TGE, I'm no theist, much less a monotheist, but I have to scoff your scoff. AFAIK, if you want to play formal cosmology games, theists are roughly as likely as atheists to win a given bout. To top that, no small number of polytheists, pantheists, animimsts, etc., think the one-god and no-god crowds are seriously missing the big picture.

What the..??? ok i'm not any kind of 'ist' i don't keep track of what all the various 'ist's' are doing. i just have my own opinion.

Since energy can be neither created nor destroyed, then God would have existed (and does exist) as energy.

If you believe God is energy then you must also believe God is bound by time, because energy does not exist without time.

because energy does not exist without time.

How so?

Energy is the capacity for doing work.

Doing the actual work may require time, but the capacity itself would not rely on time.

"How does a law rule without a human to interpret and/or execute it?"

First we must define the word "law". Does it have to be written to be a law or to be understood?

"a rule or manner of behavior that is instinctive"

Why would any of us believe for an instant that in order to interpret and or execute a law we have to be human? The Animal kingdom is inundated by laws understood by its inhabitants. From a Pride of Lions to a Herd of Elephants. We struggle to understand them ourselves but it is natural for them. A pack of wild dogs can not write laws or interpret written law, but I guarantee if you break one of their instinctive laws, they will execute their form of justice.

So in my opinion your answer is simple.... The Animal Kingdom is how a law rules without human interpretation or execution.   

Assuming we are talking about legal laws rather than scientific laws...

A law cannot "rule" by itself, but its existence causes humans to rule themselves. A law does nothing but state what the society that generated it finds permissible or prohibited. The existence of a law only compels people to obey it in proportion to their fear of the response of society.

The phrase "the rule of law" however does not refer to the ability of law to somehow rule by itself, but to the willingness of society to organize itself to respect the prohibitions of the law. If there is "rule of law" touted in a society, this is a signal to the members of that society that response to transgressions will certain and immutable.

The use of the phrase "the rule of law" is also supposed to refer to the idea that as well as being rigorously upheld, the laws are created in a fair and reasoned manner, and are logically consistent with each other and the social values of the society that made them. This separation of the law from temporary emotional response to transgression is also supposed to increase the likelihood that the law will be obeyed, as the response to the transgression is unlikely to be mitigated by the circumstances of the transgression.

The use of the phrase "the rule of law" is also supposed to refer to the idea that as well as being rigorously upheld, the laws are created in a fair and reasoned manner, and are logically consistent with each other and the social values of the society that made them.

But are laws in themselves moral? Is the death penalty not immoral, regardless of what the crime entailed? Understandably, there needs to be a set of laws in place to provide consistency in the chaos and to keep our emotions from ruling our actions.
My question in all of this would be, would we need rules of law if we lived our lives upholding true morality? To me the basic moral foundation would be simply the old "do unto others" saying. You shouldn't steal, you shouldn't lie, and you shouldn't kill. These three alone, if lived by, would raise us to a level as a civilization far higher than we already are.

Laws ar

But are laws in themselves moral? Is the death penalty not immoral, regardless of what the crime entailed? Understandably, there needs to be a set of laws in place to provide consistency in the chaos and to keep our emotions from ruling our actions. My question in all of this would be, would we need rules of law if we lived our lives upholding true morality? To me the basic moral foundation would be simply the old "do unto others" saying. You shouldn't steal, you shouldn't lie, and you shouldn't kill. These three alone, if lived by, would raise us to a level as a civilization far higher than we already are.

The death penalty is not a law, it is a penalty for breaking the law prohibiting murder.

In answer to your question. We would still need the concept of the rule of law in order to make people apprehensive about breaking the "basic moral foundation" of "do unto others."
If you as a society decide that your statement of law will be "do unto others, no lying, no stealing and no killing" then you still need to impress upon people that there will be a societal response to breaking that simple law. If there is no societal response, there will be less compulsion to obey your simple law.
Stating that such society is governed by the "rule of law" would be another way of iterating "follow the 'do unto others' creed that we have declared as our law, because we are prepared to ensure that failing to do so is punishable"
If we stated that the sole law is "do unto others" and then failed to mention that we are governed by the rule of law, we rely solely on whatever good will is inherent in individuals, and regardless of what we might wish to be true, societies that do not enforce thier laws end up with more people breaking them than societies that do.

i said it above but i will make it more clear here


law=normalty for the sociaty=what the majority in the sociaty agree it is


also

the big astronamy question is


if the universe is everything, and the universe is expanding, what is the universe expanding into.

