Conservation of energy

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Conservation of energy

Post #1

Post by The Tanager »

I don't know if this should go here, because I'm not making a religious point off of this here, but it could possibly clear up some confusion in another thread.

Which of these would you say is the law of conservation of energy? Or how would you tighten the law up more?

(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal

(2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 653 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #311

Post by bluegreenearth »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 10:53 pm
bluegreenearth wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 9:11 pm I'm asking how you could know that the conservation of energy couldn't apply to what may or may not have existed prior to the Big Bang if you cannot know what may or may not have existed prior to the Big Bang.
Because prior to the Big Bang, there was no energy (physical energy) to conserve. That is the point.
What is "physical energy" as opposed to energy in general?

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #312

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

bluegreenearth wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 11:13 pm
What is "physical energy" as opposed to energy in general?
By "physical" energy, I mean natural energy and its relationship with matter. I am making the distinction between physical energy, and nonphysical energy (supernatural energy).

Because obviously (on my view), God is energy, but not physical energy.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2103
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1346 times
Been thanked: 513 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #313

Post by benchwarmer »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 10:53 pm Because prior to the Big Bang, there was no energy (physical energy) to conserve. That is the point.
It might be your point, but is simply a bald assertion with no evidence to support it. It's a valid hypothesis, but the very fact we can't observe anything prior to our universe starting to expand tells us NOTHING about what was before. It's not the only hypothesis.

To use your "tree analogy" from another recent thread, perhaps the energy was just sitting there, not moving, always existing. At some point, for some unknown reason, it began to expand into our universe. For some reason you seem fine to accept a god could do this, but don't seem to want to entertain that energy could also do this.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #314

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 8:01 am It might be your point, but is simply a bald assertion with no evidence to support it.
I already presented my case as to why the universe can't be eternal in its existence. So far, your only response has been "the same thing applies to God", which is a strawman.
It's a valid hypothesis, but the very fact we can't observe anything prior to our universe starting to expand tells us NOTHING about what was before. It's not the only hypothesis.
You dont have to observe the rain in order to logically conclude that it rained outside.
To use your "tree analogy" from another recent thread, perhaps the energy was just sitting there, not moving, always existing. At some point, for some unknown reason, it began to expand into our universe.
Ive already addressed this.
For some reason you seem fine to accept a god could do this, but don't seem to want to entertain that energy could also do this.
And there we have it, yet again smh.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 653 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #315

Post by bluegreenearth »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:58 pm You dont have to observe the rain in order to logically conclude that it rained outside.
Doesn't that presume someone has previously observed the existence of rain to know it could serve as a possible candidate explanation for the water outside?

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #316

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

bluegreenearth wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 1:21 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:58 pm You dont have to observe the rain in order to logically conclude that it rained outside.
Doesn't that presume someone has previously observed the existence of rain to know it could serve as a possible candidate explanation for the water outside?
Correct, but since my argument isn't based upon observation anyway, what we can/cant observe is irrelevant.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 653 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #317

Post by bluegreenearth »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 1:46 pm
bluegreenearth wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 1:21 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:58 pm You dont have to observe the rain in order to logically conclude that it rained outside.
Doesn't that presume someone has previously observed the existence of rain to know it could serve as a possible candidate explanation for the water outside?
Correct, but since my argument isn't based upon observation anyway, what we can/cant observe is irrelevant.
Then what was the value of supplying an irrelevant analogy?

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2103
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1346 times
Been thanked: 513 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #318

Post by benchwarmer »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:58 pm
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 8:01 am It might be your point, but is simply a bald assertion with no evidence to support it.
I already presented my case as to why the universe can't be eternal in its existence. So far, your only response has been "the same thing applies to God", which is a strawman.
You are confusing multiple things.

I'm simply saying that what came BEFORE the universe started expanding may also be eternal. Our current timeline began at the universe's expansion because that is when our space/time started operating. HOWEVER, you can't simply presume or assert that the 'stuff' the universe began expanding from was or was not always there.

THAT is the argument I'm making. You accusing me a of a strawman is ironic as you are not representing my argument.

