Atheism is the believe that something came out of nothing and we're all going nowhere

[Czernobog]

I mean that Schlotzy guy. Your quotes from the actual communists indicate the exact opposite of what you claim - that communism demands an adherence to atheism, not that atheism leads to communism. So, again, you can keep making the claims all you like. Saying the same thing over, and over, using the same flawed source as your support, doesn't magically make your statement factually accurate. It may be a point of personal truth, but that is not the same thing as factually accurate.

Keep denying that militant atheism leads to communism and I'll keep proving that militant atheism leads to communism. Fair enough?

From the University of Cambridge...

"Whereas Marx and Engels had assumed that religion would wither away of its own accord once the socio-economic conditions changed (see Radical Hegelianism), many Bolscheviks supposed that an aggressive antireligious struggle would nevertheless be necessary. Echoing Lenin, the Marxist philosopher Bucharin (1888-1938), for example, in his ABC of Communism (1919) stated unreservedly that religion and communism were in theory and practice irreconcilable.[1]The antireligious movement in the USSR seems to have lost much of its impetus by the early 1930s, and during the second world war the USSR closed the Association of Militant Atheists (1941) so as not to risk division among the people against the common German enemy.[2] However, in 1955/6 militant atheism in the USSR was once more actively promoted, with the establishment of a Chair for Scientific Atheism in Moscow in 1963.[3] This trend was also reflected in policies in the Eastern Bloc and China."

[1]↑ Georges Minois, Histoire de L'atheisme (La Fleche: Fayard, 1998), 520.
[2]↑ Ibid., 526.
[3]↑ Ibid.

Marxism - Investigating Atheism

You get that the quote is again proving you wrong, correct? It wasn't atheism that led the Bolsheviks to communism. Rather, the Communist Bolsheviks believed that antireligious revolution would be necessary to eradicate the shackles of religion.

Again, the ideological shift came first.

Keep trying. You're adorable.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No, I don't get that at all. I get that there has never been a communist state that was not an atheistic state.

I never said otherwise. However, you keep trying to go further than that, and insist that the latter caused the former. None of your sources, except the Shotsky guy, who had his own agenda, have confirmed your claim.

I get that there has never been a atheistic state that has never been hostile to religion.

Really? The Netherlands has not been particularly hostile to religion. Further, that wasn't your claim. Your claim is that atheism inexorably precipitates totalitarianism in general, Communism, in particular.

Cambridge University understood this but then again their assessment was objective and not clouded by bias like your is.

The Cambridge piece is not saying what you claim it says. Either you did not understand what you read, or you are intentionally attempting to misrepresent what you presented to further your agenda; I don't know which.

"Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism." Karl Marx

Private Property and Communism, Marx, 1844

Kinda what I have been screaming. "Communism begins from the outset with atheism". In other words, to be a Communist - at least in Marx' mind - you need to become an atheist. "...but atheism is at first far from communism". Again, just because one is atheist does not dictate that one will be atheist. Again, the words of the very founder of the ideology contradicts your agenda.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm saying energy must exist to do work, so a closed system must contain energy to do work. If your closed system has no energy, no work will be done. If your closed system has energy then work can be done. It doesn't matter if the system is closed or open, what matters is you need energy to do work.

No. That is incorrect. I can start with an empty cylinder (i.e. closed system with Q=0) and put gas into it. Compressing gas into an empty cylinder requires work (W).

E=Q+W

Once you put something into a CLOSED system it is no longer a CLOSED system!!!!!
You have no idea what you are saying!!!!!

I do know what am saying. Even what you posted in your post #128 agrees with me. See?

View attachment 112196

The first law of thermodynamics relates changes in internal energy to heat added to a system and the work done by a system. The first law is simply a conservation of energy equation:

The internal energy has the symbol U. Q is positive if heat is added to the system, and negative if heat is removed; W is positive if work is done by the system, and negative if work is done on the system.

