It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Infinity and the Laws of Thermodynamics supports, if not proves the existence of God.

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: edmc^2

Like I said initially, there is no point in arguing with you. In your mind you already "know" the answer. You say prove you wrong logically, that is a joke!

You said -



If one have doubts of what he or she believes then what's the point of believing.


That is exactly why I don't argue with people like you. You have a faith driven paradigm of the world that conflicts with your logic and reasoning.

When you say things like you already know that God exists because of this, you are letting everyone know you aren't open minded.


All things considered what's the alternative?



Well, there is taking an honest and in-depth look at the possibility that God doesn't exist. Which, in my opinion, you have not yet done. My impression is that you don't really care if we can prove you wrong, and that you have no intention of admitting that you might be wrong. Your errors and mistakes have already been pointed out, but you have not budged.

This thread is an exercise in futility.


Sure I do care, hence this thread.

So if God doesn't exist then please explain logically how the universe came to be?

Where did the material universe came from? What's the source?

In other words who put E = m c 2 into motion?





Explain logically how God came to be. That's still a gaping hole in your plot. Something can't come from nothing, but God can. Explain that, using logic.


I dunno AfterInfinity if there's any other way of explaining it to you.

If you can't grasp the concept of Infinity or order and disorder or directed force or inherent intelligence how then can I explain the existence of God?

It's like explaining the color blue to a person born blind.

But here's a thought:

One can't get something from nothing, there MUST be something that's already existing - uncreated to begin with.

Hence the concept of Infinity.


So there's some kind of magical pocket in an unspecified dimension completely disparate of our universe from which an invisible omnipotent force benevolently guides the threads of fate into a soothing picture for the express and exclusive benefit of our 0.000000000000000000000000000001% of the known universe. That's what I just got from you and your...brand of pseudo-logic.

And that still doesn't explain how God came to be when something cannot come from nothing.
edit on 11-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Following this line of reasoning, what does god use to create things in the universe if something cannot come from nothing? What did god create the universe from?

Your argument belies a paradox. You claim that something cannot come from nothing then state that god creates the universe from nothing. Well god needs to have some building materials to create something does he not? Or does he just poof matter into existence to create things? But wait that creates a paradox to your OP since that violates one of the laws of thermodynamics. So either god can create something from nothing and your statement that something cannot come from nothing is incorrect or god has to use existing materials to create things and something cannot come from nothing but this also places limits on god. So which is it?



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: edmc^2
But, isn't it Nothingness is also a form of infinity?


No idea. What is nothingness and are you sure it exists?


If so, then who or what created Nothingness?


Why does nothingness have to be created?


I would say NONE otherwise it's finite which is very illogical.

Agree?


This confuses me. How can you call a potential description of something that we cannot adequately describe illogical? In order to do that, it requires you to assume things about nothingness. Actually check that, why are we trying to apply logic to something(?) that is outside the universe? For all we know nothingness can be both finite and infinite at the same time.


Exactly my point. If we remove God from the equation, we're left with Nothingness.

And since Nothingness is just another form of infinity, hence it can't be created because it always existed.

Which then becomes illogical because logic dictates that you only get something from something (already existing).

But since Nothingness based on our understanding is just an infinite emptiness, how could IT then create something?

It can't if we based on logic.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Well the universe pre-Big Bang was a singularity. So the universe (at least when the Big Bang occurred) didn't come from nothing at all, it just changed states. Not to mention, you are again attributing laws that apply to our universe to areas that are outside the universe. Logic naturally breaks down here.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

All things considered what's the alternative?



I'm curious to know if you realize what qualifies as being true for your definitions so far. Let's take a look. Which one of these terms with their attributes would best be suited for your definition of God??? Universe or Nothing.

Universe:
Finite, With Limits, has a beginning and end but is also cyclic going from order to disorder to order again, physical, temporal

Nothing:
Infinite, without beginning or end, always existing, uncreated, without measure, without form or shape, outside Time and Space,

It would seem to me that logic would dictate that God is Nothing. God/Nothing being the only Infinite in which contains all there is (Universe) including Space and Time itself. If God=Nothing it solves for how and why Infinity exists but in concept only but not in Reality. That is why You Sense God but cannot find Him. That is why God is not restricted by Time nor Space. That is why God is not Here where we are in the universe. It is Because God is Nothing.

