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: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

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.


You have yet to answer my question. I've only posted it a half dozen times in this thread, so I trust that you will locate it and respond appropriately when you have the time.




posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2
A belief in evolutionary theory has nothing to do with thermodynamic principles, so I don't see what that has to do with anything.

Perhaps I should have stated: Your misunderstanding of the videos, which you post as evidence, strengthen the false analogy your premise rests in. Simply, your continued use of "disorder" and conflating that with all systems regress. Once again, please read this quote from my previous post:


In 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.)


So while the classical definition states "disorder", "disorder" simply meant a change in the original order of the system. It doesn't mean that all things regress to chaos. Due the the misleading nature of the term and the wide misuse by those that present the false analogy (you), modern texts are not even using that word. Your whole premise rests on this false analogy, therefore any conclusions you reach are false when trying to conflate this concept with other branches of science (i.e. NOT statistical mechanics).


Data (/ˈdeɪtə/ day-tə or /ˈdætə/ da-tə, also /ˈdɑːtə/ dah-tə), are tokens that can be interpreted as some kind of value, usually either as a quantitative measurement of, or a qualitative fact about some thing. Data are manipulated either as values or variables by encoding them into information. Data which are derived through reason or which are employed in the course of behaving, are collectively called knowledge.

As for your claim that you provided "data" . . . you did nothing of the sort. Your "logic" is nothing of the sort and flawed from the jump, furthermore your posts are completely void of statistical data. What you have provided is "knowledge" based on a personal bias toward theism and sweeping assertions based on a misunderstanding of what entropy is.

In thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of the number of specific ways in which a thermodynamic system may be arranged, commonly understood as a measure of disorder.

Again, disorder meaning a change in the original order, not everything regresses to chaos.

Why would statistical data be needed when "proving" the supernatural through entropy?

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.


So . . . if your assertion is that thermodynamics (though a misunderstanding of entropy) is "proof" of your creator god, then where is this "proof"? As entropy is quantitative and must be defined and measured through equation, where is the equation you used for your "proof"? Where is the data that shows the level of entropy in the universe can only be defined by use of a supernatural entity? What are the characteristics of this creator god that regulate the current entropy statistics of this universe? Also, what time scale are you using? How does the statistical data that shows the universe is moving toward equilibrium account for your assertion that only a creator god could have been responsible for creation?

As for your "logic", I fail to see any. Again, I see nothing but argument from ignorance and assertion. Quantitative principals require quantities or else quantitative data, which you provide none of despite asserting "proof".

Once again:

Strictly speaking, entropy is the logarithm of the multiplicity of states, or the degree of dispersion of energy in a system. It is expressed by the equation Entropy = kB lnΩ, where kB is Boltzmann's constant and Ω is the multiplicity of the states.
A more commonly given definition is "degree of disorder in the system," and hence the Second Law of Thermodynamics is often explained as "systems become increasingly disordered." From the definition above, this is equivalent to saying that a system will tend to transition from less probable to more probable sets of states. For example, given any five playing cards, one is far less likely to have something "ordered", like a winning poker hand, than a disordered, seemingly random hand. So even though all hands are equally likely, one subset of hands may be more likely than another.
Actually entropy is a little more abstract and the second law of thermodynamics implies that the universe will always become increasingly uniform; that is, heat (transfer of energy in a way other than work) will spread until the entire universe has the same temperature and energy level (between systems in thermal contact, heat always transfers from the system at a higher temperature to the one at a lower temperature until balance is achieved), and forces will continue to work until a universal balance has been achieved.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: tsingtao
i don't get how people can think God was created.

how would He be God if He was?

the universe and everything in it is His creation. plus everything else we don't actually know about,
on this plane of existence.

infinity makes time and space a moot point if one is infinite.

it's also not conceivable for the finite.

interesting thread, s&f.


How can God come from nothing if the universe can't? And please don't say "Because he's God!"

Also, according to what instruction manual are creators prohibited from being created? Where does it say that God cannot have a father? Other than the Bible, I mean.


something had to be alpha and why do i have to explain the explanation?

most people agree that the universe was created, right? by whatever method.

until science can unconditionally refute God created anything and make itself a universe with life, i'll stick with God did it.

but then, that would still have a creator, wouldn't it?

don't tell me it's impossible at this point in time. it will always be impossible.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   

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


But if we say that it is finite then it follows that it must have a boundary, which means that someday the expanding universe will hit this "wall".

But this is not logical because if we say that it has a "wall", what then is behind the wall or boundary?

Another space?


