How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[otseng]

Yes, I understand the basics of thermodynamics.

You quite clearly did not when we discussed the relationships between kinetic energy, potential energy, and heat three years ago. Did that change in the meantime?

I addressed it at:

That means that the amount of energy to send an amount of water 430 meters into the air is enough to raise its temperature one degree.

I'm not so sure your calculations entirely apply. Your calculations would be for thermal energy, but not for kinetic energy. Yes, if the water was just sitting still and energy was applied to it, it would raise the temperature. But, during the rupture phase, the water was eroding rock and being thrust into the air. So, energy was being expended for these kinetic actions.

It could be I'm mistaken or it could be you're mistaken. I'm willing to dive into this again.

And since you seem to imply you do know about thermodynamics, care to address my arguments on the summary of the current topic?

[POI]

you have not backed up your false accusation of me.

I disagree. You are the one with the power to place "summary arguments" in the OP. If a person is to look at the OP, and jump to 'summaries', and reads the 'summary' for slavery, the reader gets the impression that IS the actual 'summary argument' and then moves on. Yet, in the 'slavery' category, exchanged were left unvetted. The reader gets the impression that you addressed them all, but you have not in reality. You never went back to edit the 'summary argument'. I doubt many went down, 9 more posts, just to make sure. Anywho, this is your gig, so you do you boo.

I was not well-versed in slavery in the Bible either. But I took the time, money, and energy to research the topic. If people don't want to do the research, that's fine, no need to debate me. But if people are going to debate me, I expect them to do their homework and not just continually present fallacious arguments.

I generally stayed out of this thread, for the most part, until the 'slavery' topic came forth. If I'm not mistaken, you or someone invited me to join the discussion??? I felt I had a lot to offer there, and it was cut short. I continued to follow-up on unvetted topics and they were ignored. I then lost initiative, just so you know.

I do not feel learning 'thermo' and then posting more will do anything, quite frankly. We already know many actual scientists, who likely know "thermo" much better than you or I, have already thought about it before still inferring an eternal universe. Would you not agree? But I did you a solid anyways and did some deep diving for you. I watched a 2-hour debate between Dr. Craig and Sean Carroll. Please look at (~minute-18) and then (~minute-33 thru 38):

Well, that's good that you're willing to be logically consistent. I'm also logically consistent and do allow science to infer things (singularities, spacetime, inflation, dark energy, dark matter, etc). And my argument is simply if scientists are allowed to infer things to exist that are not demonstratable, then I'm simply using the same logic.

Except for 'eternal' universes

But where you are logically inconsistent is the same scientists you appeal to, Alan Guth and Sean Carroll, do believe in singularities, spacetime, inflation, dark energy, dark matter, etc.

You forgot eternal universe(s). They believe in them too. My point being is that I can remain agnostic or reject anything not-yet-demonstrated and still be logical. This means I can be agnostic or reject singularities, spacetime, inflation, dark energy, dark matter, eternal universe(s), and god, and be quite logical, because almost none of them have been demonstrated, (maybe 'spacetime' has?).

And I asked for a demonstration of any other universe. The claim is there are other universes, not that we live in our universe. So saying our universe exists is not demonstrating another universe exists.

I asked for a demonstration of any (god), including the one you infer, believe in, and/or assert.

Asking the same of me makes no sense. Just replace (god) with (universe) and see why your question breaks logic.

Also irrelevant. You don't need to know the intent of God to demonstrate if a global flood occurred or not.

You are not getting what I mean here. You have no way of verifying the author's intent. He's long dead. If the author's intent was metaphorical, but we should happen to find a flood, it was dumb luck. The way you cannot prove the author's intent, science may not ever be able to prove 'multiverse(s)' or 'eternal universe(s)'. Science explains why. This is exactly WHY you can rest assure your website will never shut down Your position is safe. It likely may always be inferred, because it can likely NEVER actually be demonstrated one way or the other (finite/eternal).

I've explained this multiple times that I'm not using a god of the gaps.

We do not yet know the origin of species, or the origin of the universe. Therefore, god.

And "Science" also knows it too but claims ignorance instead. Which is also global conspiracy theory.

