Is Jesus the Word of God?

[Soupnazi630]

Energy undergoes many conversions and takes on many different forms as it moves. Every conversion that it undergoes has some associated "loss" of energy. Although this energy doesn't actually disappear, some amount of the initial energy turns into forms that are not usable.

Energy loss - Energy Education

Still does not apply to the fictional second law of nature which you dreamed up in ignorance.

Here is a link where scientists explain that space and time had a beginning.

Did the Universe Begin? | Closer to Truth

Can you provide a link to scientists that say that space and time did not have a beginning?

One more time.'

Read this slowly.

I never claimed it did not have a beginning.

Whether it had a beginning or not does not in any way shape or form prove it was created. Nor is there a second law of nature which you dreamed up.

Do you have a link to a scientist who backs up your position?

I need none as I have only stated that you have failed to prove a creator or god and that is fact and you know it.

 

[Soupnazi630]

If space and time had a beginning then space and time were created.

Wrong.

A beginning does not mean created.

 

[ding]

The second law of thermodynamics states that in each energy transfer there is a loss of usable energy.

21st Century Anthropology: A Reference Handbook

None of which supports your claim about a law of nature which you made up

Of course it does as time approaches infinity usable energy approaches zero. Therefore, space and time did have a beginning.

Do you have any scientific source that says space and time did not have a beginning?

I never said it did not have a beginning.

Of course it has nothing to do with the second law of nature which does not exist and which you simply dreamed up.

You fail again.

No. I did not dream it up. I got it from scientists.

Here's one who explains it.



Do you have a link from someone who says the 2nd Law allows for matter and energy to exist forever without the universe reaching thermal equilibrium?

There is no second law of nature which you lied about.

Yes you dreamed it up because you have lost the argument with every post.

Second Law of Thermodynamics.

And every link I have provided discusses it.

They also admit that the universe was created according to the Laws of Nature which existed before space and time.

Can you name one scientist who doesn't believe that?

 

[ding]

If space and time had a beginning then space and time were created.

Wrong.

A beginning does not mean created.

What does it mean?

 

[ding]

Energy undergoes many conversions and takes on many different forms as it moves. Every conversion that it undergoes has some associated "loss" of energy. Although this energy doesn't actually disappear, some amount of the initial energy turns into forms that are not usable.

Energy loss - Energy Education

Still does not apply to the fictional second law of nature which you dreamed up in ignorance.

Here is a link where scientists explain that space and time had a beginning.

Did the Universe Begin? | Closer to Truth

Can you provide a link to scientists that say that space and time did not have a beginning?

One more time.'

Read this slowly.

I never claimed it did not have a beginning.

Whether it had a beginning or not does not in any way shape or form prove it was created. Nor is there a second law of nature which you dreamed up.

Do you have a link to a scientist who backs up your position?

I need none as I have only stated that you have failed to prove a creator or god and that is fact and you know it.

I have proved that space and time were created (i.e. that it had a beginning) and that beginning followed the Laws of Nature, specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation, and that those laws were in place before space and time itself.

 

[Soupnazi630]

None of which supports your claim about a law of nature which you made up

Of course it does as time approaches infinity usable energy approaches zero. Therefore, space and time did have a beginning.

Do you have any scientific source that says space and time did not have a beginning?

I never said it did not have a beginning.

Of course it has nothing to do with the second law of nature which does not exist and which you simply dreamed up.

You fail again.

No. I did not dream it up. I got it from scientists.

Here's one who explains it.



Do you have a link from someone who says the 2nd Law allows for matter and energy to exist forever without the universe reaching thermal equilibrium?

There is no second law of nature which you lied about.

Yes you dreamed it up because you have lost the argument with every post.

Second Law of Thermodynamics.

And every link I have provided discusses it.

They also admit that the universe was created according to the Laws of Nature which existed before space and time.

Can you name one scientist who doesn't believe that?

You lied about it being the second law of nature.

Laws of thermo dynamics and laws of nature are not the same thing.


No they do not admit the universe was created according to the laws of nature as they do not know if it was.

Once again you are pwned and failed to provide evidence of a creator.

And yes I can but it is irrelevant because the proof is in your utter and massive failure.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Still does not apply to the fictional second law of nature which you dreamed up in ignorance.

Here is a link where scientists explain that space and time had a beginning.

Did the Universe Begin? | Closer to Truth

Can you provide a link to scientists that say that space and time did not have a beginning?

One more time.'

Read this slowly.

I never claimed it did not have a beginning.

Whether it had a beginning or not does not in any way shape or form prove it was created. Nor is there a second law of nature which you dreamed up.

