Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
The Earth isn't a closed system, Heusdens. The universe is.
Right, and I never said it was. In reality there exist NO closed systems. They are idealizations. Every system has thermal contact with the surrounding environment, but it can be reduced to unmeaserable small quantities.
Originally posted by heusdens
No Jack, and you know you are wrong.
I don't think so.
Quote:
Cause neither the universe is in any way finite, nor is it part of anything. So therefore it can not be a closed system, cause that would require there be something outside of the universe, with which the universe has no thermal interaction.
Not necessarily. The universe, as a whole, is a closed system.
Quote:
Thermodynamics deals with closed systems which are finite and part of a larger system. The universe is not like that, and you know that Jack.
It doesn't have to be part of a larger system to be a closed system.
Quote:
And besides, when you follow the reasoning as I did in the previous post, then how could it be the 'heat death' didn't already occur?
Because the universe had a beginning. Or are you suggesting that it's always been here?
Quote:
Or you must assume then that - in contradiction to the first law of thermodynamics - matter and energy suddenly appeared from nowhere, with a fixed amount of entropy and then runs down,
That's not a problem when you consider a Transcendent Creator.
Quote:
or you have to accept then that the world is impossible, because the heat death would have already occured.
Only if the universe has always existed.
Quote:
Which is not the case as you can verify yourself, by witnessing the sun shining.
Somewhere you made a mistake Jack!
I'm not the one mistaking the Earth for a closed system, which is what you seem to be doing with this argument.
Last edited by One Eyed Jack; July 10th, 2003 at 06:37 AM.
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I don't think so.
Not necessarily. The universe, as a whole, is a closed system.
It doesn't have to be part of a larger system to be a closed system.
Because the universe had a beginning. Or are you suggesting that it's always been here?
That's what the Big Bang theory says.
Only if the universe has always existed.
I'm not the one mistaking the Earth for a closed system, which is what you seem to be doing with this argument.
Jack, you realy realy have the wrong concepts about reality.
If the universe is as you see it a CLOSED system, then please tell me, if I want to put the universe in a box, how large would that box have to be? You can decide on the measuring units.
Please indicate me how large this box must be, so that we can look at the universe in seperation from the rest.
And explain me one other thing. I just went outside. THE SUN SHINES. It shines for me as well as for you. Have you witnessed the sun shining Jack? Did you see it? Have you seen the light?
Now explain me Jack, why does the sun still shine. It couldn't if your theory is right. All usuable energy would have already be gone. Either that OR the universe would have had to have started at some point in time, isn't it?
Do you know what the first law of thermodynamics says about conservation of matter/energy? It says that they are CONSERVED quantities.
Now please explain me in physical terms as to what would have happened during the Big Bang. Please explain me I am fascinated.
Last edited by heusdens; July 10th, 2003 at 06:41 AM.
Originally posted by heusdens
Jack, you realy realy have the wrong concepts about reality.
Explain me one thing. I just went outside. THE SUN SHINES.
It shines for me as well as for you. Have you witnessed the sun shining Jack? Did you see it? Have you seen the light?
Now explain me Jack, why does the sun still shine. It couldn't if your theory is right.
It could if the universe had a beginning.
Quote:
Do you know what the first law of thermodynamics says about conservation of matter/energy? It says that they are CONSERVED quantities.
I know that.
Quote:
Now please explain me in physical terms as to what would have happened during the Big Bang. Please explain me I am fascinated.
There are various Big Bang models. Some scientists say all the matter and energy just literally popped out of nowhere, and others just say they don't know where it came from. Neither answer is particularly satisfying, but those are the limits we have to work with. If you have a better idea, please tell us what it is.
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
It could if the universe had a beginning.
That is a fascinating theory, but could that have been the case?
Quote:
There are various Big Bang models. Some scientists say all the matter and energy just literally popped out of nowhere, and others just say they don't know where it came from. Neither answer is particularly satisfying, but those are the limits we have to work with. If you have a better idea, please tell us what it is.
People say a lot of stuff, and scientist are like the rest. But it does not matter how they look on reality, we are here dealing with reality itself Jack.
By the way the "beginning of the universe" is just a popularized thought, which was based on books like "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking.
Have you read that book? What does it say about this? Have you read all of it? Does Stephen Hawking "belief" there was a begin of time?
And have you read my mindly excercise on this?
It is here. I can advise you to read it, it is about the most fundamental thing, the very basic layer of our mental perception of the world as a whole, and how we can know about the world.
We are not dealing with something trivial here Jack, it is not a trivial thing to consider at all, it requires us a deeper understanding of reality, of reality itself, and not just on how anyone looks at it or invisions it.
Originally posted by heusdens
Right, and I never said it was. In reality there exist NO closed systems. They are idealizations. Every system has thermal contact with the surrounding environment, but it can be reduced to unmeaserable small quantities.
What does the universe as a whole have thermal contact with, other than itself?
I would like to remind posters to this thread that it was set up specifically to discuss points raised in the debate by the two gladiators.
In the future postings that wander off the topic will be ruthlessly deleted.