What is behind God? Another god? You still haven't explained that one to us.


there is only God. no other daddy/mommy god, no grandma/granddad god either.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: solomons path

The OP has a very serious problem with science. The original post claimed to advocate a "logical" conversation. However, the OP is the most illogical one here.

The Second Law is about heat transfer - that's it. The notion of "infinity" as "nothingness" is ridiculous. There's no proof, no evidence, only the OP's opinion - unfortunately founded in mystical images of some god that he can't prove exists.

I still think, however, that a god who was really a Carnot engine would be interesting. Come to think of it, maybe the god is a perpetual motion machine!

www.lhup.edu...


edit on 11-6-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 12:50 AM
link   
In terms of understanding our existence, physics has left pure ontology so far behind that reading such nonsense is like listening to children's playground chatter.

What the OP is doing is the same as concluding that water finds itself designed specifically to fit in a glass.
The universe is not fine tuned for us but rather we are fine tuned by billions of years of evolution to survive this tiny, tiny speck of dust we find ourselves on.
The overwhelmingly vastness of the universe is so inhospitable to life it's absurd to believe it was designed for us alone.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: solomons path

The OP has a very serious problem with science. The original post claimed to advocate a "logical" conversation. However, the OP is the most illogical one here.

The Second Law is about heat transfer - that's it. The notion of "infinity" as "nothingness" is ridiculous. There's no proof, no evidence, only the OP's opinion - unfortunately founded in mystical images of some god that he can't prove exists.

I still think, however, that a god who was really a Carnot engine would be interesting. Come to think of it, maybe the god is a perpetual motion machine!

www.lhup.edu...



A perpetual motion machine god . . . Huh. I can just imagine this eternal PM god cruising around the emptiness of space expelling bubbles of matter that explode in the vacuum of space . . . bursting into new universes. Gives the Multiverse hypothesis a much different angle!!

I guess this god would be a mechanized version of Nibbler from Futurama? Excreting dark matter to fuel creation?

Nibbler is a biped, about a foot tall, with black fur, long arms, stubby legs, and a proportionally large head. He has two large eyes embedded in his skull and a small third eye on the end of a stalk that protrudes from the top of his head and only one nostril on his nose.. He has large fangs and a surprisingly wide mouth, making him capable of eating any creature regardless of its size. He excretes small but super-dense round pellets of dark matter, though he is light enough for humans to easily pick up.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: solomons path

The OP has a very serious problem with science. The original post claimed to advocate a "logical" conversation. However, the OP is the most illogical one here.

The Second Law is about heat transfer - that's it. The notion of "infinity" as "nothingness" is ridiculous. There's no proof, no evidence, only the OP's opinion - unfortunately founded in mystical images of some god that he can't prove exists.

I still think, however, that a god who was really a Carnot engine would be interesting. Come to think of it, maybe the god is a perpetual motion machine!

www.lhup.edu...



Seriously??

"The OP has a very serious problem with science."

"The Second Law is about heat transfer - that's it."

That's funny because that's part of what I've been saying.

Here let me say it again.

from the op:

That is, that Organization (source) MUST precede Disorganization/Degradation.

Whether entropy is in equilibrium or not, large or not, it's not 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.

As for infinity being a nothingness, I see you haven't put much thought into this nor understood what I said.

That is if you believe that there's no God and that there's no such thing as INFINITE SPACE then what are you left with?

??????......?????? come on, what are you left with?

come on don't be shy,

if you believe that there's no God and that there's no such thing as INFINITE SPACE then what are you left with?







posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2
And . . . you still don't seem to understand it's not about "order" or "disorder" . . . disorder simply means a change from the original. . . . not, "disorder" as in opposition to "order".

Your ignorance is leading to argue something that in no way resembles thermodynamic principles.

See my above explanation of the term "disorder".



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: edmc^2
And . . . you still don't seem to understand it's not about "order" or "disorder" . . . disorder simply means a change from the original. . . . not, "disorder" as in opposition to "order".

Your ignorance is leading to argue something that in no way resembles thermodynamic principles.

See my above explanation of the term "disorder".


It's the same thing!

I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm just using the laymans terminology to keep it simple as I can.

Here, let me show you:

An engine - as long as it's running (HOT) it's in a state of ORDER because it's functioning according to its ORDERLY design - it's creating heat thereby propelling the vehicle. But as soon as the heat dies down, winds down, breaks down, however you say it - it comes into a state of disorder - COLD! Dead cold - equilibrium.

It's the natural state of things.



Hence from ORDER to DISORDER - HOT to COLD.

The same principle applies to the universe - Stars are born then die, not the other way around. And once that star dies there's no getting it back because it came to a state of disorder. It went from HOT to COLD - equilibrium.

