Atheism is the believe that something came out of nothing and we're all going nowhere

[edthecynic]

Actually, it is the bible that claims that no thing (God) created everything from nothing. Science proved that there never was nothing and there will never be nothing, the First Law of Thermodynamics AKA The Law of Conservation of Energy.

Hmmmm... actually space time had a beginning. We know this because of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics and the general theory of relativity. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Those studies show that the universe started in a hot dense state that occupied the space of “roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.” All of the models show this. Every single one. Why? Because that is what fits the observable data so all of the models model to this. That's called history matching. Now some people will try to claim that it is a cyclical process, but that is bullshit because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the universe cannot be infinite because as time approaches infinity, usable energy approaches zero. Now this does not mean the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is violated. Why? Because just because there is no more usable energy that does not mean that that energy is not accounted for. It is accounted for. It is still in the material balance. It just means everything is at the same temperature. So what we know is this... Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create and the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. In effect beings that know and create were predestined the moment space and time came into existence.

Space and time had a beginning, but not energy, therefore since energy IS something there always was something and there always will be something. Claiming that space and time had a beginning does not prove energy had a beginning.

Kinetic energy is the energy of motion, it is a usable energy that can do work. You were very slick to first claim that usable "approaches" zero, but then you lied and said that there is "no more usable energy." So you contradict yourself with your very slick lie. Furthermore, as long as there is motion, then there will never be "zero" usable energy and the Third Law of Thermodynamics says that there is no temperature at which all motion stops. Interesting that you never mentioned the TLoT!!!!!

I don't believe I contradicted myself, but I am fairly slick, lol. What I wrote is that the universe had a beginning (i.e. space and time). What happened before that is unknown as the equations fittingly yield infinities. Science can make no statement about what happened before that point including the one you are trying to make; that energy did not have a beginning. No one knows anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second after it began to expand and cool. Professor Leon, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, explains it thusly,

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy."

I don't know if energy did or did not have a beginning. No one knows that. Are you basing your belief that energy did not have a beginning based on the laws of physics which break down at the singularity?

Maybe it would help if I provided the source of my belief that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe. Would that help?



See the 4 minute mark.

The proves FLoT states that energy cannot be creates nor destroyed. That means that since energy cannot be created it always existed and since it cannot be destroyed it will always exist. There is no way around it. Energy exists independent of space and time.

In your own video they admit that the SLoT says entropy can increase OR STAY THE SAME!!!!! Mathematically it is entropy is greater than OR EQUAL TO ZERO. That means entropy can equal zero, and in fact, if entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist. Therefore the entropy of the universe could also equal zero, though locally it can be increasing. A universe with an overall entropy of zero would last forever.

 

[ding]

Actually, it is the bible that claims that no thing (God) created everything from nothing. Science proved that there never was nothing and there will never be nothing, the First Law of Thermodynamics AKA The Law of Conservation of Energy.

Hmmmm... actually space time had a beginning. We know this because of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics and the general theory of relativity. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Those studies show that the universe started in a hot dense state that occupied the space of “roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.” All of the models show this. Every single one. Why? Because that is what fits the observable data so all of the models model to this. That's called history matching. Now some people will try to claim that it is a cyclical process, but that is bullshit because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the universe cannot be infinite because as time approaches infinity, usable energy approaches zero. Now this does not mean the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is violated. Why? Because just because there is no more usable energy that does not mean that that energy is not accounted for. It is accounted for. It is still in the material balance. It just means everything is at the same temperature. So what we know is this... Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create and the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. In effect beings that know and create were predestined the moment space and time came into existence.

Space and time had a beginning, but not energy, therefore since energy IS something there always was something and there always will be something. Claiming that space and time had a beginning does not prove energy had a beginning.

