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.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 146 by For_The_Kingdom]

.


Watch this. I'll grant the conclusion follows from the premeses and the argument is sound.

Now...

Does the soundness of the argument make your god's existence a fact?

Yes.

It's hard to imagine a more satisfying end to that string.

Thanks for playing along, and apologies to the OP for derailing the thread.

[Still small]

Going back to the OP, I'd just like to make three points which seem to be missed or misunderstood by some on this discussion board, though, I believe the discussion will quickly return to the present 'arena' of discussion.
First point, the conservation of energy or what is referred to as the First Law of Thermodynamics which has often been repeated here is that energy or matter cannot be created nor destroyed. This is a scientific law which is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects or phenomena of the universe. It is a description containing neither a 'how' nor a 'why'. This is what science does, it investigates natural phenomena, the physical and material world by experimental observations and describes it. But science can only study the physical or natural universe and nothing else. Therefore, a more accurate description of the first law of thermodynamics would be that 'energy or matter cannot be created nor destroyed by natural means. And that is all science can say on the matter. Science can only speak to things within the physical 4D space-time universe. It cannot discern anything beyond that. Therefore, science may rightly claim that 'energy or matter cannot be created nor destroyed by natural means but it cannot empirically state whether or not 'energy or matter can be created or destroyed by non-natural or non-physical means.

Second point, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR) shows that the one time and three spatial dimensions are fused together, known as 'space-time' This was created at the beginning of our 4D universe, whether it be the widely accepted physical 'Big Bang' or any other method. Thus to ask what came 'before' or propose a solution as to what was 'before' the creation of the 4D universe is nonsensical as there was no 'before'. These terms refer to measurements or points within space-time which had yet to appear. They are not the correct terms for describing something 'outside' of the 4D universe (and, no, I don't know what are the correct terms to use). This misuse of terms would be like asking' "how many litres away is the moon from Earth?" Or "how fast is a kilometre?" Therefore to use such terms as 'years', 'minutes', 'metres' 'light-years' when referring to something outside of the 4D space-time makes no sense. The same applies to terms such as 'before', 'after', 'past', 'future', 'here', 'there' and terms like 'beginning', 'end', 'middle', 'eternal' and 'infinite'. They relate only to the 4 dimensions of space-time. Also such concepts as 'first', 'second', etc, 'cause' and 'effect' which refer to a sequence of events, either spatial or time wise, cannot correctly be used to describe something beyond the 4D universe. Hence the correct term for that which 'caused' the creation of 4D space-time is not the 'first cause' or 'initial cause' but rather the 'uncaused cause', indicating that it is not part of a sequence. Anything which is 'outside' of the 4D space-time universe is not subject to those dimensional restrictions. Anything outside of the 3 spacial dimensions can 'see' everything within them and be everywhere at once. Just as we, '3 dimensional beings', can see everything on a 2 dimensional representation such as a map or diagram. Anyone outside of the time dimension can 'see' everything, past, present and future, as 'now'.
Understandably, to some, these concepts are hard to 'visualise' as they are totally foreign to everything which we have experienced, being part of and within the 4D universe. These concepts fit the description of certain attributes of a being such as God, who, according to the description within scripture is Omnipresent (everywhere) and Omniscient (all-knowing, past, present and future). Being outside of the time dimension, He has no beginning nor end. He is not 'infinite' as that relates to the time dimension which He is outside of or unrestricted by. Yes, He may interact with the 4D universe but He is not confined to it. Much like you can draw a diagram in a 2D plane such as a piece of paper but you are not restricted by it nor confined to it. You can move outside the 2D diagram.

Third point, at the point of the Big Bang "all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity" (Hawkings, The Beginning of Time). As with the singularity of a black hole, the initial singularity would be held together by the attractive gravitational force of this mass/energy. The strength of gravitational force is determined by the equation - gravitational force = (gravitational constant)x(mass of object 1)x(mass of object 2)/(distance between the two objects)^2. So, while gravity maybe the weakest of the natural forces, here we have the total mass/energy of the entire universe at an infinitely small distance. According to the equation, the gravitational force would be as close to infinite in strength as possible. (This is why 'time' does not exist at this point, as it is basically frozen due to the strength of the gravitational force. Yes, according to Einstein's STR, gravity effects time, the stronger the gravity, the slower the time. Infinitely strong gravity = infinitely slow (stopped) time.)

