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.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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

For the umpteenth time, the first law of thermodynamics comes in to play only AFTER the universe began to exist.

Losing it to where? If the universe really is a closed system, then there is nowhere to lose it TO.

I am talking about the usable energy...energy to do work. Obviously, when a person dies, their life energy is lost..and regardless of where you think the energy goes after that, the body no longer has usable energy. So the energy is "lost", figuratively speaking...it is out there somewhere, but not inside the body.

And the point is, the usable energy is running down/out..and if it is running out, it couldn't have been running forever.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. That means that the amount remains constant, only found in different forms.

Which brings you to the infinity problem. If the energy has been changing forms forever, then why did it change forms into this universe (whatever cosmology model you'd like to use) only a finite time ago?

There is no logical way out of that..unless you have a beginning of all beginnings (Gen 1:1).

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.

Right, but here is where the problem lies; you can't traverse this causal chain all the way back into past eternity. A beginning is absolutely necessary.

Because what we actually observe is that every effect is the result of an earlier cause without fail.

For every effect that comes to past, true. But this could not have gone on for eternity.

No discrete beginnings are ever actually observed.

But one discrete beginning is necessary.

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

This cause is metaphysically necessary. Existence is necessary.

The visible universe that we exist in had a beginning.

Mad props to you for admitting this. Mad props.

But the material that the universe is composed of, energy, can neither be created or destroyed, according to all observation and experimentation.

Philosophical problems with this.

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.

Philosophical problems.

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.

I can do that.. I can "establish that the big bang was not simply another step in an unbroken chain of cause and effect." Now, my question to you is, if I was able to do that, would you become a theist?

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

Who has raised the claim that God's existence endured through infinite time? Not me.

Apparently YOU can though. Call it God, and all questions disappear.

Not at all.

Most cosmologists however don't postulate an infinite regression. They postulate the cosmos folding in on itself, creating an ever changing closed loop.

Still sounds like infinite regression to me.

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

Yeah, but is the causal chain which lead to my existence; is it an infinitely long chain with no beginning whatsoever?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 70 by For_The_Kingdom]

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)

.

Very well. I rest my case, and thank you for answering.

[dianaiad]

[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.

Moderator Warning


This is personal. It is insulting.

Address the post, not the author of it, especially negatively. It would be best, if you cannot address the meat of the post, to refrain from commenting at all.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
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

For the umpteenth time, the first law of thermodynamics comes in to play only AFTER the universe began to exist.

Did God tell you this personally? Otherwise, upon what evidence do you base this claim? Or is it not true that this is simply another purely assumed declaration of fact with no has no evidentiary support?

Every effect we observe is the result of an earlier cause. This leads back to the big bang and the concept of the initial singularity that gave rise to the universe (the one we observe and exist in). But we also now know that such a condition seems to exist in a gravitational singularity. The sort that forms black holes. Gravitational singularities occur because of gravitation. They occur because of a cause that preceded the event (the effect-the black hole). And that is a massive accumulation of matter. So we have every reason to suppose, and no reason NOT to suppose, that the initial singularity was the result of that which went before it. Gravity. Simply another effect in an unending chain of cause and effect. Gravitation is something we can see, experience and quantify. Your belief that God is responsible for the big bang is the result of pure imagination at work, and consequently opens up even more questions, which the religious consider mysteries, and do not even attempt to answer.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Losing it to where? If the universe really is a closed system, then there is nowhere to lose it TO.

I am talking about the usable energy...energy to do work. Obviously, when a person dies, their life energy is lost..and regardless of where you think the energy goes after that, the body no longer has usable energy. So the energy is "lost", figuratively speaking...it is out there somewhere, but not inside the body.

IT IS NOT RUNNING OUT. Because it can't be destroyed. It is simply changed from a form that is immediately usable, to a form that is less immediately usable. People, for example, need the immediately usable form (sugar) to provide the energy to power our cells. Rocks contain plenty of energy. We simply do not yet have the technology to be able to convert rocks to fit our energy needs.

We give off the less usable energy in the form of heat. Heat is a form of radiation. It makes our cells move, which causes the sensation of heat. Electromagnetic radiation, given off by the sun or a fire for example, or particle radiation also given off by a fire, or proximity to other living bodies, is used to warm us. This occurs, like everything else, because of quantum mechanics. But heat is eventually lost into space. It's not destroyed, just transformed. Because that's what energy does. It changes form.

As long as the sun shines, we have energy. And when the sun burns out, we had better be someplace else. Unless we learn how to convert matter to the sort of energy that humans need to survive. Then we could continue on for awhile. But the sun will swell and probably eventually consume the Earth. So we had better be someplace else.

No

And the point is, the usable energy is running down/out..and if it is running out, it couldn't have been running forever.

It won't be gone because it can't be eliminated, only changed in form. Positively and negative charged quarks are attracted to each other and form protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons, along with electrons, form matter. Atoms. These clump together as a result of high speed collision to form matter. Matter causes gravity. Gravity causes everything to be pulled back together again. It causes energy to be formed into matter. Around and around we go.

One model of the universe is that it will continue to expand until all of the quanta have become too far apart to continue to clump into matter. But this is only one model, and it overlooks the effects of gravity, which tends to pull matter back together again.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. That means that the amount remains constant, only changed into different forms.

Which brings you to the infinity problem. If the energy has been changing forms forever, then why did it change forms into this universe (whatever cosmology model you'd like to use) only a finite time ago?

There is no logical way out of that..unless you have a beginning of all beginnings (Gen 1:1).

Unless you have a beginning for God, you are still stuck with something that had no beginning. Energy can be observed and quantified. It actually exists. But you see, the idea of God has simply been created out of the imagination.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
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.

Right, but here is where the problem lies; you can't traverse this causal chain all the way back into past eternity. A beginning is absolutely necessary.

Did God have a beginning? Or is the God of your imagination eternal? Unless you are willing to posit a beginning for God, you are simply blowing smoke and spinning your wheels with this line of argument.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Because what we actually observe is that every effect is the result of an earlier cause without fail.

For every effect that comes to past, true. But this could not have gone on for eternity.

Which if true eliminates the possibility of an eternal God.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
No discrete beginnings are ever actually observed
.

But one discrete beginning is necessary.

Detail God's beginning then.

Tired of the Nonsense quote:
What is the cause of this external external cause you postulate? [/quote]

This cause is metaphysically necessary. Existence is necessary.

Existence must necessarily exist for us to be asking these questions. On the other hand, metaphysics is a branch of human inference on the why and how of existence. Human inference has no necessary effect on the universe, however. At one time metaphysics was the only apparent solution for providing philosophical answers for existence. But we are currently accumulating actual empirical answers (evidence) for existence at a tremendous rate. We no longer need make believe.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
The visible universe that we exist in had a beginning.

Mad props to you for admitting this. Mad props.

This is not something that I ever denied. It is also observed that things are born from conditions that preceded it. There is absolutely no evidence that this is ever not the case.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
But the material that the universe is composed of, energy, can neither be created or destroyed, according to all observation and experimentation.

Philosophical problems with this.

"Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead." Stephen Hawking
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/stephen_ ... _dead.html

We have reached the point where both religion and philosophy can be discarded. Not without the cause of some considerable amount of pain obviously. The bottom line has ALWAY BEEN, that truth will always win out eventually.

Tired of the Nonsense
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.

Philosophical problems.

Philosophical problems are immaterial. Physical evidence is the only thing that really matters. Because physical evidence is the only way to discover what is factually true.
Things which are "philosophically true" to humans are of no necessary concern, or necessary impact, on the universe.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
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.

I can do that.. I can "establish that the big bang was not simply another step in an unbroken chain of cause and effect." Now, my question to you is, if I was able to do that, would you become a theist?

Go ahead and give it your best shot.

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

Who has raised the claim that God's existence endured through infinite time? Not me.

From whence came God, in that case?

Tired of the Nonsense
Most cosmologists however don't postulate an infinite regression. They postulate the cosmos folding in on itself, creating an ever changing closed loop.

