The Second Proof of God

[Billy_Kinetta]

9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

A physicist would call it the Big Bang.

The first cause would be before the creation of space and time.

It has been proven with a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore energy has no first cause.

So why did it exist in the first place? All events require a catalyst.

Energy is a thing, not an "event."

The state of existence is an event. Only third-grade logic postulates "just because".

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

God can't be logically disproven that's the issue.

it doesn't work that way.

Okay. How does it work?

 

[ding]

9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

A physicist would call it the Big Bang.

The first cause would be before the creation of space and time.

It has been proven with a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore energy has no first cause.

You mean except through a quantum tunneling event into a false vacuum?

Sorry. Space and time had a definitive beginning. It was 14 billion years ago or so. Maybe you heard about it.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed therefore no beginning or end, you may have heard of it, the PROVEN First Law of Thermodynamics.

We have been through this before. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[edthecynic]

A physicist would call it the Big Bang.

The first cause would be before the creation of space and time.

It has been proven with a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore energy has no first cause.

So why did it exist in the first place? All events require a catalyst.

Energy is a thing, not an "event."

The state of existence is an event. Only third-grade logic postulates "just because".

You made that up, just like a first grader.

 

[edthecynic]

A physicist would call it the Big Bang.

The first cause would be before the creation of space and time.

It has been proven with a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore energy has no first cause.

You mean except through a quantum tunneling event into a false vacuum?

Sorry. Space and time had a definitive beginning. It was 14 billion years ago or so. Maybe you heard about it.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed therefore no beginning or end, you may have heard of it, the PROVEN First Law of Thermodynamics.

We have been through this before.

Yes, you always attempt to disprove the proven with the unproven, and you fail every time.
You need a repeatable experiment to disprove what has been proven by a repeatable experiment.

 

[ding]

The first cause would be before the creation of space and time.

It has been proven with a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore energy has no first cause.

You mean except through a quantum tunneling event into a false vacuum?

Sorry. Space and time had a definitive beginning. It was 14 billion years ago or so. Maybe you heard about it.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed therefore no beginning or end, you may have heard of it, the PROVEN First Law of Thermodynamics.

We have been through this before.

Yes, you always attempt to disprove the proven with the unproven, and you fail every time.
You need a repeatable experiment to disprove what has been proven by a repeatable experiment.

No offense, Ed, you don't know jack shit about science.

 

[ding]

If nothing else, you accomplished having me go look this up and find out it's from Thomas Aquinas, and also read some rebuttals to it.

One thing that struck me is that this second way leads to the conclusion that there must be at least one first cause. However, it allows for multiple first causes.

Here are a couple of the discussions I read about this:
https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/10100/LECTURES/3-second-way.pdf
Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Efficient Cause"

That's only because you practice critical theory and have an external locus of control.

 

[TNHarley]

If nothing else, you accomplished having me go look this up and find out it's from Thomas Aquinas, and also read some rebuttals to it.

One thing that struck me is that this second way leads to the conclusion that there must be at least one first cause. However, it allows for multiple first causes.

Here are a couple of the discussions I read about this:
https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/10100/LECTURES/3-second-way.pdf
Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Efficient Cause"

That's only because you practice critical theory and have an external locus of control.

Besides you saying all you do is copy/paste other people, you prove it by saying the same thing to everyone. You might fool a few, but they are fools to begin with.
Not much of an accomplishment

 

[ding]

If nothing else, you accomplished having me go look this up and find out it's from Thomas Aquinas, and also read some rebuttals to it.

One thing that struck me is that this second way leads to the conclusion that there must be at least one first cause. However, it allows for multiple first causes.

Here are a couple of the discussions I read about this:
https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/10100/LECTURES/3-second-way.pdf
Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Efficient Cause"

That's only because you practice critical theory and have an external locus of control.

Besides you saying all you do is copy/paste other people, you prove it by saying the same thing to everyone. You might fool a few, but they are fools to begin with.
Not much of an accomplishment

Triggering you is an accomplishment, TN.

 

[TNHarley]

If nothing else, you accomplished having me go look this up and find out it's from Thomas Aquinas, and also read some rebuttals to it.

One thing that struck me is that this second way leads to the conclusion that there must be at least one first cause. However, it allows for multiple first causes.

Here are a couple of the discussions I read about this:
https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/10100/LECTURES/3-second-way.pdf
Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Efficient Cause"

That's only because you practice critical theory and have an external locus of control.

Besides you saying all you do is copy/paste other people, you prove it by saying the same thing to everyone. You might fool a few, but they are fools to begin with.
Not much of an accomplishment

Triggering you is an accomplishment, TN.