****************************************************

As I stated prior, looks we have three possible position(s):

1. Created with intention (god/other)
2. Created without intention ("quantum fluccuations", other). Even if this term is 'supernatural', it's meaningless to the theist without direct intention.
3. Not created, (eternal)

Many scientists infer 'quantum fluctuations', so you best be starting to reject this one too.
But yea, anyone can draw a "model". http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~coleman ... sponse.pdf

[Difflugia]

I addressed it at:

That means that the amount of energy to send an amount of water 430 meters into the air is enough to raise its temperature one degree.

I'm not so sure your calculations entirely apply. Your calculations would be for thermal energy, but not for kinetic energy. Yes, if the water was just sitting still and energy was applied to it, it would raise the temperature. But, during the rupture phase, the water was eroding rock and being thrust into the air. So, energy was being expended for these kinetic actions.

It could be I'm mistaken or it could be you're mistaken. I'm willing to dive into this again.

I also "addressed" this in my own quoted comments above. You're mistaken about what "expended" means. When energy is added to a closed system, it must still be there in some form at any later time. In conventional physics, we can talk about potential energy, which is something like an object being suspended against gravity or against a spring. There's also kinetic energy, which means something is still moving. Finally, we have heat. If I'm on the surface of the Earth and throw a rock, I'm adding kinetic energy to move the rock. The change in the rock's vector of motion times the square of the rock's mass describes the amount of energy that has been added to the rock system. That rock will travel with the same vector until the energy is converted or transferred. If it's moving against gravity or a spring without friction, the kinetic energy becomes potential energy until the rock stops. If it hits another mass, some of that kinetic energy is transferred to the new mass. Without friction, those are the only two places the energy can go.

Friction converts energy to heat. If the rock stops moving and it isn't higher than it was (potential energy), then all of the energy from the rock is now heat. That's generally what "expended" means. You claimed that some of the energy is "expended" by moving other rocks or dirt or something, but if that's the case, then those rocks are still moving, higher than they were, or hotter than they were. Those are the options.

If something pushes water high into the sky, the kinetic energy is converted to potential energy. If nothing keeps it there, it gradually becomes kinetic energy again. When it crashes into the ground again, friction stops it and all of that energy is now heat. All of it. The calculations I gave you that you are "not so sure ... entirely apply" compare the amount of energy to push water against gravity and how hot it gets when that same energy becomes heat.

And since you seem to imply you do know about thermodynamics, care to address my arguments on the summary of the current topic?

Probably not, or at least not until we've at least made some headway with this. Earlier in this thread, I spent a lot of effort finding scientific research to help you understand the Grand Canyon and don't feel like I got the same level of engagement in return.

[otseng]

you have not backed up your false accusation of me.

I disagree.

What you accused me of is "claiming victory":

B) In topics for which your interlocutors are more equipped, you also claim premature "victory".

There is no post that you have produced that I have "claimed victory", so not only is it a false accusation, but slanderous since you cannot back it up.

You are the one with the power to place "summary arguments" in the OP.

Weren't you the one who complained my posts are too hard to follow in this massive thread? So I created links to my posts to make it organized. Now you complain about the summary links as well?

The power to add links to the OP does not preclude anyone from giving their own summary arguments. So, having the ability to create a table of contents is irrelevant. Writing up a summary argument, then adding it to the table of contents is not "claiming victory" as you accuse me of.

You never went back to edit the 'summary argument'.

If there's anything of value to update, I'll add it. But for the most part, it is just rehashing things that have been said multiple times before.

I generally stayed out of this thread, for the most part, until the 'slavery' topic came forth. If I'm not mistaken, you or someone invited me to join the discussion???

I don't recall inviting you to discuss slavery.

I watched a 2-hour debate between Dr. Craig and Sean Carroll. Please look at (~minute-18) and then (~minute-33 thru 38):

Here's what Carroll states starting at 32:52:

Question is yes just build a model. This is my favorite model, it's actually not even a model that I think is right. Once again it's a model that I helped create. But it's about the search for models not about saying that any one model is the right idea. For models not about saying that any one model is the right idea. We hope that someday we get there but we don't claim that we are there yet. So whether or not the universe can be eternal does not come down to a conversation about abstract principles it comes down to a conversation about building models and seeing which one provides the best account for what we see.

