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]

I do not claim that the universe pre-existed in some form, therefore I have no onus.

Then stop offering these alternate suggestions/options as defeaters of what I am saying.

I can imagine a universe though that pre-existed, much like I think you are doing in regards to a god concept.

You cannot imagine a physical, transforming reality of which existed eternally in time.

Either way, you claimed that there was scientific evidence that shows the universe could not have existed in some previous form.
Please supply it or be honorable and retract your claim.

Um, no. I am saying that there the standard big bang model has the most empirical evidence supporting it..and according to this empirically verified model, the universe BEGAN TO EXIST at some point in the finite past.

Now, if you want to posit or suggest any other stuff regarding pre-big bang models..then the onus is on you to provide evidence for this.

Until you can do so, then we will continue to support actual SCIENCE, which is the standard big bang model.

I'm sorry For the Kingdom, but these words are not evidence, nor do they specify what it is you are asking me to deal with.

Infinite regression is a problem.

Peepee on a toilet seat...a problem..

I agree.

SMH.

Why are you shaking your head and not debating?

Sometimes that is all you can do, when someone continues to not get it.

You can't imagine infinite regression.

For the Kingdom, I said I can imagine an eternal universe. Never have I stated that I can imagine infinite regression.

An eternal universe necessarily implies infinite regression. SMH. See? You just don't get it.

Is it possible that it existed in a previous form before this 'began to exist' claim of yours applies?

No, because that would imply infinite regression. See? No way out. Logical absurdities will continue to be logical absurdities no matter how many spins we put on it.

Please offer some specifics and if you can, please allude to how/why they apply to anything that I have said.

PM me.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Accuracy matters in a discussion such as this, and your statements are not accurate.

LOL.

You do not know if energy and mass are eternal, or not.

I do.

No one does.

Speak for yourself.

Our current understanding of things takes us back to the beginning of THiS universe, and this universe only. Everything before that is hypothetical, even though some of those hypothesis are supported mathematically. Matter and energy may have a beginning, and they may not. It's one of the questions that awaits an answer.

Infinite duration/regression is impossible. An infinite amount of events in time is...impossible. Those are the facts.

So, regardless of how many universes you think there are, or how many times or how LONG you'd like to believe that matter/energy was transforming..the point is simple; it couldn't have been transforming forever. That is the inescapable point.

Now, if it couldn't have been transforming forever, then it couldn't have EXISTED forever...thus, an external, timeless cause is needed. Thus...Gen 1:1..."In the beginning.."

From a philosophical view, I actually agree with you that it doesn't make sense (to me) that matter and energy are eternal. It doesn't make sense, from a philosophical view, that anything is eternal for that matter. But I will delve into that more below...

It doesn't make sense because it is impossible.

You are correct that the universe is a closed system. You are correct that this universe has entropy, and therefore the amount of usable energy in it will eventually reach zero. I agree that this implies that this universe cannot be eternal or it would already be at maximum entropy. Your statements here are clear and concise and accurate.

Those props are over due.

The problem we have still is similar to the previous paragraph, in that we don't know what was around before this universe.

You people just don't get it, do you? SMH.

Entropy is time related. In other words, without an arrow of time, entropy isn't an issue because it would be possible to move back and forth between two states with no entropy penalty in either direction. As an example, a deck of cards thrown into the air would require the exact same amount of energy to make them into an organized deck again.

It may be the same amount of energy, but it won't be the same exact pattern, would it?

In our entropic universe that isn't true, but we can't say it isn't possible outside this universe.

The same thing would apply. If you throw a deck of cards into the air, the cards aren't likely to land in the form of a card-house...not in this universe, or any universe. Nature doesn't operate like that. Nature doesn't care about what pattern they fall in...according to nature, they will fall how they fall.

Before time began, the singularity didn't have entropy constrains.

You say that as if the singularity was just sitting there, waiting to expand. With the beginning of the creation was the beginning of the expansion...simultaneously.

If a previous universe collapsed to the point where spacetime no longer existed, everything in the subsequent singularity could move to a low entropy state with no penalty. Then our universe could have started from a low entropy state singularity.

Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So, because the universe "collapses to a point where spacetime no longer exists, this implies a singularity could move to a low entropy state".

Non sequitur.

Since there was no time, there also isn't a cause effect relationship to things either. Which means a universe could potentially start without a cause.

Impossible. What would cause it to "start"? It would just start for absolutely no reason whatsoever? Illogical.