Your friendly Moderator.
Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Because God created the universe. If you want a scientific answer, ask a scientist. Most of them will tell you the universe had a beginning too.
You are stuck in such a concept Jack. A concept which has been made at one time, but which is a non-sense concept. It violates all known physical laws, and you know that. It can not and never can be fit into reality.
Matter coming out of nothing for no appearent reason is not something that can happen.
Tell me, suppose that at one time there would have been nothing. And with nothing I mean NOTHING. Nothing at all. No matter, no mind, no consciousness, no spirit, no God.
How could the world then ever come 'into existence'? Show me the physcics of that.
Physics can not do that. It does not work that way. It can never happen.
Stephen Hawking writes in his book, A Brief History of Time : "Physics don't know how to make physical laws from nothing". That is a confession. It in fact states that one can not create something from utterly nothing. All motion all transformation and whatever there CAN occur, always require there to be something instead of nothing.
If you would have read the book "A Brief History of Time" well, you would have known that Stephen Hawking is not writing about the begin of time as such. People belief that, and people belief that because they want to belief that, but that is not what Stephen Hawking writes.
His idea is not about the begin of time as such. What he comes up with is a solution to the ugly nature of the 'singularity'. He therefore assumes that time becomes more 'spacelike' near the singularity, and in that way he overcomes the singularity. It becomes then 'calculable'. But in order to do that, when using complex quantummechanical equations, he needs to introduce another thing. He has to assume that apart from time, which he then calls "real time", he has to introduce "imaginary time". Imaginary here means not something of an imagination, as in something that isn't real but a dream, but imaginary in the sense that it is an independend time axis, which is orthogonal to the normal time axis. And he uses imaginary numbers (which are based on i, the square root of minus 1) to solve the wave equations. Imaginary numbers are used throughout many parts of physical theory, to solve wave equations etc. They are a handy tool for the mathematician, but the term 'imaginary' doesn't mean it is something unreal.
This imaginary time then, does NOT have a begin. In the book Stephen Hawking even says that in fact imaginary time is "more real" then "real time".
So, the "beginning of time" is just a popular translation of that idea. It is based on just one part of it, while trowing away the other. But as such this idea does not and can not state that time as such has had a definite begin. Physics can never work with that. It's a fixiuous idea, which does not belong to the real world.
Stephen Hawking is an atheist. As such he confesses to the idea that the world, the universe, in whatever form has always existed. Nevertheless, Stephen Hawking is a human too. He is dependend for his daily life mostly on his wife, who is a Christian.
For his book to be published, and spread amongst a wide audience, the publisher wanted him to put some theistic ideas in. It would increase the selling of the book. After all, Stephen Hawking is only human.
But if you read the book well, it does not say such a thing as a "begin of time". It can not.
Quote:
I don't think so. The universe was postulated to have a beginning long before Stephen Hawking wrote his book.
Many philosophers have been contemplated to spread such ideas, indeed. In fact this whole idea is very ancient, and has been discussed over and over throughout history in philosophy.
Amongst them for example was Herr Eugen Duhring, who stated that (based on a idea stolen from Kant, while neglecting the very opposite of that idea, which Kant also mentioned in the same book, and concluding that the one - the universe having a beginning - is as provable as the opposite - the universe having no begin in time) who 'proved' that a universe would have needed a begin in time.
And as a final note. Never get yourself completely stuck in the world of ideas. For as we just have showed, it might appear in your head that the world itself is impossible, and is based on some impossible contradiction. If that is the case then you have to ask yourself which one is impossible: your ideas about the world, or the world itself.
If that happens, then for sure stick your head out of the window, and witness the sun. See! It is realy there!
Some or most ideas about the world might be impossible, but never the world itself. You have to remember that.
All that we can know and ever can find out is that we have at some point make the assumption about the world itself.
Does the world just exist entirely within our own mind, can we know all about the world by our mind alone, or do we have to assume at one point that outside of our mind and of our consciousness there is a real world, which is based on some 'unknown' substance we call matter, that existed always.
We can not and never directly know matter. We can not see matter. We can not touch it or detect it. We can only see the various structures and types of specific formations of matter, which are continuously changing, evolving, and transforming.
But we know there is matter, and there has always been matter, cause matter is the essence and primary substance of the world, and forms and shapes the world, without which the world would not exist.
Last edited by heusdens; July 10th, 2003 at 07:46 AM.
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
What does the universe as a whole have thermal contact with, other than itself?
How LARGE is the box you need to put the closed system "Universe" in Jack?
You have an idea in your head about what a closed system is. Then you apply that idea to the universe, and then all of a sudden, all kinds of contradictions arise.
The universe is not something finite, so your very notions that it is just a closed system, but then larger as any closed system you know, is simply wrong.
You know it is wrong cause it can never work that way.
So which is impossible. Your idea or the world?
Did I just imagine there was a sun, or was the sun realy shining?
I have started a discussion thread in the Religion & Philosophy section which is the thread "The Fundamental Question."
We can not discuss this here, so can you post there please?
