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

[ding]

I didn't say anything about creating energy. Start with zero energy in the system and then add work to it. That's is how it was done.
E= Q+W. Before the beginning Q=0. W = the work added to the system at the beginning.

You have no idea what you are parroting.
If the system has zero energy, then zero work can be done. Work does not create energy.

Work can be done ON the system, Einstein. But putting this aside, the laws of physics breakdown at the singularity. Why in the world do you believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply at the singularity? After the singularity, you just can't get around the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Space/time and energy/matter had a beginning.

If you toss a ball straight up in the air, it rises to its maximum before falling back to the ground. At its maximum for just a SINGULAR moment the ball is neither rising nor falling. That singularity does not mean the Law of Gravity and the Law of Motion have broken down at the singularity.

Besides you, can you show me anyone who believes the laws of science don't break down at the big bang?

What breaks down is our theory of gravity. What we need is a quantum theory of gravity.

Besides you, who else believes in a "near heat death of the universe?"

I don't believe we are anywhere near heat death of the universe because the universe is not infinite acting and had a beginning which is the point I am making and you are avoiding. You can google heat death of matter or universe and find many references. I don't find any to the bullshit you are spouting.

Yes, we do need a quantum theory models and when those show that the universe had a beginning (which I already know because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) then you guys will latch onto some other far fetched bullshit explanation to avoid the inevitable debate on the 1st Cause. Until then I will amuse myself while you jacholes simultaneously worship and reject science to suit your godless agenda.

 

[ding]

E= Q+W. Before the beginning Q=0. W = the work added to the system at the beginning. Energy had a beginning. Problem solved.

Actually the FLoT is

Esys = q + w and it says that the change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the sum of the heat gained or lost by the system and the work done by or on the system. So if q = 0 then w = 0 and the change in the energy of the system is 0. It does not say that energy has a beginning. In fact it says the exact opposite.

The first law of thermodynamics can be captured in the following equation, which states that the energy of the universe is constant. Energy can be transferred from the system to its surroundings, or vice versa, but it can't be created or destroyed.

Euniv =

Esys +

Esurr = 0

I didn't say anything about creating energy. Start with zero energy in the system and then add work to it. That's is how it was done.
E= Q+W. Before the beginning Q=0. W = the work added to the system at the beginning.

You have no idea what you are parroting.
If the system has zero energy, then zero work can be done. Work does not create energy.

Work can be done ON the system, Einstein. But putting this aside, the laws of physics breakdown at the singularity. Why in the world do you believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply at the singularity? After the singularity, you just can't get around the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Space/time and energy/matter had a beginning.

If you believe that, then why on earth would you believe that the second law must be in operation? You just admitted that your entire argument falls apart at the point of singularity.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What part of it occurs during expansion do you not understand?

 

[edthecynic]

You have no idea what you are parroting.
If the system has zero energy, then zero work can be done. Work does not create energy.

Work can be done ON the system, Einstein. But putting this aside, the laws of physics breakdown at the singularity. Why in the world do you believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply at the singularity? After the singularity, you just can't get around the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Space/time and energy/matter had a beginning.

If you toss a ball straight up in the air, it rises to its maximum before falling back to the ground. At its maximum for just a SINGULAR moment the ball is neither rising nor falling. That singularity does not mean the Law of Gravity and the Law of Motion have broken down at the singularity.

Besides you, can you show me anyone who believes the laws of science don't break down at the big bang?

What breaks down is our theory of gravity. What we need is a quantum theory of gravity.

Besides you, who else believes in a "near heat death of the universe?"

I don't believe we are anywhere near heat death of the universe because the universe is not infinite acting. The universe had a beginning. You can google that and find many references to heat death of matter, jackhole. I don't find anything which supports the bullshit you are spouting.
Yes, we do need a quantum theory models and when those show that the universe had a beginning (which I already know because of the @nd Law of Thermodynamics) then you guys will latch onto some other far fetched bullshit explanation to avoid the inevitable debate on the 1st Cause. Until then I will amuse myself while you jacholes simultaneously worship and reject science to suit your godless agenda.