The first law of thermodynamics

Closed system: The system of fixed mass across the boundary of which no mass transfer can take place is called as closed system. However, across the closed system the energy transfer may take place. An example is fluid being compressed by the piston in cylinder. (someone had to put the fluid in the cylinder, lol)

Types of Thermodynamic Systems and Important Terms Related to Thermodynamics – Part 1

A closed soda bottle is an example of a closed system. (Someone had to put the soda in the bottle, lol)

Thermodynamic systems

Work can be done on a closed system. That's how God did it.

Like I said, space/time and energy/matter had a beginning. It is the only way to not violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Work can be done IN a closed system, assuming there is usable energy IN the closed system. If a God/energy OUTSIDE a closed system does work ON the system then it is no longer a closed system.
You know nothing about any of the 4 Laws of Thermodynamics.

I'm saying energy must exist to do work, so a closed system must contain energy to do work. If your closed system has no energy, no work will be done. If your closed system has energy then work can be done. It doesn't matter if the system is closed or open, what matters is you need energy to do work.

No. That is incorrect. I can start with an empty cylinder (i.e. closed system with Q=0) and put gas into it. Compressing gas into an empty cylinder requires work (W).

E=Q+W

Once you put something into a CLOSED system it is no longer a CLOSED system!!!!!
You have no idea what you are saying!!!!!

I do know what am saying. Even what you posted in your post #128 agrees with me. See?

View attachment 112196

The first law of thermodynamics relates changes in internal energy to heat added to a system and the work done by a system. The first law is simply a conservation of energy equation:

The internal energy has the symbol U. Q is positive if heat is added to the system, and negative if heat is removed; W is positive if work is done by the system, and negative if work is done on the system.

The first law of thermodynamics

Closed system: The system of fixed mass across the boundary of which no mass transfer can take place is called as closed system. However, across the closed system the energy transfer may take place. An example is fluid being compressed by the piston in cylinder. (someone had to put the fluid in the cylinder, lol)

Types of Thermodynamic Systems and Important Terms Related to Thermodynamics – Part 1

A closed soda bottle is an example of a closed system. (Someone had to put the soda in the bottle, lol)

Thermodynamic systems

Work can be done on a closed system. That's how God did it.

Like I said, space/time and energy/matter had a beginning. It is the only way to not violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Work can be done IN a closed system, assuming there is usable energy IN the closed system. If a God/energy OUTSIDE a closed system does work ON the system then it is no longer a closed system.
You know nothing about any of the 4 Laws of Thermodynamics.

Wrong. YOU don't know what you are talking about and I will be more than happy to keep posting different sources to prove it.

Chapter 3a - The First Law - Closed Systems - Energy (updated 1/17/11)

Work (W)
In this course we consider three modes of work transfer across the boundary of a system, as shown in the following diagram:

In this course we are primarily concerned with Boundary Work due to compression or expansion of a system in a piston-cylinder device as shown above. In all cases we assume a perfect seal (no mass flow in or out of the system), no loss due to friction, and quasi-equilibrium processes in that for each incremental movement of the piston equilibrium conditions are maintained. By convention positive work is that done by the system on the surroundings, and negative work is that done by the surroundings on the system, Thus since negative work results in an increase in internal energy of the system, this explains the negative sign in the above energy equation.

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about, as if you didn't know. You are claiming "God" is creating the MASS of the universe out of nothing in a closed system. If God did that it would not be a closed system. Your own diagram in the post I said you know nothing about thermodynamics says a closed system does not allow a change in mass. So all the mass of the universe existed before god created it or it is not a closed system.
From your post:

Work can be done on a closed system. That's how God did it.

Like I said, space/time and energy/matter had a beginning.

 

[edthecynic]

Consciousness CONSUMES energy, so if the first cause is conscious then energy must have preexisted it.

How does consciousness consume energy? But sure, there must be a pre-existing source that put work into the system.

If a person is no longer consuming energy, they are no longer conscious, they are dead.

Who said anything about people? I asked you if consciousness consumed energy. I didn't ask you if people consumed energy.