Kinetic energy is the energy of motion, it is a usable energy that can do work. You were very slick to first claim that usable "approaches" zero, but then you lied and said that there is "no more usable energy." So you contradict yourself with your very slick lie. Furthermore, as long as there is motion, then there will never be "zero" usable energy and the Third Law of Thermodynamics says that there is no temperature at which all motion stops. Interesting that you never mentioned the TLoT!!!!!

I don't believe I contradicted myself, but I am fairly slick, lol. What I wrote is that the universe had a beginning (i.e. space and time). What happened before that is unknown as the equations fittingly yield infinities. Science can make no statement about what happened before that point including the one you are trying to make; that energy did not have a beginning. No one knows anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second after it began to expand and cool. Professor Leon, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, explains it thusly,

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy."

I don't know if energy did or did not have a beginning. No one knows that. Are you basing your belief that energy did not have a beginning based on the laws of physics which break down at the singularity?

Maybe it would help if I provided the source of my belief that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe. Would that help?



See the 4 minute mark.

The proves FLoT states that energy cannot be creates nor destroyed. That means that since energy cannot be created it always existed and since it cannot be destroyed it will always exist. There is no way around it. Energy exists independent of space and time.

In your own video they admit that the SLoT says entropy can increase OR STAY THE SAME!!!!! Mathematically it is entropy is greater than OR EQUAL TO ZERO. That means entropy can equal zero, and in fact, if entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist. Therefore the entropy of the universe could also equal zero, though locally it can be increasing. A universe with an overall entropy of zero would last forever.

"A reversible isothermal heat transfer that would leave the entropy of the universe constant is just an idealization - and hence could not occur. All other processes - meaning, all real processes - have the effect of increasing the entropy of the universe. That is the second law of thermodynamics." (This is a direct quote from CalPoly, see link below)

SECOND LAW

Not to mention at the 4 minute mark of the video I linked, Dr. Vilenkin explicitly states that what you just said is impossible. So for you to claim Dr. Vilenkin's talk on this subject proves your point is absurd. I can already tell that you are out of your league in this conversation and do not understand the First or Second Law of Thermodynamics. You are literally trying to apply the Laws of the Universe before space and time existed. If you persist in this nonsense I will walk you step by step through the fundamentals of the Laws of Thermodynamics to show you your errors. I don't know what you do for a living or what your educational background is but I am an engineer by training and have been practicing for 31 years.

 

[Czernobog]

Militant atheism leads to communism.

So you keep claiming, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, it is the bible that claims that no thing (God) created everything from nothing. Science proved that there never was nothing and there will never be nothing, the First Law of Thermodynamics AKA The Law of Conservation of Energy.

Hmmmm... actually space time had a beginning. We know this because of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics and the general theory of relativity. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Those studies show that the universe started in a hot dense state that occupied the space of “roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.” All of the models show this. Every single one. Why? Because that is what fits the observable data so all of the models model to this. That's called history matching. Now some people will try to claim that it is a cyclical process, but that is bullshit because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the universe cannot be infinite because as time approaches infinity, usable energy approaches zero. Now this does not mean the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is violated. Why? Because just because there is no more usable energy that does not mean that that energy is not accounted for. It is accounted for. It is still in the material balance. It just means everything is at the same temperature. So what we know is this... Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create and the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. In effect beings that know and create were predestined the moment space and time came into existence.

Space and time had a beginning, but not energy, therefore since energy IS something there always was something and there always will be something. Claiming that space and time had a beginning does not prove energy had a beginning.

Actually even the statement "Space and Time had a beginning" is a presumption. This universe as we know it had a beginning. However, to definitively state that all of time and space began with the beginning of this universe is, in fact, a presumptive statement without quantitative evidence.

 

[ding]

Actually, it is the bible that claims that no thing (God) created everything from nothing. Science proved that there never was nothing and there will never be nothing, the First Law of Thermodynamics AKA The Law of Conservation of Energy.

