|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted November 11, 2009 11:51 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 23:54, 11 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
Still waiting for the name of an astrophysicist or cosmologist who says that the big bang theory is flawed due to the laws of thermodynamics, and that the same laws support God as the scientific origin of the universe.
...waiting....
...waiting....
...waiting....
...waiting....
You seem to have a reading problem or a lying problem. Show me where I said the Big Bang theory is flawed.
To requote the astrophysicist Davies, "But if the phenomenon is all of existence the entire physical universe then clearly there is nothing physical outside the universe (by definition) to explain it. So any explanation must be in terms of something non-physical and supernatural. That something is god."
Something can't pop into existence from absolutely nothing without a cause, as you admitted previously. All you can say is "I don't know how matter and entery came to be but it is not God because God does not exist." More power to ya for your mighty faith bro.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 12:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
To requote the astrophysicist Davies, "But if the phenomenon is all of existence the entire physical universe then clearly there is nothing physical outside the universe (by definition) to explain it. So any explanation must be in terms of something non-physical and supernatural. That something is god."
Hmmm, I'm having trouble finding anything about thermodynamics in that quote. Could you help me out?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 01:40 AM |
|
|
Sorry but what's the point in finding quotes from scientists whose quotes/beliefs/dilemmas will be anyway not valid in a few years?
I mean hundreds of years ago the equivalent of modern astrophysicists considered 100% of natural phenomenon are due to an exterior absolute power, God. Today almost all of those theories were proved wrong. Once you prove God is for nothing in 1 phenomenon, then all he could be involved in lose credibility and the whole belief thing becomes suspicious.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 02:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
To requote the astrophysicist Davies, "But if the phenomenon is all of existence the entire physical universe then clearly there is nothing physical outside the universe (by definition) to explain it. So any explanation must be in terms of something non-physical and supernatural. That something is god."
Hmmm, I'm having trouble finding anything about thermodynamics in that quote. Could you help me out?
Paul Davies (Professor of Theoretical Physics & author): “Every thing and every event in the physical universe must depend for its explanation on something outside itself. When a phenomenon is explained, it is explained in terms of something else. But if the phenomenon is all of existence the entire physical universe then clearly there is nothing physical outside the universe (by definition) to explain it. So any explanation must be in terms of something non-physical and supernatural. That something is god. The universe is the way it is because God has chosen it to be that way. Science, which by definition deals only with the physical universe, might successfully explain one thing in terms of another, and that in terms of another and so on, but the totality of physical things demands an explanation from without."
Are you really pleading ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics?
The First Law of Thermodynamics says that matter or its energy equivalent can neither be created nor destroyed under natural circumstances. Neither you nor I can create matter or enery. Matter can't create itself. Energy can't create itself. And nothingness certainly can't create matter or energy either.
That is the death knell of materialistic atheism. Atheists can only stick their fingers in their ears and shout Laaa laaaaa la laaa laaaaaa and try to pretend they are ignorant of that fact and that matter and energy can't come to be from absolute nothing without a cause.
Atheism is dead as far as a belief that is in agreement with science. But you are free of course to believe that God does not exist and that the univverse did indeed produce itself. I would certanly not deny anyone the right to their religion.
Every event/object that begins to exist must have a cause. Natural events could not cause the universe to come to be because there was nothing natural (and matter and energy can't produce itself anywasys.) Therefore the first cause, the uncaused cause, could only be the self-existent eternal God.
Oh, and the 2nd law tells us the universe is not eternal. Entropy.
Lol! In the past century atheists did argue that the universse is eternal because they knew the implications of the first law. But observations leave that theory untenable. The universe definately is not eternal.
JJ brought up the only arguement you could possibly put forward. That the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to all parts of the universe ahd that is a ludicrous argument that has not one shred of evidence.
No, materialistic atheists are in quite a rough spot.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 03:24 AM |
|
|
Elodin, two points here. First, what you say about the First Law of Thermodynamics is correct, which is why a creator God is impossible. It's just like you said, matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. So God could not have created them, because they can't be created.
Second, if the universe is cyclic, then entropy could just reset itself every time the universe experiences another Big Bang.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 03:28 AM |
|
|
He did say "supernatural cause" though. I don't think you really mean it's subject to the laws of physics, do you?
I don't know about it being cyclic: it's nice and all but it's expansion is accelerating for some reason.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 03:43 AM |
|
|
@Elodin
Sorry, I still don't see anything about thermodynamics. And:
Quote:
Are you really pleading ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics?