Lol, i dont get triggered by mentally retarded hucksters

 

[ding]

If nothing else, you accomplished having me go look this up and find out it's from Thomas Aquinas, and also read some rebuttals to it.

One thing that struck me is that this second way leads to the conclusion that there must be at least one first cause. However, it allows for multiple first causes.

Here are a couple of the discussions I read about this:
https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/10100/LECTURES/3-second-way.pdf
Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Efficient Cause"

That's only because you practice critical theory and have an external locus of control.

Besides you saying all you do is copy/paste other people, you prove it by saying the same thing to everyone. You might fool a few, but they are fools to begin with.
Not much of an accomplishment

Triggering you is an accomplishment, TN.

Lol, i dont get triggered by mentally retarded hucksters

You bazillion funnies and emotional responses say otherwise, TN.

 

[TNHarley]

If nothing else, you accomplished having me go look this up and find out it's from Thomas Aquinas, and also read some rebuttals to it.

One thing that struck me is that this second way leads to the conclusion that there must be at least one first cause. However, it allows for multiple first causes.

Here are a couple of the discussions I read about this:
https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/10100/LECTURES/3-second-way.pdf
Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Efficient Cause"

That's only because you practice critical theory and have an external locus of control.

Besides you saying all you do is copy/paste other people, you prove it by saying the same thing to everyone. You might fool a few, but they are fools to begin with.
Not much of an accomplishment

Triggering you is an accomplishment, TN.

Lol, i dont get triggered by mentally retarded hucksters

You bazillion funnies and emotional responses say otherwise, TN.

Laughing at stupidity is being "triggered" now? Lol. You sure you not a pinko? Raping words is what they do.

 

[ding]

That's only because you practice critical theory and have an external locus of control.

Besides you saying all you do is copy/paste other people, you prove it by saying the same thing to everyone. You might fool a few, but they are fools to begin with.
Not much of an accomplishment

Triggering you is an accomplishment, TN.

Lol, i dont get triggered by mentally retarded hucksters

You bazillion funnies and emotional responses say otherwise, TN.

Laughing at stupidity is being "triggered" now? Lol. You sure you not a pinko? Raping words is what they do.

Dude, you are in full melt down mode.

Go ahead and get it out of your system, TN.

 

[TNHarley]

Besides you saying all you do is copy/paste other people, you prove it by saying the same thing to everyone. You might fool a few, but they are fools to begin with.
Not much of an accomplishment

Triggering you is an accomplishment, TN.

Lol, i dont get triggered by mentally retarded hucksters

You bazillion funnies and emotional responses say otherwise, TN.

Laughing at stupidity is being "triggered" now? Lol. You sure you not a pinko? Raping words is what they do.

Dude, you are in full melt down mode.

Go ahead and get it out of your system, TN.

 

[ding]

^ he mad

 

[TNHarley]

reverse psychology and projection. A 2fer

 

[ding]

reverse psychology and projection. A 2fer

Yes, it was all part of my evil plan. I created this thread to lure you in.

Can you be a bigger putz, TN?

 

[edthecynic]

It has been proven with a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore energy has no first cause.

You mean except through a quantum tunneling event into a false vacuum?

Sorry. Space and time had a definitive beginning. It was 14 billion years ago or so. Maybe you heard about it.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed therefore no beginning or end, you may have heard of it, the PROVEN First Law of Thermodynamics.

We have been through this before.

Yes, you always attempt to disprove the proven with the unproven, and you fail every time.
You need a repeatable experiment to disprove what has been proven by a repeatable experiment.

No offense, Ed, you don't know jack shit about science.

I know that the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, you might have a surge protector rated in Joules named after him in honor of his great accomplishment, and I know you have no repeatable experiment contradicting it.

 

[ding]

You mean except through a quantum tunneling event into a false vacuum?

Sorry. Space and time had a definitive beginning. It was 14 billion years ago or so. Maybe you heard about it.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed therefore no beginning or end, you may have heard of it, the PROVEN First Law of Thermodynamics.

We have been through this before.

Yes, you always attempt to disprove the proven with the unproven, and you fail every time.
You need a repeatable experiment to disprove what has been proven by a repeatable experiment.

No offense, Ed, you don't know jack shit about science.

I know that the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, you might have a surge protector rated in Joules named after him in honor of his great accomplishment, and I know you have no repeatable experiment contradicting it.

And you should know that matter and energy will eventually reach thermal equilibrium which should tell you that it is not possible for matter to exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium. Which all mean that space and time was created 14 billion years ago.

But let's play it out your way. How long has matter and energy existed?

 

[Vastator]

Logic isn't for everyone.

You proved that with your first post, that's for sure!

Both posts sound like a reiterated version of "I don't know; therefore, God..."