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

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: edmc^2
Your analogy and the comparison to the universe is a poor example and is not what thermodynamic laws state.

You seem to not be aware that the 2nd law has several aspects to it (heat wasted in conversion, heat will travel from higher to lower value, heat sink, and entropy) and you want to combine them all and call it entropy. In an internal combustion engine, entropy only plays a part in the energy available for work. Entropy, in an internal combustion engine, is only present in between the fuel injection and the carburetor. Basically, the fuel and air have a greater availability for work before the engine starts and once the engine starts the two begin to mix (disorder). As it runs, it becomes more and more mixed (further disorder). Mixtures do not "unmix" on their own . . . this is the measure of entropy in an engine.

It has nothing to do with "orderly design" . . . once again, you simply are not grasping your misunderstanding of the principle.

In the universe, it's about the "heat" of the universe working toward an equilibrium. (read: equal temperature across the cosmos = disorder). That's all . . .

...

Of course it does. But the thing is I'm looking at the entire picture while you on the other hand are looking at the delta of change in every part of the picture.

And in doing so, you are making up your own definitions which have nothing to do with the actual science you claim "proves" your point . . . As far as deltas, that's the only thing that entropy is a measure of. It is a quantitative measurement... Not qualitative.

A look at the fossil and geological records show us that our planet has evolved over billions of years and life has stopped and started several times over with species, plants etc evolving and dieing seems more like a natural cause because I don't understand why a creator would not have made man immediately he had the plant life running? Why bother with Gorgonopsis and then the dinosaurs, then the mammals - we are quite late in the agenda if the religious claim is that we are made in God's image.

Its a tricky one for some separating God into: God the Creator of the universes and man's God but they are two different entities altogether, the latter from man's ego.

I don't doubt there is intelligent design employed, but it seems more like trial and error. I think the ancient peoples like the Egyptians had a better grasp on the ideas of infinity, Gods and man's relationships to both. Today we are examining the world and trying to make sense of it with our practical minds, perhaps we cannot conceive that there are some things that remain invisible to our imagination so we cannot make sense of infinity and all it entails for us.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: chr0naut

Really, the 'if I can't directly sense it, it doesn't exist' argument is a fairly weak refutation!

Well, that is a major simplification of what I was saying but, is it really???

God can create everything, all space, time, life, etc. He is everywhere in time and space always, knows all time and space always and so on and so on. Yet he won't show himself even just every once and while or something, like that is so much to ask right???

Even an Slum Lord checks in once a month to collect the rent. Even a Deadbeat Dad seeks out their kid a handful of times during the coarse of their lives. Yet it's asking to much for us to see Him now and then, how do you figure??? I mean he's already everywhere right, so what's the problem???

Waste energy. He's the guy that lit a billion billion suns. If you saw Him, you'd be a plasma. It says so in a certain collection of books written by bronze-age shepherds. 3,000 years later and we're still trying to understand its ideas and implications.

a reply to: edmc^2

I think you are making a bit too much of thermodynamics.

Translated directly from the Latin, it means Heat & Change.

I think anything that science, our philosophies or conjectures can tell us about God, is such a tiny part of the picture that we look like fools holding printed paint swatches up to determine the color of the sun.

I also suspect that infinities do not exist in this material universe. If they did we'd never really know for sure anyway. It would take more than all humanity has, just to measure one infinity. That's the nature of it.

But great works that carry revealed nature and plans from God are probably the closest a human understanding can come. I mean, He made them for us. It's what He wants us to know. It's God-breathed.

a reply to: edmc^2

This is a great video on entropy, I urge you to watch at least from 46:20 (although the whole thing is well worth watching), which explains how order comes from disorder - how the second law enables complexity.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is no such thing as "nothing" in physics because a perfect vacuum cannot be either created in the lab or observed in nature. The lowest possible energy state is the definition of "nothing" in physics. What you're proposing has no legs - nor is it grounded in any real science. It's simply speculation that a "something" was there to create a "something" from a "nothing". Totally illogical and unprovable.

I think you either misunderstood me or responded to the wrong person, I never said that nothing exists. I said that pre-big bang, the universe was a singularity (the opposite of nothing) and then big bang happened and it started to expand. That is exactly what the theory says.

Has edmc explained where god came from, if something can't come from nothing?

...ugh. of course he didn't. Even though this is the 7th or 8th time I've posted the question.

a reply to: edmc^2

In mathematics infinity is an abstract concept. Whether the universe or whatever is actually infinite is unknown and may be unknowable.