Hmm, do you really want to start comparing credentials? I've got an idea: how about we both post our respective CVs and let the rest of the community decide who is the bigger authority on thermodynamics between the two of us.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 06:57 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 07:00, 12 Nov 2009.
|
@mvassilev
The laws of thermodynamics have only to do with matter and energy. Science has made no observations about spirits and has no theories regarding anything other than the material world because that is all it can observe and measure.
There is no evidence that the universe is cyclical or that the universe will collapse into a little ball of matter. As TheDeath point out, there is expansion, not contraction of the universe.
@Corribus
Certainly Davies did not use the word "thermodynamics" but that was clearly the basis of his argument and I have quoted others who did use the "magic word" thermodynamics.
No, I have no desire to play the "credentials" game. If what is true is true it makes no difference whether a janitor speaks it or a Nobel prize winning physicist. Instead let's play the "compare ideas" game. I've presented mine. Refute them if you can.
Oh, if you ever engage in a formal debate I suggest you don't say "My credentials are more impressive than yours so I am right and you are wrong."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 07:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Science has made no observations about spirits and has no theories regarding anything other than the material world because that is all it can observe and measure.
If spirits interact with the material world, then it would make the laws of thermodynamics invalid, wouldn't it?
Quote:
There is no evidence that the universe is cyclical or that the universe will collapse into a little ball of matter. As TheDeath point out, there is expansion, not contraction of the universe.
What's this then?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 09:29 AM |
|
|
Excuse me, but everyone who can halfway read and has an interest in these things will see that the contemporary cosmology theories are seriously and fundamentally flawed. This is not that difficult to see.
Big Bang "story" is this: some time ago - it can't be fixed, but let's say 15 billion years ago, give or take a couple this or that way - all of our uiniverse, all matter and energy, was comprised in one singularity, a big black hole that exploded due to "tension" becoming too big of the forces of gravity on one hand which press down on it, and the core forces of atoms, which become stronger the more condensed things become.
Here's already the first point to stumble upon. A singularity is either stable or not. If a singularity existed, there must be a reason why it suddenly decides to explode. That reason could only be something that was added, and I think it is this point that made people think of a cyclic process which would have explained the explosion: all things "hurrying back" to that black hole and with the last chubnks of matter sucked in the thing becomes unstable again to explode.
Of course this is still not explaining anything because you might ask now, where does all the stuff come from in the first place and why is the amount measured in such a way that it just is the right amount to explode.
The ususal - or natural - answer here is that it cannot be different, vecause if it was different we wouldn't exist. This implies some try and error involved, a plethora of universes, stillbirths, choked, not realized, never left the stage of a black hole and so on, which should make you scratch your head and ask yourself whether you live in some lab or on a playground.
Anyway, if there was such a bang, the expectation is, obviously, that the expansion speed of the universe is biggest at t=0, to become gradually slower due to gravitational forces, to be halted eventually just to fall back in itself.
Observations sing the opposite song, however, which immediately seems not only to nullify the cyclic theory, but the bang itself as well, at least when seen with a suspicious eye: the acceleration of the expansion speed - if this observation is true - needs an explanation: dark matter and dark energy.
Note, that there is no substantial difference between "god" and "dark matter/energy" in that they don't have been found or proven experimentally. It's just the result of a demand that "there must be something that does it" or "we are missing matter for what we are observing".
But for the bang this isn't even the point. Instead, the question is, where was that dark stuff at bang time? Part of that black hole? Is that a reasonable assumption? Outside of that black hole? Is THAT a reasonable assumption? If it was INSIDE the black hole, why does it has an acceleration effect now? Has it miraculously expanded faster than the rest of the universe and is it now pulling the lazy rest after itself?
If it was outside the black hole, well, then it would seem the bang exploded into an already existing continuum of dark stuff, "filling" it like someomne spilled a bottle of Water that is now filling crevices and holes.
I won't bother you with problems and details, with contradictions and black holes in the theories - there are lots.
It's enough to say that there currently is no one that would really work. A thing to keep in mind here is the fact that the mainstream still hasn't managed to come up with a satisfactory explanation for the force called gravitation, and note that it's gravitational forces that - apparently - play a centralö role in cosmology.
Now, you know how humans are. If they have a theory they will keep to it as long as there isn't anything "better" instead of just dropping it. Ususally that is okay; you can expect it to be not very far off the mark or just one key detail missing or a generalization.
There are, however, noteworthy exceptions.