Still sounds like infinite regression to me.

A loop in which everything is subject to constant change, and nothing would ever be exactly the same. No starting point and no ending point. Like a circle. Or more clearly, like a globe. Except that returning to the same starting point would be meaningless concept , because everything will have changed.

Who started it all? The same one who started God, apparently. Or there was never any "who" at all. Just constant ever changing existence. Because the other alternative is that there is nothing whatsoever. In which case, who is asking the questions?

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

Yeah, but is the causal chain which lead to my existence; is it an infinitely long chain with no beginning whatsoever?

The causal chain leads back to a point that we cannot (yet) peer around. We have no experience with an uncaused event however. The idea itself is simply a product of the imagination, since no such thing is actually observed. Ancient people did not know this however. They perceived discreet beginnings where none actually exist. And so the idea that "everything has a beginning" became infused into our cultural mindset. But it doesn't happen to be true. Everything that can be observed is a continuation of things that went before it. And that includes the big bang by almost everyone's estimation. You conclude that God did it. I conclude that the big bang was the result of conditions that existed before it. We both agree essentially, except for different reasons. And therein lies the basis for debate.

[For_The_Kingdom]

For the umpteenth time, the first law of thermodynamics comes in to play only AFTER the universe began to exist.

Did God tell you this personally? Otherwise, upon what evidence do you base this claim? Or is it not true that this is simply another purely assumed declaration of fact with no has no evidentiary support?

The first law of thermodynamics came into play hundreds of years before a finite universe was discovered (or even postulated). So you can't logically say "matter cannot be created or destroyed" when there was a point in the finite past at which the universe (physical reality) came into being.

Because scientist were so eager (desperate) to stay true to the law, and also based on the fact that they just simply don't like the implications of what a beginning of the universe entails, that they began to postulate all kinds of pre-big bang models (oscillating, steady state, string theories, etc). All of those theories have failed for various reasons and they ALL fail as they are haunted by the whole infinity problem thingy.

Every effect we observe is the result of an earlier cause.

Again, this earlier than/later than chain couldn't have been going on forever...and that is the problem.

This leads back to the big bang and the concept of the initial singularity that gave rise to the universe (the one we observe and exist in). But we also now know that such a condition seems to exist in a gravitational singularity. The sort that forms black holes. Gravitational singularities occur because of gravitation. They occur because of a cause that preceded the event (the effect-the black hole). And that is a massive accumulation of matter. So we have every reason to suppose, and no reason NOT to suppose, that the initial singularity was the result of that which went before it. Gravity.

First off, none of what you just said averts a cosmic beginning, nor does it negate anything that I said. Second, this "initial singularity" that originated as a result of what went on before it (in time), would still be just one small point on the infinitely long causal chain..and thus the "infinity" problem applies to it.

Look, cosmological mumbo jumbo won't help you here. You can posit your best scientific theory..but the fact will still remain; infinity cannot be traversed, nor can you have an actual infinity amount of things in a set.

Simply another effect in an unending chain of cause and effect. Gravitation is something we can see, experience and quantify.

Wait a minute, gravity is within the universe, right? So if the universe began to exist, doesn't that mean that gravity also began to exist? Again, you are talking about things that happened after the universe began.

Your belief that God is responsible for the big bang is the result of pure imagination at work

And your belief that there is this infinitely long chain of cause/effect relations which lead up to the big bang is logically impossible..in other words, it can't happen in any possible world.

, and consequently opens up even more questions

Sure, it opens up more questions about the Creator. No problems there.

, which the religious consider mysteries, and do not even attempt to answer.

Says who?

IT IS NOT RUNNING OUT.

Ok, so your car isn't running out of gas when you drive, then. Yet, it clearly is. It is literally the same concept. If you can understand how the gas (energy) in your vehicle is running out, you can understand how the universes energy is running out. Running out doesn't mean that the energy is disappearing, it means that the energy is escaping the system and rendering the system "useless".

And that is what is happening with our universe.

Because it can't be destroyed.

A law that was implemented after it began.

It is simply changed from a form that is immediately usable, to a form that is less immediately usable.

It would have actually had to begin with a "form" that was unusable, change to a form that is usable (currently), and is now going back to a form that is unusable. But we know that ain't how entropy work.

You don't get organized order from disordered chaos..that doesn't happen anywhere in nature and it certainly couldn't have happened to the universe as a whole.

People, for example, need the immediately usable form (sugar) to provide the energy to power our cells.

And chemical evolution as it relates to cells and DNA is another problem for naturalists.

Rocks contain plenty of energy. We simply do not yet have the technology to be able to convert rocks to fit our energy needs.

And?

We give off the less usable energy in the form of heat. Heat is a form of radiation. It makes our cells move, which causes the sensation of heat. Electromagnetic radiation, given off by the sun or a fire for example, or particle radiation also given off by a fire, or proximity to other living bodies, is used to warm us. This occurs, like everything else, because of quantum mechanics. But heat is eventually lost into space. It's not destroyed, just transformed. Because that's what energy does. It changes form.

But my point is, the energy couldn't have been changing forever, and you need an "intelligence" mechanism to get the kind of entropy needed for us to be even having this discussion.

Unless you can tell me where the high entropy came from, and how can any event come to past if there were an infinite amount of events which preceded it, then everything you say is irrelevant.

As long as the sun shines, we have energy. And when the sun burns out, we had better be someplace else. Unless we learn how to convert matter to the sort of energy that humans need to survive. Then we could continue on for awhile. But the sun will swell and probably eventually consume the Earth. So we had better be someplace else.

When the sun burns out, it is a Reynolds Wrap for mankind.

It won't be gone because it can't be eliminated, only changed in form.

Where is the gas in your vehicle when the tank is on "E"? Somewhere in the atmosphere, right? So what? It being "somewhere out there" isn't helping you in your gas situation, is it? No, it isn't.

Every single entity that has usable energy to do work is running out of its usable energy. That applies to EVERY SINGLE ENTITY in the universe, and it also applies to the universe as a whole.

But in order to even get usable energy, you have to have extremely high entropy..and THAT is a problem for naturalists...because you can't get that kind of high entropy with chaos and randomness. You can only get it with precision that comes from intelligence.

Positively and negative charged quarks are attracted to each other and form protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons, along with electrons, form matter. Atoms. These clump together as a result of high speed collision to form matter. Matter causes gravity. Gravity causes everything to be pulled back together again. It causes energy to be formed into matter. Around and around we go.

And?

One model of the universe is that it will continue to expand until all of the quanta have become too far apart to continue to clump into matter. But this is only one model, and it overlooks the effects of gravity, which tends to pull matter back together again.

And?

Unless you have a beginning for God, you are still stuck with something that had no beginning.

You say "stuck with" as if it is a bad thing. A God that began to exist is no God worthy of worship and praise.

Energy can be observed and quantified. It actually exists.

It also began to exist.

But you see, the idea of God has simply been created out of the imagination.

I am sure that is what you'd like to believe.

Did God have a beginning?

No.

Or is the God of your imagination eternal?

Or is the natural reality of your imagination eternal?

Unless you are willing to posit a beginning for God, you are simply blowing smoke and spinning your wheels with this line of argument.

Umm, why would I be "willing to posit a beginning for God" when I continuously acknowledge that an uncaused cause is necessary of whom is an immaterial entity with a mind?

Which if true eliminates the possibility of an eternal God.

No one is making the case that God existed eternally in time.

Detail God's beginning then.

What I meant was; there had to be one single beginning of time.

Existence must necessarily exist for us to be asking these questions. On the other hand, metaphysics is a branch of human inference on the why and how of existence. Human inference has no necessary effect on the universe, however. At one time metaphysics was the only apparent solution for providing philosophical answers for existence. But we are currently accumulating actual empirical answers (evidence) for existence at a tremendous rate. We no longer need make believe.

We no longer need make believe? Well, that takes away macroevolution, abiogenesis, multiverses, etc.

This is not something that I ever denied. It is also observed that things are born from conditions that preceded it.

