2 votes
Posted 19 August 2014 - 06:29 PM
OK so you can't answer the topics question but you sure do have enough knowledge to claim you know you can't know. You also know no one else can know! And, how do you know that ?
And you can't answer this question: Which of Earth's 1000+ past and present religions is the correct one? And if you think you CAN answer it, what puts you in that special position over people who believe other religions?
Posted 20 August 2014 - 12:22 AM
OK so you can't answer the topics question but you sure do have enough knowledge to claim you know you can't know. You also know no one else can know! And, how do you know that ?
And you can't answer this question: Which of Earth's 1000+ past and present religions is the correct one? And if you think you CAN answer it, what puts you in that special position over people who believe other religions?
There are only half a dozen religions which most of humanity believes. Christianity, Islam and Judaism along with parts of Hinduism are monotheistic. Parts of Buddhism is also. So monotheism is by far the dominant view representing over 90 % of humanity. Some few have been animists and some such as those who believed in pantheons of Gods such as the Greeks and Romans have long ago abandoned those human arch types because of there scandals and all to human behaviors. So there are less than a half dozen serious contenders. Of those most are monotheistic. How do you claim to know you can't know which one is the closest to the truth? Where did you get your knowledge from? I have started a number of topics concerning evidence for the various major contenders and even gave some arguments for deciding which one. See my discussion part two in Evidence for Christianity. I don't see you there defending or giving evidence.
Pluralism of any subject does not mean all viewpoints are wrong because I can't think of a subject that does not have many viewpoints. Join the real world. You and I disagree. We may both be wrong or one of us may be right. That we disagree is not the deciding factor as to truth. Do you claim to be special because you believe differently? No and it is a logical fallacy to accuse me of that either. It is a form of ad hominem attack which if true would find you also a target. So, I am a Christian because I am convinced it has the best evidence but this is off topic.
“Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could,” sings Maria in the Sound of Music. You have to agree.
Why does anything exist? Start with the concept of absolute nothingness – no space, no time, no matter, no energy – absolutely nothing. Now, again, why does anything exist? It is an unshakeable mystery. Observing and experimenting with what does exist – our universe – will never solve the mystery of why anything exists at all.
I am constantly amused by Atheist suggestions that the mystery has been solved. A typical “solution” is that the universe popped out of a “quantum fluctuation.” A recent pseudo-science article claims, based on invented theories that cannot be tested, that it was a “mathematical certainty” that our universe would arise. I say, quoting the great John McEnroe, “YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!”
What scientists call the “quantum field” is the foundation of our reality. It is a high energy field, and, as I explain in Chapter 14 of “Counting To God,” described by fantastically complex mathematics. It appears to consist of pure thought – ideas in the mind of God. Clearly the creation of the universe is connected to events at the quantum level – the subatomic level – of reality. But what caused the quantum field to exist? You can’t seriously just assume the existence of the quantum field. How does energy described only by mathematical patterns and equations pop out of absolute nothingness?
Yet, if your theology actually does boil down to “in the beginning was the quantum field,” I’m OK with that, and again smiling. That is a very interesting translation of the first sentence of the Book of John – “In the beginning was the word.” The original Greek for “word” here is “logos,” which can be translated as divine thought. John 1:1 claims God thought the universe into existence. The theology of “in the beginning was the quantum field” is strikingly similar to John 1:1, when you consider the overwhelming scientific evidence that the quantum field is pure thought (see again Chapter 14). You might say John 1:1 predicted quantum mechanics almost 2,000 years ago.
There is no Atheist solution to the unshakeable mystery of why anything exists. “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could.” Yet here we are. Why?
As for the so-called multiverse, we’ll look at that pseudo-science next week, in “Turtles All the Way Down.”
http://www.countingtogod.com/
http://www.amazon.co...h/dp/0963270168
http://www.evolution..._god086541.html
Posted 20 August 2014 - 12:09 PM
There is no Atheist solution to the unshakeable mystery of why anything exists. “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could.” Yet here we are. Why?
