Why Infinity and the Laws of Thermodynamics supports, if not proves the existence of God.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: edmc^2

Thanks Krazysh0t for the info but I thought the vid I provided in the op would suffice. I guess not for those who are not able to view it. In any case thanks.

It's always better to type these things out. Not being able to view videos is one reason, but also having it written down means that anyone can sit and look at it carefully and read it at their own pace instead of trying to interpret the meaning from the speed of someone else's voice or video playback.

So since you're well verse on this subject, do think the universe will someday goes into equilibrium?

Probably.

If so, will this also collapse space into nothingness thereby rendering it to an infinite void?

That could be a result. It's tough to say, we don't have all the variables to consider on what will happen to the universe when everything hits equilibrium status. Though I doubt it would be infinite. Space may continue to expand, but if the universe isn't infinite now, it won't be infinite then. Nothingness will just become larger and larger.

But, isn't it Nothingness is also a form of infinity?

If so, then who or what created Nothingness?

I would say NONE otherwise it's finite which is very illogical.

Agree?

originally posted by: drivers1492
a reply to: edmc^2

Ok I get what your saying. So my question would be, why assume there is no boundary that the universe is expanding towards. Even including the existence of god that doesn't seem to bring me to a conclusion that, like everything else we know of, it may have a boundary. It's one of those things outside the scope of making a logical conclusion about. The same can be said of an infinite space in concerns to an existence of god. Simply because something just "is" and always has been doesn't give much support to another thing(which is completely different since it's an aware being) existing. The only way that is supported is if there is a correlation between the two. Using biblical reference there was nothing before god, and since space is a thing it wasn't there making it not infinite.

"why assume there is no boundary that the universe is expanding towards."

Because there's no other alternative to it. Otherwise you'll have to illogically accept and believe that Nothingness created everything else - including God and that it has a boundary.

But what IS Nothingness but infinity.

So back to square one - there MUST always be something there to make something.

What's the alternative?

a reply to: edmc^2

Who says the singularity came from nothing? "Before" the singularity makes no sense as time itself didn't exist.

You've still yet to substantiate:

a) the claim that "something can't come from nothing"

b) why any god is exempt from a) (other than hand wringing and special pleading)

c) the claim that the singularity came from "nothing"

d) a workable definition of "nothing"

e) observational evidence that "nothing" even exists

f) how, given the lack of e), you can make any assumptions about "something" not being able to come from "nothing"

g) even if all of the above is valid, how you can conclude "therefore, god dunnit". Which god? How many gods? Why even god? This is a complete non sequiter

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: edmc^2

But if we say that it is finite then it follows that it must have a boundary, which means that someday the expanding universe will hit this "wall".

But this is not logical because if we say that it has a "wall", what then is behind the wall or boundary?

Another space?

No one knows. At this point, we're still working on getting a man to Mars. The rest can wait its turn.

Of course space is infinite, otherwise how can the universe expand at such alarming an rate?

But just to pique my curiosity - what's behind, around, in front, envelopes the observable universe as depicted in the illustration below?

Is it nothing or infinite space?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0bc26b654706.jpg[/atsimg]

What does your logic say?

My logic says that neither of us is equipped to accurately answer that question.

Why do you limit yourself to what others say?

You asked what my logic tells me, not what other people tell me.

Now, this is the beauty of those who believe in God, a Creator. That is, we've already advanced to next level of existence in that we're able to see with our minds eye what's out there. We're not limited to the physical but able to fathom the spiritual, the invisible part of our universe.

I thought this was supposed to be a logic based discussion. I don't predict any logic happening in a speculative monologue regarding theoretical metaphysics. Circles and circles...

But then again, I understand your position because you see things only on the physical level. Thus, you're unsure of what you believe. Hoping that someday someone will tell you what to believe and not to believe.

Your patronizing tone is highly unbecoming. One, I feel that probability dictates that on the most minute level, the forces governing this universe are decidedly unintelligent. And lots of "invisible" stuff goes into that math, too. Like particle physics and the electromagnetic spectrum. Two, I am as sure of my position as you are of yours. The biggest difference being, my beliefs are capable of change, given sufficient data. Three, no one tells me what to believe. It's laughable that you would suggest otherwise.

So for my part I'm quite sure of what I believe and can back up what I say based on logic and common sense.