People/living things have consciousness and need energy to live. A God is not a living physical thing and therefore has no consciousness.

How do you know what God is?

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

He is entitled to his OPINION. He admits it defies the logic of science, but he is entitled to it even as a scientist.

From your post:
There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

 

[ding]

No. That is incorrect. I can start with an empty cylinder (i.e. closed system with Q=0) and put gas into it. Compressing gas into an empty cylinder requires work (W).

E=Q+W

Once you put something into a CLOSED system it is no longer a CLOSED system!!!!!
You have no idea what you are saying!!!!!

I do know what am saying. Even what you posted in your post #128 agrees with me. See?

View attachment 112196

The first law of thermodynamics relates changes in internal energy to heat added to a system and the work done by a system. The first law is simply a conservation of energy equation:

The internal energy has the symbol U. Q is positive if heat is added to the system, and negative if heat is removed; W is positive if work is done by the system, and negative if work is done on the system.

The first law of thermodynamics

Closed system: The system of fixed mass across the boundary of which no mass transfer can take place is called as closed system. However, across the closed system the energy transfer may take place. An example is fluid being compressed by the piston in cylinder. (someone had to put the fluid in the cylinder, lol)

Types of Thermodynamic Systems and Important Terms Related to Thermodynamics – Part 1

A closed soda bottle is an example of a closed system. (Someone had to put the soda in the bottle, lol)

Thermodynamic systems

Work can be done on a closed system. That's how God did it.

Like I said, space/time and energy/matter had a beginning. It is the only way to not violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Work can be done IN a closed system, assuming there is usable energy IN the closed system. If a God/energy OUTSIDE a closed system does work ON the system then it is no longer a closed system.
You know nothing about any of the 4 Laws of Thermodynamics.

No. That is incorrect. I can start with an empty cylinder (i.e. closed system with Q=0) and put gas into it. Compressing gas into an empty cylinder requires work (W).

E=Q+W

Once you put something into a CLOSED system it is no longer a CLOSED system!!!!!
You have no idea what you are saying!!!!!

I do know what am saying. Even what you posted in your post #128 agrees with me. See?

View attachment 112196

The first law of thermodynamics relates changes in internal energy to heat added to a system and the work done by a system. The first law is simply a conservation of energy equation:

The internal energy has the symbol U. Q is positive if heat is added to the system, and negative if heat is removed; W is positive if work is done by the system, and negative if work is done on the system.

The first law of thermodynamics

Closed system: The system of fixed mass across the boundary of which no mass transfer can take place is called as closed system. However, across the closed system the energy transfer may take place. An example is fluid being compressed by the piston in cylinder. (someone had to put the fluid in the cylinder, lol)

Types of Thermodynamic Systems and Important Terms Related to Thermodynamics – Part 1

A closed soda bottle is an example of a closed system. (Someone had to put the soda in the bottle, lol)

Thermodynamic systems

Work can be done on a closed system. That's how God did it.

Like I said, space/time and energy/matter had a beginning. It is the only way to not violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Work can be done IN a closed system, assuming there is usable energy IN the closed system. If a God/energy OUTSIDE a closed system does work ON the system then it is no longer a closed system.
You know nothing about any of the 4 Laws of Thermodynamics.

Wrong. YOU don't know what you are talking about and I will be more than happy to keep posting different sources to prove it.

Chapter 3a - The First Law - Closed Systems - Energy (updated 1/17/11)

Work (W)
In this course we consider three modes of work transfer across the boundary of a system, as shown in the following diagram:

In this course we are primarily concerned with Boundary Work due to compression or expansion of a system in a piston-cylinder device as shown above. In all cases we assume a perfect seal (no mass flow in or out of the system), no loss due to friction, and quasi-equilibrium processes in that for each incremental movement of the piston equilibrium conditions are maintained. By convention positive work is that done by the system on the surroundings, and negative work is that done by the surroundings on the system, Thus since negative work results in an increase in internal energy of the system, this explains the negative sign in the above energy equation.