1. If Pastor Enyart's God exists, then he is a being who is powerful, loving, and just.
2. If Pastor Enyart's God exists, it would be in his interest (loving and just) and within
his capacity (powerful) for all human beings to know his absolute standards perfectly.
3. All humans do not know God's ethics perfectly, as is demonstrated by his followers
disagreeing about many moral values.
Therefore: Pastor Enyart's God does not exist.>
This has the appearance of syllogistic logic, but it isn't. In order to prove something to your audience by means of a syllogism, it must agree to the hypotheses. Then if you proceed logically from the hypotheses to the conclusion, the audience has to accept the conclusion. It is possible that many will agree to hypotheses 1 & 2. But between 2 & 3, other hypotheses are implied but not stated. They are: "God's primary interest in His relationship with man is to establish a set of laws for man to live by". "God would choose to use His power to impose these rules on minds that would fight against accepting them."
For some of us, it has been no problem to find God's ethics, summarized by (1) Love God with all your heart; (2) Love your neighbor as yourself.
Now, if those really were God's desires, then Zakath's argument seems to be that He would force us to accept them. He would, at least, reach into our minds and state them. But unwelcome understanding apparently is not God's way, and required love is not love at all. Jesus never attempted to ram his teachings down anyone's throat.
Zakath's statement 3 doesn't seem to make much sense. It attempts to transfer the failings of theists onto God Himself. The first part of the statement demonstrates that Zakath doesn't understand the fundamentals of logic. He clearly means " Not all humans know God's ethics perfectly". The statement as written makes a declaration about every person on earth, something that Zakath could never know. (Sketch the Venn diagrams.)
BTW, does it strike anyone else that it is illogical for an atheist to criticize fundamentalists for being closed-minded? An agnostic could make that charge, or a Christian with an open mind. But an atheist declares, "there is no God". What could be more closed-minded?
Originally posted by August
The statement as written makes a declaration about every person on earth, something that Zakath could never know
That is misleading. Zakath knows that ALL humans on this earth "dont know God's ethics perfectly" because he is a "human on this earth" and he "doesnt know God's ethics perfectly". Zakath would have to agree that he "doesnt know God's ethics perfectly" because for him there is no god, hence no "ethics of god" to know perfectly.
When it is not in our power to follow what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable.
- Rene Descartes
Good battle, while Pastor Enyart is eloquent the case he is arguing is weak.
Firstly, he is unable to produce any direct empirically verified evidence for God’s existence.
Secondly his “God of the Gaps” argument taken with out his obvious skill with word amounts to the assertion that because science at this moment can not provide a coherent naturalistic explanation for the origins of life and the origins of the universe God must have done it. This is very weak and leaves hostages to fortune if tomorrow somebody metaphorically pours a living organism out of a test tube that previously contained only non living material. This problem seems to arise for theists because some of them, maybe Pastor Enyart is one, have a fascination with absolute answers, they do not grasp that science is a work in progress its conclusions always tentative and subject to revision. As an atheist I am happy with this, a working hypothesis capable of falsification which suggests future directions for research is to me the essential goal of the game of science.
As a supplement to this it is one of the rules of the game to push methodological naturalism to its limits and some theist find it hard to believe those limits have not been reached yet. (In my experience this arise from frustration, see my first point above) In the end science may not be able to provide a complete naturalistic answer to the origin question this says nothing about the true answers to the origins questions themselves, maybe there is a naturalistic answer but humans are not intelligent enough to reach it or maybe there is a supernatural element required for the solution. That would not be confirmation of Christianity however; humans having climbed the conceptual mountain may find another trinity Brahma Vishnu and Shiva at the summit. Or maybe we will all have to get our prayer mats out and turn them to Mecca.
As a side note I should like to point out to all atheists that even if science was to provide a complete naturalistic description of the origins of life and the universe that would not stop theists arguing that God choose purely natural means to bring about his creation.
Thirdly, Pastor Enyart has yet to demonstrate his supra-human standard of morality
Quote:
posted by Pastor Enyart
I follow God, and He is the standard you ask for. Of course I had indicated this in my first post, and repeated it later, that the absolute standard is “God’s nature,” which is “His own righteous standard,” and I stated in 4b that our “conscience… reflects God’s ‘own righteous standard.’” So, if Zakath wastes another forty paragraphs asking twenty more times, “show us the absolute moral standard,” I will answer, the absolute moral standard is God’s righteous nature. Of course, Zakath could reject this by saying that God does not exist, and therefore my standard does not exist. But his pretending ad nauseam that I haven’t identified the standard is getting old. Perhaps Zakath is chanting this refrain in hopes that the audience will forget what they have already read.
Well no Pastor this member of the audience has not forgotten what they have read they just find your response unrevealing. I’m sure in some context your opinions and assertions on God’s nature, His own righteous standard and the contents of people’s conscience are interesting just not in the context of this debate. Where is the absolute objective moral standard?
I am sure that Pastor Enyart will continue to fight his corner with his usual skill and wit but if this is the best he has to offer it will be scant defence against Zaketh’s Argument from Non belief.
Linear Mode
