The Second Proof of God

[ding]

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?

The third Law of Thermodynamics says thermal equilibrium is impossible, but you knew that already.
And since energy can neither be created nor destroyed it has always existed and will always exist in the same total quantity.

Would that be true if, as I have sometimes read, the physical laws our universe operates under did not exist prior to the Big Bang? (Assuming using the term "prior to" makes sense when time itself may not have existed)

You read wrong. The creation of space and time followed laws.

What do you think would have made the laws change?

Well, there is this from Stephen Hawking: "The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down." That seems to indicate that 'before' the Big Bang, at least some of the laws of physics did not apply. That only makes sense if space and time do not exist. The Beginning of TIme

I forgot to tell you that Stephen Hawking believes in inflation theory. It is based off of string theory.

 

[Montrovant]

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?

The third Law of Thermodynamics says thermal equilibrium is impossible, but you knew that already.
And since energy can neither be created nor destroyed it has always existed and will always exist in the same total quantity.

Would that be true if, as I have sometimes read, the physical laws our universe operates under did not exist prior to the Big Bang? (Assuming using the term "prior to" makes sense when time itself may not have existed)

You read wrong. The creation of space and time followed laws.

What do you think would have made the laws change?

Well, there is this from Stephen Hawking: "The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down." That seems to indicate that 'before' the Big Bang, at least some of the laws of physics did not apply. That only makes sense if space and time do not exist. The Beginning of TIme

The equations to Friedman's solution to Einstein's GToR yield infinities. They are equations, not laws. But I do find it appropriate that they yield infinity as that is the solution to the first cause.

You do realize that I already explained to you inflation theory which is what describes what happened right before Friedman's solution to Einstein's GToR yield infinities, right?

It was a quantum tunneling event which created space and time and did so while adhering to quantum laws and conservation laws. The laws were in place before space and time existed.

According to Dr. Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate and Director Emeritus of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory:

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential."

Clearly the laws of nature are different from the physical laws of our universe.

 

[ding]

Secondly, how is that any different from I don't know, so God? If God is the first cause, then what is the cause of God? In trying to answer the question, you make shit up (God), and when it's over, you still haven't answered anything.

It is called logic and since you don't even realize the question you asked was already answered in the proof, it went over your head.

 

[ding]

The third Law of Thermodynamics says thermal equilibrium is impossible, but you knew that already.
And since energy can neither be created nor destroyed it has always existed and will always exist in the same total quantity.

Would that be true if, as I have sometimes read, the physical laws our universe operates under did not exist prior to the Big Bang? (Assuming using the term "prior to" makes sense when time itself may not have existed)

You read wrong. The creation of space and time followed laws.

What do you think would have made the laws change?

Well, there is this from Stephen Hawking: "The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down." That seems to indicate that 'before' the Big Bang, at least some of the laws of physics did not apply. That only makes sense if space and time do not exist. The Beginning of TIme

The equations to Friedman's solution to Einstein's GToR yield infinities. They are equations, not laws. But I do find it appropriate that they yield infinity as that is the solution to the first cause.

You do realize that I already explained to you inflation theory which is what describes what happened right before Friedman's solution to Einstein's GToR yield infinities, right?

It was a quantum tunneling event which created space and time and did so while adhering to quantum laws and conservation laws. The laws were in place before space and time existed.

According to Dr. Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate and Director Emeritus of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory:

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential."

Clearly the laws of nature are different from the physical laws of our universe.

One in the same. Rules which govern nature exist for all things, just not in the same way for all things. The potential for living things existed before space and time. So did moral laws.

 

[IsaacNewton]

For the purposes of discussion:

Fred Gailey: Your Honor, every one of these letters is addressed to Santa Claus. The Post Office has delivered them. Therefore the Post Office Department, a branch of the Federal Government, recognizes this man Kris Kringle to be the one and only Santa Claus.

Proof that any one of the thousands of 'gods' worshiped by human is the one and only god. And "well he just is" or "well it's the one I believe in" or "have you seen his creation" aren't going to fly. And thousands of letters addressed to 'god' and delivered to court, or a church, or Pat Robertson won't get it either.