Hmmmm... actually space time had a beginning. We know this because of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics and the general theory of relativity. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Those studies show that the universe started in a hot dense state that occupied the space of “roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.” All of the models show this. Every single one. Why? Because that is what fits the observable data so all of the models model to this. That's called history matching. Now some people will try to claim that it is a cyclical process, but that is bullshit because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the universe cannot be infinite because as time approaches infinity, usable energy approaches zero. Now this does not mean the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is violated. Why? Because just because there is no more usable energy that does not mean that that energy is not accounted for. It is accounted for. It is still in the material balance. It just means everything is at the same temperature. So what we know is this... Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create and the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. In effect beings that know and create were predestined the moment space and time came into existence.

Space and time had a beginning, but not energy, therefore since energy IS something there always was something and there always will be something. Claiming that space and time had a beginning does not prove energy had a beginning.

Actually even the statement "Space and Time had a beginning" is a presumption. This universe as we know it had a beginning. However, to definitively state that all of time and space began with the beginning of this universe is, in fact, a presumptive statement without quantitative evidence.

Not according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. According to that, the universe had a beginning as it is impossible for the universe to be infinite acting.

See the 4 minute mark for this discussion.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, it is the bible that claims that no thing (God) created everything from nothing. Science proved that there never was nothing and there will never be nothing, the First Law of Thermodynamics AKA The Law of Conservation of Energy.

Hmmmm... actually space time had a beginning. We know this because of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics and the general theory of relativity. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Those studies show that the universe started in a hot dense state that occupied the space of “roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.” All of the models show this. Every single one. Why? Because that is what fits the observable data so all of the models model to this. That's called history matching. Now some people will try to claim that it is a cyclical process, but that is bullshit because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the universe cannot be infinite because as time approaches infinity, usable energy approaches zero. Now this does not mean the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is violated. Why? Because just because there is no more usable energy that does not mean that that energy is not accounted for. It is accounted for. It is still in the material balance. It just means everything is at the same temperature. So what we know is this... Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create and the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. In effect beings that know and create were predestined the moment space and time came into existence.

Space and time had a beginning, but not energy, therefore since energy IS something there always was something and there always will be something. Claiming that space and time had a beginning does not prove energy had a beginning.

Actually even the statement "Space and Time had a beginning" is a presumption. This universe as we know it had a beginning. However, to definitively state that all of time and space began with the beginning of this universe is, in fact, a presumptive statement without quantitative evidence.

Not according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. According to that, the universe had a beginning as it is impossible for the universe to be infinite acting.

See the 4 minute mark for this discussion.

The problem is that, even Einstein acknowledged that the closer one came to the event horizon of the universe, the more the laws of physics themselves begin to break down. So, how can you be certain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics holds true all the way back to the very foundation of the universe?

 

[edthecynic]

Actually, it is the bible that claims that no thing (God) created everything from nothing. Science proved that there never was nothing and there will never be nothing, the First Law of Thermodynamics AKA The Law of Conservation of Energy.

Hmmmm... actually space time had a beginning. We know this because of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics and the general theory of relativity. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Those studies show that the universe started in a hot dense state that occupied the space of “roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.” All of the models show this. Every single one. Why? Because that is what fits the observable data so all of the models model to this. That's called history matching. Now some people will try to claim that it is a cyclical process, but that is bullshit because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the universe cannot be infinite because as time approaches infinity, usable energy approaches zero. Now this does not mean the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is violated. Why? Because just because there is no more usable energy that does not mean that that energy is not accounted for. It is accounted for. It is still in the material balance. It just means everything is at the same temperature. So what we know is this... Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create and the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. In effect beings that know and create were predestined the moment space and time came into existence.

Space and time had a beginning, but not energy, therefore since energy IS something there always was something and there always will be something. Claiming that space and time had a beginning does not prove energy had a beginning.

Kinetic energy is the energy of motion, it is a usable energy that can do work. You were very slick to first claim that usable "approaches" zero, but then you lied and said that there is "no more usable energy." So you contradict yourself with your very slick lie. Furthermore, as long as there is motion, then there will never be "zero" usable energy and the Third Law of Thermodynamics says that there is no temperature at which all motion stops. Interesting that you never mentioned the TLoT!!!!!

