Do you believe in a "god"? Not like God as in the almighty being in a religion, but something more of just a creator of the universe.
If no, how do you think the universe came into place?
If no, how do you think the universe came into place?
yaya. yes absolutely we already can. the questions will be how energy efficient will it be and what are the byproducts. though honestly creating water seems unnecessary given that we are surrounded by it. currently removing the impurities and salt from ocean water is also possible but very inefficient due to energy cost.
i guess maybe you are thinking if we colonize another planet could we produce water? I still think my answer is yes with the same thoughts I mentioned above.
i guess maybe you are thinking if we colonize another planet could we produce water? I still think my answer is yes with the same thoughts I mentioned above.
Thanks to jhoijhoi for my signature!
@Pheyniex I know, but I meant by potable water as Large quantity of drinkable water. The reaction you gave me can't produce on a high scale potable water since the reaction is just on a molecule scale...I guess?
@Bioalchemist I was just thinking about those campaigns against wasting water because they say in around year 2050 there will be no more potable water.
@Bioalchemist I was just thinking about those campaigns against wasting water because they say in around year 2050 there will be no more potable water.
tehasian...you trying to open the doors to flames and hate on this one? lol
regardless of what people believe there is no way to disprove the existence of a god nor is their a way to prove the existence of a god currently...this is why religious people vs atheist people will always be circular argument.
i do believe in a creator though I have always struggled with what religious individuals call a personal god. the belief in the creator for myself originates from the lack of explanation we have for the origin of the universe, as well as, the complexity of the complex machinery that is biological life....both of these concepts as proof of a creator are constantly argued by physicists and biochemists alike. I also can not overcome the classic Kalam argument.
if you want to really look into it I read a book about 6 months ago by Lee Strobel called "The Case For a Creator". naturally once you find out anything about the author and read the arguments you will find that he is not without bias, but it is a good starting point to hear a number of good arguments from both sides. I went in with as open an attitude as I could and tried to refute every argument made. Since than, I have read a couple of books sited in that book and am looking for some other books as well, but ultimately the circular argument of god vs no god will always remain until there is definitive proof to say otherwise.
EDIT: on a side note, the classic idea that all science people are atheist is not true. actually the percentage of religious people in science fields vs atheists is very similar to the population not educated and working in science (this includes physicists, biologists, biochemists, chemists, etc.).
regardless of what people believe there is no way to disprove the existence of a god nor is their a way to prove the existence of a god currently...this is why religious people vs atheist people will always be circular argument.
i do believe in a creator though I have always struggled with what religious individuals call a personal god. the belief in the creator for myself originates from the lack of explanation we have for the origin of the universe, as well as, the complexity of the complex machinery that is biological life....both of these concepts as proof of a creator are constantly argued by physicists and biochemists alike. I also can not overcome the classic Kalam argument.
if you want to really look into it I read a book about 6 months ago by Lee Strobel called "The Case For a Creator". naturally once you find out anything about the author and read the arguments you will find that he is not without bias, but it is a good starting point to hear a number of good arguments from both sides. I went in with as open an attitude as I could and tried to refute every argument made. Since than, I have read a couple of books sited in that book and am looking for some other books as well, but ultimately the circular argument of god vs no god will always remain until there is definitive proof to say otherwise.
EDIT: on a side note, the classic idea that all science people are atheist is not true. actually the percentage of religious people in science fields vs atheists is very similar to the population not educated and working in science (this includes physicists, biologists, biochemists, chemists, etc.).
Thanks to jhoijhoi for my signature!
yaya. ah yes. we do indeed waste a **** ton of fresh drinking water by polluting the **** out of it (I can also tell you that even with all the regulations the FDA has for chemical producing plants they are still dumping **** in the streams). for that matter we pollute like bosses in every case. water bottles will be the end of us all!
my response still remains though. we can produce it at a larger scale though it will really come down to how quickly we are ruining what we have...if we plan properly for the loss of what is available in nature we should be able to generate enough to survive but again currently it will not be energy efficient so we will need to compensate by finding supplemental energy that doesn't get consumed quickly.
if you were to ask me though the end of our existence is going to come from the waste we produce or us killing each other first before drinking water runs out...but I don't necessarily have the data to back that up. I could get the data about the garbage production but I am lazy...and the killing each other is just a hunch based on our history of violence (great movie by the way).
my response still remains though. we can produce it at a larger scale though it will really come down to how quickly we are ruining what we have...if we plan properly for the loss of what is available in nature we should be able to generate enough to survive but again currently it will not be energy efficient so we will need to compensate by finding supplemental energy that doesn't get consumed quickly.
if you were to ask me though the end of our existence is going to come from the waste we produce or us killing each other first before drinking water runs out...but I don't necessarily have the data to back that up. I could get the data about the garbage production but I am lazy...and the killing each other is just a hunch based on our history of violence (great movie by the way).
Ok lately I've been working with methanol a lot, and I've always wondered why its fire is clear. Are the photons bouncing off at ultraviolet levels or something? It can't be that no photons are coming off, the energy levels are too high in fire to allow for that. I dunno, maybe I've got an incomplete picture of things, it just confuses me. I'm sure I could google this, but I'd rather just ask you, since you can probably explain it better. If not I guess I'll resort to google.
You need to log in before commenting.
<Editor>
Thanks to jhoijhoi for my signature!