Do you have a link to a scientist who backs up your position?

I need none as I have only stated that you have failed to prove a creator or god and that is fact and you know it.

I have proved that space and time were created (i.e. that it had a beginning) and that beginning followed the Laws of Nature, specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation, and that those laws were in place before space and time itself.

You are a childish lair as you have proven no such thing.

Created and had a beginning are not the same thing.

 

[ding]

Of course it does as time approaches infinity usable energy approaches zero. Therefore, space and time did have a beginning.

Do you have any scientific source that says space and time did not have a beginning?

I never said it did not have a beginning.

Of course it has nothing to do with the second law of nature which does not exist and which you simply dreamed up.

You fail again.

No. I did not dream it up. I got it from scientists.

Here's one who explains it.



Do you have a link from someone who says the 2nd Law allows for matter and energy to exist forever without the universe reaching thermal equilibrium?

There is no second law of nature which you lied about.

Yes you dreamed it up because you have lost the argument with every post.

Second Law of Thermodynamics.

And every link I have provided discusses it.

They also admit that the universe was created according to the Laws of Nature which existed before space and time.

Can you name one scientist who doesn't believe that?

You lied about it being the second law of nature.

Laws of thermo dynamics and laws of nature are not the same thing.


No they do not admit the universe was created according to the laws of nature as they do not know if it was.

Once again you are pwned and failed to provide evidence of a creator.

And yes I can but it is irrelevant because the proof is in your utter and massive failure.

I think you are very confused.

The second law of thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe.

The laws of nature that were in place before space and time were created and controlled the creation of space and time were the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation.

You have admitted that the universe had a beginning, right? What exactly does that mean to you?

 

[ding]

Here is a link where scientists explain that space and time had a beginning.

Did the Universe Begin? | Closer to Truth

Can you provide a link to scientists that say that space and time did not have a beginning?

One more time.'

Read this slowly.

I never claimed it did not have a beginning.

Whether it had a beginning or not does not in any way shape or form prove it was created. Nor is there a second law of nature which you dreamed up.

Do you have a link to a scientist who backs up your position?

I need none as I have only stated that you have failed to prove a creator or god and that is fact and you know it.

I have proved that space and time were created (i.e. that it had a beginning) and that beginning followed the Laws of Nature, specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation, and that those laws were in place before space and time itself.

You are a childish lair as you have proven no such thing.

Created and had a beginning are not the same thing.

How are they not the same?

Where did all the matter and energy come from it if could not have existed forever and had a beginning?

 

[ding]

If space and time had a beginning then space and time were created.

Wrong.

A beginning does not mean created.

What exactly does a beginning mean to you? Where did it come from?

 

[Soupnazi630]

I never said it did not have a beginning.

Of course it has nothing to do with the second law of nature which does not exist and which you simply dreamed up.

You fail again.

No. I did not dream it up. I got it from scientists.

Here's one who explains it.



Do you have a link from someone who says the 2nd Law allows for matter and energy to exist forever without the universe reaching thermal equilibrium?

There is no second law of nature which you lied about.

Yes you dreamed it up because you have lost the argument with every post.

Second Law of Thermodynamics.

And every link I have provided discusses it.

They also admit that the universe was created according to the Laws of Nature which existed before space and time.

Can you name one scientist who doesn't believe that?

You lied about it being the second law of nature.

Laws of thermo dynamics and laws of nature are not the same thing.


No they do not admit the universe was created according to the laws of nature as they do not know if it was.

Once again you are pwned and failed to provide evidence of a creator.

And yes I can but it is irrelevant because the proof is in your utter and massive failure.

I think you are very confused.

The second law of thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe.

The laws of nature that were in place before space and time were created and controlled the creation of space and time were the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation.

You have admitted that the universe had a beginning, right? What exactly does that mean to you?

No it does not preclude any such thing much less infinite multiverses which make up an even greater infinite universe.

We do not know if the laws of nature were in place BEFORE space and time sprang into existence. None of your sources or links make any such claim nor do any experts.

By your own earlier statement we cannot know or test or measure what existed before time and space ergo your assumption that those laws existed is false.

Nor do we know if they controlled the creation of space and time. In fact those laws are subject to space and time.

Beginning means beginning.

Trying to pervert it into proof of a creator is absurd and stupid.

 

[Soupnazi630]

One more time.'

Read this slowly.

I never claimed it did not have a beginning.

Whether it had a beginning or not does not in any way shape or form prove it was created. Nor is there a second law of nature which you dreamed up.

Do you have a link to a scientist who backs up your position?