Nothing is and always will be Nothing. This is why "I am" and "You Are" by the Grace of God and why "We are Eternal" by God's Grace. This is great paradox that has been discussed over and over but understood by only a few. I don't know if I have explained it well enough for you or if you'll even accept what I'm saying and within the context of how I'm saying it, but if you think upon it I think you'll find it to be true and will answer many of the questions, although perhaps not in the way you'd expect nor wanted.

There are many ways you can view this and since you must include God for personal reasons this is the only way it makes sense. However, it must also mean that God/Nothing made the ultimate sacrifice in Creation by His Grace You and I exist and God is Nothing, Forever.

I hope this makes sense without being misunderstood. I'm interested in the replies I'm going to get for it as well...



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is no such thing as "nothing" in physics because a perfect vacuum cannot be either created in the lab or observed in nature. The lowest possible energy state is the definition of "nothing" in physics. What you're proposing has no legs - nor is it grounded in any real science. It's simply speculation that a "something" was there to create a "something" from a "nothing". Totally illogical and unprovable.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2

All things considered what's the alternative?



I'm curious to know if you realize what qualifies as being true for your definitions so far. Let's take a look. Which one of these terms with their attributes would best be suited for your definition of God??? Universe or Nothing.

Universe:
Finite, With Limits, has a beginning and end but is also cyclic going from order to disorder to order again, physical, temporal

Nothing:
Infinite, without beginning or end, always existing, uncreated, without measure, without form or shape, outside Time and Space,

It would seem to me that logic would dictate that God is Nothing. God/Nothing being the only Infinite in which contains all there is (Universe) including Space and Time itself. If God=Nothing it solves for how and why Infinity exists but in concept only but not in Reality. That is why You Sense God but cannot find Him. That is why God is not restricted by Time nor Space. That is why God is not Here where we are in the universe. It is Because God is Nothing.

Nothing is and always will be Nothing. This is why "I am" and "You Are" by the Grace of God and why "We are Eternal" by God's Grace. This is great paradox that has been discussed over and over but understood by only a few. I don't know if I have explained it well enough for you or if you'll even accept what I'm saying and within the context of how I'm saying it, but if you think upon it I think you'll find it to be true and will answer many of the questions, although perhaps not in the way you'd expect nor wanted.

There are many ways you can view this and since you must include God for personal reasons this is the only way it makes sense. However, it must also mean that God/Nothing made the ultimate sacrifice in Creation by His Grace You and I exist and God is Nothing, Forever.

I hope this makes sense without being misunderstood. I'm interested in the replies I'm going to get for it as well...


So...what's the point of God, then, if God is nothing?



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com...

The Physics of Nothing

Dr. Wilczek compared modern physicists to a fish, who has suddenly realized that he is surrounded by water and that if he could understand what the water is, what it is made of, he could make better sense of the world.

Today we know, he said, that nothing, the vacuum, is made of boiling virtual particles and we’ve built a microscope to look at them, namely the Large Hadron Collider, now getting ready for another try at getting into operation, outside Geneva.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity

I'm not sure I understand the question.

What is the point of Nothing???



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: AfterInfinity

I'm not sure I understand the question.

What is the point of Nothing???


Exactly my question. If God is nothing, as you say, then what's the point in him?
edit on 11-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity

If by "point" you mean "purpose or meaning" for Him then I'd have to say simply, "Nothing". Like I said before, Nothing is Nothing. Everything however is something. Something can have meaning. We are something and I think we can have meaning as well as provide meaning.

In a manner of speaking that also would mean God means Nothing and can Provide Nothing because God already Provided Everything.

(Understand I'm kinda playing with the words as a way of getting across an idea that is very hard to explain. Even more difficult to explain to those like the OP who insists on using terms like God. Even more difficult still when God is insisted upon as a "Being".)