I don't believe I contradicted myself, but I am fairly slick, lol. What I wrote is that the universe had a beginning (i.e. space and time). What happened before that is unknown as the equations fittingly yield infinities. Science can make no statement about what happened before that point including the one you are trying to make; that energy did not have a beginning. No one knows anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second after it began to expand and cool. Professor Leon, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, explains it thusly,

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy."

I don't know if energy did or did not have a beginning. No one knows that. Are you basing your belief that energy did not have a beginning based on the laws of physics which break down at the singularity?

Maybe it would help if I provided the source of my belief that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe. Would that help?



See the 4 minute mark.

The proves FLoT states that energy cannot be creates nor destroyed. That means that since energy cannot be created it always existed and since it cannot be destroyed it will always exist. There is no way around it. Energy exists independent of space and time.

In your own video they admit that the SLoT says entropy can increase OR STAY THE SAME!!!!! Mathematically it is entropy is greater than OR EQUAL TO ZERO. That means entropy can equal zero, and in fact, if entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist. Therefore the entropy of the universe could also equal zero, though locally it can be increasing. A universe with an overall entropy of zero would last forever.

"A reversible isothermal heat transfer that would leave the entropy of the universe constant is just an idealization - and hence could not occur. All other processes - meaning, all real processes - have the effect of increasing the entropy of the universe. That is the second law of thermodynamics." (This is a direct quote from CalPoly, see link below)

SECOND LAW

Not to mention at the 4 minute mark of the video I linked, Dr. Vilenkin explicitly states that what you just said is impossible. So for you to claim Dr. Vilenkin's talk on this subject proves your point is absurd. I can already tell that you are out of your league in this conversation and do not understand the First or Second Law of Thermodynamics. You are literally trying to apply the Laws of the Universe before space and time existed. If you persist in this nonsense I will walk you step by step through the fundamentals of the Laws of Thermodynamics to show you your errors. I don't know what you do for a living or what your educational background is but I am an engineer by training and have been practicing for 31 years.

So basically you are saying that matter does not exist!!!
Again the SLoT says that entropy is greater than OR EQUAL TO ZERO. If all real processes had an entropy greater than zero not only would the SLoT not have included the "or equal to zero" part, but no matter would exist and therefore we could not be having this argument!

 

[edthecynic]

Actually, it is the bible that claims that no thing (God) created everything from nothing. Science proved that there never was nothing and there will never be nothing, the First Law of Thermodynamics AKA The Law of Conservation of Energy.

Hmmmm... actually space time had a beginning. We know this because of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics and the general theory of relativity. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Those studies show that the universe started in a hot dense state that occupied the space of “roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.” All of the models show this. Every single one. Why? Because that is what fits the observable data so all of the models model to this. That's called history matching. Now some people will try to claim that it is a cyclical process, but that is bullshit because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the universe cannot be infinite because as time approaches infinity, usable energy approaches zero. Now this does not mean the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is violated. Why? Because just because there is no more usable energy that does not mean that that energy is not accounted for. It is accounted for. It is still in the material balance. It just means everything is at the same temperature. So what we know is this... Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create and the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. In effect beings that know and create were predestined the moment space and time came into existence.

Space and time had a beginning, but not energy, therefore since energy IS something there always was something and there always will be something. Claiming that space and time had a beginning does not prove energy had a beginning.

Actually even the statement "Space and Time had a beginning" is a presumption. This universe as we know it had a beginning. However, to definitively state that all of time and space began with the beginning of this universe is, in fact, a presumptive statement without quantitative evidence.

Not according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. According to that, the universe had a beginning as it is impossible for the universe to be infinite acting.

See the 4 minute mark for this discussion.

The problem is that, even Einstein acknowledged that the closer one came to the event horizon of the universe, the more the laws of physics themselves begin to break down. So, how can you be certain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics holds true all the way back to the very foundation of the universe?

