What is your Religion/Affiliation/Religious Affiliation/Etc.

[kev222]

edit @ Kev - well, the saving grace of the universe used to be that we believed gravity "redistributed" energy back into potential energy with the big crunch.  So thermodynamics didn't eliminate the cyclical universe until the gravity driven big crunch fell out of favor.

Thermodynamics has always eliminated the possibility of a bing bang/big crunch cyclic universe. It's just that big bang theorists maintained by faith that it somehow didn't apply to them. The idea that gravity could somehow decrease the entropy of the universe is not thermodynamically possible. The laws of thermodynamics are not and never were subject to the favour of big bang theorists.

This attitude is typical of materialist saturated "science". Chemical evolution (biogenesis) currently suffers the same thermodynamic problems, evolutionists still maintain by faith that biogenesis is possible in spite of the actual science.

Hehe. Just when I thought me and you weren't actually going to argue in a religion thread

-Kev

[Grakthis]

edit @ Kev - well, the saving grace of the universe used to be that we believed gravity "redistributed" energy back into potential energy with the big crunch.  So thermodynamics didn't eliminate the cyclical universe until the gravity driven big crunch fell out of favor.

Thermodynamics has always eliminated the possibility of a bing bang/big crunch cyclic universe. It's just that big bang theorists maintained by faith that it somehow didn't apply to them. The idea that gravity could somehow decrease the entropy of the universe is not thermodynamically possible. The laws of thermodynamics are not and never were subject to the favour of big bang theorists.

This attitude is typical of materialist saturated "science". Chemical evolution (biogenesis) currently suffers the same thermodynamic problems, evolutionists still maintain by faith that biogenesis is possible in spite of the actual science.

Hehe. Just when I though me and you were actually not going to argue in a religion thread

-Kev

Physics is not my forte, but I was under the impression that gravity was some power that operated outside of the normal laws of energy because it was an actual warp in space (kinda like a hill in reality created by mass) therefore the theory said it used the potential energy it creates to squish everything together really small (so the big bang could occur) and all that flew just fine with thermodynamics?

Again, I haven't had basic physics since HS (10 years ago) and what i know of thermodynamics I know from reading books and arguing with my ChemE roomate in college.  So if you tell me I'm wrong, I'm gonna take your word for it.

As for biogenesis and evolutiong having a thermo problem... *pokes Kev in the eyes*

[kev222]

Physics is not my forte, but I was under the impression that gravity was some power that operated outside of the normal laws of energy because it was an actual warp in space (kinda like a hill in reality created by mass) therefore the theory said it used the potential energy it creates to squish everything together really small (so the big bang could occur) and all that flew just fine with thermodynamics?

Again, I haven't had basic physics since HS (10 years ago) and what i know of thermodynamics I know from reading books and arguing with my ChemE roomate in college.  So if you tell me I'm wrong, I'm gonna take your word for it.

Even in this case, the thermodynamic problem for the oscillating universe is that each cycle consumes more available energy than the last (by hydrogen burning in stars and proton decay) That is, each cycle produces more entropy than the last cycle. So each sucessive cycle is longer (in duration) and larger (in radius) than the last. Looking into the past with this in mind, we can conclude that even the cyclic universe still requires a starting point (although no end is required).

I don't pretend to understand all the details of the particle physics myself, so you shouldn't really take my word for it. The original paper is available online. It's been around since '81 and I'm not aware of any significant challenges to the physics (not that anybody is interested in defending  cyclic universes anymore).

Effects of Proton Decay on the Cosmological Future (page 7 - 9)
See also Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities (page 401, 402)

There's some light bedtime reading if ever I saw it :-?

As for biogenesis and evolutiong having a thermo problem... *pokes Kev in the eyes*

Arrgh, you win! Biogenesis is possible. Shame on you for taking advantage of my Christian meekness ;-)

-Kev

[LimeTwister]

and they said the internet made you stupid  8O .


*is confused*

[Si]

and they said the internet made you stupid  8O .


*is confused*

LOL

[Logikal X]

oil which we burn for energy is naturally created through the ecological breakdown of substances, it isnt produced at a very fast rate but it does produce


It doesnt matter what i see as possible however what i see is possible is what i choose to believe.  I dont propose that any of my ideas are correct, i just feel i have justification to believe that the unmoved mover is only time in recognition to the existance of the universe which i believe has no beginning or end.

[kev222]

oil which we burn for energy is naturally created through the ecological breakdown of substances, it isnt produced at a very fast rate but it does produce

But the oil is not formed for free. The process which forms oil would use more energy as input than it produces as output. The organic "debris" which are believed to be the source material for oil certainly exhausted plenty of available energy during their formation. An inorganic option for oil formation is that oil is formed by igneous activity near the centre of the earth. Again, plenty of energy is exhausted in this heat transfer. I just looked these two up, there are probably more oil formation theories out there, but I bet none of them involve getting more energy as output than as input. If they had, geologists would have abandoned the theories as obsurd.

It doesnt matter what i see as possible however what i see is possible is what i choose to believe.  I dont propose that any of my ideas are correct, i just feel i have justification to believe that the unmoved mover is only time in recognition to the existance of the universe which i believe has no beginning or end.

Agreed. You are certainly permitted to believe whatever you like.

