Trip Tango presented you with a concept that is far out of the mainstream view. If there were equal amounts of positive and negative energy, or matter and anti-matter, there would be nothing. If negative energy is gravity as Hawking suggests, then the universe wouldn't be expanding if there were equal amounts.
However, in "nothing" there is equal amounts of positive and negative energy. Which is why there is no such thing as "nothing" - because positive energy (or negative energy) is actually "something."
Actually that isn't true. There is negative and positive. They make an equilibrium. Basically canceling their influence to create chaos. This is actually interesting, because it could be used in argument against my beliefs if you knew how to use them. A big argument is why does the universe fine-tune? Easy, inside the medium of the universe, all negative energy must have the positive energy; which may cause chaos in one part of the universe; but is zero in the grand scheme of things.
Sorry brother. I hope I can explain for you to understand. 1 + -1 = 0. Basically all energy and mass must have equal negative and positive energy and mass. The universe is 100% balanced. Think of a magnet and if you put the negative with the negative, it repels. But if you put a positive to a negative, it attracts.
Since when does "theory or belief" imply certainty? "Atheism" is a statement of belief, not a statement of one's ability to verify.
It doesn't imply certainty. The same way that being a theist or religious doesn't imply certainty. An atheist has a set of beliefs that they can not prove, just like the religious.
Let me argue with myself since Denny can't use the weapon I just gave him.... So here is my argument. Since science has discovered that the entire mass/energy in the universe = zero; then it would only explain that all mass and energy in the universe always existed. If the entire universe has a value of zero, that means nothing was needed to add to the universe to create itself. It was always there. So even though you say that mass cannot be create without mass; the mass was always there and always eternal. The only thing added to this universe was time; which started at point of the "Big bang"; when light was able to measure time.
I don't believe God exists. That could change literally any second and I would still have been an atheist for the past 6 years.
Hey you blasphemer! Did you see that I credited you on your value of the universe lesson you gave me yesterday?
I agree. But when you say "atheists who admit they are speculating are agnostic", you are implying that it is impossible to be an atheist without claiming certainty. Your definition cited above is not nearly so strict, and leaves open the possibility of someone being both atheist (because they do not believe in god) AND agnostic (because they acknowledge that it is impossible to empirically prove their belief correct).