Hawking even says the SLoT is the only Law that can violate itself by entropy-laden matter entering a black hole, resulting in a decrease of the total entropy of the universe.

 

[Eloy]

And there's no point, really, to any of it, so life has no meaning or purpose.

There never was nothing.




.

 

[edthecynic]

And there's no point, really, to any of it, so life has no meaning or purpose.

There never was nothing.

Only in the bible!

 

[Skull Pilot]

And there's no point, really, to any of it, so life has no meaning or purpose.

why do you need some god to give your life purpose and tell you how to live?
everyone can decide what their purpose is and live it as they see fit

 

[ding]

Actually, it is the bible that claims that no thing (God) created everything from nothing. Science proved that there never was nothing and there will never be nothing, the First Law of Thermodynamics AKA The Law of Conservation of Energy.

Hmmmm... actually space time had a beginning. We know this because of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics and the general theory of relativity. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Those studies show that the universe started in a hot dense state that occupied the space of “roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.” All of the models show this. Every single one. Why? Because that is what fits the observable data so all of the models model to this. That's called history matching. Now some people will try to claim that it is a cyclical process, but that is bullshit because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the universe cannot be infinite because as time approaches infinity, usable energy approaches zero. Now this does not mean the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is violated. Why? Because just because there is no more usable energy that does not mean that that energy is not accounted for. It is accounted for. It is still in the material balance. It just means everything is at the same temperature. So what we know is this... Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create and the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. In effect beings that know and create were predestined the moment space and time came into existence.

Space and time had a beginning, but not energy, therefore since energy IS something there always was something and there always will be something. Claiming that space and time had a beginning does not prove energy had a beginning.

Actually even the statement "Space and Time had a beginning" is a presumption. This universe as we know it had a beginning. However, to definitively state that all of time and space began with the beginning of this universe is, in fact, a presumptive statement without quantitative evidence.

Not according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. According to that, the universe had a beginning as it is impossible for the universe to be infinite acting.

See the 4 minute mark for this discussion.

The problem is that, even Einstein acknowledged that the closer one came to the event horizon of the universe, the more the laws of physics themselves begin to break down. So, how can you be certain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics holds true all the way back to the very foundation of the universe?

It is after the event horizon (i.e. during the expansion) that entropy increases and the usable energy of the closed system (i.e. the universe) decreases. So if the universe were to collapse back upon itself and the cycle of expansion and contraction were to repeat infinitely eventually there would be no more usable energy available, unless of course one wants to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics and add more energy to the closed system (i.e. the universe). Of course this would mean that we would still need to explain the source (i.e. the first cause) of where that energy came from.

 

[ding]

Hmmmm... actually space time had a beginning. We know this because of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics and the general theory of relativity. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Those studies show that the universe started in a hot dense state that occupied the space of “roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.” All of the models show this. Every single one. Why? Because that is what fits the observable data so all of the models model to this. That's called history matching. Now some people will try to claim that it is a cyclical process, but that is bullshit because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the universe cannot be infinite because as time approaches infinity, usable energy approaches zero. Now this does not mean the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is violated. Why? Because just because there is no more usable energy that does not mean that that energy is not accounted for. It is accounted for. It is still in the material balance. It just means everything is at the same temperature. So what we know is this... Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create and the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. In effect beings that know and create were predestined the moment space and time came into existence.

Space and time had a beginning, but not energy, therefore since energy IS something there always was something and there always will be something. Claiming that space and time had a beginning does not prove energy had a beginning.

Kinetic energy is the energy of motion, it is a usable energy that can do work. You were very slick to first claim that usable "approaches" zero, but then you lied and said that there is "no more usable energy." So you contradict yourself with your very slick lie. Furthermore, as long as there is motion, then there will never be "zero" usable energy and the Third Law of Thermodynamics says that there is no temperature at which all motion stops. Interesting that you never mentioned the TLoT!!!!!

