Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, you already brought that joke....I mean, claim up with your...
"So the only logical alternative is that there must have been an eternal something. We do not need a god to explain this, it is a logical necessity that if absolutely nothing is not even possible that something must have always existed."
So you don't blame me for saying it, people who do actually think and know science say this about an eternal universe....
Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, wrote:
"The Universe, and everything that has happened in it since the beginning of time, are a grand effect without a known cause. An effect without a known cause? That is not the world of science; it is a world of witchcraft, of wild events and the whims of demons, a medieval world that science has tried to banish. As scientists, what are we to make of this picture? I do not know. I would only like to present the evidence for the statement that the Universe, and man himself, originated in a moment when time began"
So you like witchcraft rather than science. I rather showed that already with you silly energy equaling zero.
I need to inform you, actually teach you more, that if we have an eternal universe there, first off there had to be a cause but to you such things don't matter to you, it was just there, period. Second, that universe is there and is natural. All we know is that when things are natural, they are under the laws of nature. Once you step out of that, it's no longer science, it's science fiction. Science fiction is your delight. In the natural realm, the 2LT must exist. To say it did not exist, then you are into your famous science fiction.
"So there was once absolute nothing, including laws such as 2LoT,"
Yep, nothing means no thing.
"or there was an infinite existence, which can never be a closed system"
Again, I need to teach you things. If the universe was not an isolated system, the 1st and 2nd laws I gave would not be laws. We would have seen they can't be laws. Yet, those laws are so well-proven, if anyone claims to have broken them, it's known the experiment was done incorrectly.
That is a fact. A finite Universe is an isolated system. Since the Universe as a whole is the only*true*isolated system, the laws of thermodynamics apply perfectly. That is why some reputable scientists examine the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and articulate statements in reputable textbooks like the following:“
Isolated system: It is the system which exchange [sic] neither matter nor energy with the surroundings. For such a system, the matter and energy remain constant. There is no such perfectly isolated system, but*our universe can be considered as an isolated system*since by definition it does not have any surroundings."
“A spontaneous process in an isolated system increases the system’s entropy. Because the universe—our entire surroundings—is in contact with no other system, we say that irreversible processes increase the entropy of the universe”
.---The universe is an isolated system because energy cannot be created or destroyed. Likewise, matter cannot be added or taken away from the universe.
---The universe is an isolated system as the universe in itself is a system with no surroundings. With the first law of thermodynamics, no energy in the universe can be created or destroyed, so the universe is an isolated system.
---The universe is isolated because neither matter or energy can be exchanged with it. This is because the universe encompasses everything, so it does not have surroundings it could exchange matter or energy with.
It's getting old correcting you.
Look at your silliness, you never stop....
"We do not need a god to explain this, it is a logical necessity that if absolutely nothing is not even possible that something must have always existed."
Yes, it was possible and the science I gave proved it HAD to be, but you don't like science, you like science fiction. I keep on having to show you that.
"If the laws of nature you gave obviously pertain to nature, then that nature must exist. But you are arguing about absolute nothing, which means absolutely nothing existed, including a god of any kind,"
Ok, try to follow the bouncing ball. Laws of nature pertain to nature. The laws of nature show 100% the universe can't come about naturally AND that it could not have always existed. Naturally lost 100%, but to you, it still won by your science fiction.
Now, if that was not bad enough, you say..."which means absolutely nothing existed, including a god of any kind,"
Again, try to think; the laws of nature show that the universe had to come about by a supernatural creator. That supernatural creator created the natural realm that includes the laws of nature. So you tell me why a supernatural creator who created the natural realm along with its natural laws, is somehow bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. The funny thing is, you don't see how you're burying yourself. The more you give, the deeper you dig yourself.
Note: Moderator, I'm keeping to the topic of why belief in God has dropped, it is because those that don't believe in God had their thinking drop. I'm really sticking to the subject and giving evidence of how their thinking dropped. Not that it's hard showing that, but it's a sad reflection on such people that it is so easy to show that.
Lots of bla bla bla.
The long and the short of it is, that the default position you take, "We don't know, therefore a god" is absolutely a fallacy. You should just stop at, "We don't know".
BTW, it is clear by your diatribe that you have no understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. However, that is for the science forum, not here. Suffice it to remain that when you start making pronouncements you do not understand, it is best to remain silent.