I need none as I have only stated that you have failed to prove a creator or god and that is fact and you know it.

I have proved that space and time were created (i.e. that it had a beginning) and that beginning followed the Laws of Nature, specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation, and that those laws were in place before space and time itself.

You are a childish lair as you have proven no such thing.

Created and had a beginning are not the same thing.

How are they not the same?

Where did all the matter and energy come from it if could not have existed forever and had a beginning?

We do not know whether or not existed before the beginning of the universe.

 

[ding]

No. I did not dream it up. I got it from scientists.

Here's one who explains it.



Do you have a link from someone who says the 2nd Law allows for matter and energy to exist forever without the universe reaching thermal equilibrium?

There is no second law of nature which you lied about.

Yes you dreamed it up because you have lost the argument with every post.

Second Law of Thermodynamics.

And every link I have provided discusses it.

They also admit that the universe was created according to the Laws of Nature which existed before space and time.

Can you name one scientist who doesn't believe that?

You lied about it being the second law of nature.

Laws of thermo dynamics and laws of nature are not the same thing.


No they do not admit the universe was created according to the laws of nature as they do not know if it was.

Once again you are pwned and failed to provide evidence of a creator.

And yes I can but it is irrelevant because the proof is in your utter and massive failure.

I think you are very confused.

The second law of thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe.

The laws of nature that were in place before space and time were created and controlled the creation of space and time were the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation.

You have admitted that the universe had a beginning, right? What exactly does that mean to you?

No it does not preclude any such thing much less infinite multiverses which make up an even greater infinite universe.

We do not know if the laws of nature were in place BEFORE space and time sprang into existence. None of your sources or links make any such claim nor do any experts.

By your own earlier statement we cannot know or test or measure what existed before time and space ergo your assumption that those laws existed is false.

Nor do we know if they controlled the creation of space and time. In fact those laws are subject to space and time.

Beginning means beginning.

Trying to pervert it into proof of a creator is absurd and stupid.

If it had a beginning where did the energy and matter come from?

 

[Soupnazi630]

One more time.'

Read this slowly.

I never claimed it did not have a beginning.

Whether it had a beginning or not does not in any way shape or form prove it was created. Nor is there a second law of nature which you dreamed up.

Do you have a link to a scientist who backs up your position?

I need none as I have only stated that you have failed to prove a creator or god and that is fact and you know it.

I have proved that space and time were created (i.e. that it had a beginning) and that beginning followed the Laws of Nature, specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation, and that those laws were in place before space and time itself.

You are a childish lair as you have proven no such thing.

Created and had a beginning are not the same thing.

How are they not the same?

Where did all the matter and energy come from it if could not have existed forever and had a beginning?

Laws of nature are generalities laws of thermodynamics are specific.

But both exist within the confines of the universe as we know it and not within the confines of other universes which we suspect exist OR within the infinite possibilities of what came before this universe.

 

[Soupnazi630]

There is no second law of nature which you lied about.

Yes you dreamed it up because you have lost the argument with every post.

Second Law of Thermodynamics.

And every link I have provided discusses it.

They also admit that the universe was created according to the Laws of Nature which existed before space and time.

Can you name one scientist who doesn't believe that?

You lied about it being the second law of nature.

Laws of thermo dynamics and laws of nature are not the same thing.


No they do not admit the universe was created according to the laws of nature as they do not know if it was.

Once again you are pwned and failed to provide evidence of a creator.

And yes I can but it is irrelevant because the proof is in your utter and massive failure.

I think you are very confused.

The second law of thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe.

The laws of nature that were in place before space and time were created and controlled the creation of space and time were the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation.

You have admitted that the universe had a beginning, right? What exactly does that mean to you?

No it does not preclude any such thing much less infinite multiverses which make up an even greater infinite universe.

We do not know if the laws of nature were in place BEFORE space and time sprang into existence. None of your sources or links make any such claim nor do any experts.

By your own earlier statement we cannot know or test or measure what existed before time and space ergo your assumption that those laws existed is false.

Nor do we know if they controlled the creation of space and time. In fact those laws are subject to space and time.

Beginning means beginning.

Trying to pervert it into proof of a creator is absurd and stupid.

If it had a beginning where did the energy and matter come from?

We do not know which is why cosmology and science exists and why the god myth is for fools.

 

[ding]

Do you have a link to a scientist who backs up your position?

I need none as I have only stated that you have failed to prove a creator or god and that is fact and you know it.

I have proved that space and time were created (i.e. that it had a beginning) and that beginning followed the Laws of Nature, specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation, and that those laws were in place before space and time itself.