The problem here is that we know a lot of things, but it pales in comparison to what we don't know. We don't know what preceded this universe, we don't know why there is an arrow time, we don't know why there is entropy, we don't know why our universe started out with low entropy. We can't assume, based on what we DO know, what is the explanation is for the things we DON'T know.

You speak as if there are a million different options, when in fact there are only two.

1. Either the universe (all physical reality, regardless of location) is past eternal
2. The universe is finite and had a beginning

Those are the only two games in town..and if one is negated, the other one wins by default (law of excluded middle). No middle ground.

So, both can't be true, and both can't be false. Therefore, only one can be true (necessarily true), and the other one false (necessarily false).

And I argue that #1 is necessarily false...and I can prove it..and I've been proving it.

As explained above, we can't say this universe needed a cause, because we don't know if it is eternal or not, and we don't know the conditions that preceded this universe. That's the problem with The Kalam Argumen - it assumes things that's cannot be considered true.

The universe began to exist, Kenisaw (again, you've admitted the consensus). And everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Any objection to this deduction? Seems simple.

I promised a further explanation on philosophy, and here it is. The problem with eternal anything (universes or gods) is a basic one. If something exists eternally, then we can never reach the point in that existence where this universe appears.

We could, if this "something" has existed eternally outside of time, which the universe cannot be said to have done.

Be it a god or a constant universe, it would take an eternity before you reach the point where this universe appears. There is no middle to infinity Kingdom, and therefore no way to get to a finite universe appearing. It's false logic.

Yet, we've arrived at this "point" in time somehow, didn't we? That wouldn't be the case if the universe was past eternal.

[Clownboat]

I do not claim that the universe pre-existed in some form, therefore I have no onus.

Then stop offering these alternate suggestions/options as defeaters of what I am saying.

Stop dodging the issue.
These are your words: "Um, we don't need to imagine that the universe always existed forever...why? Because of the evidence we have that it COULDN'T have existed forever (in some form). We have both philosophical/scientific evidence to support this."
It is time for you to either support your statement, or retract if for being false.

I can imagine a universe though that pre-existed, much like I think you are doing in regards to a god concept.

You cannot imagine a physical, transforming reality of which existed eternally in time.

Doesn't matter one way or the other. You are still imagining qualities about your preferred god concept. Besides, take the 'in time' away and I sure can do what you say I cannot.

Either way, you claimed that there was scientific evidence that shows the universe could not have existed in some previous form.
Please supply it or be honorable and retract your claim.

Um, no. I am saying that there the standard big bang model has the most empirical evidence supporting it..and according to this empirically verified model, the universe BEGAN TO EXIST at some point in the finite past.

Not very often do people quote mine themselves.
For the Kingdom said: "We have both philosophical/scientific evidence to support this." "(that it COULDN'T have existed forever (in some form)"
We all can see what you said.

Now, if you want to posit or suggest any other stuff regarding pre-big bang models..then the onus is on you to provide evidence for this.

I'm still waiting on you to educate me on how the big bang model makes the universe pre-existing in some form impossible.

Until you can do so, then we will continue to support actual SCIENCE, which is the standard big bang model.

You think I don't supporting the big bang model? You are mistaken. What I'm not aware of is this scientific evidence you claim we have that makes the universe existing in some previous form impossible. Still waiting...

Infinite regression is a problem.

Please be specific.

SMH.

Why are you shaking your head and not debating?

Sometimes that is all you can do, when someone continues to not get it.

I am not getting it because you will not give it to me. That or it just doesn't exist and you just cannot bring yourself to admit it.
Again, what is the scientific evidence that the universe could not have pre-existed in some form prior to the big bang. Note, I am not claim that it did, just questioning your claim that we have evidence that it didn't.

An eternal universe necessarily implies infinite regression. SMH. See? You just don't get it.

What is it that you want me to get? You have claimed that infinite regression is a problem. What I'm waiting for is for you to say, therefore... Or at least tell me why you think it is a problem.
You're not doing that though, just shaking your head as if you were.

Is it possible that it existed in a previous form before this 'began to exist' claim of yours applies?

No, because that would imply infinite regression. See? No way out. Logical absurdities will continue to be logical absurdities no matter how many spins we put on it.

Are you not confused about this because you keep analyzing this from a perspective of 'our time'?
Outside of when 'our time' started, why could the universe not have existed in some form?

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 13 by Clownboat]

I said pm me.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 13 by Clownboat]

I said pm me.

I don't see why I should.
Be well.