This is so by definition. "Why' implies a purpose, a purpose implies a subject/creator. Atheism denies this subject/creator by definition. So, your "dramatic assertion" that is supposed to be proof of something is in fact just a rewording of the definition. The drama you try to create is in fact your own inability and rebellion to accept the atheist position or at least reason from it.
There is nothing illogical in atheism not having an answer to "why", it's not supposed to. Asking it means you're can't infer/understand the position. So, stop bothering people with your lack of ability to infer positions, it points to a lack of vmPFC functionality, typical for narcissistic (and psychopathic) behavior.
Edited by addx, 20 August 2014 - 12:11 PM.
Posted 20 August 2014 - 02:37 PM
^^^^ Addx, exactly.
The topic "Why is there SOMETHING rather than NOTHING?" is not a relevant, meaningful, or useful question.
It only feeds the stomachs of people who in this day and age still believe in supernatural questions and answers.
Posted 20 August 2014 - 08:05 PM
There is no Atheist solution to the unshakeable mystery of why anything exists. “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could.” Yet here we are. Why?
This is so by definition. "Why' implies a purpose, a purpose implies a subject/creator. Atheism denies this subject/creator by definition. So, your "dramatic assertion" that is supposed to be proof of something is in fact just a rewording of the definition. The drama you try to create is in fact your own inability and rebellion to accept the atheist position or at least reason from it.
There is nothing illogical in atheism not having an answer to "why", it's not supposed to. Asking it means you're can't infer/understand the position. So, stop bothering people with your lack of ability to infer positions, it points to a lack of vmPFC functionality, typical for narcissistic (and psychopathic) behavior.
Well show me something that came from nothing. And I always love your playing shrink. 
Posted 20 August 2014 - 08:11 PM
^^^^ Addx, exactly.
The topic "Why is there SOMETHING rather than NOTHING?" is not a relevant, meaningful, or useful question.
It only feeds the stomachs of people who in this day and age still believe in supernatural questions and answers.
When you have no answer just call the question not relevant, meaningful or useful. I call such a response bankrupt. I do notice also you spend an awful lot of time trying to convince that such questions mean nothing. 
Posted 20 August 2014 - 10:00 PM
When you have no answer just call the question not relevant, meaningful or useful. I call such a response bankrupt. I do notice also you spend an awful lot of time trying to convince that such questions mean nothing.
Have you noticed how much time YOU spend here!? lol
Posted 20 August 2014 - 11:51 PM
When you have no answer just call the question not relevant, meaningful or useful. I call such a response bankrupt. I do notice also you spend an awful lot of time trying to convince that such questions mean nothing.
Have you noticed how much time YOU spend here!? lol
You are always here when I am here so you must know. How much?
Posted 21 August 2014 - 07:20 AM
There is no Atheist solution to the unshakeable mystery of why anything exists. “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could.” Yet here we are. Why?
This is so by definition. "Why' implies a purpose, a purpose implies a subject/creator. Atheism denies this subject/creator by definition. So, your "dramatic assertion" that is supposed to be proof of something is in fact just a rewording of the definition. The drama you try to create is in fact your own inability and rebellion to accept the atheist position or at least reason from it.
There is nothing illogical in atheism not having an answer to "why", it's not supposed to. Asking it means you're can't infer/understand the position. So, stop bothering people with your lack of ability to infer positions, it points to a lack of vmPFC functionality, typical for narcissistic (and psychopathic) behavior.
Well show me something that came from nothing. And I always love your playing shrink.
You claim you can't accept that something came from nothing and yet your God did in fact come from nothing and that's perfectly fine by you.
When you remove that double standard we can resume the discussion.
Edited by addx, 21 August 2014 - 07:21 AM.
Posted 21 August 2014 - 08:33 PM
The topic is not about God but everything physical is caused. God does not have a cause and is a necessary being but this is off topic here. God did not come from nothing or anything, God is eternal.
Edited by shadowhawk, 21 August 2014 - 08:36 PM.
Posted 22 August 2014 - 08:15 AM
The topic is not about God but everything physical is caused. God does not have a cause and is a necessary being but this is off topic here. God did not come from nothing or anything, God is eternal.