Okay, a problem arises. All the mass/energy of the entire universe is providing the gravitational force of this singularity. So, I ask, what is the 'energy' (mentioned by Tired of the Nonsense, #94) and from whence did it come that provided the repulsive force to overcome the infinitely strong gravitational force and at orders of magnitude to cause the rapid inflation of the 'big bang'? It must be a force from outside the 4D physical universe. Now, the usual explanation is that all the known laws of physics breakdown at the point of the singularity which is, in fact, 'double speak' for “according to the natural laws of physics, the Big Bang is impossible�

Now, either the beginning of the universe as a Big Bang is impossible or the scientific laws of physics are wrong. As the evidence points to a rapid beginning and appearing of the 4D physical universe, the scientific laws of physics must be wrong, despite the fact that they apply at every other time, hence the reason they are referred to as 'laws' (“None of the current laws of physics have ever been discredited. At least not yet�. Tired of the Nonsense, #94) But according to the First Law of Thermodynamics described above, 'energy or matter cannot be created nor destroyed by natural means, therefore science rules out any naturalistic means. Using the same argument as DrNoGods does in Post #134 for the 'non-life/life' process, "But we can all agree (I assume) that life did originate by some means because it does, in fact, exist.", I would claim "ut we can all agree (I assume) that the universe did originate by some means because it does, in fact, exist." Now, if science rules out a naturalistic cause, logically, the only possible explanation is that the entire mass/energy of the universe was created by non-natural (supernatural) or non-physical (metaphysical) means which must, by logic, exist. Something outside of the physical universe and something outside of time.

Admittedly, one's imagination might run wild as to the possible supernatural or meta-physical means but whilst not being able to be tested by the scientific method, they must be consistent with what we do know of the universe. As I believe this fits the description of some of the attributes of the God of the Bible, He therefore, must be considered as a viable option.

Now, in anticipation of the usual retort, “Well, just produce evidence of this God� or “Show us this God� (paraphrases) I put forward “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.� {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1} and refer to FtK’s comment - "The Mona Lisa painting requires an intelligent designer on Earth, . . . “ (FtK, #109)
The famous painting of the Mona Lisa is attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, obviously an intelligent designer or, in this case, painter. Now, can you prove that it was, in fact, Leonardo da Vinci that was the creator of this fine piece of art?

Have a good day!
Still small

[benchwarmer]

Therefore, science may rightly claim that 'energy or matter cannot be created nor destroyed by natural means but it cannot empirically state whether or not 'energy or matter can be created or destroyed by non-natural or non-physical means.

Since non-natural or non-physical (as in nothing to do with energy/matter) has ever been shown to even exist, of course science is not going to add this caveat.

Why add something imaginary to scientific statements?

Any claims that something 'else' could create or destroy energy/matter must first be shown to exist before entertaining any useful thoughts about it. What about snorgleblorfs or pinkledunks? Maybe they could create energy or matter? Or 10 dimensional quarblestorks? The only limit to imaginary things is imagination. No point 'refining' scientific statements to exclude all these imaginary things.

This seems to be a constant 'quibble' with some theists and how science relates to any given god concept. Of course science can't make claims about imaginary gods because no god has ever been observed. If it had, then science could have been employed.

The important point for me is, if no god/gods can be observed, then what point is there in believing in such a thing? How do you tell which made up thing might be real if you can't observe it?

When some say that science can't be used to verify or invalidate any given god, this should be a negative, not a positive. Why bother investing time into something you can't verify in some observational way?

Second point, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR) shows that the one time and three spatial dimensions are fused together, known as 'space-time' This was created at the beginning of our 4D universe, whether it be the widely accepted physical 'Big Bang' or any other method. Thus to ask what came 'before' or propose a solution as to what was 'before' the creation of the 4D universe is nonsensical as there was no 'before'.