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about, as if you didn't know. You are claiming "God" is creating the MASS of the universe out of nothing in a closed system. If God did that it would not be a closed system. Your own diagram in the post I said you know nothing about thermodynamics says a closed system does not allow a change in mass. So all the mass of the universe existed before god created it or it is not a closed system.
From your post:

Work can be done on a closed system. That's how God did it.

Like I said, space/time and energy/matter had a beginning.

No. That's not what I am claiming. I am claiming that entropy precludes an infinite acting universe. I am explaining to you that you can put matter into an open system, then close it then do work on it. The that's how God did it comment was to tweak you.

General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so.

That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964.

It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.

The cosmic evolutionary phase of Creation - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles.

The stellar evolutionary phase of Creation saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust).

These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase was pre-destined to occur, because the physical laws existed at the very beginning of Creation.

 

[ding]

How does consciousness consume energy? But sure, there must be a pre-existing source that put work into the system.

If a person is no longer consuming energy, they are no longer conscious, they are dead.

Who said anything about people? I asked you if consciousness consumed energy. I didn't ask you if people consumed energy.

People/living things have consciousness and need energy to live. A God is not a living physical thing and therefore has no consciousness.

How do you know what God is?

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

He is entitled to his OPINION. He admits it defies the logic of science, but he is entitled to it even as a scientist.

From your post:
There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

He is not the only one. You do realize that the universe became self aware, right?

Did you know that in many regards the universe behaves like a brain?

Your Brain Is the Universe -- Part 1 | The Huffington Post

 

[ding]

Keep denying that militant atheism leads to communism and I'll keep proving that militant atheism leads to communism. Fair enough?

From the University of Cambridge...

"Whereas Marx and Engels had assumed that religion would wither away of its own accord once the socio-economic conditions changed (see Radical Hegelianism), many Bolscheviks supposed that an aggressive antireligious struggle would nevertheless be necessary. Echoing Lenin, the Marxist philosopher Bucharin (1888-1938), for example, in his ABC of Communism (1919) stated unreservedly that religion and communism were in theory and practice irreconcilable.[1]The antireligious movement in the USSR seems to have lost much of its impetus by the early 1930s, and during the second world war the USSR closed the Association of Militant Atheists (1941) so as not to risk division among the people against the common German enemy.[2] However, in 1955/6 militant atheism in the USSR was once more actively promoted, with the establishment of a Chair for Scientific Atheism in Moscow in 1963.[3] This trend was also reflected in policies in the Eastern Bloc and China."

[1]↑ Georges Minois, Histoire de L'atheisme (La Fleche: Fayard, 1998), 520.
[2]↑ Ibid., 526.
[3]↑ Ibid.

Marxism - Investigating Atheism

You get that the quote is again proving you wrong, correct? It wasn't atheism that led the Bolsheviks to communism. Rather, the Communist Bolsheviks believed that antireligious revolution would be necessary to eradicate the shackles of religion.

Again, the ideological shift came first.

Keep trying. You're adorable.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No, I don't get that at all. I get that there has never been a communist state that was not an atheistic state.

I never said otherwise. However, you keep trying to go further than that, and insist that the latter caused the former. None of your sources, except the Shotsky guy, who had his own agenda, have confirmed your claim.

I get that there has never been a atheistic state that has never been hostile to religion.

Really? The Netherlands has not been particularly hostile to religion. Further, that wasn't your claim. Your claim is that atheism inexorably precipitates totalitarianism in general, Communism, in particular.

Cambridge University understood this but then again their assessment was objective and not clouded by bias like your is.

The Cambridge piece is not saying what you claim it says. Either you did not understand what you read, or you are intentionally attempting to misrepresent what you presented to further your agenda; I don't know which.

"Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism." Karl Marx

Private Property and Communism, Marx, 1844

Kinda what I have been screaming. "Communism begins from the outset with atheism". In other words, to be a Communist - at least in Marx' mind - you need to become an atheist. "...but atheism is at first far from communism". Again, just because one is atheist does not dictate that one will be atheist. Again, the words of the very founder of the ideology contradicts your agenda.