I don't believe I contradicted myself, but I am fairly slick, lol. What I wrote is that the universe had a beginning (i.e. space and time). What happened before that is unknown as the equations fittingly yield infinities. Science can make no statement about what happened before that point including the one you are trying to make; that energy did not have a beginning. No one knows anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second after it began to expand and cool. Professor Leon, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, explains it thusly,

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy."

I don't know if energy did or did not have a beginning. No one knows that. Are you basing your belief that energy did not have a beginning based on the laws of physics which break down at the singularity?

Maybe it would help if I provided the source of my belief that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe. Would that help?



See the 4 minute mark.

The proves FLoT states that energy cannot be creates nor destroyed. That means that since energy cannot be created it always existed and since it cannot be destroyed it will always exist. There is no way around it. Energy exists independent of space and time.

In your own video they admit that the SLoT says entropy can increase OR STAY THE SAME!!!!! Mathematically it is entropy is greater than OR EQUAL TO ZERO. That means entropy can equal zero, and in fact, if entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist. Therefore the entropy of the universe could also equal zero, though locally it can be increasing. A universe with an overall entropy of zero would last forever.

"A reversible isothermal heat transfer that would leave the entropy of the universe constant is just an idealization - and hence could not occur. All other processes - meaning, all real processes - have the effect of increasing the entropy of the universe. That is the second law of thermodynamics." (This is a direct quote from CalPoly, see link below)

SECOND LAW

Not to mention at the 4 minute mark of the video I linked, Dr. Vilenkin explicitly states that what you just said is impossible. So for you to claim Dr. Vilenkin's talk on this subject proves your point is absurd. I can already tell that you are out of your league in this conversation and do not understand the First or Second Law of Thermodynamics. You are literally trying to apply the Laws of the Universe before space and time existed. If you persist in this nonsense I will walk you step by step through the fundamentals of the Laws of Thermodynamics to show you your errors. I don't know what you do for a living or what your educational background is but I am an engineer by training and have been practicing for 31 years.

So basically you are saying that matter does not exist!!!
Again the SLoT says that entropy is greater than OR EQUAL TO ZERO. If all real processes had an entropy greater than zero not only would the SLoT not have included the "or equal to zero" part, but no matter would exist and therefore we could not be having this argument!

No, I am not saying matter does not exist. Matter and energy are equivalent. That's what Einstein proved with his special theory of relativity. Since the beginning of space and time, no new matter has been created and no matter has been destroyed. It has only changed form. And each time matter has changed form there has been a cost for that conversion. That cost is called entropy and it results in a loss of usable energy to the system because heat is lost in the conversion. If this were not the case, then perpetual motion would be possible. So you saying that perpetual motion is possible.

 

[ding]

Hmmmm... actually space time had a beginning. We know this because of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics and the general theory of relativity. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Those studies show that the universe started in a hot dense state that occupied the space of “roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.” All of the models show this. Every single one. Why? Because that is what fits the observable data so all of the models model to this. That's called history matching. Now some people will try to claim that it is a cyclical process, but that is bullshit because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the universe cannot be infinite because as time approaches infinity, usable energy approaches zero. Now this does not mean the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is violated. Why? Because just because there is no more usable energy that does not mean that that energy is not accounted for. It is accounted for. It is still in the material balance. It just means everything is at the same temperature. So what we know is this... Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create and the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. In effect beings that know and create were predestined the moment space and time came into existence.

Space and time had a beginning, but not energy, therefore since energy IS something there always was something and there always will be something. Claiming that space and time had a beginning does not prove energy had a beginning.

Kinetic energy is the energy of motion, it is a usable energy that can do work. You were very slick to first claim that usable "approaches" zero, but then you lied and said that there is "no more usable energy." So you contradict yourself with your very slick lie. Furthermore, as long as there is motion, then there will never be "zero" usable energy and the Third Law of Thermodynamics says that there is no temperature at which all motion stops. Interesting that you never mentioned the TLoT!!!!!

