Arguments, that convince you, strong atheism is true. If you are not a strong atheist, but a weak one, don't argue with this question. its not for you. Its for the ones, that positively assert, most probably God does not exist. Please don't base it on a negative ( the bible is worthless etc....), but positive arguments, which do make strong atheism stand on its own right.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
It should be noted thermodynamics has its greatest use when describing things like gases and fluids and the distribution of molecules in them. And even then, as you said, the idea of open and closed systems is merely an approximation. Applying it to larger and more complex structures doesn't really yield many practical results and is mostly a thought experiment.
I'm certainly not going to confuse cosmology and evolution like our resident troll. It's pointless to even discuss the universe here. He wants to apply thermodynamics to Earth, so we're talking about a single planet, which is most definitely not a closed system. Case closed
well, i hope he can appreciate the pure logic in that!
He wants to apply thermodynamics to Earth,
My argument was since the beginning directed towards our universe as a closed system. Not the earth, which i well know is a open system.
can you prove that the universe is a closed system? if so, there are thousands of physicists and cosmologists that would anoint you their new leader as most will honestly say they just don't know.. many would add, that even in relation to your lame attempt to use the 2nd law as a proof that your god exists, it can not be used that way... go do some real research Angelo, your current information is not correct.
can you prove that the universe is a closed system? if so, there are thousands of physicists and cosmologists that would anoint you their new leader as most will honestly say they just don't know..
i don't stick to proofs, but to answers which do make most sense to me, which are most compelling.
Science supports Einstein's claim that the universe is a closed system.
Very soon after arriving at the final form of the field equations, Einstein began to consider their implications with regard to the overall structure of the universe. His 1917 paper presented a simple model of a closed spherical universe which "from the standpoint of the general theory of relativity lies nearest at hand". More evidence that supports the universe is a closed system :
That means it has finite energy. Even though energy cannot be created or destroyed (by any natural processes), over time the useful energy in the universe becomes more and more useless. This is known in science as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the universe were eternal then all of the energy would have become totally useless by now and I wouldn't be writing this article and you wouldn't be reading it either!
Isn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics merely an expression of probability? Yes, but the probability is so high and certain that the odds of just one calorie of energy spontaneously defying the Second Law would be trillions times trillions to one, and the universe is made up of far more than just one calorie of energy!
man i hate that the reply button disappears! so, i will reply to my own post for you angelo
"If the universe were eternal then all of the energy would have become totally useless by now and I wouldn't be writing this article and you wouldn't be reading it either!"
please, you make a huge assumption there about energy and the universe. as for the rest, i am writing, but i am pretty sure you are not reading it all!
there are many scientists who not only disagree with einstein, but have adjusted what he proposed to an updated current model which fits with the evidence.. but since you "don't stick to proofs, but to answers which do make most sense to me, which are most compelling" we would not expect you to accept any recent information that contradicts your original wrong premise, thus, you are still here beating your head against a wall that your poor logic, bad science and weak arguments that have been shown wrong over and over. but, you can continue to hold your ancient beliefs and stone-age mythologies and your philosophy, which you have yet to really express here other than 'we exist, therefore god does' which is a very poor attempt at logic in this area.
anyhow, keep the bullshit flying angelo, we are gaining more and more understanding and insight to the weak theist attacks on reality from you!
, thus, you are still here beating your head against a wall that your poor logic, bad science and weak arguments that have been shown wrong over and over.
instead of repeating your drivel ad nauseum, how about begin to actually adress the issues raised, and explain, how our universe could exist eternally without beginning, if philosophically speaking that is not possible, as shown already? il show you a text which mastigates it in a manner, that everybody can understand it without difficulty.
Time has proceeded forward from the past as one event is added onto another to get us to today. But we know that whenever you pause in the count as we've done today, that you can't have an infinite number of events. Which means that there is no infinite number of events that goes backward from this point in time, only a finite number of events. Here's another way of putting it. If you can't get into the infinite future from a fixed reference point (the present) by adding consecutive events one by one, you cannot get into the infinite past by subtracting consecutive events, one by one, from a fixed reference point (the present). If you can't transverse the distance in one direction (present to infinite past), you can't transverse it in the other direction (infinite past to present). This means that if the universe consisted of an infinite series of events in time, you could never arrive at this present moment. Philosopher Dallas Willard puts it this way: "As in a line of dominoes, if there is an infinite number of dominoes that must fall before domino x is struck, it will never be struck. The line of fallings will never get to it." ( Does God Exist--The Great Debate , p. 203-204) In other words, there would have to be an infinite number of events completed before you could get to the domino before you. But you can never complete an infinite number of events. An infinite series is innumerable by definition, so you can't treat it as if it were a number you could ever arrive at. This means the universe is not eternal.
no reply button, so here goes...