Fortunately, the universe produces more of these, so it goes over and over again until all "energy" in the universe is "spent".

These were explained quite clearly in the vids you know.

But to make you happy, I'll just say "ENTROPY - CHANGE FROM THE ORIGINAL".

Hmm sound like evolution - change from the original. Form the lowest form to a complex form.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish
In terms of understanding our existence, physics has left pure ontology so far behind that reading such nonsense is like listening to children's playground chatter.

What the OP is doing is the same as concluding that water finds itself designed specifically to fit in a glass.
The universe is not fine tuned for us but rather we are fine tuned by billions of years of evolution to survive this tiny, tiny speck of dust we find ourselves on.
The overwhelmingly vastness of the universe is so inhospitable to life it's absurd to believe it was designed for us alone.


Funny, I don't even remember saying the universe "was designed for us alone."

Where did you get this?

As for fine tuning - whether the universe is or us is fine tuned, what difference does it make?

It goes both ways isn't it?

Works the same, but really, what does the following fundamental forces for if not for the FINE TUNING of the universe.

ELECTROMAGNETISM
STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE
GRAVITY
WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE

As for water designed for glass, why limit it there?

Good for pretty much everything - even in its different state.

Liquid to solid to gas...

Heck, without it there will be no life here on earth.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2
Your analogy and the comparison to the universe is a poor example and is not what thermodynamic laws state.

You seem to not be aware that the 2nd law has several aspects to it (heat wasted in conversion, heat will travel from higher to lower value, heat sink, and entropy) and you want to combine them all and call it entropy. In an internal combustion engine, entropy only plays a part in the energy available for work. Entropy, in an internal combustion engine, is only present in between the fuel injection and the carburetor. Basically, the fuel and air have a greater availability for work before the engine starts and once the engine starts the two begin to mix (disorder). As it runs, it becomes more and more mixed (further disorder). Mixtures do not "unmix" on their own . . . this is the measure of entropy in an engine.

It has nothing to do with "orderly design" . . . once again, you simply are not grasping your misunderstanding of the principle.

In the universe, it's about the "heat" of the universe working toward an equilibrium. (read: equal temperature across the cosmos = disorder). That's all . . .

So . . . no . . . it doesn't sound like evolution at all. Moreover, you are still arguing using a false analogy.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ProfessorPlum
So the claim that "nothing created the universe" is illogical, but pushing the question back one more step and claiming "God created the universe, but nothing created God" is logical?

Checkmate. You win.



Atemporality creates paradoxes that answer such questions. Would God be limited by time?



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Toadmund
Science can't explain it, god must've done it!
There's the answer.

+1 for religious folk!


Science can't explain it, but because God must have done it, it is knowable and reasonable, so science should try and make sense of it.

If you assume if "fell out of randomness" somehow, then science will never be able to make sense of it.

+2 for religious folk, +1 for science.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 02:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: scojak

originally posted by: edmc^2
God IS the ONLY logical explanation to existence of the highly organized Universe!

Your turn...


Your argument falls apart immediately when you ask where God came from. Your theory says that the universe can't be created from nothing, but then again, neither can God. Each is as likely to have sparked out of nothingness as the other so you're comparing apples to apples but saying there's a difference.

No matter how far back you go in the process of asking where existence came from, the only logical answer is that there was nothing, and then there was existence. God couldn't have created himself, and even if he did, he would still have to have come from nothing which goes against what you are saying.

I'm not saying this has to be the way it played out, but it's the only logical answer, and that seems to be what you are looking for.


Not bounded by time = not limited by what you experience and know.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
I think the existance of God is painfully obvious. Nothing can be created or destroyed, but simply reformatted. What does that mean? God formed the universe from His own power. It was created by Him, from Him. God is in all things.


Really??? I have to disagree with that. If God was so painfully obvious why is he simply not at least visible??? After all, keeping everything else the same and just adding that one single feature for everyone to see him visually would then at least help in making your statement true. In fact, it could be any one of our 5 senses, not just sight and have the same effect. However, it is clear that God's existence is hidden from our senses. While some clearly make the claim that "they have witnessed God" that is only an individuals claim with zero evidence for anyone else making it useless.


We exist because God created us. If one cannot arrive to that understanding independantly, then they will never be ready to learn about who God is.

Atheism is total willful ignorance. Agnosticism is slighly more respectable. God creates, and God reveals Himself to all who seek.


This is just your own personal bias toward your own belief and against just two other options. There are also many other Religious Systems with different Gods or no Gods at all all saying the same as you are. They all have their reasons and ideas all of which also have little or no actual evidence other than Faith.