So, God CAN NOT be questioned what is the cause of him. (and so religion is allowed to define rules what can be questioned and what can not be questioned)
But the universe CAN be questioned what is the cause of it. (and so atheism is NOT allowed to define rules what can be questioned...)
--------
That's the sum of your argument across ALL your threads no matter how you divide and conquer the subject.
You think that since the universe can be seen it needs to answer for its existence. This is how you divide and conquer. A God can not be seen and therefore he does not need to answer questions about his existence. We do not experience God having any material/real effect in this universe and so no person has any material incentive/experience to make him truly wonder about God in the same way as you wonder about the universe.
And so here you are, claiming God exists as does the universe exist and yet God came into existence from nothing, but the universe could not have come from nothing. You simply claim that God is eternal, but refuse to allow atheism to claim the same of the universe. It's ridiculous, a child could understand the flawed double standard logic behind such reasoning.
Edited by addx, 22 August 2014 - 09:15 AM.
Posted 22 August 2014 - 10:44 AM
The topic is not about God but everything physical is caused. God does not have a cause and is a necessary being but this is off topic here. God did not come from nothing or anything, God is eternal.
Posted 22 August 2014 - 07:23 PM
The topic is not about God but everything physical is caused. God does not have a cause and is a necessary being but this is off topic here. God did not come from nothing or anything, God is eternal.
So, God CAN NOT be questioned what is the cause of him. (and so religion is allowed to define rules what can be questioned and what can not be questioned)
But the universe CAN be questioned what is the cause of it. (and so atheism is NOT allowed to define rules what can be questioned...)
--------
That's the sum of your argument across ALL your threads no matter how you divide and conquer the subject.
You think that since the universe can be seen it needs to answer for its existence. This is how you divide and conquer. A God can not be seen and therefore he does not need to answer questions about his existence. We do not experience God having any material/real effect in this universe and so no person has any material incentive/experience to make him truly wonder about God in the same way as you wonder about the universe.
And so here you are, claiming God exists as does the universe exist and yet God came into existence from nothing, but the universe could not have come from nothing. You simply claim that God is eternal, but refuse to allow atheism to claim the same of the universe. It's ridiculous, a child could understand the flawed double standard logic behind such reasoning.
So you want to talk about God rather than why there is something rather than nothing. Ok go ahead but I am going to stay on topic. Perhaps the material world can't explain itself and we need a creator. The entire universe is caused. It can't explain itself because of that. I hope a child could understand that.
Posted 22 August 2014 - 07:32 PM
The topic is not about God but everything physical is caused. God does not have a cause and is a necessary being but this is off topic here. God did not come from nothing or anything, God is eternal.
Of course the topic is God. You say in many threads that the topic is not God, then you go on to attribute qualities to God (eg, "God does not have a cause" -- how do you know? eg "[God] is a necessary being" -- how do you know? eg, "God did not come from nothing or anything" -- how do you know? Eg, "God is eternal" -- how do you know?)
If the topic isn't about God, then what is the topic about? If the topic isn't about God then why make declarative sentences about God as if you know something?
The topic is Why is there something rather than nothing? No matter what your answer the same questions you asked me can be asked of you. So we have to use as much knowledge as we have and answer the question with only incomplete knowledge. Such an answer is faith.
Posted 23 August 2014 - 07:15 AM
The topic is not about God but everything physical is caused. God does not have a cause and is a necessary being but this is off topic here. God did not come from nothing or anything, God is eternal.
So, God CAN NOT be questioned what is the cause of him. (and so religion is allowed to define rules what can be questioned and what can not be questioned)
But the universe CAN be questioned what is the cause of it. (and so atheism is NOT allowed to define rules what can be questioned...)
--------
That's the sum of your argument across ALL your threads no matter how you divide and conquer the subject.
You think that since the universe can be seen it needs to answer for its existence. This is how you divide and conquer. A God can not be seen and therefore he does not need to answer questions about his existence. We do not experience God having any material/real effect in this universe and so no person has any material incentive/experience to make him truly wonder about God in the same way as you wonder about the universe.
