Conservation of energy

[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.

[William]

[Replying to post 59 by Inigo Montoya]

But for you to use that ignorance as a means to instead leap to "So God must have done it" is not only faulty reasoning, but of no value in a science subforum.

Not meaning to interrupt the flow here, but just want to point out that this is NOT a strictly scientific forum, so to imply some legitimate high-ground by claiming it is, does nothing to support your overall contentions re your interpretations of the scientific evidence to date.

If you don't like the 'GoTG' interpretations, to the point where you have to get personal, or pull out your imaginary 'foul' card, then this very likely isn't the right forum for you.

[For_The_Kingdom]

How many times will you expose your God of the gaps logic?

"You can't use God of the Gaps logic, but we can use "Nature of the Gaps" logic".

Double standard and hypocritical.

U.S. to North Korea "You can't have nuclear weapons to protect your country, but we can have nuclear weapons to protect our country".

Same thing. And I am not even granting the notion that I am using God of the Gaps logic...just saying; text book example of hypocrisy.

We get that you don't understand how presumably inanimate matter gave rise to life. Guess what? No one else really understands that either.

I will make an even bolder statement; not only don't I understand how inanimate matter gave rise to life, I am saying that it is naturally IMPOSSIBLE for inanimate matter to come to life.

How about that one?

But for you to use that ignorance as a means to instead leap to "So God must have done it" is not only faulty reasoning, but of no value in a science subforum.

Don't blame me for appealing to God when science can't get the job done...blame science, and its limitations.

How many times will you take a God-wins-by-default approach when you run into any of the universe's mysteries we're still working on?

God-wins-by-default

or..

Science will soon figure it out for me

There is a faith element to both, isn't there?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 59 by Inigo Montoya]

But for you to use that ignorance as a means to instead leap to "So God must have done it" is not only faulty reasoning, but of no value in a science subforum.

Not meaning to interrupt the flow here, but just want to point out that this is NOT a strictly scientific forum, so to imply some legitimate high-ground by claiming it is, does nothing to support your overall contentions re your interpretations of the scientific evidence to date.

If you don't like the 'GoTG' interpretations, to the point where you have to get personal, or pull out your imaginary 'foul' card, then this very likely isn't the right forum for you.

Tell me, William. What evidence have I interpreted in this thread and implied a high ground on?

As to the last point, while I agree "religion" is in the name of this subforum, the "science &" part ought to at least imply a less relaxed environment when it comes to bald or irrational assertions. As to whether this is the right forum for me in that light, do let me know if I start talking about conscious planets and Earth entities and first source consciousnesses and perhaps I'll reconsider posting here.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 62 by For_The_Kingdom]

Ok, let's make this super easy.

Let's say we talking apes NEVER figure out how life arose on this planet.

Does it therefore follow that "God did it" is the best and most reasonable conclusion?

[William]

[Replying to post 63 by Inigo Montoya]

Tell me, William. What evidence have I interpreted in this thread and implied a high ground on?

Read what I said again. Your assertion that GOD cannot be discussed in relation to 'science' because 'this is a science forum' is what i was referring to.

As to the last point, while I agree "religion" is in the name of this subforum, the "science &" part ought to at least imply a less relaxed environment when it comes to bald or irrational assertions.

One should be able to feel relaxed regardless of which forum one is involved with. If you require a wee safe place where you can frolic with your peers, one has been provided.

The A Room
Where agnostics and atheists can freely discuss...

Therein you can freely complain if any irrational theist ventures to assert about 'GOD'.

As to you comment re 'bald or irrational assertions', those are your personal interpretations and a thinly veiled type of personal attack at that.

As to whether this is the right forum for me in that light, do let me know if I start talking about conscious planets and Earth entities and first source consciousnesses and perhaps I'll reconsider posting here.

More thinly veiled personal attacking. You have yet to earn my respect. Obviously that in not your intention.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 9 by For_The_Kingdom]

Impossible, as it defies observation and experiment..and it is philosophically flawed.