But the problem is thinking that these conditions can be traversed all the way back to past eternity. That is the problem/

There is absolutely no evidence that this is ever not the case.

But there is..

"Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead." Stephen Hawking
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/stephen_ ... _dead.html

Yet, those are two questions that science have yet to answer. LOL.

We have reached the point where both religion and philosophy can be discarded. Not without the cause of some considerable amount of pain obviously. The bottom line has ALWAY BEEN, that truth will always win out eventually.

So, we shouldn't believe anything unless it can be scientifically verified? Yes or no.

Philosophical problems are immaterial. Physical evidence is the only thing that really matters. Because physical evidence is the only way to discover what is factually true.
Things which are "philosophically true" to humans are of no necessary concern, or necessary impact, on the universe.

I ask again, should we only believe what can be scientifically verified? Yes or no.

I can do that.. I can "establish that the big bang was not simply another step in an unbroken chain of cause and effect." Now, my question to you is, if I was able to do that, would you become a theist?

Go ahead and give it your best shot.

I asked would you become a theist if I was able to establish it^.

From whence came God, in that case?

?

A loop in which everything is subject to constant change, and nothing would ever be exactly the same. No starting point and no ending point. Like a circle. Or more clearly, like a globe. Except that returning to the same starting point would be meaningless concept , because everything will have changed.

Who started it all? The same one who started God, apparently. Or there was never any "who" at all. Just constant ever changing existence. Because the other alternative is that there is nothing whatsoever. In which case, who is asking the questions?

Philosophical problems. Now, you can denounce such problems..but then you will be implying "things don't have to make actual sense for me to believe". And if that is your stance, then I will leave you to it.

The causal chain leads back to a point that we cannot (yet) peer around. We have no experience with an uncaused event however.

"So, because we've never experienced it, it can't be true". Non sequitur.

The idea itself is simply a product of the imagination, since no such thing is actually observed.

"So, unless we observe it, it can't be true". Non sequitur.

Ancient people did not know this however. They perceived discreet beginnings where none actually exist.

They (Bible writers) stated that the universe began to exist..and they were saying this during times when it wasn't a "cool" thing to say...only to come and find out that thousands of years later, you are on here pretty much admitting that they were right, and that the universe did in fact begin to exist.

So they did "know" something.

And so the idea that "everything has a beginning" became infused into our cultural mindset.

Um, no...it isn't that "everything has a beginning"...it is "everything that BEGINS TO EXIST must has a cause".

Big difference. And you are on here talking about what we can observe/not observe...yet, you've never observed anything beginning to exist without a cause, have you??

But it doesn't happen to be true. Everything that can be observed is a continuation of things that went before it.

No one is arguing against that. I am just merely stating that the causal chain cannot be extended back to past eternity. Once the causal chain was set in motion, then obviously all later than events were preceded by earlier than moments.

And that includes the big bang by almost everyone's estimation. You conclude that God did it. I conclude that the big bang was the result of conditions that existed before it.

God was the condition.

We both agree essentially, except for different reasons.

Yeah, but the difference is, your theory is impossible, and mines isn't.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 75 by For_The_Kingdom]

I meant "low entropy" in a select few places in that post. My bad. Don't know why sometimes I can edit my posts and sometimes I can't.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

The first law of thermodynamics came into play hundreds of years before a finite universe was discovered (or even postulated). So you can't logically say "matter cannot be created or destroyed" when there was a point in the finite past at which the universe (physical reality) came into being.

I only say that "matter cannot be created or destroyed" because it is an established law of physics. I didn't make it up just to tease you with.

What we also observe is that for every effect there is invariably and an earlier cause. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that the big bang was not the result of an earlier cause. You believe that the earlier cause was God. But you just made that up. Physicists suppose that prior to the big bang all of the energy in our universe existed in a state they refer to as a singularity. A state where all of the energy of the universe was compressed into a condition so compact, that all space was eliminated, and the concept of time had no meaning. Or at least a condition close to this state. Prior to that, there is every reason to suppose that a period of collapse was occuring. The energy of the universe didn't "come into being." It was born as the result of conditions that preceded it. We cannot as yet, however, talk meaningfully about the conditions the precede the big bang, other than the assumption that a period of collapse necessarily would have been need to cause the singularity. The first law of thermodynamics was not negated by the discovery of the big bang.

Because scientist were so eager (desperate) to stay true to the law, and also based on the fact that they just simply don't like the implications of what a beginning of the universe entails, that they began to postulate all kinds of pre-big bang models (oscillating, steady state, string theories, etc). All of those theories have failed for various reasons and they ALL fail as they are haunted by the whole infinity problem thingy.

Scientists are apparently "eager (desperate) to stay true to the law" so they can continue to explain why our technology, which is based on the known laws of physics, works. Christians on the other hand are completely nonplussed at the undeniable fact that they have an ongoing record of being right in their most important claim that has an accuracy rate which currently stands at zero for two thousand years.

The concept of God runs into the same problem with the infinity "thingy," by the way.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Every effect we observe is the result of an earlier cause.

Again, this earlier than/later than chain couldn't have been going on forever...and that is the problem.

I am reasonably sure that the universe doesn't not operate according to your declarations. Eternity is an incomprehensible question. If there was a time before anything existed, including God, then there no explanation why anything exists, ever. I was told once by a Christian woman that God created himself. Which means that He preexisted His own existence. Go work out the kinks in THAT pretzel logic.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
This leads back to the big bang and the concept of the initial singularity that gave rise to the universe (the one we observe and exist in). But we also now know that such a condition seems to exist in a gravitational singularity. The sort that forms black holes. Gravitational singularities occur because of gravitation. They occur because of a cause that preceded the event (the effect-the black hole). And that is a massive accumulation of matter. So we have every reason to suppose, and no reason NOT to suppose, that the initial singularity was the result of that which went before it. Gravity.

First off, none of what you just said averts a cosmic beginning, nor does it negate anything that I said.

No it doesn't. But we need to come to some reconciliation on just what represents a "beginning." There was a time before you existed. You had a "beginning." And yet you are the result of things that occurred prior to your existence. The universe that we exist in seems to have had a beginning. And yet there is absolutely no reason to suppose that it is not the result of things that occurred prior to exploding into existence. It means that there is more to the cosmos than what we can perceive. But we know that this is true already, because the material, the information, in a black hole has also disappeared off to somewhere that we cannot perceive. Given the incredible rate at which we are learning however, this does not mean that we can NEVER perceive these other states of existence.

Second, this "initial singularity" that originated as a result of what went on before it (in time), would still be just one small point on the infinitely long causal chain..and thus the "infinity" problem applies to it.

First of all, keep in mind that time is relative. It doesn't play by your rules. It works differently based on conditions related to speed and gravity. Now imagine a simple circle. It has no beginning, and it has no end. Now consider constant unending change. Time becomes meaningless. Because if it wasn't for our ability to remember things, there is really only right now.

Look, cosmological mumbo jumbo won't help you here. You can posit your best scientific theory..but the fact will still remain; infinity cannot be traversed, nor can you have an actual infinity amount of things in a set.

For_The_Kingdom has spoken. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? We are not the first to grapple with the question of infinity. What came before eternity is not a question I am capable of answering.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Simply another effect in an unending chain of cause and effect. Gravitation is something we can see, experience and quantify.

Wait a minute, gravity is within the universe, right? So if the universe began to exist, doesn't that mean that gravity also began to exist? Again, you are talking about things that happened after the universe began.

Presumably gravity is the cause of the singularity which led to the big bang. And when I say presumably, I means that gravity is the only known source that can cause the sort of massive collapse of matter we are talking about. Gravity is quantifiable. We experience it directly. God on the other hand can not be shown to be anything other than an exercise of the human imagination. Ultimately, a poorly conceived and illogical exercise of the imagination at that.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Your belief that God is responsible for the big bang is the result of pure imagination at work

And your belief that there is this infinitely long chain of cause/effect relations which lead up to the big bang is logically impossible..in other words, it can't happen in any possible world.