And so here you are, claiming God exists as does the universe exist and yet God came into existence from nothing, but the universe could not have come from nothing. You simply claim that God is eternal, but refuse to allow atheism to claim the same of the universe. It's ridiculous, a child could understand the flawed double standard logic behind such reasoning.
So you want to talk about God rather than why there is something rather than nothing. Ok go ahead but I am going to stay on topic. Perhaps the material world can't explain itself and we need a creator. The entire universe is caused. It can't explain itself because of that. I hope a child could understand that.
There is nothing to understand in your words. You're just asserting with no proof or argument. You've been told this over and over again.
The universe can not talk to you, can it? So when you require it to explain itself who in fact answers 'I can't explain'? Your own mind. That's where your issues begin and end.
Posted 23 August 2014 - 10:42 PM
The topic is not about God but everything physical is caused. God does not have a cause and is a necessary being but this is off topic here. God did not come from nothing or anything, God is eternal.
So, God CAN NOT be questioned what is the cause of him. (and so religion is allowed to define rules what can be questioned and what can not be questioned)
But the universe CAN be questioned what is the cause of it. (and so atheism is NOT allowed to define rules what can be questioned...)
--------
That's the sum of your argument across ALL your threads no matter how you divide and conquer the subject.
You think that since the universe can be seen it needs to answer for its existence. This is how you divide and conquer. A God can not be seen and therefore he does not need to answer questions about his existence. We do not experience God having any material/real effect in this universe and so no person has any material incentive/experience to make him truly wonder about God in the same way as you wonder about the universe.
And so here you are, claiming God exists as does the universe exist and yet God came into existence from nothing, but the universe could not have come from nothing. You simply claim that God is eternal, but refuse to allow atheism to claim the same of the universe. It's ridiculous, a child could understand the flawed double standard logic behind such reasoning.
So you want to talk about God rather than why there is something rather than nothing. Ok go ahead but I am going to stay on topic. Perhaps the material world can't explain itself and we need a creator. The entire universe is caused. It can't explain itself because of that. I hope a child could understand that.
There is nothing to understand in your words. You're just asserting with no proof or argument. You've been told this over and over again.
The universe can not talk to you, can it? So when you require it to explain itself who in fact answers 'I can't explain'? Your own mind. That's where your issues begin and end.
You are part of the universe and are made up of the universes eliments and you talk. Where did the talking come from? Well there is nothing in the physical universe which does not need a cause, so it does not cause itself. Perhaps this helps.
Posted 24 August 2014 - 05:19 PM
The topic is not about God but everything physical is caused. God does not have a cause and is a necessary being but this is off topic here. God did not come from nothing or anything, God is eternal.
So, God CAN NOT be questioned what is the cause of him. (and so religion is allowed to define rules what can be questioned and what can not be questioned)
But the universe CAN be questioned what is the cause of it. (and so atheism is NOT allowed to define rules what can be questioned...)
--------
That's the sum of your argument across ALL your threads no matter how you divide and conquer the subject.
You think that since the universe can be seen it needs to answer for its existence. This is how you divide and conquer. A God can not be seen and therefore he does not need to answer questions about his existence. We do not experience God having any material/real effect in this universe and so no person has any material incentive/experience to make him truly wonder about God in the same way as you wonder about the universe.
And so here you are, claiming God exists as does the universe exist and yet God came into existence from nothing, but the universe could not have come from nothing. You simply claim that God is eternal, but refuse to allow atheism to claim the same of the universe. It's ridiculous, a child could understand the flawed double standard logic behind such reasoning.
So you want to talk about God rather than why there is something rather than nothing. Ok go ahead but I am going to stay on topic. Perhaps the material world can't explain itself and we need a creator. The entire universe is caused. It can't explain itself because of that. I hope a child could understand that.
There is nothing to understand in your words. You're just asserting with no proof or argument. You've been told this over and over again.
The universe can not talk to you, can it? So when you require it to explain itself who in fact answers 'I can't explain'? Your own mind. That's where your issues begin and end.
You are part of the universe and are made up of the universes eliments and you talk. Where did the talking come from? Well there is nothing in the physical universe which does not need a cause, so it does not cause itself. Perhaps this helps.