For example, Ptolemaius did manage to come up with a model of the solar system where the EARTH was the centre and everything else was circling around it. For the time it was a pretty good theory. It was in line with the gravitational effect that could be felt: all things were pulled to the centre of the Earth, so Earth could be suspected to be the centre. Everything else moved around it, and some planets in small circles, circles within circles.
The formulae to compute the position of the heavenly bodies were therefore rather complex - but everything was in line with everything that could be observed.
This is an example for a theory that could fit in every observable fact AND make correct predictions, but it was just FUNDAMENTALLY wrong.
There is no insurance in cosmology of being fundamentally wrong again. The scope has become bigger and bigger, and observations are streching the limit of the observable.
Cosmologically spoken, science is - in my opinion - guessing around, which is in the nature of things that vast, but the flipside of that coin is that there just is a very big error margin.
Add to that the yearning of people to find explanations and answers to questions, and we suddenly find that "cosmology" isn't so much different from religion. People put a lot of faith into this kind of stuff, and a big part of the things that are done there, are nothing more than educated speculations.
The bottom line is that science can currently neither support nor deny the existance of god or gods. There just IS no convincing theory of the universe, neither in science nor in religion, and no matter what opinion you may lean to, you'll end up putting faith into it.
Science, on one hand offers the hope that every day can bring a new observation, a new revelation, a new progress, a definite breakthrough that may allow to once again move the limits of what I would call "certified knowledge" to a point where things may become a lot clearer and we may get real answers.
Religion on the other offers the hope that all the answers have already been found - or, more correctly: been GIVEN or revealed - and we can rest assured in the save knowledge that all is well and good.
Those two are not mutually exclusive, but you cannot use one against or in favor of the other. Even if there wasn't things like Bose-Einstein-Condensates, anti-matter, backwards time-travel, uncertainty relations, gravitation, instantaneous effects and other strange things that haven't been understood fully or not at all, even if we had covered everything and were DEAD certain to know every force in the universe, if we were certain then that there MUST be something more than matter/energy to cater for its existance, there wasn't - scientifically spoken - any reason to assume "god" behind it. After all, matter/energy might be the three-(4)-dimensional shadow of a more-dimensional universe (only). It might just be EVERYTHING.
Just as our eyes register only an extremely small part of the electromagnetic wave spectrum there's actually nothing that precludes things being a lot more complex than we currently can perceive. On the contrary. I'd wager that we are aware of only part of it (and it's not even possible to say how big that part is), and if you don't believe that, think "Dark Matter/Energy".
Whether that stuff does exist or not, isn't important for the point: we are MISSING something and probably a lot.
Which is different with religion. It's missing nothing, with the only thing necessary being FAITH.
As far as my understanding goes, if you start with a basic assumption, it's always possible to find something that - for a believer - seems to support that assumption. This is true for everything. If you believe in astrology - that is, if you assume that you ARE influenced by this stuff - you will always find things that are in line with your character description or your prognosis, whereas things that do not fit can be conveniently igmnored or explained as "not fully understood" or something like that.
So this is a rather useless discussion. Whether it's "thermodynamics" or the "beauty of the laws of nature", the "order in the cosmos, explainable only with god's hand", if you look for something specific, you will find something and use it to your ends, whether that's a scientific formula, a nature of law, the fall of chicken bones or wet tea leaves.
Which makes it a rather useless thing to waste time with.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 11:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't know about it being cyclic: it's nice and all but it's expansion is accelerating for some reason.
I haven't read much of the thread, so it might already be mentioned.
However isn't it exactly the point of entropy, it dictactes the gradient of action for matter and reactions in all scales?
I'd guess, if we had/have the information needed to calculate it, it would dictate the same expansion as we observe.
However entropy is a function of likyliness, so eventhough there's an extremely low chance of it happening, at some point of time (given time is infinite) it must happen, and that's a long period of contradiction of the universe, maybe creating several big bangs in regions far apart.
After all, we cannot know if there's other "universes" (the terms defines everything so it's a bit bad to use here I suppose) that's right now about to grow (as information travels with light speed) into our. In reality all what we know and what we don't know about is the universe, however we can only observe what was caused by the Big Bang and I suppose to the distance light has travelled ever since then, so the observable universe may not be the entire universe.
At least that's the way I believe I was told, as long as it's a local environment and not global, you may experience entropy falling, if enough time is present, then I suppose anything could happen, as any likelyness of happening will happen given enough time.