You are arguing the chicken and the egg. They are one in the same. The reality is that it is militant atheism and not atheism which leads to communism, not atheism.

 

[edthecynic]

Once you put something into a CLOSED system it is no longer a CLOSED system!!!!!
You have no idea what you are saying!!!!!

I do know what am saying. Even what you posted in your post #128 agrees with me. See?

View attachment 112196

The first law of thermodynamics relates changes in internal energy to heat added to a system and the work done by a system. The first law is simply a conservation of energy equation:

The internal energy has the symbol U. Q is positive if heat is added to the system, and negative if heat is removed; W is positive if work is done by the system, and negative if work is done on the system.

The first law of thermodynamics

Closed system: The system of fixed mass across the boundary of which no mass transfer can take place is called as closed system. However, across the closed system the energy transfer may take place. An example is fluid being compressed by the piston in cylinder. (someone had to put the fluid in the cylinder, lol)

Types of Thermodynamic Systems and Important Terms Related to Thermodynamics – Part 1

A closed soda bottle is an example of a closed system. (Someone had to put the soda in the bottle, lol)

Thermodynamic systems

Work can be done on a closed system. That's how God did it.

Like I said, space/time and energy/matter had a beginning. It is the only way to not violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Work can be done IN a closed system, assuming there is usable energy IN the closed system. If a God/energy OUTSIDE a closed system does work ON the system then it is no longer a closed system.
You know nothing about any of the 4 Laws of Thermodynamics.

Once you put something into a CLOSED system it is no longer a CLOSED system!!!!!
You have no idea what you are saying!!!!!

I do know what am saying. Even what you posted in your post #128 agrees with me. See?

View attachment 112196

The first law of thermodynamics relates changes in internal energy to heat added to a system and the work done by a system. The first law is simply a conservation of energy equation:

The internal energy has the symbol U. Q is positive if heat is added to the system, and negative if heat is removed; W is positive if work is done by the system, and negative if work is done on the system.

The first law of thermodynamics

Closed system: The system of fixed mass across the boundary of which no mass transfer can take place is called as closed system. However, across the closed system the energy transfer may take place. An example is fluid being compressed by the piston in cylinder. (someone had to put the fluid in the cylinder, lol)

Types of Thermodynamic Systems and Important Terms Related to Thermodynamics – Part 1

A closed soda bottle is an example of a closed system. (Someone had to put the soda in the bottle, lol)

Thermodynamic systems

Work can be done on a closed system. That's how God did it.

Like I said, space/time and energy/matter had a beginning. It is the only way to not violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Work can be done IN a closed system, assuming there is usable energy IN the closed system. If a God/energy OUTSIDE a closed system does work ON the system then it is no longer a closed system.
You know nothing about any of the 4 Laws of Thermodynamics.

Wrong. YOU don't know what you are talking about and I will be more than happy to keep posting different sources to prove it.

Chapter 3a - The First Law - Closed Systems - Energy (updated 1/17/11)

Work (W)
In this course we consider three modes of work transfer across the boundary of a system, as shown in the following diagram:

In this course we are primarily concerned with Boundary Work due to compression or expansion of a system in a piston-cylinder device as shown above. In all cases we assume a perfect seal (no mass flow in or out of the system), no loss due to friction, and quasi-equilibrium processes in that for each incremental movement of the piston equilibrium conditions are maintained. By convention positive work is that done by the system on the surroundings, and negative work is that done by the surroundings on the system, Thus since negative work results in an increase in internal energy of the system, this explains the negative sign in the above energy equation.

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about, as if you didn't know. You are claiming "God" is creating the MASS of the universe out of nothing in a closed system. If God did that it would not be a closed system. Your own diagram in the post I said you know nothing about thermodynamics says a closed system does not allow a change in mass. So all the mass of the universe existed before god created it or it is not a closed system.
From your post:

Work can be done on a closed system. That's how God did it.