Well, what caused the 1st cause? And don't say the 1st cause had no cause because you then establish that there is no need for a cause. All you have done is redefine energy as the 1st cause/God.

 

[ding]

There are two things that drive atheists absolutely bonkers.

1. That militant atheism leads to communism

An erroneous claim you continue to make, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, based solely on the writings of one man's observations whose views were, themselves, clearly coloured by a personal agenda, not unlike your own.

2. The universe had a beginning

A quote that is both presumptuous, and incapable of being proven.



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I'll make a couple of threads so I can keep throwing it in your face.

 

[ding]

Work can be done ON the system, Einstein. But putting this aside, the laws of physics breakdown at the singularity. Why in the world do you believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply at the singularity? After the singularity, you just can't get around the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Space/time and energy/matter had a beginning.

If you toss a ball straight up in the air, it rises to its maximum before falling back to the ground. At its maximum for just a SINGULAR moment the ball is neither rising nor falling. That singularity does not mean the Law of Gravity and the Law of Motion have broken down at the singularity.

Besides you, can you show me anyone who believes the laws of science don't break down at the big bang?

What breaks down is our theory of gravity. What we need is a quantum theory of gravity.

Besides you, who else believes in a "near heat death of the universe?"

I don't believe we are anywhere near heat death of the universe because the universe is not infinite acting. The universe had a beginning. You can google that and find many references to heat death of matter, jackhole. I don't find anything which supports the bullshit you are spouting.
Yes, we do need a quantum theory models and when those show that the universe had a beginning (which I already know because of the @nd Law of Thermodynamics) then you guys will latch onto some other far fetched bullshit explanation to avoid the inevitable debate on the 1st Cause. Until then I will amuse myself while you jacholes simultaneously worship and reject science to suit your godless agenda.

Well, what caused the 1st cause? And don't say the 1st cause had no cause because you then establish that there is no need for a cause. All you have done is redefine energy as the 1st cause/God.

The only known solution to the first cause is something that is eternal. Is consciousness energy?

 

[ding]

Work can be done ON the system, Einstein.

Work is a force through a distance. If as you claim there was no energy, no work could be done ON the system. And none of your word games will create energy or do work.

Are you saying that work cannot be done on a closed system?

 

[edthecynic]

If you toss a ball straight up in the air, it rises to its maximum before falling back to the ground. At its maximum for just a SINGULAR moment the ball is neither rising nor falling. That singularity does not mean the Law of Gravity and the Law of Motion have broken down at the singularity.

Besides you, can you show me anyone who believes the laws of science don't break down at the big bang?

What breaks down is our theory of gravity. What we need is a quantum theory of gravity.

Besides you, who else believes in a "near heat death of the universe?"

I don't believe we are anywhere near heat death of the universe because the universe is not infinite acting. The universe had a beginning. You can google that and find many references to heat death of matter, jackhole. I don't find anything which supports the bullshit you are spouting.
Yes, we do need a quantum theory models and when those show that the universe had a beginning (which I already know because of the @nd Law of Thermodynamics) then you guys will latch onto some other far fetched bullshit explanation to avoid the inevitable debate on the 1st Cause. Until then I will amuse myself while you jacholes simultaneously worship and reject science to suit your godless agenda.

Well, what caused the 1st cause? And don't say the 1st cause had no cause because you then establish that there is no need for a cause. All you have done is redefine energy as the 1st cause/God.

The only known solution to the first cause is something that is eternal. Is consciousness energy?

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

 

[edthecynic]

Work can be done ON the system, Einstein.

Work is a force through a distance. If as you claim there was no energy, no work could be done ON the system. And none of your word games will create energy or do work.

Are you saying that work cannot be done on a closed system?

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.

 

[danielpalos]

There are two things that drive atheists absolutely bonkers.

1. That militant atheism leads to communism

An erroneous claim you continue to make, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, based solely on the writings of one man's observations whose views were, themselves, clearly coloured by a personal agenda, not unlike your own.