Carroll admits the eternal universe is just a model and not claim it is right. As for thermodynamics, he states starting at 35:00 that science cannot answer the thermodynamics issue. He accuses Craig of god of the gaps, but then ironically invokes science of the gaps himself.

It is certainly a true question a true issue that we don't know why the early Universe had a low entropy and entropy has ever been increasing. That's a good challenge for cosmology to imagine that cosmologists cannot answer that question without somehow invoking God is a classic god of the gaps move. I know that Dr Craig says that's not what he's doing but then he does it. We don't know why the early universe had a low entropy but that is not an argument that we can't figure it out.

At 37:20, Carroll again admits though he can create various models, the fact that he can create a model doesn't mean they are true.

I spent half an hour on the internet I was able to come up with about 17 different plausible looking models of eternal cosmologies. I do not claim that any of these is the right answer. We're nowhere near the right answer.

He also stated:

meanwhile theism I would argue is not a serious cosmological model

I would agree. However nobody is claiming theism is a scientific model. So, it's a straw man. Rather, at most it is a philosophical model.

Carroll comments on the teleological argument:

Let's go to the second argument the teleological argument from fine tuning. I'm very happy to admit right off the bat this is the best argument that the theists have when it comes to cosmology. That's because it plays by the rules you have phenomena you have parameters of particle physics and cosmology and then you have two different models theism and naturalism and you want to compare which model is the best fit for the data I applaud that general approach.

He goes on with his arguments against it, but they are not relevant to this debate. But, if we want to debate fine-tuning next, we can do that.

So, Carroll does not address the laws of thermodynamics with an eternal universe. Rather, he simply posits eternal models and admits he's not stating any of them are necessarily true.

Except for 'eternal' universes

Eternal universe is also through an inference, if even that.

You forgot eternal universe(s). They believe in them too.

As stated by Carroll, "I spent half an hour on the internet I was able to come up with about 17 different plausible looking models of eternal cosmologies. I do not claim that any of these is the right answer. We're nowhere near the right answer."

No, he doesn't even claim any eternal view of the universe is actually true.

My point being is that I can remain agnostic or reject anything not-yet-demonstrated and still be logical.

It's not logical to say Carroll believes in an eternal universe when he explicitly stated, "I do not claim that any of these is the right answer. We're nowhere near the right answer."

Even your fallacious use of appeal to authority falls apart since your authority doesn't even believe they are actually true.

Asking the same of me makes no sense. Just replace (god) with (universe) and see why your question breaks logic.

Right, I'm showing your argument that I need to somehow demonstrate God makes no sense because if you replace another universe with it, it is in the same boat. So, the break down is in your request, not my logic.

If the author's intent was metaphorical, but we should happen to find a flood, it was dumb luck.

Dumb luck we have evidence all around the world of a global flood? No, it shows the claim of the Bible is true, not dumb luck.

This is exactly WHY you can rest assure your website will never shut down.

Since we can pretty much be guaranteed scientists will never be able to have a viable scientific explanation of the origin of the universe, then it's not going to be a factor in shutting down this forum. Though I do hope my forum will never shut down, more realistically the reason it might is because of insufficient funds to continue operating this forum. I'm spending over $1000 a year to run this forum out of my own pocket and I've been running this forum for over 20 years.

We do not yet know the origin of species, or the origin of the universe. Therefore, god.

Yes, given all the evidence and logical arguments, God is the only viable explanation.

[otseng]

I also "addressed" this in my own quoted comments above. You're mistaken about what "expended" means.

What we are talking about is thermodynamics. When there is a temperature difference in a system, the temperature difference results in work and change in entropy.

The second law states that there exists a useful state variable called entropy. The change in entropy (delta S) is equal to the heat transfer (delta Q) divided by the temperature (T).

If we then separate the objects they do not naturally return to their original (different) temperatures.The process of bringing them to the same temperature is irreversible.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Virtu ... ermo2.html

You claimed that some of the energy is "expended" by moving other rocks or dirt or something, but if that's the case, then those rocks are still moving, higher than they were, or hotter than they were.