Like I said, space/time and energy/matter had a beginning.

No. That's not what I am claiming. I am claiming that entropy precludes an infinite acting universe. I am explaining to you that you can put matter into an open system, then close it then do work on it. The that's how God did it comment was to tweak you.

General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so.

That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964.

It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.

The cosmic evolutionary phase of Creation - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles.

The stellar evolutionary phase of Creation saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust).

These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase was pre-destined to occur, because the physical laws existed at the very beginning of Creation.

None of that proves energy can be created, and none of that proves that something can be created from nothing.

 

[edthecynic]

Did you know that in many regards the universe behaves like a brain?

Your Brain Is the Universe -- Part 1 | The Huffington Post

If my brain was the universe, you wouldn't be in it!!!

 

[Czernobog]

You get that the quote is again proving you wrong, correct? It wasn't atheism that led the Bolsheviks to communism. Rather, the Communist Bolsheviks believed that antireligious revolution would be necessary to eradicate the shackles of religion.

Again, the ideological shift came first.

Keep trying. You're adorable.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No, I don't get that at all. I get that there has never been a communist state that was not an atheistic state.

I never said otherwise. However, you keep trying to go further than that, and insist that the latter caused the former. None of your sources, except the Shotsky guy, who had his own agenda, have confirmed your claim.

I get that there has never been a atheistic state that has never been hostile to religion.

Really? The Netherlands has not been particularly hostile to religion. Further, that wasn't your claim. Your claim is that atheism inexorably precipitates totalitarianism in general, Communism, in particular.

Cambridge University understood this but then again their assessment was objective and not clouded by bias like your is.

The Cambridge piece is not saying what you claim it says. Either you did not understand what you read, or you are intentionally attempting to misrepresent what you presented to further your agenda; I don't know which.

"Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism." Karl Marx

Private Property and Communism, Marx, 1844

Kinda what I have been screaming. "Communism begins from the outset with atheism". In other words, to be a Communist - at least in Marx' mind - you need to become an atheist. "...but atheism is at first far from communism". Again, just because one is atheist does not dictate that one will be atheist. Again, the words of the very founder of the ideology contradicts your agenda.

You are arguing the chicken and the egg. They are one in the same. The reality is that it is militant atheism and not atheism which leads to communism, not atheism.

Except that, as you just pointed out, you can't even make that claim. You know..."Chicken, and egg thing"?

 

[there4eyeM]

The only absolutely incontrovertible truth one can know is consciousness exists.

 

[ding]

No, I don't get that at all. I get that there has never been a communist state that was not an atheistic state.

I never said otherwise. However, you keep trying to go further than that, and insist that the latter caused the former. None of your sources, except the Shotsky guy, who had his own agenda, have confirmed your claim.

I get that there has never been a atheistic state that has never been hostile to religion.

Really? The Netherlands has not been particularly hostile to religion. Further, that wasn't your claim. Your claim is that atheism inexorably precipitates totalitarianism in general, Communism, in particular.

Cambridge University understood this but then again their assessment was objective and not clouded by bias like your is.

The Cambridge piece is not saying what you claim it says. Either you did not understand what you read, or you are intentionally attempting to misrepresent what you presented to further your agenda; I don't know which.

"Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism." Karl Marx

Private Property and Communism, Marx, 1844

Kinda what I have been screaming. "Communism begins from the outset with atheism". In other words, to be a Communist - at least in Marx' mind - you need to become an atheist. "...but atheism is at first far from communism". Again, just because one is atheist does not dictate that one will be atheist. Again, the words of the very founder of the ideology contradicts your agenda.

You are arguing the chicken and the egg. They are one in the same. The reality is that it is militant atheism and not atheism which leads to communism, not atheism.

Except that, as you just pointed out, you can't even make that claim. You know..."Chicken, and egg thing"?

Of course I can, they are one in the same.

 

[ding]

I do know what am saying. Even what you posted in your post #128 agrees with me. See?