That's just something you asserted with no reasoning behind it.
Who are you to say that something exists beyond the universe and who are you to say what requires a cause and what doesn't. I don't accept your asserting.
If God can be causeless so can the universe. If you simply claim God needs no cause so can I claim the universe needs no cause.
My claim defeats yours by occams razor. The universe we can observe, and when we do, we observe that energy can not be created from nothing or destroyed into nothing, therefore it existed since ever and will forever, for all we can see. God we can not observe or testify to any of his effects and since God doesn't really solve the problem of causelessness but merely deflects it, it is the more complex and thus more wrong solution, and as we already concluded - unobservable. So, your claim does not have anything going for it, in theory, or empirically.
YIELD!!!!
Edited by addx, 24 August 2014 - 05:51 PM.
Posted 25 August 2014 - 08:32 PM
You are right, you are not part of the universe. Your body is not made up of the elements of the universe. I have never heard you tald so the universe has no talking in it. Nonsense. 
Everything in the cosmos begin to exhist and needs a cause. If everything needs a cause you have either an infinite regress or a uncaused first cause. The universe is not causeless. You can’t just wish it that way because we have hard evidence.
Yes, energy cannot be created from nothing. All energy that we know of began to exist. God is by nature simple. The cosmos is complex. Therefore God is the simplest explanation and to be preferred.
Posted 26 August 2014 - 07:09 AM
Everything in the cosmos begin to exhist and needs a cause. If everything needs a cause you have either an infinite regress or a uncaused first cause. The universe is not causeless. You can’t just wish it that way because we have hard evidence.
No.
Everything in the cosmos existed since ever and will exist forever and so needs no cause (you should really use the word purpose since this is what you actually mean)
http://en.wikipedia....ation_of_energy
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed
Everything we see in the cosmos is energy.
Energy can neither be created or destroyed.
So, the universe could have not been created or destroyed since that is impossible with regards to known laws of physics. It was simply there since ever and it will be there forever in some form on another.
You want to discuss scientificaly? Well then, scientifically, this discussion is ended and your proposal rejected.
Edited by addx, 26 August 2014 - 07:09 AM.
Posted 26 August 2014 - 08:36 PM
shadowhawk, on 25 Aug 2014 - 1:32 PM, said:
Everything in the cosmos begin to exist and needs a cause. If everything needs a cause you have either an infinite regress or a uncaused first cause. The universe is not causeless. You can’t just wish it that way because we have hard evidence.
Addx replied:
No.
Everything in the cosmos existed since ever and will exist forever and so needs no cause (you should really use the word purpose since this is what you actually mean)
addx: Everything we see in the cosmos is energy.
Energy can neither be created or destroyed.
So, the universe could have not been created or destroyed since that is impossible with regards to known laws of physics. It was simply there since ever and it will be there forever in some form on another.
You want to discuss scientificaly? Well then, scientifically, this discussion is ended and your proposal rejected.
Posted 27 August 2014 - 07:35 AM
shadowhawk, on 25 Aug 2014 - 1:32 PM, said:
Everything in the cosmos begin to exist and needs a cause. If everything needs a cause you have either an infinite regress or a uncaused first cause. The universe is not causeless. You can’t just wish it that way because we have hard evidence.
Addx replied:
No.
Everything in the cosmos existed since ever and will exist forever and so needs no cause (you should really use the word purpose since this is what you actually mean)
I am sorry but “purpose,” in this context does not mean existence or begun. There was a time when everything we know of was the result of something else. In our reality things began. Everything in a cause and effect cosmos is caused. You were caused by your parents and did not exist forever. Everything that begun to exist has a cause. You began to exist and so on. However, as has been shown, it cannot be an infinite regress.
addx: Everything we see in the cosmos is energy.
Energy can neither be created or destroyed.
So, the universe could have not been created or destroyed since that is impossible with regards to known laws of physics. It was simply there since ever and it will be there forever in some form on another.
You want to discuss scientificaly? Well then, scientifically, this discussion is ended and your proposal rejected.