By speculating about theoretical metaphysics and employing special pleading.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: edmc^2

Who says the singularity came from nothing? "Before" the singularity makes no sense as time itself didn't exist.

You've still yet to substantiate:

a) the claim that "something can't come from nothing"

b) why any god is exempt from a) (other than hand wringing and special pleading)

c) the claim that the singularity came from "nothing"

d) a workable definition of "nothing"

e) observational evidence that "nothing" even exists

f) how, given the lack of e), you can make any assumptions about "something" not being able to come from "nothing"

g) even if all of the above is valid, how you can conclude "therefore, god dunnit". Which god? How many gods? Why even god? This is a complete non sequiter

I'm very interested in reading these answers as well.

a reply to: edmc^2

"why assume there is no boundary that the universe is expanding towards." Because there's no other alternative to it. Otherwise you'll have to illogically accept and believe that Nothingness created everything else - including God.

What? How does a boundary to a universe equal created by nothing? A boundary is just a boundary, it has nothing to do with creation of whats inside that boundary. That doesn't make any sense.

I'm not arguing the fact something has always existed, that seems logical in every way. I'm simply trying to point out that because something has always existed does not support god. It supports existence, nothing more. So if we accept that something has always been around in some form, your still left without evidence that an aware being is what has always been simply because we don't know.

a reply to: edmc^2

Like I said initially, there is no point in arguing with you. In your mind you already "know" the answer. You say prove you wrong logically, that is a joke!

You said -

If one have doubts of what he or she believes then what's the point of believing.

That is exactly why I don't argue with people like you. You have a faith driven paradigm of the world that conflicts with your logic and reasoning.

When you say things like you already know that God exists because of this, you are letting everyone know you aren't open minded.

originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: edmc^2

Like I said initially, there is no point in arguing with you. In your mind you already "know" the answer. You say prove you wrong logically, that is a joke!

You said -

If one have doubts of what he or she believes then what's the point of believing.

That is exactly why I don't argue with people like you. You have a faith driven paradigm of the world that conflicts with your logic and reasoning.

When you say things like you already know that God exists because of this, you are letting everyone know you aren't open minded.

All things considered what's the alternative?

originally posted by: edmc^2
On the other hand, you might just admit that you don't know. Of course nothing wrong with that but it's an unsatisfactory answer to a simple question where the answer is really not that hard to figure out.

Why do you think that the answers (the truth) should be satisfying? And if the answer was simple, we'd already know - but we don't.

In either case you might think that this claim "of nothing created the universe" is scientific, or that it makes much more sense than the alternative. But I assure you, it's not for the simple reason that it flies against logic and commonsense. It goes against the very nature of things.

Quantum mechanics flies against logic and common sense. Yet it exists. And seeing as quantum rules likely decided the outcome of the initial expansion as best we understand it, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that the reasons themselves would seem illogical and fly against common sense?



Alternatively, we could just stop being inquisitive and just repeat 'god did it', and never really understand anything. I prefer to actually know, or at least try our best to find out.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: edmc^2

Like I said initially, there is no point in arguing with you. In your mind you already "know" the answer. You say prove you wrong logically, that is a joke!

You said -

If one have doubts of what he or she believes then what's the point of believing.

That is exactly why I don't argue with people like you. You have a faith driven paradigm of the world that conflicts with your logic and reasoning.

When you say things like you already know that God exists because of this, you are letting everyone know you aren't open minded.

All things considered what's the alternative?

Well, there is taking an honest and in-depth look at the possibility that God doesn't exist. Which, in my opinion, you have not yet done. My impression is that you don't really care if we can prove you wrong, and that you have no intention of admitting that you might be wrong. Your errors and mistakes have already been pointed out, but you have not budged.

This thread is an exercise in futility.

originally posted by: drivers1492
a reply to: edmc^2

"why assume there is no boundary that the universe is expanding towards." Because there's no other alternative to it. Otherwise you'll have to illogically accept and believe that Nothingness created everything else - including God.

What? How does a boundary to a universe equal created by nothing? A boundary is just a boundary, it has nothing to do with creation of whats inside that boundary. That doesn't make any sense.