I don't believe I contradicted myself, but I am fairly slick, lol. What I wrote is that the universe had a beginning (i.e. space and time). What happened before that is unknown as the equations fittingly yield infinities. Science can make no statement about what happened before that point including the one you are trying to make; that energy did not have a beginning. No one knows anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second after it began to expand and cool. Professor Leon, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, explains it thusly,

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy."

I don't know if energy did or did not have a beginning. No one knows that. Are you basing your belief that energy did not have a beginning based on the laws of physics which break down at the singularity?

Maybe it would help if I provided the source of my belief that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe. Would that help?



See the 4 minute mark.

The proves FLoT states that energy cannot be creates nor destroyed. That means that since energy cannot be created it always existed and since it cannot be destroyed it will always exist. There is no way around it. Energy exists independent of space and time.

In your own video they admit that the SLoT says entropy can increase OR STAY THE SAME!!!!! Mathematically it is entropy is greater than OR EQUAL TO ZERO. That means entropy can equal zero, and in fact, if entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist. Therefore the entropy of the universe could also equal zero, though locally it can be increasing. A universe with an overall entropy of zero would last forever.

"A reversible isothermal heat transfer that would leave the entropy of the universe constant is just an idealization - and hence could not occur. All other processes - meaning, all real processes - have the effect of increasing the entropy of the universe. That is the second law of thermodynamics." (This is a direct quote from CalPoly, see link below)

SECOND LAW

Not to mention at the 4 minute mark of the video I linked, Dr. Vilenkin explicitly states that what you just said is impossible. So for you to claim Dr. Vilenkin's talk on this subject proves your point is absurd. I can already tell that you are out of your league in this conversation and do not understand the First or Second Law of Thermodynamics. You are literally trying to apply the Laws of the Universe before space and time existed. If you persist in this nonsense I will walk you step by step through the fundamentals of the Laws of Thermodynamics to show you your errors. I don't know what you do for a living or what your educational background is but I am an engineer by training and have been practicing for 31 years.

So basically you are saying that matter does not exist!!!
Again the SLoT says that entropy is greater than OR EQUAL TO ZERO. If all real processes had an entropy greater than zero not only would the SLoT not have included the "or equal to zero" part, but no matter would exist and therefore we could not be having this argument!

Only for truly reversible processes. We don't see that in our universe. In our universe whenever mass is converted to energy there is a loss of heat to the system, entropy increases and usable energy is lost. All spontaneous processes in this universe produce an increase in the entropy of the universe.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

 

[ding]

And there's no point, really, to any of it, so life has no meaning or purpose.

There never was nothing.




.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says there was a time when there was nothing because it is impossible for the universe to be infinite acting.

 

[Paladin_]

I realize that this thread has veered off on a tangent about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but an analogy occurred to me last night that might finally help put this “atheism leads to communism” nonsense to bed. So, at the risk of beating a dead horse, here goes...

Saying that atheism leads to communism is like saying rain leads to hurricanes. By itself, rain is a good thing. Without it, life on Earth as we know it would be impossible. Hurricanes, as one of nature's greatest destructive forces, are a bad thing. Yet, historically, rain has always been a part of hurricanes, and I'm sure I could easily find quotes from meteorologists testifying to it. But that doesn't prove that rain CAUSES hurricanes.

Similarly, atheism -- by itself -- is a good thing. It's a rejection of silly theological notions, and is integral to an honest and objective, rational outlook. Communism is a bad thing. It's an economic failure and a political disaster, suppressing individual freedom and human dignity. Yet, historically, some expression of “atheism” has traditionally been part of communist governments (even though the ideological founder of communism declared that it's not necessary). And, as we've seen, one can find quotes from people testifying to it. But, again, that doesn't prove that atheism CAUSES communism (or leads to it).

As I noted earlier (back when this thread was still on topic), atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). It doesn't necessarily lead to any particular political philosophy or understanding of the meaning of life.