Again, reality is not subject to your constraint.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
, and consequently opens up even more questions

Sure, it opens up more questions about the Creator. No problems there.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
, which the religious consider mysteries, and do not even attempt to answer.

Says who?

If eternity is not possible, then God cannot have existed eternally. Unless you have an answer for the origin of God, the origin of God is a mystery. Nothing has been answered.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
IT IS NOT RUNNING OUT.

Ok, so your car isn't running out of gas when you drive, then. Yet, it clearly is. It is literally the same concept. If you can understand how the gas (energy) in your vehicle is running out, you can understand how the universes energy is running out. Running out doesn't mean that the energy is disappearing, it means that the energy is escaping the system and rendering the system "useless".

This is really the source of your misunderstanding. My car is designed to convert the energy from gasoline into heat which is utilized in producing the locomotion I desire. But the energy of the gasoline has not been eliminated from the universe. It has been converted into heat. It still exists, but it is no longer in a form that I can utilize to produce the desired locomotion. My car could run on water, or rocks, if we had the technology to use the energy that exists in rocks and water. We're not there yet.

And this is the basic problem of ALL believers. It's the failure to understand how the universe actually works, and the tendancy to simply make up answers and assume them to be true.

Essentially your belief that my car eliminates energy from the universe is an example of make believe. You made it up and assumed it to be true. And this is IGNORANCE! It's the sort of ignorance that our ancient ancestors used in coming up with the whole concept of their religious beliefs. But we are more knowledgeable now. Not smarter, but because of the extra time we have had to observe and experiment, we are more knowledgeable.

And that is what is happening with our universe

Nope. Our universe is currently expanding. But energy is not being eliminated, only changed from form to form. Matter IS energy. And when matter releases its energy it does so in the form of radiation. Which in turn causes the universe to expand. All the suns in the universe are currently turning matter into radiation. Quanta. But eventually quanta clumps together to form matter. Matter causes gravity to pull even more matter together. New stars are born. The process begins again.



This is a picture of the Pleiades star cluster. It is a star nursery where new stars are being formed.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Because it can't be destroyed.

A law that was implemented after it began.

What exactly is your evidence for this assertion? This is like assuming that the atoms that make up your body didn't exist prior to your conception. But every atom (or the quarks that make up atoms) is AT LEAST as old as the beginning of the universe. And perhaps, infinitely old.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
It is simply changed from a form that is immediately usable, to a form that is less immediately usable.

It would have actually had to begin with a "form" that was unusable, change to a form that is usable (currently), and is now going back to a form that is unusable. But we know that ain't how entropy work.

You don't get organized order from disordered chaos..that doesn't happen anywhere in nature and it certainly couldn't have happened to the universe as a whole.

The initial singularity that ended in the big bang represented the ultimate form of order. Everything since that point is an example of increasing disorder. We are one result of disorder.

Because disorder allows for rearranging. Change.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
People, for example, need the immediately usable form (sugar) to provide the energy to power our cells.

And chemical evolution as it relates to cells and DNA is another problem for naturalists.

Not really. DNA is simply an evolved form of RNA. RNA is the real question. Because RNA is responsible for basic molecular replication. And without replication, evolution is impossible.

Short Sharp Science: A New Scientist blog
Biologists create self-replicating RNA molecule
19:00 7 April 2011
Environment
Life
Michael Marshall, environment reporter

It doesn't have a very sexy name, but tC19Z, synthesised in a lab in Cambridge, UK, could be a version of one of the first enzymes that ever existed on our planet - and a clue to how life itself got started.

A prominent theory of how life started involves the appearance of a self-replicator - some kind of simple molecule that was capable of making copies of itself without relying on other molecules. The trouble is, if this self-replicating molecule ever did exist, it doesn't any more. The vast majority of organisms around today use DNA to store their genetic information, and DNA does not copy itself - other enzymes do that bit for it.

Enter tC19Z. Built by Philipp Holliger and colleagues, it is an RNA enzyme that functions like a self-replicator.

RNA is structurally similar to DNA and can also be used to store genetic information. Some RNA molecules can act as enzymes, driving important chemical reactions in cells, but an RNA enzyme that can reliably copy other RNA segments, let alone self-replicate, has proved elusive.

Until now, the only known RNA-copying RNA was a molecule called R18, which can only copy RNA segments up to 14 "letters" long, and only works on certain sequences. It's like a word processor that can copy-and-paste "turnip" but not "swede".

Holliger, who is based at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK, has now set out to improve R18. He made a vast library of thousands of different versions of the molecule and screened them to see which ones made more copies. After several rounds of copying variants and looking for new improvements, he found several useful tweaks, which he incorporated into his final patchwork enzyme, tC19Z.

tC19Z can reliably copy RNA sequences up to 95 letters long, a near-sevenfold increase on R18. Its performance varies depending on the sequence it's copying, but it is much less picky than R18. Holliger compares R18 to a sports car that works only on a smooth, flat road. "We have fitted a four-wheel drive, so it can go off-road a bit," he says.

Crucially, tC19Z can copy pieces of RNA that are almost half as long (48 per cent) as itself. If an RNA enzyme is to copy itself, it has to be able to copy sequences as long as itself, and tC19Z is closing in on that goal.

In a neat twist, Holliger's team also showed that tC19Z can make copies of another RNA enzyme, which then worked correctly. That suggests that, once the first self-replicating RNA had appeared, it would have been able to surround itself with additional molecular equipment, kick-starting the evolution of more complex life.

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shor ... rna-e.html


Wikipedia
EVOLUTION

In March 2015, complex DNA and RNA organic compounds of life, including uracil, cytosine and thymine, were reportedly formed in the laboratory under outer space conditions, using starting chemicals, such as pyrimidine, found in meteorites. Pyrimidine, like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), the most carbon-rich chemical found in the Universe, may have been formed in red giants or in interstellar dust and gas clouds, according to the scientists.[76]March 3, 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA#cite_ ... 0150303-76

Go ahead. Choose not to read the above articles. But you shouldn't really expect your self imposed ignorance to make any impression on those of us who actually attempt to keep up with current scientific studies.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
We give off the less usable energy in the form of heat. Heat is a form of radiation. It makes our cells move, which causes the sensation of heat. Electromagnetic radiation, given off by the sun or a fire for example, or particle radiation also given off by a fire, or proximity to other living bodies, is used to warm us. This occurs, like everything else, because of quantum mechanics. But heat is eventually lost into space. It's not destroyed, just transformed. Because that's what energy does. It changes form.

But my point is, the energy couldn't have been changing forever, and you need an "intelligence" mechanism to get the kind of entropy needed for us to be even having this discussion.

You keep attempting to put constraint on what the universe/reality can do. Yet the universe/reality continues to not care. And you have yet to indicate the origins of this "intelligence" mechanism. In what way can this "intelligence mechanism" be shown to be anything other than a figment of your imagination? In other words, MAKE BELIEVE!

Unless you can tell me where the high entropy came from, and how can any event come to past if there were an infinite amount of events which preceded it, then everything you say is irrelevant.

Entropy explains perfectly well why a hot beverage in a thermos eventually reaches room temperature. If however the thermos was perfectly sealed in such a way that no heat was ever lost, the beverage would, theoretically, stay hot infinitely. The second law is extremely useful as a tool for practical operation. Of the sort that humans encounter every day. And this is a result of the first law, which is that energy constantly changes form. But you see, unless the universe is gaining, or losing, energy, than the universe is a perfectly sealed vessel.

Take a theoretical thermos which is a perfectly sealed vessel that cannot lose or gain heat. Inside the thermos there are two chambers. In one chamber is a liquid that it at its boiling point. In the other chamber is a liquid that is just above its freezing point. If the divider that separates the two liquids is also a perfect seal, one in which no interaction can occur, than the two liquids will retain their temperature indefinitely. (Infinitely? Well theoretically yes. But as we already know, infinity is tricky). If the divider that separates the two liquids is NOT a perfect seal however, then the two liquids will eventually reach equilibrium AND STAY THERE. Because the theoretical thermos is a perfectly sealed vessel, therefore equilibrium is as much as can be achieved. Because humans have not yet succeeded in achieving this sort of perfection in our systems, our systems ultimately eventually run down and require the introduction of a new appropriate form of energy to continue. True perfection tends to elude humans. At least so far.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
It won't be gone because it can't be eliminated, only changed in form.