Not so fast.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the universe is running down just like a wind up clock. There will be no more available energy to do anything and the cosmos will suffer a heat death. Something had to wind the clock up in the first place and it could not have been the clock. It has been discovered by astronomy that all the distant stars exhibit a red shift showing that the stars are rapidly moving away from each other. It has also been discovered that the speed is increasing due to the effect of gravity becoming weaker with distance. The red shift has convinced us of the Big Bang. At one time it started at a singularity.
Energy alone does nothing. Something else acting on it causes it to behave in certain ways and that something is not material.
.
Gravitational systems[edit]
In non-gravitational systems, objects always have positive heat capacity, meaning that the temperature rises with energy. Therefore, when energy flows from a high-temperature object to a low-temperature object, the source temperature is decreased while the sink temperature is increased; hence temperature differences tend to diminish over time.
However, this is not always the case for systems in which the gravitational force is important. The most striking examples are black holes, which – according to theory – have negative heat capacity. The larger the black hole, the more energy it contains, but the lower its temperature. Thus, the supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way is supposed to have a temperature of 10−14 K, much lower than the cosmic microwave background temperature of 2.7K, but as it absorbs photons of the cosmic microwave background its mass is increasing so that its low temperature further decreases with time.
For this reason, gravitational systems tend towards non-even distribution of mass and energy. The universe in large scale is importantly a gravitational system, and the second law may therefore not apply to it.
Posted 27 August 2014 - 09:22 AM
The topic is not about God but everything physical is caused. God does not have a cause and is a necessary being but this is off topic here. God did not come from nothing or anything, God is eternal.
Wait, did you just describe the universe and call it "god"?
Posted 27 August 2014 - 06:36 PM
The topic is not about God but everything physical is caused. God does not have a cause and is a necessary being but this is off topic here. God did not come from nothing or anything, God is eternal.
Wait, did you just describe the universe and call it "god"?
No, read it again.
Posted 27 August 2014 - 06:43 PM
shadowhawk, on 25 Aug 2014 - 1:32 PM, said:
Everything in the cosmos begin to exist and needs a cause. If everything needs a cause you have either an infinite regress or a uncaused first cause. The universe is not causeless. You can’t just wish it that way because we have hard evidence.
Addx replied:
No.
Everything in the cosmos existed since ever and will exist forever and so needs no cause (you should really use the word purpose since this is what you actually mean)
I am sorry but “purpose,” in this context does not mean existence or begun. There was a time when everything we know of was the result of something else. In our reality things began. Everything in a cause and effect cosmos is caused. You were caused by your parents and did not exist forever. Everything that begun to exist has a cause. You began to exist and so on. However, as has been shown, it cannot be an infinite regress.
You're just talking nonsense that doesn't even sound coherent any more.
I, myself, am energy organized into a pattern. This pattern of energy formed 32 years ago. But the energy my pattern consists of existed since ever and will forever in some other pattern or simply as energy.
addx: Everything we see in the cosmos is energy.
Energy can neither be created or destroyed.
So, the universe could have not been created or destroyed since that is impossible with regards to known laws of physics. It was simply there since ever and it will be there forever in some form on another.
You want to discuss scientificaly? Well then, scientifically, this discussion is ended and your proposal rejected.
Not so fast.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the universe is running down just like a wind up clock. There will be no more available energy to do anything and the cosmos will suffer a heat death. Something had to wind the clock up in the first place and it could not have been the clock. It has been discovered by astronomy that all the distant stars exhibit a red shift showing that the stars are rapidly moving away from each other. It has also been discovered that the speed is increasing due to the effect of gravity becoming weaker with distance. The red shift has convinced us of the Big Bang. At one time it started at a singularity.
Energy alone does nothing. Something else acting on it causes it to behave in certain ways and that something is not material.
.
Why don't you really research the subject once for a change, seriously?
If you just read the wiki page about the second law you would have stumbled onto this:Gravitational systems[edit]
In non-gravitational systems, objects always have positive heat capacity, meaning that the temperature rises with energy. Therefore, when energy flows from a high-temperature object to a low-temperature object, the source temperature is decreased while the sink temperature is increased; hence temperature differences tend to diminish over time.