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: AfterInfinity

If by "point" you mean "purpose or meaning" for Him then I'd have to say simply, "Nothing". Like I said before, Nothing is Nothing. Everything however is something. Something can have meaning. We are something and I think we can have meaning as well as provide meaning.

In a manner of speaking that also would mean God means Nothing and can Provide Nothing because God already Provided Everything.

(Understand I'm kinda playing with the words as a way of getting across an idea that is very hard to explain. Even more difficult to explain to those like the OP who insists on using terms like God. Even more difficult still when God is insisted upon as a "Being".)


What I mean is that, in and of itself, God is nothing, and therefore has no inherent meaning. The only reason it has meaning today is because I guess people need something meaningful in an otherwise awfully repetitive and hardwearing existence. And I guess contemporary value just doesn't cut it for them. But the problem with long-term movements of any school of thought is that it is exactly as useful and constructive as the uses to which you put it. If you're not a positive and upstanding person, it doesn't matter if I put a plate of cookies and a puppy in your arms, you'll find a way to ruin someone's day with it.

So I guess the most important thing here is what you do with the information provided throughout the thread. Whether God exists or not, what are you going to do with what you learned here?
edit on 11-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

What I mean is that, in and of itself, God is nothing, and therefore has no inherent meaning. The only reason it has meaning today is because I guess people need something meaningful in an otherwise awfully repetitive and hardwearing existence. And I guess contemporary value just doesn't cut it for them. But the problem with long-term movements of any school of thought is that it is exactly as useful and constructive as the uses to which you put it. If you're not a positive and upstanding person, it doesn't matter if I put a plate of cookies and a puppy in your arms, you'll find a way to ruin someone's day with it.

So I guess the most important thing here is what you do with the information provided throughout the thread. Whether God exists or not, what are you going to do with what you learned here?


I think that was very well said!!!

I'd say this is probably one of the more successful discussions about such a subject as I've ever seen here on ATS.





posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

What I mean is that, in and of itself, God is nothing, and therefore has no inherent meaning. The only reason it has meaning today is because I guess people need something meaningful in an otherwise awfully repetitive and hardwearing existence. And I guess contemporary value just doesn't cut it for them. But the problem with long-term movements of any school of thought is that it is exactly as useful and constructive as the uses to which you put it. If you're not a positive and upstanding person, it doesn't matter if I put a plate of cookies and a puppy in your arms, you'll find a way to ruin someone's day with it.

So I guess the most important thing here is what you do with the information provided throughout the thread. Whether God exists or not, what are you going to do with what you learned here?


I think that was very well said!!!

I'd say this is probably one of the more successful discussions about such a subject as I've ever seen here on ATS.




I just wish the OP would have admitted that perhaps his beliefs and thoughts were a bit off base. You can't learn anything if you consistently fill your head with misinformation.
edit on 11-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Lol. It would take a miracle!!

I'm a little curious as to why it got so quiet in this thread once we reached this point. At best I suppose the OP may be thinking about what's been said. At worst he's perhaps plotting my death for calling his God, Nothing. Which isn't as you know what I mean exactly but topics like this dealing with peoples beliefs are very sensitive sometimes.

I also seem to have this natural ability to piss people off around here with the things I say, even when I'm not trying to do so. So I guess we'll just have to wait and see..
edit on 11-6-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-6-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Lol. It would take a miracle!!


Maybe I should pray for it.

edit on 11-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

You seem to be doing a lot of backflips to reason your point. Your initial point asserted you were using "logic"; however, all I see is someone who either doesn't understand entropy or thermodynamics or is purposefully pushing pseudoscience. You are resting your argument on a decades old creationist response to natural law, by trying to use natural law to disprove natural law. Unfortunately, your sources that you present rely on faulty logic (false analogy) and therefore present a false conclusion. So, your assertion that you are being logical is special pleading as you are setting the rules of this "logic" based on false statements. All I see is an argument from ignorance, which you have supported with nothing more than a philosophical jumping through hoops and circular reasoning.

From a cognitive psychology perspective, you are engaging in Apophenia.