View attachment 112196

The first law of thermodynamics relates changes in internal energy to heat added to a system and the work done by a system. The first law is simply a conservation of energy equation:

The internal energy has the symbol U. Q is positive if heat is added to the system, and negative if heat is removed; W is positive if work is done by the system, and negative if work is done on the system.

The first law of thermodynamics

Closed system: The system of fixed mass across the boundary of which no mass transfer can take place is called as closed system. However, across the closed system the energy transfer may take place. An example is fluid being compressed by the piston in cylinder. (someone had to put the fluid in the cylinder, lol)

Types of Thermodynamic Systems and Important Terms Related to Thermodynamics – Part 1

A closed soda bottle is an example of a closed system. (Someone had to put the soda in the bottle, lol)

Thermodynamic systems

Work can be done on a closed system. That's how God did it.

Like I said, space/time and energy/matter had a beginning. It is the only way to not violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Work can be done IN a closed system, assuming there is usable energy IN the closed system. If a God/energy OUTSIDE a closed system does work ON the system then it is no longer a closed system.
You know nothing about any of the 4 Laws of Thermodynamics.

I do know what am saying. Even what you posted in your post #128 agrees with me. See?

View attachment 112196

The first law of thermodynamics relates changes in internal energy to heat added to a system and the work done by a system. The first law is simply a conservation of energy equation:

The internal energy has the symbol U. Q is positive if heat is added to the system, and negative if heat is removed; W is positive if work is done by the system, and negative if work is done on the system.

The first law of thermodynamics

Closed system: The system of fixed mass across the boundary of which no mass transfer can take place is called as closed system. However, across the closed system the energy transfer may take place. An example is fluid being compressed by the piston in cylinder. (someone had to put the fluid in the cylinder, lol)

Types of Thermodynamic Systems and Important Terms Related to Thermodynamics – Part 1

A closed soda bottle is an example of a closed system. (Someone had to put the soda in the bottle, lol)

Thermodynamic systems

Work can be done on a closed system. That's how God did it.

Like I said, space/time and energy/matter had a beginning. It is the only way to not violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Work can be done IN a closed system, assuming there is usable energy IN the closed system. If a God/energy OUTSIDE a closed system does work ON the system then it is no longer a closed system.
You know nothing about any of the 4 Laws of Thermodynamics.

Wrong. YOU don't know what you are talking about and I will be more than happy to keep posting different sources to prove it.

Chapter 3a - The First Law - Closed Systems - Energy (updated 1/17/11)

Work (W)
In this course we consider three modes of work transfer across the boundary of a system, as shown in the following diagram:

In this course we are primarily concerned with Boundary Work due to compression or expansion of a system in a piston-cylinder device as shown above. In all cases we assume a perfect seal (no mass flow in or out of the system), no loss due to friction, and quasi-equilibrium processes in that for each incremental movement of the piston equilibrium conditions are maintained. By convention positive work is that done by the system on the surroundings, and negative work is that done by the surroundings on the system, Thus since negative work results in an increase in internal energy of the system, this explains the negative sign in the above energy equation.

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about, as if you didn't know. You are claiming "God" is creating the MASS of the universe out of nothing in a closed system. If God did that it would not be a closed system. Your own diagram in the post I said you know nothing about thermodynamics says a closed system does not allow a change in mass. So all the mass of the universe existed before god created it or it is not a closed system.
From your post:

Work can be done on a closed system. That's how God did it.

Like I said, space/time and energy/matter had a beginning.

No. That's not what I am claiming. I am claiming that entropy precludes an infinite acting universe. I am explaining to you that you can put matter into an open system, then close it then do work on it. The that's how God did it comment was to tweak you.

General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so.

That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964.

It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.

The cosmic evolutionary phase of Creation - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles.

The stellar evolutionary phase of Creation saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust).

These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase was pre-destined to occur, because the physical laws existed at the very beginning of Creation.

None of that proves energy can be created, and none of that proves that something can be created from nothing.

I never argued energy was created. I argued that matter can be put into an open system and if the system is closed that work can be done to it and that that work will increase the internal energy of the closed system.