If something pushes water high into the sky, the kinetic energy is converted to potential energy. If nothing keeps it there, it gradually becomes kinetic energy again. When it crashes into the ground again, friction stops it and all of that energy is now heat. All of it

No, heat is not transformed into work and then back into heat so that temperature is conserved. Changes in temperature results in work and change in entropy. Work can be transformed to heat and vice-versa, but because of the increase in entropy, they are not a 100% efficient process because each transformation results in an increase in entropy.

The Second Law allows work to be transformed fully into heat, but forbids heat to be totally converted into work. If heat could be transformed fully into work it would violate the laws of entropy. The maximum amount of work one can attain from heat is given by the Carnot efficiency.

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Heat_vs_work

Probably not, or at least not until we've at least made some headway with this.

Yes, need to hash out understanding of the laws of thermo before getting into the state of the universe.

[Difflugia]

I also "addressed" this in my own quoted comments above. You're mistaken about what "expended" means.

What we are talking about is thermodynamics.

That's right. In this case, though, it's the first law of thermodynamics that's the important one. Your idea of "expended" implies that the energy that "eroded rock" disappeared or went somewhere else before it became heat via friction. The first law says that the sum of all the energy in the system stays constant. Simplified, the forms of energy are kinetic, potential, and heat. Kinetic is rocks and water moving. Potential means that something has moved to a higher energy state, like rocks and water being further from the overall center of gravity. If it's not in one of those two forms, it's heat.

Our moving water has kinetic energy. If some of that energy "erodes" some rock, it does so by moving the rock. If there were no friction and no gravity, the rock would keep moving forever. If the rock stops due to gravity, some of the kinetic energy becomes potential energy. If it stops because of friction, the energy becomes heat.

You claimed that some of the energy is "expended" by moving other rocks or dirt or something, but if that's the case, then those rocks are still moving, higher than they were, or hotter than they were.

If something pushes water high into the sky, the kinetic energy is converted to potential energy. If nothing keeps it there, it gradually becomes kinetic energy again. When it crashes into the ground again, friction stops it and all of that energy is now heat. All of it

No, heat is not transformed into work and then back into heat so that temperature is conserved. Changes in temperature results in work and change in entropy. Work can be transformed to heat and vice-versa, but because of the increase in entropy, they are not a 100% efficient process because each transformation results in an increase in entropy.

The "not a 100% efficient process" still doesn't violate the first law. Entropy isn't an energy sink, so all of the "lost" energy becomes heat. The combination of kinetic energy, potential energy, and heat is conserved. If something was moving and stops, it's either higher off the ground than it was or hotter. If enough energy is put into the water to push it up, that energy is ultimately converted to heat after the water and eroded rocks stop moving. In our pre-Flood cataclysmic whatever, the only way for that heat to escape is by radiating away into space. That takes longer than it would take to gently steam Noah and two of every animal.

[otseng]

That's right. In this case, though, it's the first law of thermodynamics that's the important one. Your idea of "expended" implies that the energy that "eroded rock" disappeared or went somewhere else before it became heat via friction. The first law says that the sum of all the energy in the system stays constant. Simplified, the forms of energy are kinetic, potential, and heat.

It's all the laws of thermodynamics that are relevant, not just the first.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time.

Nicolas Lonard Sadi Carnot was a French physicist, who is considered to be the "father of thermodynamics," for he is responsible for the origins of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as well as various other concepts. The current form of the second law uses entropy rather than caloric, which is what Sadi Carnot used to describe the law. Caloric relates to heat and Sadi Carnot came to realize that some caloric is always lost in the motion cycle. Thus, the thermodynamic reversibility concept was proven wrong, proving that irreversibility is the result of every system involving work.

William Thompson, also known as Lord Kelvin, formulated the Kelvin statement, which states "It is impossible to convert heat completely in a cyclic process." This means that there is no way for one to convert all the energy of a system into work, without losing energy.

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves ... modynamics

When there is a temperature difference that results in work (erosion, moving of water and earth, etc), entropy increases.

If enough energy is put into the water to push it up, that energy is ultimately converted to heat after the water and eroded rocks stop moving. In our pre-Flood cataclysmic whatever, the only way for that heat to escape is by radiating away into space.

Heat would be transformed into work (moving of earth, water, etc). This process would have an increase of entropy. The transformation from work back into heat would also have an increase of entropy. Since these processes have an increase in entropy (and is not 100% efficient), then the original temperatures cannot be achieved.