[William]

[Replying to post 7 by Kenisaw]

I promised a further explanation on philosophy, and here it is. The problem with eternal anything (universes or gods) is a basic one. If something exists eternally, then we can never reach the point in that existence where this universe appears. Be it a god or a constant universe, it would take an eternity before you reach the point where this universe appears. There is no middle to infinity Kingdom, and therefore no way to get to a finite universe appearing. It's false logic.

I agree with you that it is illogical for this universe to have eternally existed because of its nature. It begins and ends If it somehow then began at the end of one cycle such as with the theory of expansion and contraction where did the original beginning of a cycle happen?
To say that it simply always happened makes no sense because of the fact that in this, there is always a 'beginning' and an 'end'

However it appears you are conflating that idea with one of a GOD always having existed. It would be great if you could expand on you reasoning above in relation to this.

[Danmark]

I agree with you that it is illogical for this universe to have eternally existed because of its nature. It begins and ends If it somehow then began at the end of one cycle such as with the theory of expansion and contraction where did the original beginning of a cycle happen?
To say that it simply always happened makes no sense because of the fact that in this, there is always a 'beginning' and an 'end'

However it appears you are conflating that idea with one of a GOD always having existed. It would be great if you could expand on you reasoning above in relation to this.

There is no reason to suppose the universe began. There is no reason NOT to believe it has always existed. Christian theology makes a special case for itself, claiming "God" has always been, yet they claim this cannot be so for the universe. There is no evidence to support such a special case for God.

There is nothing to suggest the singularity or 'big bang' is not one of an infinite cycle of singularities every 14 billion years or so. Even Lawrence Krauss in A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing, does not make the claim that the universe came from absolute nothingness in the philosophical sense. His claim is that there was a pre 'big bang' multitude of unorganized 'stuff' that predates the singularity.

But the real problem is the duplicitous or contradictory claim that the universe had a beginning, but that God did not. Accepting this speculative 'God' has always existed admits by necessity that the universe can also be eternal, without beginning or end, even tho' it is always changing. Choosing this eternal status for a god, but nothing else is a mere, unsupported claim.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 13 by Clownboat]

I said pm me.

I don't see why I should.
Be well.

Next..

[William]

[Replying to post 17 by Danmark]

There is no reason to suppose the universe began.

The Big Bang theory tells us it is reasonable to suppose the universe had a beginning.

There is no reason NOT to believe it has always existed.

The Big Bang theory tells us it is reasonable to suppose the universe had a beginning, thus did not always exist.

Christian theology makes a special case for itself, claiming "God" has always been, yet they claim this cannot be so for the universe.

Theology generally accepts the case that The First Source has always existed. This does not mean that whomever created this universe was not created as well, if it wasn't the First Source. Christianity understands the principle and believes that their idea of GOD is the same as The First Source, but this may not necessarily be the case.

There is no evidence to support such a special case for God.

What special evidence would you accept would support this 'special case for GOD'? It is simply philosophically logical that there must have always existed an initial creative being, and it has been explained in enough detail in many recent related threads on this site.

There is nothing to suggest the singularity or 'big bang' is not one of an infinite cycle of singularities every 14 billion years or so. Even Lawrence Krauss in A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing, does not make the claim that the universe came from absolute nothingness in the philosophical sense. His claim is that there was a pre 'big bang' multitude of unorganized 'stuff' that predates the singularity.

There are many theories as to the fate of the universe. Not everyone agrees with the idea that the universe will eventually reverse its trajectory and eventually return to being an object of ultimate density (aka 'infinite density')

But following the argument that the universe is an infinite series of births and deaths which have always been going on, it can also be argued that consciousness has been always been involved in that.

From that we can even suppose that consciousness has been able to influence the way in which the next process unfolds, etc. In that sense one can then argue that consciousness at some point in the infinite process, became GOD.

Of course we can argue the idea of this type of universe in more depth but it is clearly another subject from this thread topic.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 19 by William]

What special evidence would you accept would support this 'special case for GOD'? It is simply philosophically logical that there must have always existed an initial creative being, and it has been explained in enough detail in many recent related threads on this site.

This is the essence of where you are wrong, confusing logic with evidence. There is no evidence of a creative being having always existed. Even theologians* disagree with the anthropomorphic notion that God is a mere being.

And that brings up the problem with your request for persuasive evidence of a 'God' as a first and eternal, creative being:
Define 'God.' Whose 'God?' There are thousands of different notions of God. Those from religious scripture all seem hopelessly childish, anthropomorphic and ridiculous, to me, but go ahead, pick one or come up with your own definition and I'll reply


_______________________
*Paul Tillich for one.