Where is the gas in your vehicle when the tank is on "E"? Somewhere in the atmosphere, right? So what? It being "somewhere out there" isn't helping you in your gas situation, is it?

No, it isn't.

Every single entity that has usable energy to do work is running out of its usable energy. That applies to EVERY SINGLE ENTITY in the universe, and it also applies to the universe as a whole.

But in order to even get usable energy, you have to have extremely high entropy..and THAT is a problem for naturalists...because you can't get that kind of high entropy with chaos and randomness. You can only get it with precision that comes from intelligence.[/quote]

As I am driving a good deal of the energy potential of gasoline is lost out the exhaust, and a good eal because of the radiator. Because internal combustions engines are far from perfectly efficient. But even if they could be made 100% efficient, the energy would be lost in the form of heat generated by the resistance friction in the bearings, and the resistance friction generated by the tires against the road. Even a car that had a 100% efficient engine would use up all its gasoline eventually. Which is why perpetual motion machines are impossible. Whether an asteroid flying through space will be in perpetual motion eternally (assuming it never runs into anything) is the subject of dispute. Some conclude that it will eventually fall victim to atomic decay. But long intense experiments have never produced evidence of the decay of protons.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Unless you have a beginning for God, you are still stuck with something that had no beginning.

You say "stuck with" as if it is a bad thing. A God that began to exist is no God worthy of worship and praise.

Explain where God came from then. If you could actually do that, you would conceivably eliminate the need for this forum.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Energy can be observed and quantified. It actually exists.

It also began to exist.

According to you. According to all scientific observation and experimentation, energy can neither be created or destroyed. Science has created that computer you are sitting at, among other things, as a testament to the truth and accuracy of its claims. You have a 2,000 year old empty promise of the return of a guy that died 2,000 years ago to testify to the accuracy of your claims.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
But you see, the idea of God has simply been created out of the imagination.

I am sure that is what you'd like to believe.

If you had something more than your personal assurances that God is real I suspect that you would have provided it by now. What you have provided are the imagined qualities that the God of your imagination must necessarily have in order to fulfill the things that you imagine He fulfills. It's a closed system of circular reasoning. God can do whatever it is necessary for you to imagine that He can do.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Did God have a beginning?

No.

Earlier you equivocated on this question.

"Who has raised the claim that God's existence endured through infinite time? Not me." (For_The_Kingdom, post 71 of this string)

If God did not have a beginning, than God is eternal.

eternal
[ih-tur-nl]
adjective
1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal ):

What God was doing before He created the world is a good question. Ask Him when you see him.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Or is the God of your imagination eternal?

Or is the natural reality of your imagination eternal?

I do not have the ability to answer this question. It is observed that energy is what the universe is composed of. It is also observed that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Currently these are the among the best clues we have concerning the nature of reality.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Detail God's beginning then.

What I meant was; there had to be one single beginning of time.

Time is relative to the person experiencing it. It perfectly possible, for example, for time to be passing as it always has for us, and yet be at a condition approaching, at least, a dead stop in a black hole.

In fact, it is known perfectly well how to advance through time. At least advance in relation to the rest of planet Earth. If you could leave the earth for a few minutes traveling at near the speed of light, you would return to earth days into the future. If you left for a few hours traveling at near the speed of light, you would return years into the future. You could NOT return to the past, however. But you see, the passage of time is relative to the conditions experienced by the person experiencing it.

Your assertion that God operates outside of time is just one more of the imagined aspects of God that you have simply made up in your head.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
This is not something that I ever denied. It is also observed that things are born from conditions that preceded it.

But the problem is thinking that these conditions can be traversed all the way back to past eternity. That is the problem/

The truth is, we need to lock down a detailed understanding of what occurred before the big bang before we concern ourselves too much with what has occurred eternally.

Presumably, as we discover more, we will understand more.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
There is absolutely no evidence that this is ever not the case.

But there is..

There is absolutely no evidence that cause and effect do not represent an unbroken chain into the past. If you have evidence that this is not so, please present it.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead." Stephen Hawking
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/stephen_ ... _dead.html

Yet, those are two questions that science have yet to answer. LOL.

We come from stardust. We are a naturally forming chemical composite of the heavy elements manufactured in exploding stars that has then been subjected to billions of years of biochemistry.

Every question is a valid question. Not every question necessarily has a valid answer however. Why we exist is like asking why God exists. Got an answer?

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
We have reached the point where both religion and philosophy can be discarded. Not without the cause of some considerable amount of pain obviously. The bottom line has ALWAY BEEN, that truth will always win out eventually.

So, we shouldn't believe anything unless it can be scientifically verified? Yes or no.

I would suggest that we never believe ANYTHING unconditionally. But if we are going to acquire knowledge, then we are going to have to put greater credibility in those things which can be observed to be, apparently, physically true. In terms of the acquisition of knowledge, make it up and declare it to be true is an exercise in self deception.

I asked would you become a theist if I was able to establish it^.

I can't answer that question without seeing your explanation. Based on everything that has transpired between us I have serious doubts that you can provide the goods.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
A loop in which everything is subject to constant change, and nothing would ever be exactly the same. No starting point and no ending point. Like a circle. Or more clearly, like a globe. Except that returning to the same starting point would be meaningless concept , because everything will have changed.

Who started it all? The same one who started God, apparently. Or there was never any "who" at all. Just constant ever changing matter/energy. Because the other alternative is that there is nothing whatsoever. In which case, who is asking the questions?

Philosophical problems. Now, you can denounce such problems..but then you will be implying "things don't have to make actual sense for me to believe". And if that is your stance, then I will leave you to it.

"Philosophical problems" is F_T_K speak for "that does not represent my world view." Of course it doesn't. A clash of worldviews is the nature of debate on this forum.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
The causal chain leads back to a point that we cannot (yet) peer around. We have no experience with an uncaused event however.

"So, because we've never experienced it, it can't be true". Non sequitur.

Unless we have experience with something we have no reason to suppose that idle conjecture is valid. Philosophically anything "could" be true. Scientifically however, there appear to be rigid laws which may not be transgressed, and therefore not everything IS possible.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Ancient people did not know this however. They perceived discreet beginnings where none actually exist.

They (Bible writers) stated that the universe began to exist..and they were saying this during times when it wasn't a "cool" thing to say...only to come and find out that thousands of years later, you are on here pretty much admitting that they were right, and that the universe did in fact begin to exist.

So they did "know" something.

The authors of the Bible were ancient bronze age sheep herders. They were largely ignorant about much of anything that we would consider common knowledge today. They were not stupid however. There were certainly some excellent engineers in ancient times.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
And so the idea that "everything has a beginning" became infused into our cultural mindset.

Um, no...it isn't that "everything has a beginning"...it is "everything that BEGINS TO EXIST must has a cause".

This is in fact what I have been saying all along. Every effect is the result of an earlier cause. The concept of a first cause has been MADE UP. It has been imagined to be true.

Because no such condition is ever observed. The big bang may have been the cause of the universe, but the big bang was caused by the singularity (or condition close to a singularity) that preceded it. The singularity was, presumably, the result of the collapse of matter/energy that caused IT! But we are dealing here with the edge of what we currently think that we understand. You choose to get to a point where the answer is unclear, and then declare that God did everything that is unclear. But, just as God DID NOT make the Earth the center of the universe, the big bang is not necessarily the beginning of everything. The big bang represents the birth of the universe. Your birth (or at least your conception) represents the birth of you. But there was more to the story.

Big difference. And you are on here talking about what we can observe/not observe...yet, you've never observed anything beginning to exist without a cause, have you??

Now you are attempting to confuse things by co-oping my argument. But YOU CAN'T DO IT! Every event is preceded by an earlier cause. If you agree that everything must have an earlier cause, THAN WHAT IS THE EARLIER CAUSE OF GOD!