I'm not arguing the fact something has always existed, that seems logical in every way. I'm simply trying to point out that because something has always existed does not support god. It supports existence, nothing more. So if we accept that something has always been around in some form, your still left without evidence that an aware being is what has always been simply because we don't know.

My apologies if I got you confused.

But since we're on the same page as to why there must be something (or someone - in my case) for something to exist, then this part of the discussion is mute.

So why Someone instead of just something for the existence of the universe?

Because, of ORDER in the Universe. A "thing" (based on logic and experience) cannot and will not order itself unless acted upon by an outside force. Yet force itself is useless unless it's directed.

And since the universe exhibit a highly organized existence, thus the only logical conclusion is that Someone with intelligence made it to be that way.

But if we say that something inanimate organized it in such a precise way what then is our basis for it?

Not logic nor everyday experience because we know for a fact that nothing in the world or for that matter in the universe can such thing occur.

Unless of course we assume that it is. If so, we're then basing our evidence on assumption. An unfounded one at that.


As for the boundary - think about, if we say that the universe or space is like an egg where the shell is the boundary what then is outside the shell?

It can't be something solid - can't it? It can't because the physical laws won't allow it to occur. That is, what's holding it then?

Nothing?

There again takes us back to square one.

So the only logical answer is - space has no boundary but is infinite.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: edmc^2

Like I said initially, there is no point in arguing with you. In your mind you already "know" the answer. You say prove you wrong logically, that is a joke!

You said -

If one have doubts of what he or she believes then what's the point of believing.

That is exactly why I don't argue with people like you. You have a faith driven paradigm of the world that conflicts with your logic and reasoning.

When you say things like you already know that God exists because of this, you are letting everyone know you aren't open minded.

All things considered what's the alternative?

Well, there is taking an honest and in-depth look at the possibility that God doesn't exist. Which, in my opinion, you have not yet done. My impression is that you don't really care if we can prove you wrong, and that you have no intention of admitting that you might be wrong. Your errors and mistakes have already been pointed out, but you have not budged.

This thread is an exercise in futility.

Sure I do care, hence this thread.

So if God doesn't exist then please explain logically how the universe came to be?

Where did the material universe came from? What's the source?

In other words who put E = m c 2 into motion?

a reply to: edmc^2

Because, of ORDER in the Universe. A "thing" (based on logic and experience) cannot and will not order itself unless acted upon by an outside force. Yet force itself is useless unless it's directed.

And since the universe exhibit a highly organized existence, thus the only logical conclusion is that Someone with intelligence made it to be that way.

So what made God? How did God happen?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: edmc^2

Like I said initially, there is no point in arguing with you. In your mind you already "know" the answer. You say prove you wrong logically, that is a joke!

You said -

If one have doubts of what he or she believes then what's the point of believing.

That is exactly why I don't argue with people like you. You have a faith driven paradigm of the world that conflicts with your logic and reasoning.

When you say things like you already know that God exists because of this, you are letting everyone know you aren't open minded.

All things considered what's the alternative?

Well, there is taking an honest and in-depth look at the possibility that God doesn't exist. Which, in my opinion, you have not yet done. My impression is that you don't really care if we can prove you wrong, and that you have no intention of admitting that you might be wrong. Your errors and mistakes have already been pointed out, but you have not budged.

This thread is an exercise in futility.

Sure I do care, hence this thread.

So if God doesn't exist then please explain logically how the universe came to be?

Where did the material universe came from? What's the source?

In other words who put E = m c 2 into motion?

Explain logically how God came to be. That's still a gaping hole in your plot. Something can't come from nothing, but God can. Explain that, using logic.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

The OP is a prime example from a Gnostic Theist claiming proof or knowledge. It does make me wonder if he is being honest with himself on that though. The amount of mental gymnastics performed to claim such a conclusion is astounding. The thesis falls flat on so many levels and he tries to cover for that with special pleading for the deity. It all is a bit confusing as to the motivations for such a thread. If he truly has faith then why all the faulty logic or logical fallacy to try and convince others? I think that maybe he is trying to cover for his doubt by seeing if he can convince others to think as he does.

He said his faith in god is the same as my faith that the sun will come up. Thing is I can pull up a webcam on the other side of the world or even the ISS to verify whereas he can't provide evidence or a cam for that matter of a deity. Could be this thread is the result of an agnostic theist trying to convince himself to be a gnostic theist.