[POI]

The time to actually believe something is after it has been demonstrated. Think about how many times in history, inferences have later been proven wrong by actual demonstration. You already stated 'god' can only be inferred.

***********************

2nd request. Looks like we have the following possibilities:

1. Created with intention (god/other)
2. Created without intention ("quantum fluccuations", other). Even if this/these term(s) is/are 'supernatural', it's meaningless to the theist without direct intention.
3. Not created, (eternal)

Many scientists infer 'quantum fluctuations', so you best be starting to reject this one too. But yea, anyone can draw a "model". http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~coleman ... sponse.pdf

There is no post that you have produced that I have "claimed victory", so not only is it a false accusation, but slanderous since you cannot back it up.

"A summary of argument is a brief statement that outlines the main points of an argument or case."

Your conclusive "points" in the 'slavery' thread imply they are undisputed in post 3821, otherwise, they would not still be 'summary arguments.' But these 'summaries' continue to be challenged in post 3830. You never addressed them in post 3830. You later claim it's a repeat, where I instead claim your argument(s) have/has not met their burden, and/or my rebuttal. Providing a 'summary', and then moving on, implies being victorious, which is the point of a debate. But again, you do you boo.

Weren't you the one who complained my posts are too hard to follow in this massive thread?

Yes. I doubt most would riffle through thousands of posts, without any organization. Thank you for addressing that part of it.

So I created links to my posts to make it organized. Now you complain about the summary links as well?

You made a step in the 'right' direction, as far as I'm concerned, in organizing the categories. But then imply your summaries have been vetted, when they have not, which means they should not be 'summaries', but instead just a point in the exchange where you either state that you 1) do not wish to debate anymore about that topic, or, b) admit you do not have further knowledge to push forth any further in that topic.

The power to add links to the OP does not preclude anyone from giving their own summary arguments. So, having the ability to create a table of contents is irrelevant. Writing up a summary argument, then adding it to the table of contents is not "claiming victory" as you accuse me of.

I already spoke to this... If a reader wishes to jump to the 'summary, they may do so, read your 'points', and then assume they have been vetted. Hence, the reason you have your points still there, which means they are 'undisputed'. A reader will not continue to scroll down further, and instead just go to the 'summary' of the next topic.

If there's anything of value to update, I'll add it. But for the most part, it is just rehashing things that have been said multiple times before.

See what I already said above. Where 'slavery' is concerned, your summary does not stand. But people will believe it does, because they read the summary arguments. This is where I began to lose initiative. I now feel that whether I research a topic, or not, your 'positions' will stand regardless, which is ultimately:

1) Science does not want to admit what they really believe, that 'godidit'. Which also means...
2) Global 'science' conspiracy to avoid 'god' (ala Romans 1:19-22)

I don't recall inviting you to discuss slavery.

Someone did. Oh well?

Carroll admits the eternal universe is just a model and not claim it is right.

Right, because inferences should not lead to actual beliefs, but instead remain ('hunches' or other). The time to actually believe is after demonstration. Case/point, my hunch is 'aliens' exist, for various reason(s), but I will not believe until after actual demonstration. Once one is produced, then I believe, as opposed to an inference, or applying a continued intuition/hunch/other of the not-yet-demonstrated. Think about how much 'evidence' exists for aliens? But has one actually been demonstrated? This is not to offer a red herring, but to instead drive home my point. The time to believe is after demonstration. To remain in the 'we-do-not-know-yet' camp is not global conspiracy.

As for thermodynamics, he states starting at 35:00 that science cannot answer the thermodynamics issue. He accuses Craig of god of the gaps, but then ironically invokes science of the gaps himself.

Yes, because it is an "unresolved" issue in science. WLC thinks its resolved, but it is not. Carroll makes a point. Its like looking at someone with an iPhone, who is taking a picture and asking them "where does the film go?" WLC is the one asking the iPhone user. WLC is not addressing all elements because he misunderstands. "Science" cannot answer because there exists no demonstration yet, or maybe never. Therefore, 'godidit'?

At 37:20, Carroll again admits though he can create various models, the fact that he can create a model doesn't mean they are true.