-Kev

[Logikal X]

The energy process is one which is natural though.  Im pretty sure we can agree no one came out and made oil.  I think its possible it is created through ecologocal breakdown and pressure, which are forces generated through light, underground earth movement (rocks, water), and gravity.  None of these energy sources require human effort.  Of course like i said we use it way faster than it is made no matter how you put it so veritably unless we find another source of natural energy we are screwed.

[notagirl]

First off, I don't care if God exist. He may or may not but I don't care. Next, do animals go to heaven? Do they believe in God? I think the dinosaurs believed in God. They believe that the world would end and God would come and take all believers to Him. So they all died when God came to get them. I don't want to go to heaven with dinosaurs.
    Aliens. Do they believe in God? Does God believe in them? Who are the real aliens? Maybe on another planet in another universe they talk about the exist of God and question if we ,their aleins, exist or believe in God. All this assuming life does exist beyond us. Do they go to the same heaven we do? That would be nice.
    What am I saying? Nothing, and I don't care. I'm just going to have fun while I'm still living; God or no God.

[Grakthis]

The energy process is one which is natural though.  Im pretty sure we can agree no one came out and made oil.  I think its possible it is created through ecologocal breakdown and pressure, which are forces generated through light, underground earth movement (rocks, water), and gravity.  None of these energy sources require human effort.  Of course like i said we use it way faster than it is made no matter how you put it so veritably unless we find another source of natural energy we are screwed.

I don't understand the point.

What Kev is saying is that yes, these energy sources are created by processes that do not require human effort.  But they still require energy.

Energy is not CREATED in oil.  Energy is just stored.  But slowly energy capable of doing work is dispersed across the universe.  Energy is reintroduced to our eco system thanks to things like the sun and the earth's naturally hot core and moving plates, but eventually those things will consume all their available energy as well.

Dammit, this is depressing.

BTW @ Kev, I understand what you are saying about the big bang/big crunch shedding energy now.  And yeah, that makes sense.  If a perpetual motion machine is impossible on a small scale, why would I think it would be possible on a LARGE scale?  Duh.

[kev222]

The energy process is one which is natural though.  Im pretty sure we can agree no one came out and made oil.  I think its possible it is created through ecologocal breakdown and pressure, which are forces generated through light, underground earth movement (rocks, water), and gravity.  None of these energy sources require human effort.  Of course like i said we use it way faster than it is made no matter how you put it so veritably unless we find another source of natural energy we are screwed.

I don't understand the point.

What Kev is saying is that yes, these energy sources are created by processes that do not require human effort.  But they still require energy.

Energy is not CREATED in oil.  Energy is just stored.  But slowly energy capable of doing work is dispersed across the universe.  Energy is reintroduced to our eco system thanks to things like the sun and the earth's naturally hot core and moving plates, but eventually those things will consume all their available energy as well.

Uh huh. *nods* What he said.

Even if everything you said is correct, it doesn't aid the cause for the infinitely old (causeless)  universe. Which is all I care about refuting.

-Kev

[Logikal X]

You dont know it burns out across the entire space system.  To act as if the universe we know is the only universe that exists isnt being very open minded.  You dont know whats out there, and we should know that science doesnt either

[kev222]

You dont know it burns out across the entire space system.

There's nothing to suggest that the laws of thermodynamics aren't universally valid and everything to suggest that they are. If you want to propose that these laws do not apply at all times and in all parts of the universe, then you shoulder the weighty burden of proof.

To act as if the universe we know is the only universe that exists isnt being very open minded.

I didn't say that our's is the only universe (although that's what I believe). I said the universe is an isolated system. If this universe had existed forever, it could not be in it's present state of entropy, it would be at maximum entropy.

Again, you shoulder the burden of explaining how extra universes would help your cause that this universe has existed eternally.

You dont know whats out there, and we should know that science doesnt either

So something transcendent (outside of the universe) maintains our eternal universe from the effects of it's own natural laws? This is very close to my belief that a trancendent creator God wound up (that is, created with low entropy) the universe which is now running down.

You are right, anything outside of our universe is beyond the scope of science. However, your trancendent maintainer must also have existed eternally. Just like my trancendent creator. Keith would not find your idea any more palatable than the idea of God. You simply invoke an unmoved maintainer, which is the same as an unmoved mover.

-Kev

[Grakthis]

You dont know it burns out across the entire space system.  To act as if the universe we know is the only universe that exists isnt being very open minded.  You dont know whats out there, and we should know that science doesnt either

Blah!

Dude, you just tried to defeat yourself.  You invented an unmoved mover... you just didn't call him God.

BTW, now you're just being silly.  So maybe it's time to argue about something else.

So, I said something to my dad about the 39 lashes the other day, and he declared that no where does the bible tell us HOW many lashes Jesus got.  So I proceed to do my research on the subject, and sure enough he is correct.  But 39 lashes WAS the most the Jewish government was aloud to mete out as punishment.  But the ROMANS had no such law... and they were the ones who had jesus beaten.

So why did I always learn in Grade School that Jesus got 39 lashes?

[kev222]

So, I said something to my dad about the 39 lashes the other day, and he declared that no where does the bible tell us HOW many lashes Jesus got.  So I proceed to do my research on the subject, and sure enough he is correct.  But 39 lashes WAS the most the Jewish government was aloud to mete out as punishment.  But the ROMANS had no such law... and they were the ones who had jesus beaten.

So why did I always learn in Grade School that Jesus got 39 lashes?

It's because the laws of thermodynamics prohibit any more or less that 39 lashes. Oh no wait, it's because your teachers weren't doing their job properly ;-)

-Kev