We would still need the concept of the rule of law in order to make people apprehensive about breaking the "basic moral foundation" of "do unto others."

Yes, I understand this. However my question was more 'philosophical' in nature in the sense that I was implying that we as individuals wouldn't need to be 'reminded' if we truly enlightened ourselves and crawled out from our primitive mindset regarding our neighbors. I realize that this implies that we would be living in a perfect world and unfortunately this is not the case.
I was trying to stir up the mix in that way and not touch on our present reality. To add to this 'daydreaming' thought, if there is life out there, and they've been watching us as a whole, do you really think they would 'allow' us access to the wonders of the universe when we can't even manage our own backyard without destroying it? Here we are, all set to try and get back to the Moon (so that we may mine her, profit of course drives all)and we haven't even taken care of our own pollution problems. I know if I was part of a superior civilization and was observing 'us' I would do everything in my power to thwart our plans... for we are undeserving of such knowledge and technology, as we prove daily.

Ahh... i give up with this statement, ists and isms are bad things regardless of your disposition.

Ahh... i give up with this statement, ists and isms are bad things regardless of your disposition.

What happened TGE? Burn yourself out on the constitution thread?

Yes...   
Plus, thers so much to read... again.

Ahh... i give up with this statement, ists and isms are bad things regardless of your disposition.

Ahh, you're just being a contrarian

Let me add ians in there too   

Would that include Altarians as well?

They can really be irritating.

because energy does not exist without time. How so? Energy is the capacity for doing work. Doing the actual work may require time, but the capacity itself would not rely on time.

You have to decide what you believe happens when time is removed.

What makes sense to me is that by all definitions, matter, light and energy no longer exist! Just emply blackness - well light matter and enegy would still exist but not in any tangible way, if your outside of time, from that perspective, energy, matter and light would not exist.

Actual matter cant be created or destoryed, not energy

So technically the universe wasnt created, its always been there

if the universe is everything, and the universe is expanding, what is the universe expanding into.

I would argue that the universe itself isn't expanding. It is infinite. It's just that all the matter/energy/stuff inside it is moving outwards through space. That space is itself part of the universe, and is infinitely big.

Actual matter cant be created or destoryed, not energy

Matter AND Energy cannot be destroyed. They are in fact different forms of the same thing, and can be changed into each other in accordance with Einstein's' formula: E=mc^2

(E is engery, m is mass)

i think that at the time of the big bang is when energy was transformed into matter

also what we call the universe may not be the universe but just a group of galaxies in side of the universe

The most approve theory of the 'big bang' is that the whole entire universe was squezed into one little tiny molecule. And as to how it got out of there is widely argued.

that may be true

but remember that light is energy and matter at the same time

so without matter there is no light

one other thing to consider

genesis agrees with the big bang theory

If light is matter as well as energy does it weigh anything?

yes

light is a wave and a particle

there was no light in the universe for 100,000,000 years after the big bang becouse there was no matter just energy

so according to big bang theory there was no light and then there was big bang

according to genesis god said "let there be light" ie at one point there was no light and there was light ie big bang

Danielost, I personally do not see that point (Let there be Light) as the point at which the 'Big Bang' occurred (although it did initiate it).

This is where I believe it happened:

Ge 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Ge 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Ge 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

This is where 'space' began its expansion - which would be the 'Bang' part of it.


The first 'day' - Let there be Light - would have imposed a particle nature, which would have prompted the 'expansion' of the second 'day'.

A point would have become a point-particle; time begins and expresses itself as the force of expansion.

there is only one problem there is no such thing as time

think about a bacteria it lives it's whole life in a matter of minutes of our minutes

big bang darkness to light

god's command let there be light also darkness to light

and for the question about whether or not light has wieght if light didn't have wieght then gravity wouldn't affect it

i draw your attention to black holes

If light is matter as well as energy does it weigh anything?

NO

Light demonstrates properties of particles and waves, but it cannot 'weigh anything' because it has no mass. If it had any mass, it would be unable to travel at the 'speed of light'.

It is not accurate to describe light as 'matter', since it has no mass.

and for the question about whether or not light has wieght if light didn't have wieght then gravity wouldn't affect it

I direct your attention to Einstein's theories and the description of gravity as the warping of space-time. Light is affected by gravity because it's 'straight' path follows curved space.