-----------------------------------

I now return you to your regularly scheduled scientific argument...

 

[there4eyeM]

And there's no point, really, to any of it, so life has no meaning or purpose.

There never was nothing.

.

Some very wise ones have said that there is no 'thing', but that all is one. 'Things' and 'meaning' and front and back, etc., are all the result of our perceptions and how we function. They are not 'out there', they are inside one. It has been famously stated, for example, that "the kingdom of heaven is within you".

 

[ding]

I realize that this thread has veered off on a tangent about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but an analogy occurred to me last night that might finally help put this “atheism leads to communism” nonsense to bed. So, at the risk of beating a dead horse, here goes...

Saying that atheism leads to communism is like saying rain leads to hurricanes. By itself, rain is a good thing. Without it, life on Earth as we know it would be impossible. Hurricanes, as one of nature's greatest destructive forces, are a bad thing. Yet, historically, rain has always been a part of hurricanes, and I'm sure I could easily find quotes from meteorologists testifying to it. But that doesn't prove that rain CAUSES hurricanes.

Similarly, atheism -- by itself -- is a good thing. It's a rejection of silly theological notions, and is integral to an honest and objective, rational outlook. Communism is a bad thing. It's an economic failure and a political disaster, suppressing individual freedom and human dignity. Yet, historically, some expression of “atheism” has traditionally been part of communist governments (even though the ideological founder of communism declared that it's not necessary). And, as we've seen, one can find quotes from people testifying to it. But, again, that doesn't prove that atheism CAUSES communism (or leads to it).

As I noted earlier (back when this thread was still on topic), atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). It doesn't necessarily lead to any particular political philosophy or understanding of the meaning of life.

-----------------------------------

I now return you to your regularly scheduled scientific argument...

Atheism does not lead to communism. Militant atheism leads to communism. There is a distinction.

 

[there4eyeM]

I realize that this thread has veered off on a tangent about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but an analogy occurred to me last night that might finally help put this “atheism leads to communism” nonsense to bed. So, at the risk of beating a dead horse, here goes...

Saying that atheism leads to communism is like saying rain leads to hurricanes. By itself, rain is a good thing. Without it, life on Earth as we know it would be impossible. Hurricanes, as one of nature's greatest destructive forces, are a bad thing. Yet, historically, rain has always been a part of hurricanes, and I'm sure I could easily find quotes from meteorologists testifying to it. But that doesn't prove that rain CAUSES hurricanes.

Similarly, atheism -- by itself -- is a good thing. It's a rejection of silly theological notions, and is integral to an honest and objective, rational outlook. Communism is a bad thing. It's an economic failure and a political disaster, suppressing individual freedom and human dignity. Yet, historically, some expression of “atheism” has traditionally been part of communist governments (even though the ideological founder of communism declared that it's not necessary). And, as we've seen, one can find quotes from people testifying to it. But, again, that doesn't prove that atheism CAUSES communism (or leads to it).

As I noted earlier (back when this thread was still on topic), atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). It doesn't necessarily lead to any particular political philosophy or understanding of the meaning of life.

-----------------------------------

I now return you to your regularly scheduled scientific argument...

Hurricanes are a natural phenomenon and are part of natural change. Good and bad and destructive only mean "to us, we who are humans".
Whatever 'communism' means when it is used today is too varied for use in these threads. It is rather like 'god' in that everyone speaks as if it were understood but in ways that demonstrate such is not the case.
It is clarified above that it is not a matter of atheism leading to 'communism', but 'militant atheism'. In any case, the only 'ism' to live by is eclecticism.

 

[Paladin_]

Atheism does not lead to communism. Militant atheism leads to communism. There is a distinction.

That's funny. I don't recall any of those quotes you provided mentioning "militant" atheism (whatever that supposedly is) -- only "atheism." Apparently, it's a distinction that matters only when it suits your purposes.

Thanks for wasting our time...