Right, because they cannot actually be demonstrated. And I already explained why. We may never ever be able to search the other side of the proverbial "fence'. 'Physics' gives out. Therefore, 'godidit'?

if we want to debate fine-tuning next, we can do that.

We are not there yet and may never actually get there.

So, Carroll does not address the laws of thermodynamics with an eternal universe. Rather, he simply posits eternal models and admits he's not stating any of them are necessarily true.

Already explained.

No, he doesn't even claim any eternal view of the universe is actually true.

He kind of does, if you follow him. But he also admits 'we still don't know'. Why, because it has not, and may never actually be, demonstrated. Therefore, 'godidit.'

It's not logical to say Carroll believes in an eternal universe when he explicitly stated, "I do not claim that any of these is the right answer. We're nowhere near the right answer."

His inference/position/hunch is 'eternal'. But he has to admit his position, which is an inference, has not been demonstrated. Hence, he merely infers it. But the time to actually believe something is after demonstration. Case/point, I may have a hunch who's going to win in a sports game, or in an election, but until the conclusion, it's just a current hunch/inference/position. But we are wrong all the time, after demonstration. Hence, remaining neutral or agnostic is not global conspiracy.

Right, I'm showing your argument that I need to somehow demonstrate God makes no sense because if you replace another universe with it, it is in the same boat. So, the break down is in your request, not my logic.

Negative.

We have demonstration of a universe, which also possesses demonstrated attributes. Ours.

Do we have demonstration of a god, which also possesses any demonstrated attributes?

Dumb luck we have evidence all around the world of a global flood? No, it shows the claim of the Bible is true, not dumb luck.

Did you get my point yet? You cannot ever actually demonstrate the intent of the author. He's dead. Hence, academic theologians get to persist in their inferences/positions that "the flood" was also either (local or metaphorical) too. This little conundrum works with what you stated too. In that you will shut this website down if the universe is demonstrated eternal. We both know, as also with the intent of the author for Genesis, it cannot be demonstrated in one way or the other. Hence, you are safe too with universal origins, if any.

In the case for the state of our known universe and its true origin, if any, 'I don't know' is actually secret code for 'godidit.'

[Difflugia]

It's all the laws of thermodynamics that are relevant, not just the first.

Yes, but the first law is the one that says the Flood heats up the Earth enough to cook Noah.

Thus, the thermodynamic reversibility concept was proven wrong, proving that irreversibility is the result of every system involving work.

That just means that after Noah gets poached, the heat won't push the Flood waters back into the subterranean chambers or back up into the vapor canopy.

William Thompson, also known as Lord Kelvin, formulated the Kelvin statement, which states "It is impossible to convert heat completely in a cyclic process." This means that there is no way for one to convert all the energy of a system into work, without losing energy.

The "lost energy" is irreversibly converted to heat.

Heat would be transformed into work (moving of earth, water, etc). This process would have an increase of entropy. The transformation from work back into heat would also have an increase of entropy. Since these processes have an increase in entropy (and is not 100% efficient), then the original temperatures cannot be achieved.

This is your fundamental error. Entropy is neither a form of energy itelf nor a sink for energy. If a room starts with one side hot and one side cool, the temperature will equalize with no lost heat. Entropy will be irreversibly increased such that the room won't spontaneously revert to its initial state, but no heat was lost. Similarly if a rock falls from a height, its potential energy becomes kinetic energy plus a small amount of heat from friction. The rock is moving toward a lower energy state and entropy is increased. When the rock hits the floor, friction stops the rock and converts all of the remaining kinetic energy into heat. Entropy is increased. It's irreversible. All of the initial potential energy of the rock is now heat. All of it.

[otseng]

The time to actually believe something is after it has been demonstrated. Think about how many times in history, inferences have later been proven wrong by actual demonstration. You already stated 'god' can only be inferred.

Would you say this to Sean Carrol and Alan Guth as well with their beliefs?

2nd request. Looks like we have the following possibilities:

1. Created with intention (god/other)
2. Created without intention ("quantum fluccuations", other). Even if this/these term(s) is/are 'supernatural', it's meaningless to the theist without direct intention.
3. Not created, (eternal)

I'm not going to drag this discussion out by addressing red herrings, no matter how many times you repeat them.