Yeah, you already brought that joke....I mean, claim up with your...
"So the only logical alternative is that there must have been an eternal something. We do not need a god to explain this, it is a logical necessity that if absolutely nothing is not even possible that something must have always existed."
So you don't blame me for saying it, people who do actually think and know science say this about an eternal universe....
Do not evade, AGAIN. If my logic is wrong, then you can provide a THIRD option. Stop deflecting and provide that third option. God is not it, because according to you, your god is one of those second options, an eternal something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnysig
Robert Jastrow, ...
is irrelevant to the point you quoted AND never, ever says a god did it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnysig
I need to inform you, actually teach you more, that if we have an eternal universe there, first off there had to be a cause but to you such things don't matter to you, it was just there, period.
No. By definition and all the rules of logic, rational argument, and by definition, an pre-eternal, infinite thing can never, ever, ever have a cause.
Let me repeat that. An infinite thing does not, and can not have a beginning.
Take your time. Or are you just going to dismiss that as 'silly'? Or simply ignore it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnysig
Again, I need to teach you things. If the universe was not an isolated system, the 1st and 2nd laws I gave would not be laws.
Actually they would still be laws, they would simply not apply to the universe, which was my point. You keep making irrelevant arguments.
So let me remind (or educate) you, you can not apply finite mathematics (2LoT) to an infinite thing, which has it's own special and bizarre set of mathematical rules.
'But Jastrow says' is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnysig
It's getting old correcting you.
It is getting old you evading my actual points, simply calling them silly without refuting them, or posting irrelevant science that never, ever, ever, says your god did it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnysig
Look at your silliness, you never stop....
"We do not need a god to explain this, it is a logical necessity that if absolutely nothing is not even possible that something must have always existed."
Then provide the third option. Do not simply call it silly, prove me wrong by providing a third option. Do not post some irrelevant science for a logic prolem, provide the third option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnysig
Yes, it was possible and the science I gave proved it HAD to be, but you don't like science, you like science fiction. I keep on having to show you that.
No, your science did not show it HAD to be, but even if that was the only option, I posted a science paper AND provided the logic that creation would be spontaneous without a need for a god. A god that could not even exist by the premise of your own argument. Absolutely nothing means absolutely nothing, including a god.
You keep posting pages of irrelevant crap while admitting with your premise means your god can NEVER be the answer, because your own premise says even this god did not exist.
There was absolutely nothing, including a god, then this non-existent god magicked everything into existence. Yep, that sound rational.
The long and the short of it is, that the default position you take, "We don't know, therefore a god" is absolutely a fallacy. You should just stop at, "We don't know".
BTW, it is clear by your diatribe that you have no understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. However, that is for the science forum, not here. Suffice it to remain that when you start making pronouncements you do not understand, it is best to remain silent.
You are missing three things.
1) evade any argument by either calling it silly, or quoting Jastrow out of context.
2) Something that always existed must have also had a beginning.
3) eternal existence is not possible, which would include any eternal gods, therefore absolutely nothing, which would also include any gods, therefore eternal gods are not possible, therefore a non-existent god must have.
The long and the short of it is, that the default position you take, "We don't know, therefore a god" is absolutely a fallacy. You should just stop at, "We don't know".
BTW, it is clear by your diatribe that you have no understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. However, that is for the science forum, not here. Suffice it to remain that when you start making pronouncements you do not understand, it is best to remain silent.
Lying is the BIG tactic used here.
"Lots of bla bla bla."
Yep, science is that to you since you don't follow it.
"The long and the short of it is, that the default position you take, "We don't know, therefore a god" is absolutely a fallacy. You should just stop at, "We don't know"."
If you were honest, which you're not, I've showed already that we DO know but you all don't want to know.
Evidence points to nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. It must be observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This (the 1LT and 2LT) all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We know these laws and have NO doubts about them.
Such basic science and yet it's remains a mystery to you all still. It shows creation can't happen naturally. I said it had to be supernaturally but you only have left your only default, lying with...
"The long and the short of it is, that the default position you take, "We don't know, therefore a god" is absolutely a fallacy. You should just stop at, "We don't know"."
It's the famous atheistic science, ignore the science we have and resort to the "We don't know" science. If they don't like what 2 + 2 equals, you guessed it, it their "We don't know" science to their rescue. Oh. along with their lying.