 

[Montrovant]

Would that be true if, as I have sometimes read, the physical laws our universe operates under did not exist prior to the Big Bang? (Assuming using the term "prior to" makes sense when time itself may not have existed)

You read wrong. The creation of space and time followed laws.

What do you think would have made the laws change?

Well, there is this from Stephen Hawking: "The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down." That seems to indicate that 'before' the Big Bang, at least some of the laws of physics did not apply. That only makes sense if space and time do not exist. The Beginning of TIme

The equations to Friedman's solution to Einstein's GToR yield infinities. They are equations, not laws. But I do find it appropriate that they yield infinity as that is the solution to the first cause.

You do realize that I already explained to you inflation theory which is what describes what happened right before Friedman's solution to Einstein's GToR yield infinities, right?

It was a quantum tunneling event which created space and time and did so while adhering to quantum laws and conservation laws. The laws were in place before space and time existed.

According to Dr. Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate and Director Emeritus of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory:

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential."

Clearly the laws of nature are different from the physical laws of our universe.

One in the same. Rules which govern nature exist for all things, just not in the same way for all things. The potential for living things existed before space and time. So did moral laws.

Wait, now you're calling morality a law of nature?

 

[ding]

You read wrong. The creation of space and time followed laws.

What do you think would have made the laws change?

Well, there is this from Stephen Hawking: "The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down." That seems to indicate that 'before' the Big Bang, at least some of the laws of physics did not apply. That only makes sense if space and time do not exist. The Beginning of TIme

The equations to Friedman's solution to Einstein's GToR yield infinities. They are equations, not laws. But I do find it appropriate that they yield infinity as that is the solution to the first cause.

You do realize that I already explained to you inflation theory which is what describes what happened right before Friedman's solution to Einstein's GToR yield infinities, right?

It was a quantum tunneling event which created space and time and did so while adhering to quantum laws and conservation laws. The laws were in place before space and time existed.

According to Dr. Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate and Director Emeritus of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory:

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential."

Clearly the laws of nature are different from the physical laws of our universe.

One in the same. Rules which govern nature exist for all things, just not in the same way for all things. The potential for living things existed before space and time. So did moral laws.

Wait, now you're calling morality a law of nature?

You don't believe that you are morally evolving?

 

[Montrovant]

Well, there is this from Stephen Hawking: "The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down." That seems to indicate that 'before' the Big Bang, at least some of the laws of physics did not apply. That only makes sense if space and time do not exist. The Beginning of TIme

The equations to Friedman's solution to Einstein's GToR yield infinities. They are equations, not laws. But I do find it appropriate that they yield infinity as that is the solution to the first cause.

You do realize that I already explained to you inflation theory which is what describes what happened right before Friedman's solution to Einstein's GToR yield infinities, right?

It was a quantum tunneling event which created space and time and did so while adhering to quantum laws and conservation laws. The laws were in place before space and time existed.

According to Dr. Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate and Director Emeritus of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory:

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential."

Clearly the laws of nature are different from the physical laws of our universe.

One in the same. Rules which govern nature exist for all things, just not in the same way for all things. The potential for living things existed before space and time. So did moral laws.

Wait, now you're calling morality a law of nature?

You don't believe that you are morally evolving?

I don't believe that morality is a law of nature.

 

[ding]

The equations to Friedman's solution to Einstein's GToR yield infinities. They are equations, not laws. But I do find it appropriate that they yield infinity as that is the solution to the first cause.

You do realize that I already explained to you inflation theory which is what describes what happened right before Friedman's solution to Einstein's GToR yield infinities, right?

It was a quantum tunneling event which created space and time and did so while adhering to quantum laws and conservation laws. The laws were in place before space and time existed.

According to Dr. Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate and Director Emeritus of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory:

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential."

Clearly the laws of nature are different from the physical laws of our universe.

One in the same. Rules which govern nature exist for all things, just not in the same way for all things. The potential for living things existed before space and time. So did moral laws.

Wait, now you're calling morality a law of nature?

You don't believe that you are morally evolving?

I don't believe that morality is a law of nature.

The you shouldn't mind answering my question.