Perhaps this is a quibble, but obviously there was something 'before' even if that something was nothing. i.e. the energy of this universe either blinked into existence out of nothing, or it simply transformed from a previous state.

Since we have no definitive data, making claims about what transpired pre Big Bang is all conjecture at this point.

Some like to say 'goddidit', but this is pointless. Not only do we have no data to verify that, we don't even have any observational data about any gods. Saying a radioactive blueberry muffin did it is just as absurd and equally valid. At least we have evidence of radioactivity, blueberries, and muffins.

Now, if science rules out a naturalistic cause, logically, the only possible explanation is that the entire mass/energy of the universe was created by non-natural (supernatural) or non-physical (metaphysical) means which must, by logic, exist. Something outside of the physical universe and something outside of time.

Except that science has done no such thing. There are still a lot of "I don't knows" left in science so this is jumping the gun to try and 'magic into existence' something 'else' like one's favorite god.

One possible explanation is that our universe 'popped out' the other side of a black hole. Current observation seems to indicate that the mass/energy that enters a black hole cannot leave, yet clearly it must go 'somewhere'. This 'somewhere' is probably 'somewhere' else. Perhaps our universe is one of those 'somewhere elses'. All conjecture of course, but at least this is guessing based on current observation, not just blindly making up a god and pinning it all on that.

Admittedly, one's imagination might run wild as to the possible supernatural or meta-physical means but whilst not being able to be tested by the scientific method, they must be consistent with what we do know of the universe. As I believe this fits the description of some of the attributes of the God of the Bible, He therefore, must be considered as a viable option.

That's a leap, but at least you admit one's imagination running wild is part of the process here.

If the only necessary requirements of being a 'viable option' are that believing some characteristics of an imaginary character in a religious text seem possible, then we will have to add a lot of gods to the list. Not to mention any other imaginary things one feels like making up and writing down.

Now, in anticipation of the usual retort, “Well, just produce evidence of this God� or “Show us this God� (paraphrases) I put forward “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.� {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1} and refer to FtK’s comment - "The Mona Lisa painting requires an intelligent designer on Earth, . . . “ (FtK, #109)
The famous painting of the Mona Lisa is attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, obviously an intelligent designer or, in this case, painter. Now, can you prove that it was, in fact, Leonardo da Vinci that was the creator of this fine piece of art?

Have a good day!
Still small

I'm not sure how any of that helps.

Just because something has the appearance of being intelligently designed does not mean that it was. That's just wishful thinking.

As for FtK's argument, how does not being able to definitively prove that Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa help your case? I would think that it only makes the theist's case even worse. We can observe and test the actual painting for all kinds of things. We can compare materials, brush strokes, use radiometric dating, and all manner of other things if we wanted to in order to figure out when and possibly even where the painting was painted. We will likely build a very strong case that some person named Leonardo da Vinci did it. Not saying it's a 100% slam dunk. Now try doing the same thing with a god. We can't even see any gods, so we don't even know if they exist. Already we are far behind what can be done with the painting. We know for a fact people paint paintings, we can watch them do it. Ever seen a god make anything?

So, trying to call into question things which we can observe and test really only further damages any theories about imaginary beings which have no evidence whatsoever. If we can only get a 90% confidence that LD painted the ML, that's a far cry better than 0% that any non observed god created the universe. 0 because we have seen neither gods nor universes being created.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 152 by Still small]

This is what science does, it investigates natural phenomena, the physical and material world by experimental observations and describes it. But science can only study the physical or natural universe and nothing else.

The inability to observe and investigate something in any way makes it indistinguishable from the non-existent. The term supernatural applies to things which are as good as non-existent. We can, and do, create all sorts of so-called supernatural beings and phenomena using our imaginations. What theists are unable to do is produce a set of criteria and a method of applying them that clearly distinguishes between what actually exists and what is a product of the imagination.

[For_The_Kingdom]

The inability to observe and investigate something in any way makes it indistinguishable from the non-existent. The term supernatural applies to things which are as good as non-existent.