Again, what came before the current space/time of our universe starting expanding and beginning the flow of our timeline has EXACTLY the same possibility of your unobserved god hypothesis as being correct.

You are trying to conclude 'something' was there before our universe started expanding and calling that 'something' god. I'm saying that an equally valid hypothesis that does not insert a god into the equation is that 'something' could be just the initial 'stuff' our universe expanded out of. It may have been in a steady state of no expansion and no time passage and then started our current observable space/time.

Your god that you are trying to explain has the exact same properties of what I'm talking about except that in my case, the 'god' would be what becomes our universe. It's just some 'stuff' that starts expanding for some unknown reason. Trying to say this doesn't work but your god hypothesis does is just more special pleading.

In fact, the title of this OP more aligns with a god not being involved. The god would have to violate conservation of mass/energy when poofing the energy of our universe into existence. Unless of course you want to contend that the universe is part of the god - or maybe even is the god. I don't see you going there, but more hypotheses to consider.

Remember, we are in the science and religion sub forum now, so simply stating your preferred hypothesis as 'correct' really doesn't fly here. It doesn't fly in other forums either, but especially not here.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:58 pm
It's a valid hypothesis, but the very fact we can't observe anything prior to our universe starting to expand tells us NOTHING about what was before. It's not the only hypothesis.
You dont have to observe the rain in order to logically conclude that it rained outside.
No, but you do have to observe the water on the ground. Simply observing the water on the ground does not guarantee that it rained. That would just be more bald assertion if you had no other evidence. Perhaps your neighbor had his sprinkler on and sprayed your window/driveway. It may be a reasonable guess that it rained, but you would be wrong.

Likewise we can't simply look at the universe, note that it is there, and conclude a god "did it". We have observed no gods, so concluding 3 fairies, 2 blue ducks, or nine demons from another dimension did it are are all equally valid, unsupported, plain old guessing.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:58 pm
To use your "tree analogy" from another recent thread, perhaps the energy was just sitting there, not moving, always existing. At some point, for some unknown reason, it began to expand into our universe.
Ive already addressed this.
If you have you either didn't actually tackle it to any satisfaction or simply engaged in special pleading. You say one 'thing' can have a certain property, but start complaining when some other 'thing' can't. Textbook special pleading.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:58 pm
For some reason you seem fine to accept a god could do this, but don't seem to want to entertain that energy could also do this.
And there we have it, yet again smh.
Not sure what you are shaking your head for. Object A can have property X. Object B can have property X. WEV: NO! Only my A can have X! It's special!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #319

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

bluegreenearth wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 2:04 pm
Then what was the value of supplying an irrelevant analogy?
The analogy had as much value as the irrelevant point about observation that it was referring to.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Conservation of energy

Post #320

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 4:27 pm
You are confusing multiple things.
I can assure you that it isn't me who is confused about things here. :D
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 4:27 pm I'm simply saying that what came BEFORE the universe started expanding may also be eternal.
Again, I already made the case as to why the cause of the universe must be an UCC (uncaused cause), and why "God" fits the bill.
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 4:27 pm Our current timeline began at the universe's expansion because that is when our space/time started operating. HOWEVER, you can't simply presume or assert that the 'stuff' the universe began expanding from was or was not always there.
I did more than presume, I made an entire case about it, and I am not about to fight a war on two fronts (two threads).

The argument was made, and all you've (specifically, you) provided was "the same thing applies to God", which is a strawman.
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 4:27 pm THAT is the argument I'm making. You accusing me a of a strawman is ironic as you are not representing my argument.
So, your argument isn't "the same thing applies to God"?? Do I need to pull up the history?
benchwarmer wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 4:27 pm Again, what came before the current space/time of our universe starting expanding and beginning the flow of our timeline has EXACTLY the same possibility of your unobserved god hypothesis as being correct.
Um, no, it doesn't.

I grow weary of saying the same thing over and over again to multiple folks. You guys are raising issues that I addressed in the OP of the other thread.

Quite frankly, I'm tired of repeating myself.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Post Reply