"how our universe could exist eternally without beginning,"
student - how did the universe come into existance?
scientist - we don't know
theist - god did it!
atheist - prove it
theist - god did it
atheist - really? prove it
theist - i don't have to, i have faith
scientist - well, the universe seems to have been around for close to 14 BILLION years
theist - the bible says it is less than 10,000 years old, god created it old to fool you all so you can burn in hell for his pleasure!
atheist - prove it
scientist - prove it
theist - i don't want to or need to because god said he created it all so i believe him in spite of all the evidence you can bring to prove me wrong... i don't accept proof or evidence as having any value compared to my faith, but you have to believe everything i tell you because god told me all these things
scientist - really? wow, your god is crazy
atheist - your god is crazy
student - um, can someone help me find the answer please
scientist - read as much literature as you can, question everything you read, don't settle for answers written by 'scientists' with agendas to prove god is scientifically proven because as of right now, he has never been shown to exist. we don't know how it all happened nor do we claim to know why but we will keep working to find out all we can about the universe so stay tuned, updates often!
theist - science can't teach you anything that the bible doesn't already state such as the sun revolves around the earth and heaven is a real place as is hell so if you don't accept jesus you are going to hell but god loves you and wishes you to accept the story of redemption because he wrote all of the science and it all really proves he exists!
student - i guess i will have to do my own research now.
so, angelo, we can see you have a real problem...
"Philosopher Dallas Willard puts it this way: "As in a line of dominoes, if there is an infinite number of dominoes that must fall before domino x is struck, it will never be struck. The line of fallings will never get to it." ( Does God Exist--The Great Debate , p. 203-204) In other words, there would have to be an infinite number of events completed before you could get to the domino before you. But you can never complete an infinite number of events. An infinite series is innumerable by definition, so you can't treat it as if it were a number you could ever arrive at. This means the universe is not eternal."
you are basing your entire discussion on a philosopher and some domino's? to jump from dominoes to a non-eternal universe insults cosmologists and physicists around the globe who do REAL research into these matters! If you claim the universe is NOT eternal, please provide real research and information to that claim!
by the way.. a real scientist will tell you they just don't know! and that is an okay answer!
james d, RE: "a "closed system" is a fictional, idealized state of isolation"
I could be wro - not entirely correct, but I would have to say that on the grandest scale we can envision, the, sorry, being presumptuous here, our universe may well be one of many others. In that event, ours is closed in the sense that no information can escape from our own universe to any point outside that universe, but only in that most strict of senses, is it closed.
and that, is exactly why the question of why is it important to know which the universe is becomes the real question! there is support for both sides of this debate and parties on both think that whether it is open or closed really makes little difference as the theory of thermodynamics has very little to say about systems the size of our expanding universe in practical application. the fact is, it can not be determined either way right now and ANY explanation is at best a guess... so IF angelo has real PROOF as to why it is closed, he should present it as the physics and cosmology communities would be most interested in what he has to offer as evidence. from what i have read, this debate is far more philosophical than physical in nature which is ultimately why this question is basically a non issue for real physicists to ponder!
I'll take ANY reply button - fact is james, theists will burn in hell if they dare say, "I don't know."
That's what ElSchamuck666 is so afraid of. He only came here to proselytise and brag how many heathens he converted - he reads your complex posts, that you worked and researched and linked, and sees, "Yadea, yada, yada." Then he skims through them, picking out kibbles and bits to nip at, like a Pekingese who thinks it's a Great Dane.
The rest of us appreciate all your effort.
Yes, but for most practical purposes it's an approximation. It's an ideal that helps, for example, to calculate the properties of a gas in a container. For simplification you just assume that there is no interaction with the outside - even if that may not be entirely true.
The concept was never really meant to be taken to such extremes, except maybe to think about some very fundamental properties of nature. But its main use lies elsewhere.
And remember that he originally brought up thermodynamics in relation to evolution, and NOT cosmology. There be some theoretical, quasi-philosophical application to cosmology, but it has no meaning whatsoever for evolution