So you have several possibilities here:

1. God exists and is infinite. Therefore, because God is infinite, so is space.
2. God exists and is infinite. But space is not infinite.
3. God exists but is not infinite. Therefore, nothing can be infinite.
4. God exists but is not infinite. But space is infinite.
5. God does not exist. Therefore, there can be no infinity.
6. God does not exist. But space is infinite.
7. God is unknowable. Therefore, we can never prove infinity.
8. God is unknowable. But we can prove that space is either infinite or it isn't through observation.

In each of the possibilities above, you have to be able to prove one part of the statement.
Number 8 is the only one you may be able to prove.

Where I disagree with you is that you are using deductive reasoning (the top-down approach) to come to a conclusion. And that's fine. The problem is that when you reach a conclusion, or a hypothesis, you have to be able to prove it in some way. You can't just leave it hanging out there with no validation.

You asked "what are you left with?" What you're left with are questions that are unanswerable because there's nothing to observe. You can't observe God. You can't measure God. You can't compare God to space. Space, or infinity as you put it, may be measurable at some point in time. But right now, it's an unknown.

a reply to: solomons path

What is interesting about this though is that quantum theory allows for all possibilities. That's why it's so interesting - all realms of possibilities are taken into account. The problem is proving any of them. Just think of the Higgs Boson - it wasn't possible until recently to demonstrate and observe that the particle really exists.

Personally, I would never say "never" to anything, even god, because we don't know the limitations of our conscious minds. And there's another good question: are conscious minds bound by limits? If they're not, and there was some way to keep that mind alive forever, maybe that could be described as infinity. Who knows. It's all speculation until you can observe it, test it, measure it and draw some conclusion.

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

OP, fancy clarifying your position by answering these questions?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, you're correct - replied to the wrong person.

originally posted by: edmc^2
For example if you put "nothing" in a bank account you should expect at least a $billion or more in there.

Your turn...

I found this impeccable little gem of creationist logic the highlight of the entire post. It would seem less than possible for an argument to degenerate from such a position, but once again creationism proves miraculous.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Waste energy. He's the guy that lit a billion billion suns. If you saw Him, you'd be a plasma.

I see. So he's all powerful and can do anything except show himself without melting my face off. Makes perfect sense. Seems to me like that is the same as saying God does have his limitations.

It says so in a certain collection of books written by bronze-age shepherds. 3,000 years later and we're still trying to understand its ideas and implications.

Right. I know when ever I think of credible sources for information, 3,000 year old shepherds are the first people that spring to my mind.

I would say that all this sounds like you people are just making this stuff up as you go along but you're not even that creative because I've heard it all before. You people really need some new material.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: edmc^2
For example if you put "nothing" in a bank account you should expect at least a $billion or more in there.

Your turn...

I found this impeccable little gem of creationist logic the highlight of the entire post. It would seem less than possible for an argument to degenerate from such a position, but once again creationism proves miraculous.

Except that you quoted it out of context:

So here's what that "little gem" is all about.

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. But if you insist that it is, then should it be be the norm, not the exception? Is it not? Of course! And why not? If true, we should expect this then to be happening in any case. For example if you put "nothing" in a bank account you should expect at least a $billion or more in there. After all, what's a $billion in comparison to the universe with its "billions of billions" of stars and galaxies? If such "thing" as the universe can come by, by means of nothing, surely a $B should be nothing at all in the scheme of things. But everyday experiences show otherwise because we know for a fact that you can only get something from a pre-existing something and NOT from nothing. Hence when nothing is put in, expect nothing to come out. Otherwise it's short of a miracle if not magic on your part. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

In mathematics infinity is an abstract concept. Whether the universe or whatever is actually infinite is unknown and may be unknowable.

--> Agree, that's why we call it infinity because we can't assign any value to it. And since we can't assign any value, thus its "unknown" or "unknowable". Unless of course IT or He lets us KNOW who or what it / He is.

So you have several possibilities here:

1. God exists and is infinite. Therefore, because God is infinite, so is space.

--> Makes logical sense otherwise what holds the infinite?

2. God exists and is infinite. But space is not infinite.

--> Not logical for how can an infinite being exist if his place or plane of existence is not?

3. God exists but is not infinite. Therefore, nothing can be infinite.

--> Illogical because it's meaningless as it will make our existence or for that matter space itself locked in to something limited - confined/bounded. Hence, an expanding Universe is just an illusion as is the law that govern it.

4. God exists but is not infinite. But space is infinite.

--> Illogical as it creates an unending question of who then is the Ultimate Creator of God?

5. God does not exist. Therefore, there can be no infinity.

--> Illogical as it will render our existence or for that matter the universe and space a product of what?
Absolute nothing - an unimaginable emptiness.

6. God does not exist. But space is infinite.

--> This then makes "chance event" the PRIME Mover and the Creator of the universe. It doesn't make logical sense as it makes a non-intelligent thing creating an intelligent mind and order through an undirected chance event.