It is just a thought on the motivations of this thread. BTW AA here agnostic and atheist on the subject. If there is ever some compelling evidence on the matter I will change my mind either way.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: edmc^2

But if we say that it is finite then it follows that it must have a boundary, which means that someday the expanding universe will hit this "wall".

But this is not logical because if we say that it has a "wall", what then is behind the wall or boundary?

Another space?

No one knows. At this point, we're still working on getting a man to Mars. The rest can wait its turn.

Of course space is infinite, otherwise how can the universe expand at such alarming an rate?

But just to pique my curiosity - what's behind, around, in front, envelopes the observable universe as depicted in the illustration below?

Is it nothing or infinite space?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0bc26b654706.jpg[/atsimg]

What does your logic say?

My logic says that neither of us is equipped to accurately answer that question.

Why do you limit yourself to what others say?

You asked what my logic tells me, not what other people tell me.

Now, this is the beauty of those who believe in God, a Creator. That is, we've already advanced to next level of existence in that we're able to see with our minds eye what's out there. We're not limited to the physical but able to fathom the spiritual, the invisible part of our universe.

I thought this was supposed to be a logic based discussion. I don't predict any logic happening in a speculative monologue regarding theoretical metaphysics. Circles and circles...

But then again, I understand your position because you see things only on the physical level. Thus, you're unsure of what you believe. Hoping that someday someone will tell you what to believe and not to believe.

Your patronizing tone is highly unbecoming. One, I feel that probability dictates that on the most minute level, the forces governing this universe are decidedly unintelligent. And lots of "invisible" stuff goes into that math, too. Like particle physics and the electromagnetic spectrum. Two, I am as sure of my position as you are of yours. The biggest difference being, my beliefs are capable of change, given sufficient data. Three, no one tells me what to believe. It's laughable that you would suggest otherwise.

So for my part I'm quite sure of what I believe and can back up what I say based on logic and common sense.

By speculating about theoretical metaphysics and employing special pleading.

Yes this logic based discussion but since you're the one who introduced "faith" thus I responded in kind.

As to my patronizing tone, my apologies if it came out that way. it wasn't my intention but I thought you said you we're once a believer and is not now so I responded in kind.

That's all to it.

But you say:

"the forces governing this universe are decidedly unintelligent"

Who made the decision that it was "decidedly unintelligent"?

Furthermore how can an unintelligent force - direct atoms and particles to ORDER themselves in such a way that E = m c 2?

I fail to see it.

Is this by any chance based on assumption and speculation or logic and everyday experienced?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: edmc^2

But if we say that it is finite then it follows that it must have a boundary, which means that someday the expanding universe will hit this "wall".

But this is not logical because if we say that it has a "wall", what then is behind the wall or boundary?

Another space?

No one knows. At this point, we're still working on getting a man to Mars. The rest can wait its turn.

Of course space is infinite, otherwise how can the universe expand at such alarming an rate?

But just to pique my curiosity - what's behind, around, in front, envelopes the observable universe as depicted in the illustration below?

Is it nothing or infinite space?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0bc26b654706.jpg[/atsimg]

What does your logic say?

My logic says that neither of us is equipped to accurately answer that question.

Why do you limit yourself to what others say?

You asked what my logic tells me, not what other people tell me.

Now, this is the beauty of those who believe in God, a Creator. That is, we've already advanced to next level of existence in that we're able to see with our minds eye what's out there. We're not limited to the physical but able to fathom the spiritual, the invisible part of our universe.

I thought this was supposed to be a logic based discussion. I don't predict any logic happening in a speculative monologue regarding theoretical metaphysics. Circles and circles...

But then again, I understand your position because you see things only on the physical level. Thus, you're unsure of what you believe. Hoping that someday someone will tell you what to believe and not to believe.

Your patronizing tone is highly unbecoming. One, I feel that probability dictates that on the most minute level, the forces governing this universe are decidedly unintelligent. And lots of "invisible" stuff goes into that math, too. Like particle physics and the electromagnetic spectrum. Two, I am as sure of my position as you are of yours. The biggest difference being, my beliefs are capable of change, given sufficient data. Three, no one tells me what to believe. It's laughable that you would suggest otherwise.

