars to envelop the constellation.Andytrenom said:@Causality Creation will be greater than destruction when the creation is the inverse of the destruction.
Making all the stars of a constellation pop into existence will be a greater feat than making them all spontaneouly blow up at the same time, but there's no reason it should be a greater feat than creating an explosion that covers the entire constellation and has enough power at its centre to destroy the stars at the very border
I think you misunderstood with the matter case:Andytrenom said:@Causality and how is that different for creating all the matter in the universe vs destroying it?