Many scientists infer 'quantum fluctuations', so you best be starting to reject this one too.

You're the one rejecting inferences, not me. So, do you reject quantum fluctuations also?

Providing a 'summary', and then moving on, implies being victorious, which is the point of a debate. But again, you do you boo.

Should we then let a moderator decide if your unsupported accusation of me is slanderous?

But then imply your summaries have been vetted, when they have not

Who's claiming anything has been "vetted"? A table of contents and summary statements of my position does not mean I've resolved any topic.

A reader will not continue to scroll down further, and instead just go to the 'summary' of the next topic.

What I expect is my opponents will also post a summary argument after mine. We've spent plenty of time in all of the topics that has been discussed. Instead, I've rarely seen any summary statement, but rather attempts to just drag it out into things not really relevant to the subtopic.

Where 'slavery' is concerned, your summary does not stand. But people will believe it does, because they read the summary arguments.

I don't think people read my summary statements and then believe they are true because I link to it in a table of contents. Rather, it should be based on the evidence and arguments contained within the post.

Right, because inferences should not lead to actual beliefs, but instead remain ('hunches' or other).

Do you think Sean Carroll believes in an eternal universe, singularities, spacetime, inflation, dark energy, dark matter, etc? Or are they all just hunches?

Think about how much 'evidence' exists for aliens? But has one actually been demonstrated?

It's not the lack of demonstration of aliens that is a problem for me, but the lack of evidence to back up the inferences.

As for thermodynamics, he states starting at 35:00 that science cannot answer the thermodynamics issue. He accuses Craig of god of the gaps, but then ironically invokes science of the gaps himself.

Yes, because it is an "unresolved" issue in science.

No, you keep claiming that scientists worth their salt must know about thermodynamics. What we see instead is a complete avoidance of addressing the thermodynamics argument.

I really do not feel like going into deep depths about the laws of thermo, while also knowing 'science' has already considered it, and that no scientist who is worth their weight in salt would still publicly state 'eternal', while knowing the laws of thermo.

Exactly what evidence do you have that Carroll has considered it? Or are you stating this on blind faith?

if we want to debate fine-tuning next, we can do that.

We are not there yet and may never actually get there.

Looks like your tactic is to just keep on throwing out red herrings to drag out the debate. What I want to do is focus on a topic and then readers can decide on the arguments based on the summary statements.

So, Carroll does not address the laws of thermodynamics with an eternal universe. Rather, he simply posits eternal models and admits he's not stating any of them are necessarily true.

Already explained.

Simply saying you've already explained it doesn't mean you've actually explained anything. Rather, it is clear Carroll does not address the argument of thermodynamics and it is clear he appeals to science of the gaps.

No, he doesn't even claim any eternal view of the universe is actually true.

He kind of does, if you follow him. But he also admits 'we still don't know'.

No, he does not claim an eternal universe model is actually true and I have backed it up by citing what he has actually said.

His inference/position/hunch is 'eternal'. But he has to admit his position, which is an inference, has not been demonstrated. Hence, he merely infers it. But the time to actually believe something is after demonstration.

As you stated, "We may never ever be able to search the other side of the proverbial "fence'. 'Physics' gives out." So, it's not even theoretically possible to "demonstrate" it.

But we are wrong all the time, after demonstration. Hence, remaining neutral or agnostic is not global conspiracy.

Why do you keep claiming there's some sort of conspiracy going on? Rather, another red herring statement.

We have demonstration of a universe, which also possesses demonstrated attributes. Ours.
Do we have demonstration of a god, which also possesses any demonstrated attributes?

We've covered this multiple times already and will let readers decide.

You cannot ever actually demonstrate the intent of the author. He's dead. Hence, academic theologians get to persist in their inferences/positions that "the flood" was also either (local or metaphorical) too.

Who cares what is the "intent" of the global flood? Another statement that I consider irrelevant.

The dragging out of the debate on whether the universe is created or eternal has gone way past its expiration date. Again, I've already posted my summary argument on it. And I will readers readers assess which position is a more rational position to take.

Haven't decided yet what topic to go into next, but the teleological argument is the leading candidate now. I'll soon be going out of the country for a vacation so there'll be a break from me for several weeks.