So for my part I'm quite sure of what I believe and can back up what I say based on logic and common sense.

By speculating about theoretical metaphysics and employing special pleading.

Yes this logic based discussion but since you're the one who introduced "faith" thus I responded in kind.

I said nothing about faith.

As to my patronizing tone, my apologies if it came out that way. it wasn't my intention but I thought you said you we're once a believer and is not now so I responded in kind.

That's all to it.

Maybe you should go back and reread my post. It seems you might have gotten mine mixed up with someone else's.

But you say:

"the forces governing this universe are decidedly unintelligent"

Who made the decision that it was "decidedly unintelligent"?

Who made the decision that the forces governing this universe could be classified as intelligent? By the way, I'm talking about the four fundamental forces.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Furthermore how can an unintelligent force - direct atoms and particles to ORDER themselves in such a way that E = m c 2?

I fail to see it.

Is this by any chance based on assumption and speculation or logic and everyday experienced?

You have also failed to answer my question regarding how God came to be, according to your theory. A universe requires creation by a higher power, but God does not because...?

originally posted by: edmc^2
But, isn't it Nothingness is also a form of infinity?

No idea. What is nothingness and are you sure it exists?

If so, then who or what created Nothingness?

Why does nothingness have to be created?

I would say NONE otherwise it's finite which is very illogical.

Agree?

This confuses me. How can you call a potential description of something that we cannot adequately describe illogical? In order to do that, it requires you to assume things about nothingness. Actually check that, why are we trying to apply logic to something(?) that is outside the universe? For all we know nothingness can be both finite and infinite at the same time.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: edmc^2

Like I said initially, there is no point in arguing with you. In your mind you already "know" the answer. You say prove you wrong logically, that is a joke!

You said -

If one have doubts of what he or she believes then what's the point of believing.

That is exactly why I don't argue with people like you. You have a faith driven paradigm of the world that conflicts with your logic and reasoning.

When you say things like you already know that God exists because of this, you are letting everyone know you aren't open minded.

All things considered what's the alternative?

Well, there is taking an honest and in-depth look at the possibility that God doesn't exist. Which, in my opinion, you have not yet done. My impression is that you don't really care if we can prove you wrong, and that you have no intention of admitting that you might be wrong. Your errors and mistakes have already been pointed out, but you have not budged.

This thread is an exercise in futility.

Sure I do care, hence this thread.

So if God doesn't exist then please explain logically how the universe came to be?

Where did the material universe came from? What's the source?

In other words who put E = m c 2 into motion?

Explain logically how God came to be. That's still a gaping hole in your plot. Something can't come from nothing, but God can. Explain that, using logic.

I dunno AfterInfinity if there's any other way of explaining it to you.

If you can't grasp the concept of Infinity or order and disorder or directed force or inherent intelligence how then can I explain the existence of God?

It's like explaining the color blue to a person born blind.

But here's a thought:

One can't get something from nothing, there MUST be something that's already existing - uncreated to begin with.

Hence the concept of Infinity.

a reply to: edmc^2

Okay that's where we part ways. Your putting forward an idea of the order of the universe and stating this and that cannot happen when we don't understand the universe. That's my point I'm trying to get across. You can't state things cannot be due to laws that you do not know exist(or don't exist). That's not common sense or logic. You can make your case on what we know so far, but to assume things and say that this is the only way isn't being logical or even honest. An example would be this statement

It can't be something solid - can't it? It can't because the physical laws won't allow it to occur.

You, nor I, or anyone for that matter has the slightest clue if there is a boundary much less what the boundary would be and the laws that govern the boundary. So there isn't logic in that statement because you don't know. So the conclusion is no, we have no idea or even a hint at whether or not the universe exists in and infinite place with no boundary nor what occurred to start it. That's where we are, logically, which in all honestly is slightly a fraction of a degree above zero in knowledge concerning these things.

There are logical assumptions that can be made about many things. But when something falls outside the scope of ability or knowledge it can no longer be considered a logical assumption. What we can observe in the universe could be from god. I have no idea if there is one or not, but for the sake of argument if I accept that there is one. What your presenting still falls outside the scope of actually knowing and falling towards a feeling about how and why. There is nothing wrong with that imo. Many great men throughout history have done the exact same thing. I simply like to know why.