Nonsense. You have to prove it non-existence before you make such a statement of fact...and here is whether naturalist will say..

"I can't prove the non-existence of something" (their most common quip)..

And that is where I will say..

"Well, then you can't necessarily conclude that it is non-existence, can you?".

We can, and do, create all sorts of so-called supernatural beings and phenomena using our imaginations.

We do that with alleged naturalistic things, too; abiogenesis, macroevolution.

What theists are unable to do is produce a set of criteria and a method of applying them that clearly distinguishes between what actually exists and what is a product of the imagination.

False. Arguments for the existence of God has been prevalent in theistic apologetics for centuries. The criterion and methods are simple...the arguments have to be sound and valid...and they can only be sound/valid if there was good, adequate evidence to bring out the truth value of the premises.

We got this.

[benchwarmer]

The inability to observe and investigate something in any way makes it indistinguishable from the non-existent. The term supernatural applies to things which are as good as non-existent.

Nonsense. You have to prove it non-existence before you make such a statement of fact...and here is whether naturalist will say..

Since no statement of fact was made, this is jumping to illogical conclusions.

It's the same as saying invisible, blue, 500lb bunnies circle Jupiter. We can't prove they don't exist, but that doesn't mean we assume the do. The are as good as non-existent as stated.

No one has claimed anything is non-existent as a statement of fact.

"I can't prove the non-existence of something" (their most common quip)..

And that is where I will say..

"Well, then you can't necessarily conclude that it is non-existence, can you?".

Correct. And no-one I've seen has ever said otherwise with you.

Just like you can't prove the non-existence of green fairies, 9 dimensional space figs, Zeus, or any other imagined god/goddess.

We can, and do, create all sorts of so-called supernatural beings and phenomena using our imaginations.

We do that with alleged naturalistic things, too; abiogenesis, macroevolution.

Well, it seems you do since you define your own terms when talking about those things, so in this case I will agree that, yes, you do that.

What theists are unable to do is produce a set of criteria and a method of applying them that clearly distinguishes between what actually exists and what is a product of the imagination.

False. Arguments for the existence of God has been prevalent in theistic apologetics for centuries. The criterion and methods are simple...the arguments have to be sound and valid...and they can only be sound/valid if there was good, adequate evidence to bring out the truth value of the premises.

We got this.

What "you've got" are nothing more than word games attempting to use logic based on faulty premises to poof into existence your favorite god. Let us know when you have some observable evidence of any of it and we'll be all evolved, light sensitive, electromagnetic spectrum sensing organs.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 155 by For_The_Kingdom]

brunumb wrote:
The inability to observe and investigate something in any way makes it indistinguishable from the non-existent. The term supernatural applies to things which are as good as non-existent.

FTK wrote:
Nonsense. You have to prove it non-existence before you make such a statement of fact...and here is whether naturalist will say..

"I can't prove the non-existence of something" (their most common quip)..

And that is where I will say..

"Well, then you can't necessarily conclude that it is non-existence, can you?".

You don't need to conclude that something is non-existent because that is the default position. Something is claimed to exist when there is compelling evidence to demonstrate its existence. The failure on the part of theists is their inability to produce a set of criteria and a method of applying them that clearly distinguishes between what actually exists and what is a product of the imagination. All they have is rhetoric.

[William]

[Replying to post 153 by benchwarmer]

One possible explanation is that our universe 'popped out' the other side of a black hole. Current observation seems to indicate that the mass/energy that enters a black hole cannot leave, yet clearly it must go 'somewhere'. This 'somewhere' is probably 'somewhere' else. Perhaps our universe is one of those 'somewhere elses'. All conjecture of course, but at least this is guessing based on current observation, not just blindly making up a god and pinning it all on that.

This is something which rightfully needs to be contemplated imaginatively.

It seems to me that back holes contravene the Conservation of Energy law in that - apart from Hawking Radiation, a minor echo of the total energy consumed by black holes, black holes appear to consume rather than conserve.

As we observe, that which consumes ordinarily transforms what is consumed into something else, and thus it is acceptable to imagine that this transformation most likely results in the formation of a conjoined universe - a mirror image of sorts - could it be that galaxies are the product of the black holes what might be regarded as the other, unseen aspect of our universe? The other side of our universe?