Apophenia /æpɵˈfiːniə/ is the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.


The laws of thermodynamics, again, are nothing more than laws of statistical mechanics, NOT fundamental laws of nature. Even within an isolated (closed) system, which life and the universe are NOT, the laws of thermodynamics may be violated as long as an equilibrium is reached in regard to energy (heat) transfer. Moreover, the laws of thermodynamics have no bearing on biological life or the laws that govern the universe.

To further argue from ignorance, and this is where the false analogy comes in, you are misrepresenting what entropy is. To back your "definition" you have simply provided YouTube videos which also present this false analogy. Now, if you are basing your understanding on the false analogy of entropy, then you are simply ignorant to the reality of entropy because you choose to ignore the real evidence in favor of an explanation that "feels" better (special pleading). If, in fact, you know what you are doing and really do understand thermodynamics and entropy . . . then you are a charlatan who is using the human predilection for apophenia to confuse "believers" into thinking that science, in any way, supports your superstitious mindset.



Problem with this statement is that it doesn't apply to the Creator since he is NOT part of the creation but outside of it.


Is that any reason to suppose that intelligent designers are responsible? The only intelligent designers that we have familiarity with, humans and other more-or-less intelligent animals, are as much subject to the second law of thermodynamics as are non-intelligent agents. Indeed, the laws of thermodynamics were discovered as limitations on what the clever engineers of the 19th century were able to design. Intelligent designers are not able to construct perpetual motion machines. Intelligent designers don't bypass the second law of thermodynamics.




Entropy is part and parcel of nature and the nature of things, hence subject to it.
As for the many attempts by others to prove the existence of God via thermodynamics, I don't know about them but one thing I do know, water always falls downward not upward. Hence, ORDER precedes disorder not the other way around.


But in classical thermodynamics, heat and entropy are treated like fluids that flow from one system to another. The asymmetrical 2nd law forces them to flow always in one direction, but not the other. But gravity asymmetrically forces water, for instance, to always flow down hill. So the asymmetry of the 2nd law, and the need to pump heat or entropy "uphill", as one would for water, don't seem like a fundamental problem.


n actuality, as opposed to being in a state of complete disorder upon achieving maximum entropy, the universe has instead homogenized and become more uniform. In very simple terms, maximum entropy ≠ disorder, get it? It is on a basis similar to this that scientific educators have recognized that the disorder terminology, while simple and easy to comprehend, is an oversimplification at best, and a misleading false analogy at worst. As a result, disorder terminology has been largely phased out; most chemistry textbooks, for example, have removed (or at least heavily edited out) the disorder terminology.[2] Of utmost importance, entropy is an energetic phenomenon, and only tangentially has to do with the distribution of matter in a system.[3] (Statistically speaking, the molecules of a gas are unlikely to move to one side of a container without work being done on the gas. But doing work on the gas would increase the entropy of the universe, as the plunger, or whatever does the compression, would have to increase its entropy.)




And contrary to what you said it's a fundamental law of Nature or for that matter the universe or any system you think exist. There's no question about it because they all share the same source of existence - an infinite space. Like I said in the op:

"ALL material, physical things DEGRADE in time. Left to themselves, all things in PHYSICAL ORDER tend toward DISINTEGRATION/disorganization/degradation. All things (physical) are subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. From hot to cold, just like a mechanical watch, it will eventually wind down to a stop! Left on its own, the universe will become chaotic and finally succumbed to entropy."


More ignorance (or intentional misrepresentation) . . . Entropy is nothing more than the transfer of energy from a higher to lower value, in order to reach an equilibrium. For example, ice placed in a glass of warm water. The will transfer from the warm water to the ice, melting the ice, until the sytem (glass of water) reaches an equilibrium (single temperature of water after combining the higher (warm) and lower (ice) values of the internal system). You are doing nothing but making assertions based on a complete lack of understanding of the principle.



He totally missed the point! There's no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics if logic and commonsense prevails because the baby who grew up to be an adult is a product of an already ORDERED system - the parents.