Edit: Also, I do think there'll always be a problem with existance, if yout neither can accept time is infinite, i.e. there's always been something, without a beginning, nor can you accept that there's a beginning, because there's always something before.
Also, this may sound a bit weird, but with the enormeous gravity in place of the Big Bang, time probably went quite different, for any observer in this place, how long would time actually be? Infinite? Is it like the idea of when closing in on a black whole, infinite time passes before you enter it, in that case what's on the other side, and that's what creates reality? Just a lot of stupid guesses I suppose. 
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 03:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Certainly Davies did not use the word "thermodynamics" but that was clearly the basis of his argument and I have quoted others who did use the "magic word" thermodynamics.
Not so clearly, in fact.
...still waiting...
...waiting...
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 05:06 PM |
|
|
El-lo-dins trolling along
trolling along on the otherside
forum of the hc!
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 06:05 PM |
|
|
To change the boring subject:
Elodin, what's your opinion on premarital sex? 
Is it necessary to keep it "clean" ? If yes, why?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 06:59 PM |
|
|
|
Is that a trick question? I mean, ignoring for the moment that he covered that subject already - what would you expect?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 07:05 PM |
|
|
He did? I don't recall that...
well, anyway - Since Elodin is die-hard Christian (Catholic?), I'd like to hear WHY exactly sex before marriage is such a big deal for die-hard catholics.
Also, I wonder what is sex for them and what is not. I mean, does sex only mean intercourse, meaning the premaritally people can, umm, engage in "other activities"? Who defines it and how?  yes, I'm aware of Paul's letters Elodin, you don't have to quote the Bible. just give me your straight answer, and no Old Testament talk please, too.
Mainly curious. I have met a religious girl lately which was pretty fanatical about that. I told her that I see it as egoism, because it's all about what SHE doesn't want. To clarify, I asked how would she feel if her boyfriend told her he won't hug her, kiss her or even touch her before marriage because he considers it "unpure". I asked if she would, by any chance, feel unwanted and ignored. After all it's the same "no physical contact before marriage" logic, only more extreme... That gave her some thought. I wonder what Elodin thinks of it too, since he's like, the only die-hard Christian around here.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 07:57 PM |
|
|
Well, I'm not Elodin, and I certainly have no problem with sex before, without and after marriage - but your logic doesn't appeal to me, because with that logic a handshake is the same as taking part in some orgy and a killing the same than a slap.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 08:06 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:07, 12 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
However isn't it exactly the point of entropy, it dictactes the gradient of action for matter and reactions in all scales?
Who cares about entropy? Frankly I'm getting tired of that word being used as LAW because it's just a statistical observation of a closed system. It isn't the FORCE that does it, it's just a bland observation.
If the redshifts are indeed expansions, that's a force that's driving them.
@JollyJoker: Have you ever considered the possibility that the Big Bang, in fact, wasn't an explosion, and wouldn't have exploded without something "pulling it"? For instance, what you said makes sense about the Universe slowing down if it was an explosion. But what if it was actually a STABLE ball that got pulled apart by the "dark matter" (or whatever pulls the Universe now)?
@Doomforge:Quote:
Mainly curious. I have met a religious girl lately which was pretty fanatical about that. I told her that I see it as egoism, because it's all about what SHE doesn't want. To clarify, I asked how would she feel if her boyfriend told her he won't hug her, kiss her or even touch her before marriage because he considers it "unpure". I asked if she would, by any chance, feel unwanted and ignored. After all it's the same "no physical contact before marriage" logic, only more extreme... That gave her some thought. I wonder what Elodin thinks of it too, since he's like, the only die-hard Christian around here.
Finally found a good girl and you annoy her already.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 08:09 PM |
|
|
I think what that logic really is "asking" for, is where do one draw these limits.
Limits between a slap and killing is easy to see for most people.
So is limits between hand shake and orgy.
But not only where is the limit when two people in a relationship for hug -> sex goes, but also why, is what I think this logic is asking.
Is it even necessary, or is it a limit just to set a limit (no need really?).
@TheDeath
Do you expect a reply to your last post from me?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2009 08:16 PM |
|
|
|
I told her about the limit not because I think it's the same, JJ Only to ask why do we put a line exactly there... and how people can feel about it. The girl was convinced it's her problem only. I tried to explain to her that her partner has the right to feel... you know, unwanted. Thus it's not "just her" problem. She enforces a rule, after all - those things never work well, because if there is no room for compromise, there's no room for mutual acceptation.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