You are a childish lair as you have proven no such thing.

Created and had a beginning are not the same thing.

How are they not the same?

Where did all the matter and energy come from it if could not have existed forever and had a beginning?

We do not know whether or not existed before the beginning of the universe.

So then you disagree with CERN when they say...

"...all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

 

[ding]

Do you have a link to a scientist who backs up your position?

I need none as I have only stated that you have failed to prove a creator or god and that is fact and you know it.

I have proved that space and time were created (i.e. that it had a beginning) and that beginning followed the Laws of Nature, specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation, and that those laws were in place before space and time itself.

You are a childish lair as you have proven no such thing.

Created and had a beginning are not the same thing.

How are they not the same?

Where did all the matter and energy come from it if could not have existed forever and had a beginning?

Laws of nature are generalities laws of thermodynamics are specific.

But both exist within the confines of the universe as we know it and not within the confines of other universes which we suspect exist OR within the infinite possibilities of what came before this universe.

Do you have a link for that belief?

 

[ding]

No. I did not dream it up. I got it from scientists.

Here's one who explains it.



Do you have a link from someone who says the 2nd Law allows for matter and energy to exist forever without the universe reaching thermal equilibrium?

There is no second law of nature which you lied about.

Yes you dreamed it up because you have lost the argument with every post.

Second Law of Thermodynamics.

And every link I have provided discusses it.

They also admit that the universe was created according to the Laws of Nature which existed before space and time.

Can you name one scientist who doesn't believe that?

You lied about it being the second law of nature.

Laws of thermo dynamics and laws of nature are not the same thing.


No they do not admit the universe was created according to the laws of nature as they do not know if it was.

Once again you are pwned and failed to provide evidence of a creator.

And yes I can but it is irrelevant because the proof is in your utter and massive failure.

I think you are very confused.

The second law of thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe.

The laws of nature that were in place before space and time were created and controlled the creation of space and time were the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation.

You have admitted that the universe had a beginning, right? What exactly does that mean to you?

No it does not preclude any such thing much less infinite multiverses which make up an even greater infinite universe.

We do not know if the laws of nature were in place BEFORE space and time sprang into existence. None of your sources or links make any such claim nor do any experts.

By your own earlier statement we cannot know or test or measure what existed before time and space ergo your assumption that those laws existed is false.

Nor do we know if they controlled the creation of space and time. In fact those laws are subject to space and time.

Beginning means beginning.

Trying to pervert it into proof of a creator is absurd and stupid.

I have been discussing the science of multiverses with you for the last 30 minutes.

 

[ding]

Second Law of Thermodynamics.

And every link I have provided discusses it.

They also admit that the universe was created according to the Laws of Nature which existed before space and time.

Can you name one scientist who doesn't believe that?

You lied about it being the second law of nature.

Laws of thermo dynamics and laws of nature are not the same thing.


No they do not admit the universe was created according to the laws of nature as they do not know if it was.

Once again you are pwned and failed to provide evidence of a creator.

And yes I can but it is irrelevant because the proof is in your utter and massive failure.

I think you are very confused.

The second law of thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe.

The laws of nature that were in place before space and time were created and controlled the creation of space and time were the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation.

You have admitted that the universe had a beginning, right? What exactly does that mean to you?

No it does not preclude any such thing much less infinite multiverses which make up an even greater infinite universe.

We do not know if the laws of nature were in place BEFORE space and time sprang into existence. None of your sources or links make any such claim nor do any experts.

By your own earlier statement we cannot know or test or measure what existed before time and space ergo your assumption that those laws existed is false.

Nor do we know if they controlled the creation of space and time. In fact those laws are subject to space and time.

Beginning means beginning.

Trying to pervert it into proof of a creator is absurd and stupid.

If it had a beginning where did the energy and matter come from?

We do not know which is why cosmology and science exists and why the god myth is for fools.

But you have been disagreeing with the science behind multiverses for the last 30 minutes.

 

[ding]

Do you have a link to a scientist who backs up your position?

I need none as I have only stated that you have failed to prove a creator or god and that is fact and you know it.

I have proved that space and time were created (i.e. that it had a beginning) and that beginning followed the Laws of Nature, specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation, and that those laws were in place before space and time itself.

You are a childish lair as you have proven no such thing.

Created and had a beginning are not the same thing.

How are they not the same?

Where did all the matter and energy come from it if could not have existed forever and had a beginning?

We do not know whether or not existed before the beginning of the universe.

So then you disagree with Dr. Leon Lederman, experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate when he said...

"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."