Question for those who are willing to ponder the possibility that we and the universe were created

a reply to: cooperton

Where in the first law does it say something can or can't come from nothing?

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Where in the first law does it say something can or can't come from nothing?

"The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed."

a reply to: cooperton
So that energy is constantly changing it's appearance.

One energy appearing as everything?

a reply to: cooperton


And it says absolutely nothing about something coming from nothing or going to nothing.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: cooperton
So that energy is constantly changing it's appearance.

One energy appearing as everything?

That's what it seems yes. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, it is the same universal energy changing in form.

If you consider a fractal universe, the quantity of energy could asymptotically go on forever.. and thus be the enduring development of mental energies into higher fields.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


And it says absolutely nothing about something coming from nothing or going to nothing.

Yes it does. That's what it means to destroy energy; to make it non-existent.

a reply to: cooperton
What could destroy energy....if there's only energy?

a reply to: cooperton

Wrong.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


And it says absolutely nothing about something coming from nothing or going to nothing.

Yes it does. That's what it means to destroy energy; to make it non-existent.

First Law of Thermodynamics
QUESTION: What is the First Law of Thermodynamics?

ANSWER:

In its simplest form, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. The amount of energy in the universe is constant – energy can be changed, moved, controlled, stored, or dissipated. However, this energy cannot be created from nothing or reduced to nothing. Every natural process transforms energy and moves energy, but cannot create or eliminate it.This principle forms a foundation for many of the physical sciences.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: cooperton
What could destroy energy....if there's only energy?

Yeah our own physical laws insist on a state of perpetuity for energetic states. Our bodies and our minds are textbook energetic systems. I am excited to see where the continuation of this conscious journey will take us

originally posted by: Phantom423
ANSWER:

In its simplest form, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. The amount of energy in the universe is constant – energy can be changed, moved, controlled, stored, or dissipated. However, this energy cannot be created from nothing or reduced to nothing. Every natural process transforms energy and moves energy, but cannot create or eliminate it.This principle forms a foundation for many of the physical sciences.

Lol the bold portion of the text you just quoted has been, and still is, exactly the point I have been expressing. Thanks for the confirmation👍

a reply to: cooperton


“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

― Abraham Lincoln

Flat on your face per usual.

a reply to: whereislogic

Where is the logic? You equivocate "willing to consider a possibility" with "fact/certainty." There is a big difference between acknowledging possibilities and claiming they are factual.

Intelligent design goes right out the window when talking about that because the universe is so vast. Even if the chances of the conditions on earth coming together the way they did are 1 in a billion, that's still inevitable to happen many times.

The only facts to consider here are that nobody knows the origin of the universe and assigning feel good positions to that is not a logical argument, nor is it to try to claim the earth is set up just right and to state this can't happen naturally yet ignoring the rest of the universe. If we were the only star system in the universe, then you might have a point, but there are trillions and it's not that crazy for a planet to end up the way it is.

Also we adapted to the universe /earth, not the other way around. A planet / universe in a different configuration could lead to a different type of life. We simply don't know at this point, so your assumptions about design are dismissed. You cherry pick your data and selectively apply it ignoring the bigger scope.

originally posted by: Toothache

Intelligent design goes right out the window when talking about that because the universe is so vast. Even if the chances of the conditions on earth coming together the way they did are 1 in a billion, that's still inevitable to happen many times.

Do you think it's possible, for example, for a Ford Truck to come into existence by random chance?

a reply to: cooperton

A truck of any producer is a manufactured machine. It is built for a purpose and a need.

A lifeform is organic and therefore evolved and diversified.

There is absolutely no correlation between the two. Unless you believe that your god invented you specifically to praise and worship it. But in that case, what does it say about your god - and you?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Toothache

Intelligent design goes right out the window when talking about that because the universe is so vast. Even if the chances of the conditions on earth coming together the way they did are 1 in a billion, that's still inevitable to happen many times.

Do you think it's possible, for example, for a Ford Truck to come into existence by random chance?

Do you think it's possible to not use a straw man? Chance is a probability, not an explanation and things don't just come into existence.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

A truck of any producer is a manufactured machine. It is built for a purpose and a need.

A lifeform is organic and therefore evolved and diversified.

There is absolutely no correlation between the two. Unless you believe that your god invented you specifically to praise and worship it. But in that case, what does it say about your god - and you?

Lol no similarities between a car and a human?

both run on combustion engines. Glycolysis in humans combusts organic compounds to generate energy and also translocate electricity to an electrochemical gradient in the mitochondria, just like with a car battery.

Humans require far more intelligence to be made though. We are capable of rational thought, self-awareness, emotions, self-healing, able to reproduce, and so on. So a car requires intelligent input, and humans require more.

a reply to: cooperton

Humans are not assembled using parts. Analogy fail.

originally posted by: Toothache
a reply to: cooperton

Humans are not assembled using parts. Analogy fail.

Monomeric units are polymerized to form components of cells from the coding in our DNA. These cells then aggregate together in a way to form the shapes of tissues specified for various regions of the body. the cells that are localized in particular regions specialize to form a function that is unique to that portion of the body. These masses of specialized cells form tissues, which aggregated together form organs, which are interconnected to other parts of the body through various nerves and vessels.

The development of a human is still far from being understood, despite many textbooks being written on the process.. it involves long intricate biochemical cascades mixed with electromagnetic cues that allow these parts to take shape in a way that gives rise to a sentient human being.

The component parts of biological organisms are far more numerous and precise than what is exhibited in a truck

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: cooperton


We've never been to another galaxy, or even another solar system for that matter, so we don't really even know for sure what they are. Even so, why would an astronomic expanse of lights that perpetuate in a clockwork-like motion disprove God?

It raises the question of why he went to all the trouble to create trillions of stars when all he needed/wanted was one (and one planet)

Assuming a creator God exists then either he had to make an awful lot of worlds before he finally got it right, or Earth is simply of no more importance to him than anywhere else in the universe.

it would be a little too obvious wouldn't it?

besides, to what would we aspire? we're not exactly in the garden of eden. or are we?

a reply to: cooperton

Your simile doesn't work at all.

You conveniently left out my proposition. If you were created it would have to be for a function, since all created/designed objects have a purpose. The only function you could serve a deity is to worship it. Therefore, your life is worthless to humanity.