7. God is unknowable. Therefore, we can never prove infinity.

--> Yet God Himself tells us that He is not unknowable. In fact He already provided information of how to KNOW him. Hence to know him is to have a "glimpse" of infinity or to be exact - eternity.

8. God is unknowable. But we can prove that space is either infinite or it isn't through observation.

--> Hence the existence of the Holy Scriptures. And through logic coupled with observation - everyday experience, we can prove that space is infinite otherwise the alternative is to accept and believe that we're living in an "egg shell", where again begs the question, what's outside the "shell" and on and on.

In each of the possibilities above, you have to be able to prove one part of the statement.
Number 8 is the only one you may be able to prove.

Where I disagree with you is that you are using deductive reasoning (the top-down approach) to come to a conclusion. And that's fine. The problem is that when you reach a conclusion, or a hypothesis, you have to be able to prove it in some way. You can't just leave it hanging out there with no validation.

You asked "what are you left with?" What you're left with are questions that are unanswerable because there's nothing to observe. You can't observe God. You can't measure God. You can't compare God to space. Space, or infinity as you put it, may be measurable at some point in time. But right now, it's an unknown.

--> No, not questions but the OBVIOUS and the logical!

That is, God exist for ORDER to exist. And since order exists thus we can OBSERVE its cause and effect.

In fact, to quote one of my favorite scriptures, it bluntly tells us:

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them." [Rom 1:19 ESV]

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." [Rom 1:20 ESV]

As to infinity - whether you believe the Scriptures or not, it tells us the profound and logical truth:

Here are just but a few of the many truth about God.

"Great is Jehovah, and greatly to be praised; And his greatness is unsearchable." [Psa 145:3 ASV]

"Lo, these are but the outskirts of his ways: And how small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand?" [Job 26:14 ASV]

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out!" [Rom 11:33 ASV]

"I have seen the business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with." [Ecc 3:10 ESV]

"He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end." [Ecc 3:11 ESV]

just my 2c.

thanks for the enjoyable post.

a reply to: edmc^2

Once again, you ignore hard scientific fact. Why don't you prove your "nothing" hypothesis? Where is written in scientific literature that "nothing" has ever been identified or characterized. There's no logic to your statements.

a reply to: GetHyped

OK - let me take a gander.

GetHyped you said:

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

I say: --> Who's saying this? Not me since my premise is that it came from a pre-existing "something" or an Always Existing Someone.

You've still yet to substantiate:

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

--> If logic and common sense and everyday experience won't do, how else can I explain it?

In fact even space that we call empty space, it's not really empty because there's always SOMETHING in it - just invisible to the naked eye - like the Higgs field. Hence, nothing or nothingness is just a terminology we use to define SOMETHING that is undetectable to us. In short, there's ALWAYS SOMETHING rather than nothing. There's no way around it however you slice it and dice it. There's always something there - and I'm sticking to it

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

--> Because the Creator is higher/ greater than the materials used to create the system - i.e. the universe. If He is not higher or of the same level as an atom then how does a weak or equal force overcome the stronger force? It can't be done whether in our plane of existence or otherwise. It just can't. For how can cold overcome hot? In other words - cold ALWAYS will flow from hot - not the other way around. Hence in this sense - Hot will always precede cold - until equilibrium is achieve then both are in equal state, hence no work.

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

Who's saying this? See a)

d) a workable definition of "nothing"

To me, there's no such thing as "nothing" - since there's Always Something to begin with.
Something will always produce something. Hence the Universe, hence Infinite Space.
See a)

e) observational evidence that "nothing" even exists

I thought this is your premise and those who believe that there's no God or that nothing was there before the singularity. In any case see a) d)

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

See a) d) and e)

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

See OP

My 2c,
Thanks for the post.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

Once again, you ignore hard scientific fact. Why don't you prove your "nothing" hypothesis? Where is written in scientific literature that "nothing" has ever been identified or characterized. There's no logic to your statements.

Phantom - nothing is only a frame of mind.

Always something is the reality.

Come on - why do you need white paper for this?

a reply to: edmc^2

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.

So does everything you've posted so far.

But everyday experiences show otherwise because we know for a fact that you can only get something from a pre-existing something and NOT from nothing. Hence when nothing is put in, expect nothing to come out. Otherwise it's short of a miracle if not magic on your part.

Then where the bloody hell did God come from?!?!

Holy cow, answer the stupid question. Just once. Please.

originally posted by: edmc^2

Makes logical sense otherwise what holds the infinite?

That makes sense???? How does it make sense that "Something" should "Hold the Infinite"????