 

[BreezeWood]

You get that the quote is again proving you wrong, correct? It wasn't atheism that led the Bolsheviks to communism. Rather, the Communist Bolsheviks believed that antireligious revolution would be necessary to eradicate the shackles of religion.

Again, the ideological shift came first.

Keep trying. You're adorable.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No, I don't get that at all. I get that there has never been a communist state that was not an atheistic state.

I never said otherwise. However, you keep trying to go further than that, and insist that the latter caused the former. None of your sources, except the Shotsky guy, who had his own agenda, have confirmed your claim.

I get that there has never been a atheistic state that has never been hostile to religion.

Really? The Netherlands has not been particularly hostile to religion. Further, that wasn't your claim. Your claim is that atheism inexorably precipitates totalitarianism in general, Communism, in particular.

Cambridge University understood this but then again their assessment was objective and not clouded by bias like your is.

The Cambridge piece is not saying what you claim it says. Either you did not understand what you read, or you are intentionally attempting to misrepresent what you presented to further your agenda; I don't know which.

"Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism." Karl Marx

Private Property and Communism, Marx, 1844

Kinda what I have been screaming. "Communism begins from the outset with atheism". In other words, to be a Communist - at least in Marx' mind - you need to become an atheist. "...but atheism is at first far from communism". Again, just because one is atheist does not dictate that one will be atheist. Again, the words of the very founder of the ideology contradicts your agenda.

You are arguing the chicken and the egg. They are one in the same. The reality is that it is militant atheism and not atheism which leads to communism, not atheism.

.

The reality is that it is militant atheism and not atheism which leads to communism, not atheism.

atheism and communism are synoptic, but not exclusive of other economies. -

militant atheism exists as a natural reaction to pernicious and aggressive religions that has nothing to do with state economies nor is their objective a solitary cause not shared by other concerns.

there is no reason to believe an atheist or a militant atheist might not also practice economic capitalism. nor would it be extrordinary for a "religion" to practice communism.

what belies logic is the rationing of one against the other without objective consideration for the underlying cause for such a condition to exist.

 

[The Irish Ram]

To believe that something came from nothing defies the physics they hold so dear.
But aside from that, they have a new problem with the advent of the discovery of DNA. Even the most simple life form has had, from the very beginning, an embedded complex digital code. Now they have got to answer the question, "Who authored the code"?

 

[edthecynic]

I never argued energy was created.

Of course you did!!!

Without matter and energy there is no space time. They were created together.

 

[edthecynic]

To believe that something came from nothing defies the physics they hold so dear.

That is what Creationists claim, not science. Energy is NOT nothing.

 

[edthecynic]

But aside from that, they have a new problem with the advent of the discovery of DNA. Even the most simple life form has had, from the very beginning, an embedded complex digital code. Now they have got to answer the question, "Who authored the code"?

RNA

 

[BreezeWood]

To believe that something came from nothing defies the physics they hold so dear.
But aside from that, they have a new problem with the advent of the discovery of DNA. Even the most simple life form has had, from the very beginning, an embedded complex digital code. Now they have got to answer the question, "Who authored the code"?

.

"Who authored the code"?

I agree whole hardily the genome of life will someday be discovered as a unique dimension to our universe from which all living beings originate ... and which some may someday return to - a place in the Everlasting.

* not sure Ram any christians will make the return trip, certainly no sinners.

 

[ding]

I never argued energy was created.

Of course you did!!!

Without matter and energy there is no space time. They were created together.

No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose. No one knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang - or what came before it. But what can say it that the evidence suggests that there was a beginning to our universe and all the matter/energy within it. How it got there no one knows.

 

[Czernobog]

I never argued energy was created.

Of course you did!!!

Without matter and energy there is no space time. They were created together.

No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose. No one knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang - or what came before it. But what can say it that the evidence suggests that there was a beginning to our universe and all the matter/energy within it. How it got there no one knows.

No, it doesn't.