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.
Conservation of energy
Moderator: Moderators
- The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5003
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 150 times
- bluegreenearth
- Guru
- Posts: 1917
- Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
- Location: Manassas, VA
- Has thanked: 681 times
- Been thanked: 470 times
Re: Conservation of energy
Post #311What is "physical energy" as opposed to energy in general?We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 10:53 pmBecause prior to the Big Bang, there was no energy (physical energy) to conserve. That is the point.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.
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Conservation of energy
Post #312By "physical" energy, I mean natural energy and its relationship with matter. I am making the distinction between physical energy, and nonphysical energy (supernatural energy).bluegreenearth wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 11:13 pm
What is "physical energy" as opposed to energy in general?
Because obviously (on my view), God is energy, but not physical energy.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2329
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2004 times
- Been thanked: 771 times
Re: Conservation of energy
Post #313It 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.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.
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.
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Conservation of energy
Post #314I 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.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.
You dont have to observe the rain in order to logically conclude that it rained outside.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.
Ive already addressed this.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.
And there we have it, yet again smh.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.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- bluegreenearth
- Guru
- Posts: 1917
- Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
- Location: Manassas, VA
- Has thanked: 681 times
- Been thanked: 470 times
Re: Conservation of energy
Post #315Doesn'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?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.
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Conservation of energy
Post #316Correct, but since my argument isn't based upon observation anyway, what we can/cant observe is irrelevant.bluegreenearth wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 1:21 pmDoesn'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?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.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- bluegreenearth
- Guru
- Posts: 1917
- Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
- Location: Manassas, VA
- Has thanked: 681 times
- Been thanked: 470 times
Re: Conservation of energy
Post #317Then what was the value of supplying an irrelevant analogy?We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 1:46 pmCorrect, but since my argument isn't based upon observation anyway, what we can/cant observe is irrelevant.bluegreenearth wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 1:21 pmDoesn'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?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.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2329
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2004 times
- Been thanked: 771 times
Re: Conservation of energy
Post #318You are confusing multiple things.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:58 pmI 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.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'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.
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.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:58 pmYou dont have to observe the rain in order to logically conclude that it rained outside.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.
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.
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 pmIve already addressed this.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.
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!We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:58 pmAnd there we have it, yet again smh.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.
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Conservation of energy
Post #319The analogy had as much value as the irrelevant point about observation that it was referring to.bluegreenearth wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 2:04 pm
Then what was the value of supplying an irrelevant analogy?
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Conservation of energy
Post #320I can assure you that it isn't me who is confused about things here.
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 I'm simply saying that what came BEFORE the universe started expanding may also be eternal.
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).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.
The argument was made, and all you've (specifically, you) provided was "the same thing applies to God", which is a strawman.
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 THAT is the argument I'm making. You accusing me a of a strawman is ironic as you are not representing my argument.
Um, no, it doesn't.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.
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!!