2. The universe had a beginning

A quote that is both presumptuous, and incapable of being proven.



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I'll make a couple of threads so I can keep throwing it in your face.

Don't be such a ling, Ding.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually the FLoT is

Esys = q + w and it says that the change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the sum of the heat gained or lost by the system and the work done by or on the system. So if q = 0 then w = 0 and the change in the energy of the system is 0. It does not say that energy has a beginning. In fact it says the exact opposite.

The first law of thermodynamics can be captured in the following equation, which states that the energy of the universe is constant. Energy can be transferred from the system to its surroundings, or vice versa, but it can't be created or destroyed.

Euniv =

Esys +

Esurr = 0

I didn't say anything about creating energy. Start with zero energy in the system and then add work to it. That's is how it was done.
E= Q+W. Before the beginning Q=0. W = the work added to the system at the beginning.

You have no idea what you are parroting.
If the system has zero energy, then zero work can be done. Work does not create energy.

Work can be done ON the system, Einstein. But putting this aside, the laws of physics breakdown at the singularity. Why in the world do you believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply at the singularity? After the singularity, you just can't get around the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Space/time and energy/matter had a beginning.

If you believe that, then why on earth would you believe that the second law must be in operation? You just admitted that your entire argument falls apart at the point of singularity.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What part of it occurs during expansion do you not understand?

What part of, that tells us nothing of what happened prior to the expansion, do you not understand? You presume that the expansion was the 'beginning". Says who? What evidence do you have to support that presumption?

 

[Czernobog]

There are two things that drive atheists absolutely bonkers.

1. That militant atheism leads to communism

An erroneous claim you continue to make, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, based solely on the writings of one man's observations whose views were, themselves, clearly coloured by a personal agenda, not unlike your own.

2. The universe had a beginning

A quote that is both presumptuous, and incapable of being proven.



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I'll make a couple of threads so I can keep throwing it in your face.

You can make as many threads as you like, and you can keep quoting the same biased source as many times as you like, that will not make your claim any more correct than it was the first 5,376 times you erroneously made it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And there's no point, really, to any of it, so life has no meaning or purpose.

Does life for a flower have purpose or meaning?

Actually purpose and meaning only exist because our brains have developed to the point where we can think about purpose and meaning, and we need purpose or meaning because otherwise we start going crazy. But that isn't evidence that purpose and meaning exist in life.

 

[ding]

There are two things that drive atheists absolutely bonkers.

1. That militant atheism leads to communism

An erroneous claim you continue to make, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, based solely on the writings of one man's observations whose views were, themselves, clearly coloured by a personal agenda, not unlike your own.

2. The universe had a beginning

A quote that is both presumptuous, and incapable of being proven.



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I'll make a couple of threads so I can keep throwing it in your face.

You can make as many threads as you like, and you can keep quoting the same biased source as many times as you like, that will not make your claim any more correct than it was the first 5,376 times you erroneously made it.

Biased source? You mean history and the communists?

 

[ding]

I didn't say anything about creating energy. Start with zero energy in the system and then add work to it. That's is how it was done.
E= Q+W. Before the beginning Q=0. W = the work added to the system at the beginning.

You have no idea what you are parroting.
If the system has zero energy, then zero work can be done. Work does not create energy.

Work can be done ON the system, Einstein. But putting this aside, the laws of physics breakdown at the singularity. Why in the world do you believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply at the singularity? After the singularity, you just can't get around the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Space/time and energy/matter had a beginning.

If you believe that, then why on earth would you believe that the second law must be in operation? You just admitted that your entire argument falls apart at the point of singularity.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What part of it occurs during expansion do you not understand?

What part of, that tells us nothing of what happened prior to the expansion, do you not understand? You presume that the expansion was the 'beginning". Says who? What evidence do you have to support that presumption?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that there had to be a beginning regardless of whether or not the last time it expanded was the first of the 13th.

 

[Mudda]

You have no idea what you are parroting.
If the system has zero energy, then zero work can be done. Work does not create energy.