 

[ding]

And I am not saying that morality is a law I am saying that natural moral laws exist which naturally lead to order and harmony.

 

[bgrouse]

Secondly, how is that any different from I don't know, so God? If God is the first cause, then what is the cause of God? In trying to answer the question, you make shit up (God), and when it's over, you still haven't answered anything.

It is called logic and since you don't even realize the question you asked was already answered in the proof, it went over your head.

So which one of your brilliant points answered it?

 

[ding]

Secondly, how is that any different from I don't know, so God? If God is the first cause, then what is the cause of God? In trying to answer the question, you make shit up (God), and when it's over, you still haven't answered anything.

It is called logic and since you don't even realize the question you asked was already answered in the proof, it went over your head.

So which one of your brilliant points answered it?

That would be which one of Aquinas' brilliant points answered it.

Points 6 though 9.

 

[bgrouse]

Secondly, how is that any different from I don't know, so God? If God is the first cause, then what is the cause of God? In trying to answer the question, you make shit up (God), and when it's over, you still haven't answered anything.

It is called logic and since you don't even realize the question you asked was already answered in the proof, it went over your head.

So which one of your brilliant points answered it?

That would be which one of Aquinas' brilliant points answered it.

Points 6 though 9.

One big hole in your "logic" is right here: it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Ir it could be something other than God. You make absolutely no compelling argument supporting the idea that the "first efficient cause" is God.

 

[Montrovant]

And I am not saying that morality is a law I am saying that natural moral laws exist which naturally lead to order and harmony.

I'm afraid I'm not understanding you. What is a natural moral law?

 

[Montrovant]

Clearly the laws of nature are different from the physical laws of our universe.

One in the same. Rules which govern nature exist for all things, just not in the same way for all things. The potential for living things existed before space and time. So did moral laws.

Wait, now you're calling morality a law of nature?

You don't believe that you are morally evolving?

I don't believe that morality is a law of nature.

The you shouldn't mind answering my question.

I think that I, like most people, have evolving morals throughout life.

 

[ding]

And I am not saying that morality is a law I am saying that natural moral laws exist which naturally lead to order and harmony.

I'm afraid I'm not understanding you. What is a natural moral law?

That's funny because the Greeks understood this thousands of years ago.

 

[ding]

One in the same. Rules which govern nature exist for all things, just not in the same way for all things. The potential for living things existed before space and time. So did moral laws.

Wait, now you're calling morality a law of nature?

You don't believe that you are morally evolving?

I don't believe that morality is a law of nature.

The you shouldn't mind answering my question.

I think that I, like most people, have evolving morals throughout life.

How can that be possible? Don't you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

 

[ding]

Secondly, how is that any different from I don't know, so God? If God is the first cause, then what is the cause of God? In trying to answer the question, you make shit up (God), and when it's over, you still haven't answered anything.

It is called logic and since you don't even realize the question you asked was already answered in the proof, it went over your head.

So which one of your brilliant points answered it?

That would be which one of Aquinas' brilliant points answered it.

Points 6 though 9.

One big hole in your "logic" is right here: it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Ir it could be something other than God. You make absolutely no compelling argument supporting the idea that the "first efficient cause" is God.

I don't think you understood it.

 

[bgrouse]

Secondly, how is that any different from I don't know, so God? If God is the first cause, then what is the cause of God? In trying to answer the question, you make shit up (God), and when it's over, you still haven't answered anything.

It is called logic and since you don't even realize the question you asked was already answered in the proof, it went over your head.

So which one of your brilliant points answered it?

That would be which one of Aquinas' brilliant points answered it.

Points 6 though 9.

One big hole in your "logic" is right here: it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Ir it could be something other than God. You make absolutely no compelling argument supporting the idea that the "first efficient cause" is God.

I don't think you understood it.

Your argument is based entirely on faith. There's no logic to it and nothing else to understand.

 

[Montrovant]

And I am not saying that morality is a law I am saying that natural moral laws exist which naturally lead to order and harmony.

I'm afraid I'm not understanding you. What is a natural moral law?

That's funny because the Greeks understood this thousands of years ago.

Great. You should have no trouble explaining it, then. You seem to avoid doing that a lot, however.