"BTW, it is clear by your diatribe that you have no understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics."
Followed by your evidence of....
(blank)
Yes folks, more atheistic science....(blank) science.
Look at the big 'error' I made....---The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max.---
To atheistic types, the universe is winding up since I have no understanding of the 2LT. Not just that, usable energy is becoming MORE usable in atheistic science. But wait, there's more, at one point usable energy was never at its max because somehow usable energy is growing.
Have you all ever thought about getting into comedy? I think you show some promise there since it sure isn't in science. You may consider politics too since lying comes easy to you.
Yep, science is that to you since you don't follow it.
"The long and the short of it is, that the default position you take, "We don't know, therefore a god" is absolutely a fallacy. You should just stop at, "We don't know"."
If you were honest, which you're not, I've showed already that we DO know but you all don't want to know.
Evidence points to nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. It must be observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This (the 1LT and 2LT) all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We know these laws and have NO doubts about them.
Such basic science and yet it's remains a mystery to you all still. It shows creation can't happen naturally. I said it had to be supernaturally but you only have left your only default, lying with...
"The long and the short of it is, that the default position you take, "We don't know, therefore a god" is absolutely a fallacy. You should just stop at, "We don't know"."
It's the famous atheistic science, ignore the science we have and resort to the "We don't know" science. If they don't like what 2 + 2 equals, you guessed it, it their "We don't know" science to their rescue. Oh. along with their lying.
"BTW, it is clear by your diatribe that you have no understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics."
Followed by your evidence of....
(blank)
Yes folks, more atheistic science....(blank) science.
Look at the big 'error' I made....---The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max.---
To atheistic types, the universe is winding up since I have no understanding of the 2LT. Not just that, usable energy is becoming MORE usable in atheistic science. But wait, there's more, at one point usable energy was never at its max because somehow usable energy is growing.
Have you all ever thought about getting into comedy? I think you show some promise there since it sure isn't in science. You may consider politics too since lying comes easy to you.
Have you always been a condescending jerk or did you have to go to school to learn how? You aren't fooling anyone with your posturing.
The uncertainty principle and quantum fluctuations conceivably could have resulted in the universe coming into existence on its own. And I am a Christian who believes that God did have something to do with creating the universe (though not in the way that the Genesis story has it). Nevertheless, I can see how the universe could have begun to exist without the need for God.
And you've been told more than once to quote people properly. Apparently you can't follow directions, or else simply refuse to.
By the way, according to theoretical physicist Sean Carroll the big bang did not break any of the laws of thermodynamics.
Did the Big Bang Break the Laws of Thermodynamics? With Sean Carroll
Yep, science is that to you since you don't follow it.
"The long and the short of it is, that the default position you take, "We don't know, therefore a god" is absolutely a fallacy. You should just stop at, "We don't know"."
If you were honest, which you're not, I've showed already that we DO know but you all don't want to know.
Evidence points to nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. It must be observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This (the 1LT and 2LT) all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We know these laws and have NO doubts about them.
Such basic science and yet it's remains a mystery to you all still. It shows creation can't happen naturally. I said it had to be supernaturally but you only have left your only default, lying with...
"The long and the short of it is, that the default position you take, "We don't know, therefore a god" is absolutely a fallacy. You should just stop at, "We don't know"."
It's the famous atheistic science, ignore the science we have and resort to the "We don't know" science. If they don't like what 2 + 2 equals, you guessed it, it their "We don't know" science to their rescue. Oh. along with their lying.
"BTW, it is clear by your diatribe that you have no understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics."
Followed by your evidence of....
(blank)
Yes folks, more atheistic science....(blank) science.
Look at the big 'error' I made....---The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max.---
To atheistic types, the universe is winding up since I have no understanding of the 2LT. Not just that, usable energy is becoming MORE usable in atheistic science. But wait, there's more, at one point usable energy was never at its max because somehow usable energy is growing.
Have you all ever thought about getting into comedy? I think you show some promise there since it sure isn't in science. You may consider politics too since lying comes easy to you.
To atheistic types, the universe is winding up since I have no understanding of the 2LT. Not just that, usable energy is becoming MORE usable in atheistic science. But wait, there's more, at one point usable energy was never at its max because somehow usable energy is growing.
Q.E.D.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