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
But it doesn't happen to be true. Everything that can be observed is a continuation of things that went before it.

No one is arguing against that. I am just merely stating that the causal chain cannot be extended back to past eternity. Once the causal chain was set in motion, then obviously all later than events were preceded by earlier than moments.

You have been arguing against it all along by arguing that the big bang MUST have been a discreet beginning. I have been arguing that there is no reason to suppose that the big bang is anything other than a continuation. Because we NEVER observe discreet beginnings.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
And that includes the big bang by almost everyone's estimation. You conclude that God did it. I conclude that the big bang was the result of conditions that existed before it.

God was the condition.

Or perhaps Santa did it. When one is asserting make believe, than all make believe is equally likely.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
We both agree essentially, except for different reasons.

Yeah, but the difference is, your theory is impossible, and mines isn't.

Mine is the one sustained by modern science and working technology. Yours is the one with the 2,000 year old empty claim.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I only say that "matter cannot be created or destroyed" because it is an established law of physics. I didn't make it up just to tease you with.

Right, and when it was discovered that the universe began to exist, it was like, "But wait, how can all matter and energy begin to exist, when matter cannot be created nor destroyed".

So obviously, you would need to come up with a theory to explain such an effect, and you can only do that with either a pre-big bang scenario, or a transcendent cause scenario (God).

And if we use the Occams Razor principal, we want to look for the simplier cause first, which would indeed be the pre-big bang scenario...but the problem with that is simple; there isn't any scientific evidence supporting it, because if there was, the scenario wouldn't be haunted by the infinity problem.

So we have evidence AGAINST the first law of thermodynamics, so now we can only "alter" the law...and we do this by stating that the first law if still cool, but it only comes into play after the universe began to exist...now that the universe exists, the first law certainly applies...as energy cannot in fact be created nor destroyed.

What we also observe is that for every effect there is invariably and an earlier cause. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that the big bang was not the result of an earlier cause. You believe that the earlier cause was God. But you just made that up.

Um, I didn't just make it up. From the time we began this dialogue, I've been mentioning the infinity problem every single time, haven't I? That isn't me making things up, that is me pointing out a fatal flaw in your theory.

And by fatal, I truly mean fatal.

Physicists suppose that prior to the big bang all of the energy in our universe existed in a state they refer to as a singularity. A state where all of the energy of the universe was compressed into a condition so compact, that all space was eliminated, and the concept of time had no meaning.

Right, that is the Standard Model of the big bang, and no one is saying that the singularity was just sitting there for eternity and waiting to expand, either. But again, it goes right back to the infinity problem (which isn't going anywhere, btw).

Or at least a condition close to this state. Prior to that, there is every reason to suppose that a period of collapse was occuring. The energy of the universe didn't "come into being." It was born as the result of conditions that preceded it.

Infinity problem.

We cannot as yet, however, talk meaningfully about the conditions the precede the big bang, other than the assumption that a period of collapse necessarily would have been need to cause the singularity.

That is the oscillating theory, which was proven wrong a long time ago.

The first law of thermodynamics was not negated by the discovery of the big bang.

Yes it was. According to the standard model, the universe (all natural reality) began to exist. There was no matter, no energy, no space, and no time prior to it. It was because of this discovery that they had to postulate a pre-big bang scenario, which is where the "steady state" and "oscillating" model came from.

This was all out of desperation. They knew the implications of a cosmic beginning.

Scientists are apparently "eager (desperate) to stay true to the law" so they can continue to explain why our technology, which is based on the known laws of physics, works.

What does answering the question of "how technology work" have to do with the first law of thermodynamics?

Christians on the other hand are completely nonplussed at the undeniable fact that they have an ongoing record of being right in their most important claim that has an accuracy rate which currently stands at zero for two thousand years.

?

The concept of God runs into the same problem with the infinity "thingy," by the way.

It doesn't, actually...because no one is saying that God endured through infinite time.

I am reasonably sure that the universe doesn't not operate according to your declarations. Eternity is an incomprehensible question.

You call it incomprehensible, and I say regardless of what you call it, the fact remains; either natural reality is eternal, or it isn't. Either yes or no.

And there are certain implications that comes with either answer.

If there was a time before anything existed, including God, then there no explanation why anything exists, ever.

I agree.

I was told once by a Christian woman that God created himself. Which means that He preexisted His own existence. Go work out the kinks in THAT pretzel logic.

Yeah, that is ridiculous.

No it doesn't. But we need to come to some reconciliation on just what represents a "beginning." There was a time before you existed. You had a "beginning." And yet you are the result of things that occurred prior to your existence. The universe that we exist in seems to have had a beginning. And yet there is absolutely no reason to suppose that it is not the result of things that occurred prior to exploding into existence.

Yes there is a reason to suppose...and that reason has to do with the concept of infinity.

It means that there is more to the cosmos than what we can perceive. But we know that this is true already, because the material, the information, in a black hole has also disappeared off to somewhere that we cannot perceive. Given the incredible rate at which we are learning however, this does not mean that we can NEVER perceive these other states of existence.

Infinity problem.

First of all, keep in mind that time is relative. It doesn't play by your rules. It works differently based on conditions related to speed and gravity. Now imagine a simple circle. It has no beginning, and it has no end. Now consider constant unending change. Time becomes meaningless. Because if it wasn't for our ability to remember things, there is really only right now.

I am not necessarily using time, though..I am more focused on events within time...and I am saying that there couldn't have been an infinite amount of events within time which lead to the big bang event, in time.

Same thing applies. So you can use whatever theory of time you like, and it won't negate that point.

For_The_Kingdom has spoken. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I don't know.

We are not the first to grapple with the question of infinity. What came before eternity is not a question I am capable of answering.

All you need to do is give one example of infinity being traversed, or collected. Just one.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Simply another effect in an unending chain of cause and effect. Gravitation is something we can see, experience and quantify.

Again, reality is not subject to your constraint.

It is logically impossible.

If eternity is not possible, then God cannot have existed eternally. Unless you have an answer for the origin of God, the origin of God is a mystery. Nothing has been answered.

There is a difference is living in eternity (which is possible)...and living in eternity within time (which is impossible).

You need to understand the difference, and then holla at me.

This is really the source of your misunderstanding. My car is designed to convert the energy from gasoline into heat which is utilized in producing the locomotion I desire.

And the universe is like one big car..it was designed with a finite amount of usable energy in the system (and systems within the system), energy that has been running out from the time it was "wounded up".

But the energy of the gasoline has not been eliminated from the universe. It has been converted into heat. It still exists, but it is no longer in a form that I can utilize to produce the desired locomotion.

Dude, that is my entire point. Regardless of where the energy (gasoline) goes after it leaves your engine, the point is; as you drive your vehicle, the vehicle is losing its usable energy. Which is why you are no longer mobile once your tank goes on "E". The energy required to do work (locomotion) is gone, which is the same concept as it relates the the universe as a whole.

And this is the basic problem of ALL believers. It's the failure to understand how the universe actually works, and the tendancy to simply make up answers and assume them to be true.

Umm, I can "understand how my computer actually works" while simultaneously concluding that its origins is the result of an intelligent designer.

You don't negate an intelligent designer just because you understand/explain how something works.

Essentially your belief that my car eliminates energy from the universe is an example of make believe. You made it up and assumed it to be true. And this is IGNORANCE! It's the sort of ignorance that our ancient ancestors used in coming up with the whole concept of their religious beliefs. But we are more knowledgeable now. Not smarter, but because of the extra time we have had to observe and experiment, we are more knowledgeable.

I never said that once the car is free of energy (gasoline), that this "eliminates energy from the universe". If you recall, I said "it doesn't matter where the energy goes after it leaves the car, the point is; the car is no longer mobile because of lost energy". I made that point blatantly clear, so you just based an entire paragraph on a false rendition of what I said.