However, this is not always the case for systems in which the gravitational force is important. The most striking examples are black holes, which – according to theory – have negative heat capacity. The larger the black hole, the more energy it contains, but the lower its temperature. Thus, the supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way is supposed to have a temperature of 10−14 K, much lower than the cosmic microwave background temperature of 2.7K, but as it absorbs photons of the cosmic microwave background its mass is increasing so that its low temperature further decreases with time.
For this reason, gravitational systems tend towards non-even distribution of mass and energy. The universe in large scale is importantly a gravitational system, and the second law may therefore not apply to it.So, your faith is that energy has always been here and is self organizing. Kind of like a tornado hitting a junk yard and producing a jet plane?
Posted 28 August 2014 - 06:25 AM
addx: Everything we see in the cosmos is energy.
Energy can neither be created or destroyed.
So, the universe could have not been created or destroyed since that is impossible with regards to known laws of physics. It was simply there since ever and it will be there forever in some form on another.
You want to discuss scientificaly? Well then, scientifically, this discussion is ended and your proposal rejected.
Not so fast.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the universe is running down just like a wind up clock. There will be no more available energy to do anything and the cosmos will suffer a heat death. Something had to wind the clock up in the first place and it could not have been the clock. It has been discovered by astronomy that all the distant stars exhibit a red shift showing that the stars are rapidly moving away from each other. It has also been discovered that the speed is increasing due to the effect of gravity becoming weaker with distance. The red shift has convinced us of the Big Bang. At one time it started at a singularity.
Energy alone does nothing. Something else acting on it causes it to behave in certain ways and that something is not material.
.
Gravitational systems[edit]
In non-gravitational systems, objects always have positive heat capacity, meaning that the temperature rises with energy. Therefore, when energy flows from a high-temperature object to a low-temperature object, the source temperature is decreased while the sink temperature is increased; hence temperature differences tend to diminish over time.
However, this is not always the case for systems in which the gravitational force is important. The most striking examples are black holes, which – according to theory – have negative heat capacity. The larger the black hole, the more energy it contains, but the lower its temperature. Thus, the supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way is supposed to have a temperature of 10−14 K, much lower than the cosmic microwave background temperature of 2.7K, but as it absorbs photons of the cosmic microwave background its mass is increasing so that its low temperature further decreases with time.
For this reason, gravitational systems tend towards non-even distribution of mass and energy. The universe in large scale is importantly a gravitational system, and the second law may therefore not apply to it.
Posted 28 August 2014 - 07:15 AM
So, your faith is that energy has always been here and is self organizing. Kind of like a tornado hitting a junk yard and producing a jet plane?
Posted 28 August 2014 - 07:16 PM
Everything that begun to exist has a cause.
The cosmos began to exist
Therefore the Cosmos has a cause
The ultimate cause cannot be caused. otherwise we have an infinite regress which is impossible as I have noted elsewhere. If the past was infinite we could never get to here. Science puts the start at the big bang. All you guys have is your eternal name calling
Edited by shadowhawk, 28 August 2014 - 07:19 PM.
Posted 29 August 2014 - 06:45 AM
Everything that begun to exist has a cause.
The cosmos began to exist
Therefore the Cosmos has a cause
The ultimate cause cannot be caused. otherwise we have an infinite regress which is impossible as I have noted elsewhere. If the past was infinite we could never get to here. Science puts the start at the big bang. All you guys have is your eternal name calling
So, your faith is that energy has always been here and is self organizing. Kind of like a tornado hitting a junk yard and producing a jet plane?
Edited by addx, 29 August 2014 - 06:46 AM.
Posted 29 August 2014 - 06:21 PM
SO YOU DO HAVE A FAITH! However I am not trying to make you look "stupid." Where do you get that? You are calling yourself names like you usually do me. Then you claim I am calling You stupid. Hnnnnnn. 
This topic can't be answered without faith but then faith is part of most things we do..
Science & Health →
Brain Health →
Mild brainfog and short term anxiety after eating - help me to solve this mysteryStarted by Grandmaster , 01 Sep 2018  brainfog, eating, anxiety and 1 more...
|
|
|
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: ImmInst.org