In fact this statement is entirely backwards. According to all observation and experimentation energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed in form.

Wikipedia
Conservation of Energy
In physics, the law of Conservation of Energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant — it is said to be conserved over time. This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed from one form to another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

The universe is a closed system, and it is losing all usable energy. If the universe was eternal, it would have lost all its energy a long time ago. Just like how you know that a car that is running on gas wasn't running for an infinite amount of time, because that is impossible due to only a finite amount of gas.

Losing it to where? If the universe really is a closed system, then there is nowhere to lose it TO. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. That means that the amount remains constant, only found in different forms.

Look, people; the universe began to exist...whether we like it or not. Embrace the truth..the universe began to exist, and anything that begins to exist must have a cause.

An external cause.

Once there was no you. But then you began to exist. What was your cause? Your parents of course. In other words, something occurred to initiate your beginning. Because what we actually observe is that every effect is the result of an earlier cause without fail. No discrete beginnings are ever actually observed.

What is the cause of this external external cause you postulate?

Um, we don't need to imagine that the universe always existed forever...why? Because of the evidence we have that it COULDN'T have existed forever (in some form). We have both philosophical/scientific evidence to support this.

How about dealing with the arguments/evidence that support this? Instead of this "if you can do it, we can do it" nonsense.

The visible universe that we exist in had a beginning. But the material that the universe is composed of, energy, can neither be created or destroyed, according to all observation and experimentation. Which indicates that it existed prior to the beginning of the visible universe we exist it. That means that, like you, our universe was BORN as the result of conditions that preceded the existence of our universe.

The standard model of the big bang theory has the most scientific evidence supporting it...and in this model, physical reality began at this point. If you want to claim that the universe existed in some other "form" one way or another, then the onus is on you to provide evidence for such.

Our universe began with the big bang (as did we all... metaphorically speaking). What we observe is that every effect has a prior cause, without fail! At least as far back as we can interpolate. Which is the big bang. The onus is actually on you to establish that the big bang was not simply another step in an unbroken chain of cause and effect. Because we have no real reason to believe that it represents a discrete beginning. Just, currently, the earliest cause we can infer.

Infinite regression...a problem..

Unless of course if you choose to call it God. Then apparently it becomes obvious and necessarily true. At least according to you.

You can't imagine infinite regression.

Apparently YOU can though. Call it God, and all questions disappear. Most cosmologists however don't postulate an infinite regression. They postulate the cosmos folding in on itself, creating an ever changing closed loop.

But the universe began to exist tho.

So did you. But you didn't just pop into existence. There was more to your story than your conception.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 65 by William]

I think you hear what you want to hear.

Where have I asserted God can't be discussed in the science and religion forum?

[William]

[Replying to post 67 by Inigo Montoya]

Where have I asserted God can't be discussed in the science and religion forum?

In your seeming lack of ability to do so, coupled with derogatory attitude in relation to theistic philosophy.

Are we done here? Yes we are.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 68 by William]

Be done if you like.

Discussing whatever gods are proposed in this subforum has never been an issue. Blurting out the existence of such, unevidenced, or worse, as existing by default in light of unsolved phenomena, is totally different.

Your reference to theistic philosophy is irrelevant in this subforum, unless I completely misunderstand the environment of the Science and Religion category. Which is possible. But there's an entire subforum for philosophical babble, and even a subforum where the Bible is not only taken as informative, but authoritative. I had imagined the Science and Religion subforum to deal a bit more with...science. Less relaxed not in the way you feel warm and cozy, but in the appeal to actual evidence, not what sounds nice in the head in your armchair.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 62 by For_The_Kingdom]

Ok, let's make this super easy.

Let's say we talking apes NEVER figure out how life arose on this planet.

Does it therefore follow that "God did it" is the best and most reasonable conclusion?

No. But it does follow that if there are only two options (God/Mother Nature), and one option is impossible (Mother Nature), then the other option wins by default (God).