A quick google of the phrase "how are Galaxies formed" suggests that the popular theories tell me I am way off the mark...but they are all theories anyway...

What would we expect to see at the exit of a black hole which has sucked matter and energy (same thing really) into it's entrance, but a burst of solid light dust gas etc - basically everything which gets sucked into one - and from this, the swirling motion of the exited material forms into what we call 'Galaxies' coming out from a black hole?

I would think though, that if a Galaxy is the product of a back hole on the other side of this universe, then the material would have to be spinning outwards into this side of the universe. If it is not, then really - galaxies are simply some type of white hole...but what happens when a galaxy runs out of material which it can attract to its self?

I did read somewhere a while back that most Galaxies spin in one particular direction, but that there was at least one anomaly where a particular Galaxy is spinning in the opposite direction.

So if I am wrong about our galaxies being the product of black holes on the other side of this universe, then - in order to still entertain the idea that black holes are drains which feed energy into another universe, we would have to think more in terms of our universe creating a chain of mini universes using its own energy/material in order to do so.

It would of course be neat to think that the universe has another side to it which we can never view but can accept as existing because of black holes, in that it then could perpetually continue and could be thought of as something which absolutely could have always existed and will always exist due to that perpetual transference of energy, which allows for it to be - not a closed system which will have to one day become inert but rather an open one which can never become inert and effectively conserves all its energy, not as an inert potentiality, but as an ongoing vibrant perpetuity.

If we look at the idea of a chain of mini universes created by openings in our own universe, we could understand that the openings (black holes) are a way of making sure that our universe can never become an inert state, as some theories predict.

But how then do we explain the background radiation of the big bang?

Could the Big Bang be the evidence of an exit point of another universes black hole?

I find the whole subject fascinating. The only subject I find more fascinating in relation to this, is consciousness itself.

[benchwarmer]

What would we expect to see at the exit of a black hole which has sucked matter and energy (same thing really) into it's entrance, but a burst of solid light dust gas etc - basically everything which gets sucked into one - and from this, the swirling motion of the exited material forms into what we call 'Galaxies' coming out from a black hole?

Well, I'm no cosmologist and fully admit I'm just guessing, but I would guess that black holes are 'building' singularities. i.e. at the center where all the mass/energy is being compressed by gravity. Whether this 'ball of stuff' stays in this universe or somehow creates another universe somewhere else is all conjecture. I wouldn't think this is the engine for making galaxies as it actually seems to be the other way around. At the center of most galaxies there seems to be a black hole which suggests galaxies are the 'food' for the hungry monster in the middle

Definitely all fun stuff to contemplate. I'm even fine with people throwing imagined gods into the mix of contemplation, I just get bent out of shape when they decide to forego evidence and start declaring their favorite god as 'true' and the right answer.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Since no statement of fact was made, this is jumping to illogical conclusions.

Nonsense. "The term supernatural applies to things which are as good as non-existent."

Statement of fact^

It's the same as saying invisible, blue, 500lb bunnies circle Jupiter. We can't prove they don't exist, but that doesn't mean we assume the do.

It also shouldn't mean that you assume they don't, either.

The are as good as non-existent as stated.

No they don't, because as far we know, they could exist.

No one has claimed anything is non-existent as a statement of fact.

The statement that was made was a statement of fact. If you feel otherwise, then we just disagree.

Correct. And no-one I've seen has ever said otherwise with you.

As long as my point was acknowledged and granted.

Just like you can't prove the non-existence of green fairies, 9 dimensional space figs, Zeus, or any other imagined god/goddess.

Then all things considered, you should maintain an agnostic position as it relates to those things.

What "you've got" are nothing more than word games attempting to use logic based on faulty premises to poof into existence your favorite god.

Nonsense. The main three arguments I use aint even about the Christian God.

Let us know when you have some observable evidence of any of it and we'll be all evolved, light sensitive, electromagnetic spectrum sensing organs.

I have some observable evidence of it. There, I let you know.