Nope. Our universe is currently expanding. But energy is not being eliminated, only changed from form to form. Matter IS energy. And when matter releases its energy it does so in the form of radiation. Which in turn causes the universe to expand. All the suns in the universe are currently turning matter into radiation. Quanta. But eventually quanta clumps together to form matter. Matter causes gravity to pull even more matter together. New stars are born. The process begins again.

No one is denying the fact that the universe is expanding, nor is anyone denying the fact that energy changes form. My point of contention is; the universe couldn't have been "changing forms" forever, and it couldn't have reached low entropy from the initial high entropy state.

One is logically impossible (changing forms forever), and one is naturally impossible (high degrees of order from high degrees of disorder).

And unfortunately for you and your position, there is no answers from logical reasoning nor scientific naturalism that will allow you to adequately address those two concerns.

This is a picture of the Pleiades star cluster. It is a star nursery where new stars are being formed.

How a star is formed is irrelevant to the discussion. Red herring.

What exactly is your evidence for this assertion?

Um, based on the evidence I have that matter and energy couldn't have existed forever. Now, I agree that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but that law comes into play AFTER the universe began to exist. Once it began to exist, it cannot be created nor destroyed (naturally, that is).

Something which began to exist cannot logically say "I was here all of this time". Illogical.

This is like assuming that the atoms that make up your body didn't exist prior to your conception. But every atom (or the quarks that make up atoms) is AT LEAST as old as the beginning of the universe. And perhaps, infinitely old.

Illogical.

The initial singularity that ended in the big bang represented the ultimate form of order. Everything since that point is an example of increasing disorder. We are one result of disorder.

Because disorder allows for rearranging. Change.

Wait, so the configuration of the human body; you call that disorder?? I wholeheartedly disagree.

Not really. DNA is simply an evolved form of RNA. RNA is the real question. Because RNA is responsible for basic molecular replication. And without replication, evolution is impossible.

Short Sharp Science: A New Scientist blog
Biologists create self-replicating RNA molecule
19:00 7 April 2011
Environment
Life
Michael Marshall, environment reporter

It doesn't have a very sexy name, but tC19Z, synthesised in a lab in Cambridge, UK, could be a version of one of the first enzymes that ever existed on our planet - and a clue to how life itself got started.

A prominent theory of how life started involves the appearance of a self-replicator - some kind of simple molecule that was capable of making copies of itself without relying on other molecules. The trouble is, if this self-replicating molecule ever did exist, it doesn't any more. The vast majority of organisms around today use DNA to store their genetic information, and DNA does not copy itself - other enzymes do that bit for it.

Enter tC19Z. Built by Philipp Holliger and colleagues, it is an RNA enzyme that functions like a self-replicator.

RNA is structurally similar to DNA and can also be used to store genetic information. Some RNA molecules can act as enzymes, driving important chemical reactions in cells, but an RNA enzyme that can reliably copy other RNA segments, let alone self-replicate, has proved elusive.

Until now, the only known RNA-copying RNA was a molecule called R18, which can only copy RNA segments up to 14 "letters" long, and only works on certain sequences. It's like a word processor that can copy-and-paste "turnip" but not "swede".

Holliger, who is based at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK, has now set out to improve R18. He made a vast library of thousands of different versions of the molecule and screened them to see which ones made more copies. After several rounds of copying variants and looking for new improvements, he found several useful tweaks, which he incorporated into his final patchwork enzyme, tC19Z.

tC19Z can reliably copy RNA sequences up to 95 letters long, a near-sevenfold increase on R18. Its performance varies depending on the sequence it's copying, but it is much less picky than R18. Holliger compares R18 to a sports car that works only on a smooth, flat road. "We have fitted a four-wheel drive, so it can go off-road a bit," he says.

Crucially, tC19Z can copy pieces of RNA that are almost half as long (48 per cent) as itself. If an RNA enzyme is to copy itself, it has to be able to copy sequences as long as itself, and tC19Z is closing in on that goal.

In a neat twist, Holliger's team also showed that tC19Z can make copies of another RNA enzyme, which then worked correctly. That suggests that, once the first self-replicating RNA had appeared, it would have been able to surround itself with additional molecular equipment, kick-starting the evolution of more complex life.

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shor ... rna-e.html


Wikipedia
EVOLUTION

In March 2015, complex DNA and RNA organic compounds of life, including uracil, cytosine and thymine, were reportedly formed in the laboratory under outer space conditions, using starting chemicals, such as pyrimidine, found in meteorites. Pyrimidine, like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), the most carbon-rich chemical found in the Universe, may have been formed in red giants or in interstellar dust and gas clouds, according to the scientists.[76]March 3, 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA#cite_ ... 0150303-76

Go ahead. Choose not to read the above articles. But you shouldn't really expect your self imposed ignorance to make any impression on those of us who actually attempt to keep up with current scientific studies.

DNA/RNA, take your pick. Either way, where did the information contained in the DNA/RNA come from? DNA is a code, a biological code for life...and codes have programmers. You need someone to write the code...which leads you right back to intelligent design, but on a molecular level.

You keep attempting to put constraint on what the universe/reality can do. Yet the universe/reality continues to not care. And you have yet to indicate the origins of this "intelligence" mechanism.

Well, I can't tell you where an uncaused cause came from, but I can prove that one

In what way can this "intelligence mechanism" be shown to be anything other than a figment of your imagination? In other words, MAKE BELIEVE!

Entropy explains perfectly well why a hot beverage in a thermos eventually reaches room temperature. If however the thermos was perfectly sealed in such a way that no heat was ever lost, the beverage would, theoretically, stay hot infinitely. The second law is extremely useful as a tool for practical operation.

Right, and if you enter an abandoned building and you see a hot cup of coffee on a table, you would know that the cup wasn't sitting there for eternity. The heat is leaving the cup and it isn't coming back.

It is the same concept with the universe..in the same way the heat (energy) is leaving the cup, all of the energy within the universe is becoming disordered, unbalanced...the entropy is steadily becoming higher and higher...but the whole thing started with astronomical MATHEMATICAL precision.

So its been wounded up with mathematical precision, and over time, the battery has been running out and it will get to a point at which there will be no usable energy left to keep the thing going.

This is a FACT.

Of the sort that humans encounter every day. And this is a result of the first law, which is that energy constantly changes form.

Again, it couldn't have been changing forever.

But you see, unless the universe is gaining, or losing, energy, than the universe is a perfectly sealed vessel.

Its been losing energy throughout its duration of existence, you know what happens to a system that is losing energy that isn't being replaced with more energy? The system dies..

Take a theoretical thermos which is a perfectly sealed vessel that cannot lose or gain heat. Inside the thermos there are two chambers. In one chamber is a liquid that it at its boiling point. In the other chamber is a liquid that is just above its freezing point. If the divider that separates the two liquids is also a perfect seal, one in which no interaction can occur, than the two liquids will retain their temperature indefinitely. (Infinitely? Well theoretically yes. But as we already know, infinity is tricky). If the divider that separates the two liquids is NOT a perfect seal however, then the two liquids will eventually reach equilibrium AND STAY THERE. Because the theoretical thermos is a perfectly sealed vessel, therefore equilibrium is as much as can be achieved. Because humans have not yet succeeded in achieving this sort of perfection in our systems, our systems ultimately eventually run down and require the introduction of a new appropriate form of energy to continue. True perfection tends to elude humans. At least so far.

Then you agree with me that unless there is some kind of external "intervention", the system will die.

As I am driving a good deal of the energy potential of gasoline is lost out the exhaust, and a good eal because of the radiator. Because internal combustions engines are far from perfectly efficient. But even if they could be made 100% efficient, the energy would be lost in the form of heat generated by the resistance friction in the bearings, and the resistance friction generated by the tires against the road. Even a car that had a 100% efficient engine would use up all its gasoline eventually. Which is why perpetual motion machines are impossible. Whether an asteroid flying through space will be in perpetual motion eternally (assuming it never runs into anything) is the subject of dispute. Some conclude that it will eventually fall victim to atomic decay. But long intense experiments have never produced evidence of the decay of protons.

Then you agree with me..I think..