Work can be done ON the system, Einstein. But putting this aside, the laws of physics breakdown at the singularity. Why in the world do you believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply at the singularity? After the singularity, you just can't get around the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Space/time and energy/matter had a beginning.

If you believe that, then why on earth would you believe that the second law must be in operation? You just admitted that your entire argument falls apart at the point of singularity.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What part of it occurs during expansion do you not understand?

What part of, that tells us nothing of what happened prior to the expansion, do you not understand? You presume that the expansion was the 'beginning". Says who? What evidence do you have to support that presumption?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that there had to be a beginning regardless of whether or not the last time it expanded was the first of the 13th.

So what do the laws of quantum physics say about that?

 

[ding]

Work can be done ON the system, Einstein.

Work is a force through a distance. If as you claim there was no energy, no work could be done ON the system. And none of your word games will create energy or do work.

Are you saying that work cannot be done on a closed system?

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

 

[ding]

Besides you, can you show me anyone who believes the laws of science don't break down at the big bang?

What breaks down is our theory of gravity. What we need is a quantum theory of gravity.

Besides you, who else believes in a "near heat death of the universe?"

I don't believe we are anywhere near heat death of the universe because the universe is not infinite acting. The universe had a beginning. You can google that and find many references to heat death of matter, jackhole. I don't find anything which supports the bullshit you are spouting.
Yes, we do need a quantum theory models and when those show that the universe had a beginning (which I already know because of the @nd Law of Thermodynamics) then you guys will latch onto some other far fetched bullshit explanation to avoid the inevitable debate on the 1st Cause. Until then I will amuse myself while you jacholes simultaneously worship and reject science to suit your godless agenda.

Well, what caused the 1st cause? And don't say the 1st cause had no cause because you then establish that there is no need for a cause. All you have done is redefine energy as the 1st cause/God.

The only known solution to the first cause is something that is eternal. Is consciousness energy?

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.

 

[edthecynic]

Work can be done ON the system, Einstein.

Work is a force through a distance. If as you claim there was no energy, no work could be done ON the system. And none of your word games will create energy or do work.

Are you saying that work cannot be done on a closed system?

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!!!!!

 

[Czernobog]

You have no idea what you are parroting.
If the system has zero energy, then zero work can be done. Work does not create energy.

Work can be done ON the system, Einstein. But putting this aside, the laws of physics breakdown at the singularity. Why in the world do you believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply at the singularity? After the singularity, you just can't get around the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Space/time and energy/matter had a beginning.

If you believe that, then why on earth would you believe that the second law must be in operation? You just admitted that your entire argument falls apart at the point of singularity.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What part of it occurs during expansion do you not understand?

What part of, that tells us nothing of what happened prior to the expansion, do you not understand? You presume that the expansion was the 'beginning". Says who? What evidence do you have to support that presumption?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that there had to be a beginning regardless of whether or not the last time it expanded was the first of the 13th.

There you go again, acting like the laws of thermodynamics have any relevancy to the event horizon of the singularity, in order to maintain your argument, while simultaneously insisting that they become irrelevant when they cease to support it. Why do you ignore science, when it becomes convenient for you to do so?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[edthecynic]

What breaks down is our theory of gravity. What we need is a quantum theory of gravity.

Besides you, who else believes in a "near heat death of the universe?"

I don't believe we are anywhere near heat death of the universe because the universe is not infinite acting. The universe had a beginning. You can google that and find many references to heat death of matter, jackhole. I don't find anything which supports the bullshit you are spouting.
Yes, we do need a quantum theory models and when those show that the universe had a beginning (which I already know because of the @nd Law of Thermodynamics) then you guys will latch onto some other far fetched bullshit explanation to avoid the inevitable debate on the 1st Cause. Until then I will amuse myself while you jacholes simultaneously worship and reject science to suit your godless agenda.

Well, what caused the 1st cause? And don't say the 1st cause had no cause because you then establish that there is no need for a cause. All you have done is redefine energy as the 1st cause/God.

The only known solution to the first cause is something that is eternal. Is consciousness energy?

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.