Anything that is reliant on Faith is not Painfully Obvious.


Really, the 'if I can't directly sense it, it doesn't exist' argument is a fairly weak refutation!



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: solomons path


A belief in evolutionary theory has nothing to do with thermodynamic principles, so I don't see what that has to do with anything.


Correct because it violates it.

As for this:


So . . . if your assertion is that thermodynamics (though a misunderstanding of entropy) is "proof" of your creator god, then where is this "proof"? ...


I like this guys explanation and logic:


Zoologist Edward Luther Kessel --

“The law of entropy states that there is a continuous flow of heat from warmer to colder bodies, and that this flow cannot be reversed to pass spontaneously in the opposite direction. Entropy is the ratio of unavailable to available energy, so that it may be said that the entropy of the universe is always increasing. Therefore the universe is headed for a time when the temperature will be universally uniform and there will be no more useful energy. Consequently there will be no more chemical and physical processes, and life itself will cease to exist. But because life is still going on, and chemical and physical processes are still in progress, it is evident that our universe could not have existed from eternity, else it would have long since run out of useful energy and ground to a halt. Therefore, quite unintentionally, science proves that our universe had a beginning. And in so doing it proves the reality of God, for whatever had a beginning did not begin of itself but demands a Prime Mover, a Creator, a God.”


In other words, an orderly system (such as the universe) cannot come on its own! Unless of course you believe that it can. If so how do you you explain it logically?

Now if you demand data based on mathematical calculations - how do you calculate infinity?

Why even the brightest minds of astrophysics are at a lost - so how do you calculate infinity if it has no dimension to begin with?

May I present Dr. Kaku:




posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 03:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

Really, the 'if I can't directly sense it, it doesn't exist' argument is a fairly weak refutation!



Well, that is a major simplification of what I was saying but, is it really???

God can create everything, all space, time, life, etc. He is everywhere in time and space always, knows all time and space always and so on and so on. Yet he won't show himself even just every once and while or something, like that is so much to ask right???

Even an Slum Lord checks in once a month to collect the rent. Even a Deadbeat Dad seeks out their kid a handful of times during the coarse of their lives. Yet it's asking to much for us to see Him now and then, how do you figure??? I mean he's already everywhere right, so what's the problem???
edit on 12-6-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: edmc^2
Your analogy and the comparison to the universe is a poor example and is not what thermodynamic laws state.

You seem to not be aware that the 2nd law has several aspects to it (heat wasted in conversion, heat will travel from higher to lower value, heat sink, and entropy) and you want to combine them all and call it entropy. In an internal combustion engine, entropy only plays a part in the energy available for work. Entropy, in an internal combustion engine, is only present in between the fuel injection and the carburetor. Basically, the fuel and air have a greater availability for work before the engine starts and once the engine starts the two begin to mix (disorder). As it runs, it becomes more and more mixed (further disorder). Mixtures do not "unmix" on their own . . . this is the measure of entropy in an engine.

It has nothing to do with "orderly design" . . . once again, you simply are not grasping your misunderstanding of the principle.

In the universe, it's about the "heat" of the universe working toward an equilibrium. (read: equal temperature across the cosmos = disorder). That's all . . .

...


Of course it does. But the thing is I'm looking at the entire picture while you on the other hand are looking at the delta of change in every part of the picture.


edit on 12-6-2014 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2
Well . . . I see you are stuck in a perpetual loop of special pleading . . . so, I don't see a point in responding to you past this post. As flyingfish mentioned above . . . it hurts the head.

Nothing about Modern Evolutionary Synthesis violates the laws of thermodynamics . . . life is an open system . . . not isolated, which is the only thing the laws of thermodynamics apply to.

As far as the quote from the zoologist . . . it means absolutely nothing. That is called assertion.

as·ser·tion [uh-sur-shuhn]
noun
1.
a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: a mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion.


Science "proves" nothing of the sort. And, there is no "law of entropy" . . . entropy is a facet of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and information theory . . . it is not a law unto itself. In fact, he was right on target until the "therefore", when he simply employed a god of the gaps argument (another logical fallacy). He simply substituted "we don't know what the catalyst for the creation of the universe was" with "god did it". It's about as illogical as your posts on this subject, which you claim to demonstrate "logic" . . .

And . . . once more . . . infinity is confusing the issue. The notion of infinity isn't directly related to thermodynamics or "proof" of the supernatural. Simply more special pleading based on a complete misunderstanding of scientific principles.

Enjoy your ostrich hunt . . .



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join