Explain where God came from then. If you could actually do that, you would conceivably eliminate the need for this forum.

So basically, you are asking "What is the cause of the uncaused cause"? Cant help you with that one, buddy.

According to you. According to all scientific observation and experimentation, energy can neither be created or destroyed.

I agree, after God created it..it can't be destroyed. Not naturally, at least.

Science has created that computer you are sitting at, among other things, as a testament to the truth and accuracy of its claims.

Yeah, and if I asked you to explain the origins of your computer, and you can't use any external intelligent design agent as your answer, how will you explain it? Remember, the answer has to lie solely within the computer.

How will you explain it?

You have a 2,000 year old empty promise of the return of a guy that died 2,000 years ago to testify to the accuracy of your claims.

I also have a 1,00,000,000 (or even longer) year old empty promise of a macro biological change that is said to have occurred, and will occur within living organisms.

So apparently, you don't buy my religion (Christianity), and I don't buy your religion (evolution). And lets face it, evolution/abiogenesis is a religion.

If you had something more than your personal assurances that God is real I suspect that you would have provided it by now. What you have provided are the imagined qualities that the God of your imagination must necessarily have in order to fulfill the things that you imagine He fulfills. It's a closed system of circular reasoning. God can do whatever it is necessary for you to imagine that He can do.

So can voodoo naturalism. Those macro-changes can be whatever you want it to be...reptile to bird...snake to spider...fly to penguin.

Whatever is necessary for you to imagine it can do.

Earlier you equivocated on this question.

"Who has raised the claim that God's existence endured through infinite time? Not me." (For_The_Kingdom, post 71 of this string)

If God did not have a beginning, than God is eternal.

eternal
[ih-tur-nl]
adjective
1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal ):

God existed for an eternity, but not eternity within time. Do your homework on philosophical definitions of eternity, and then get back with me.

What God was doing before He created the world is a good question.

What was the singularity doing before it expanded?

I do not have the ability to answer this question. It is observed that energy is what the universe is composed of. It is also observed that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Its been observed that the energy cannot be destroyed from the moment it originated.

Time is relative to the person experiencing it. It perfectly possible, for example, for time to be passing as it always has for us, and yet be at a condition approaching, at least, a dead stop in a black hole. In fact, it is known perfectly well how to advance through time. At least advance in relation to the rest of planet Earth. If you could leave the earth for a few minutes traveling at near the speed of light, you would return to earth days into the future. If you left for a few hours traveling at near the speed of light, you would return years into the future. You could NOT return to the past, however. But you see, the passage of time is relative to the conditions experienced by the person experiencing it.

The argument against infinity holds true regardless of any particular theory of time.

Your assertion that God operates outside of time is just one more of the imagined aspects of God that you have simply made up in your head.

Who said that God operates(ed) outside of time?

The truth is, we need to lock down a detailed understanding of what occurred before the big bang before we concern ourselves too much with what has occurred eternally.

Presumably, as we discover more, we will understand more.

I have a pretty good idea of what it was, and an even more of a good idea of what it wasn't.

There is absolutely no evidence that cause and effect do not represent an unbroken chain into the past.

?

We come from stardust. We are a naturally forming chemical composite of the heavy elements manufactured in exploding stars that has then been subjected to billions of years of biochemistry.

Unsupported assertion.

Every question is a valid question. Not every question necessarily has a valid answer however. Why we exist is like asking why God exists. Got an answer?

Because existence is necessary.

]

I would suggest that we never believe ANYTHING unconditionally. But if we are going to acquire knowledge, then we are going to have to put greater credibility in those things which can be observed to be, apparently, physically true. In terms of the acquisition of knowledge, make it up and declare it to be true is an exercise in self deception.

2+2=4...that is true..but it isn't physically true, is it? So, we have at least one thing that can be true without being physically true? So that is one stab in your theory right there. Want another?

]

I can't answer that question without seeing your explanation. Based on everything that has transpired between us I have serious doubts that you can provide the goods.

Well, being that you just got caught up in some mess above, now it is a moot point.

]
"Philosophical problems" is F_T_K speak for "that does not represent my world view." Of course it doesn't. A clash of worldviews is the nature of debate on this forum.

?

]
Unless we have experience with something we have no reason to suppose that idle conjecture is valid. Philosophically anything "could" be true.

Wrong, yet again.

]
Scientifically however, there appear to be rigid laws which may not be transgressed, and therefore not everything IS possible.

Right, and I will include macroevolution and abiogenesis on the long list of things that aren't possible within science/nature.

]
The authors of the Bible were ancient bronze age sheep herders.

They were largely ignorant about much of anything that we would consider common knowledge today. They were not stupid however. There were certainly some excellent engineers in ancient times.

Why would those folks have ever concluded that the universe began to exist?

]

This is in fact what I have been saying all along. Every effect is the result of an earlier cause. The concept of a first cause has been MADE UP. It has been imagined to be true.

You can't traverse cause/effect relations all the way back to past eternity. Has to be at least the 10th time I've said this.

]
Because no such condition is ever observed. The big bang may have been the cause of the universe, but the big bang was caused by the singularity (or condition close to a singularity) that preceded it. The singularity was, presumably, the result of the collapse of matter/energy that caused IT!

Oscillating theories didn't outlive the 80's.

]
But we are dealing here with the edge of what we currently think that we understand. You choose to get to a point where the answer is unclear, and then declare that God did everything that is unclear.

Because a First Cause is necessary.

]
But, just as God DID NOT make the Earth the center of the universe, the big bang is not necessarily the beginning of everything. The big bang represents the birth of the universe. Your birth (or at least your conception) represents the birth of you. But there was more to the story.

A first cause is necessary.

]

Now you are attempting to confuse things by co-oping my argument. But YOU CAN'T DO IT! Every event is preceded by an earlier cause. If you agree that everything must have an earlier cause, THAN WHAT IS THE EARLIER CAUSE OF GOD!

You are attempting to confusing MY argument!! I never said nor implied that everything must have an earlier cause...obviously I don't hold this view, considering the fact that I don't BELIEVE GOD HAD AN EARLIER CAUSE!!

]

You have been arguing against it all along by arguing that the big bang MUST have been a discreet beginning. I have been arguing that there is no reason to suppose that the big bang is anything other than a continuation. Because we NEVER observe discreet beginnings.

We never observe sentient life come from nonliving material, either; but that hasn't stopped most of you people from believing in that stuff.

]
Or perhaps Santa did it. When one is asserting make believe, than all make believe is equally likely.

Just because you choose to call the intelligent designer "Santa" doesn't take away the "intelligent designer" element from it.

]

Mine is the one sustained by modern science and working technology. Yours is the one with the 2,000 year old empty claim.

Oh, so using modern science and working technology, explain how sentient life originated on this planet...conduct and experiment and get me some observable, testable results.

You said you could...so lets do it.

[Inigo Montoya]

I'm going to ignore everything you got wrong in that post and just say that I agree the origin of the universe is baffling. And to further say no one actually knows the answer.

What I'd like to know is how you got to your version of god as the answer to it all.

So listen closely. You can have your infinity problem and your need for some proximate cause.

Take me on the journey from "I don't know because there's insufficient data" to "the god of the Jews and Christians is the answer to the greatest cosmological mystery in our history."

Telling me what is wrong with the views in cosmology won't do. That's a case built on negation. I'd like a positive case explaining how YHVH is the missing ingredient physicists and cosmologists should be looking for.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I'm going to ignore everything you got wrong in that post and just say that I agree the origin of the universe is baffling. And to further say no one actually knows the answer.

What I'd like to know is how you got to your version of god as the answer to it all.

So listen closely. You can have your infinity problem and your need for some proximate cause.

Take me on the journey from "I don't know because there's insufficient data" to "the god of the Jews and Christians is the answer to the greatest cosmological mystery in our history."

Telling me what is wrong with the views in cosmology won't do. That's a case built on negation. I'd like a positive case explaining how YHVH is the missing ingredient physicists and cosmologists should be looking for.

Address my points, if not..continue to be lost.