In fact as the 2nd law stipulates, things of order tend to degrade. This IS the case of the baby, as it grows older his body becomes more unstable, the cells in the body becomes weaker and older then finally succumbed to death - entropy.


You realize that you have contradicted yourself for the umpteenth time, in this thread? How exactly are any of your arguments . . . logical?

Time to "show your work" . . . If you are right (and you actually understand what you are talking about), then you should have no problem working out the math for all of us less intelligently designed heathens. Below is the formula for the 2nd Law. Please provide the data that "proves" you point. . . . Unless of course you are simply regurgitating creationist babble from the echo chamber?

The popular literature is littered with articles, papers, books, and various & sundry other sources, filled to overflowing with prosaic explanations of entropy. But it should be remembered that entropy, an idea born from classical thermodynamics, is a quantitative entity, and not a qualitative one. That means that entropy is not something that is fundamentally intuitive, but something that is fundamentally defined via an equation, via mathematics applied to physics. Remember in your various travails, that entropy is what the equations define it to be. There is no such thing as an "entropy", without an equation that defines it.


Classical Entropy is defined as: S = Q/T. The 2nd law contrains the change in entropy (S) so as to give us the fundamental equation for the 2nd law, in classical thermodynamics.


So, back up your "logic" and show the data that proves your creator god.






edit on 6/11/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: solomons path


To back your "definition" you have simply provided YouTube videos which also present this false analogy.


Interesting. So you say that two vids I provided below present a false analogy of what entropy is?

How so if they are explaining the same thing you're saying?

here they are again:






So it's quite puzzling. Furthermore these vids we're created by people who accept evolution.

But if you think they are false, in what way shape or form are they false? Can you please point it out so that I can be educated properly on its finer details?

Also, would you rather have me provide a vid prepared by a creationists?

But what good would this do since you've already considered the ones prepared by proponents of evolution bunkers? But if you like - you can provide one that is to you're liking and I have NO objection to it.

As for the data - I've provided ample based on simple logic. And they are verifiable.

So now you require mathematical data to prove your premise that I don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

What's hard to understand about the basics of entropy? Nothing really unless one wants to learn the finer details like you.

And I'd like to, but this is not a discussion on differential equation or integral mathematics or higher mathematics or the finer details of entropy but the logic behind the principle.

That is that entropy is the tendency for things to degrade - i.e. HOT to COLD.

Whether entropy is in equilibrium or not, large or not, it's the point of the discussion but rather that it's happening and that it what governs the universe down to the molecular level - HOT to COLD or ORDER to DISORDER.

Again, taking you back to the "misleading vids" - it's what evolutionist are saying - that the Universe and all that's in it will one day ceases to exists due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Which takes me to my point - unless someone or something winds it up again.

And indeed, the universe is behaving this way - in constant flux from order to disorder to order (i.e. birth and death of stars/galaxies) but never in complete disarray - equilibrium!

Furthermore, it's good that entropy is present in the universe.

It's what keeps things going. Imagine if entropy doesn't exist, what would life be or for that matter where would the universe be?

Nothing/nowhere.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
It's pretty much impossible to define "God" without immediately having that definition become paradoxical. And if you're going to cheat and claim that God is some kind of paradox nullifier, then all bets are off from the start.

Anyway, as I've said before, the only reason the problem arises is because you assume that time is a linear thing, starting at a point and moving somehow to another point. But that's just an illusion created by our consciousness. Time is an attribute, like temperature, and doesn't start or stop anywhere.

Once you get rid of the notion of linear time, there's no need for any kind of "creator."



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Lol. It would take a miracle!!

I'm a little curious as to why it got so quiet in this thread once we reached this point. At best I suppose the OP may be thinking about what's been said. At worst he's perhaps plotting my death for calling his God, Nothing. Which isn't as you know what I mean exactly but topics like this dealing with peoples beliefs are very sensitive sometimes.

I also seem to have this natural ability to piss people off around here with the things I say, even when I'm not trying to do so. So I guess we'll just have to wait and see..




Just needed to take care of something. Can't taptaptap all day long without any irruption you know. I wish I can stay longer but gotta go. Be back asap.


ciao.




top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join