The Second Proof of God

[ding]

The universe requires a Creator.

Not a factual statement. What was there before the universe was "created"?

God

 

[ding]

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
   
   
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
   
   
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
   
   
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
   
   
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
   
   
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
   
   
7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
   
   
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
   
   
9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

And God is a Muslim god.

If it helps you see him that way.

 

[Picaro]

The way to understand that it is impossible for matter and energy to exist forever even if there is an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy to the system. So as time approaches infinity, no matter what the universe does, the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

Not according to the SLoT. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, the change in entropy can be ZERO, which means that when entropy equals zero there is NO loss of usable energy. You have simply through pontification and not math eliminated the "or equal to zero" part of the EQUATION.

Entropy can never go to zero; it has lower boundaries, at least in real science. See Buscemi, Das, and Wilde on that.

 

[ding]

The way to understand that it is impossible for matter and energy to exist forever even if there is an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy to the system. So as time approaches infinity, no matter what the universe does, the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

Not according to the SLoT. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, the change in entropy can be ZERO, which means that when entropy equals zero there is NO loss of usable energy. You have simply through pontification and not math eliminated the "or equal to zero" part of the EQUATION.

That is totally unrelated to what I said.

You are like a monkey flinging poo.

 

[edthecynic]

The way to understand that it is impossible for matter and energy to exist forever even if there is an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy to the system. So as time approaches infinity, no matter what the universe does, the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

Not according to the SLoT. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, the change in entropy can be ZERO, which means that when entropy equals zero there is NO loss of usable energy. You have simply through pontification and not math eliminated the "or equal to zero" part of the EQUATION.

Entropy can never go to zero; it has lower boundaries, at least in real science. See Buscemi, Das, and Wilde on that.

Wrong! The change in entropy can clearly equal zero, as the equation shows that entropy can be positive or zero, but entropy cannot be negative.

 

[ding]

The way to understand that it is impossible for matter and energy to exist forever even if there is an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy to the system. So as time approaches infinity, no matter what the universe does, the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

Not according to the SLoT. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, the change in entropy can be ZERO, which means that when entropy equals zero there is NO loss of usable energy. You have simply through pontification and not math eliminated the "or equal to zero" part of the EQUATION.

Entropy can never go to zero; it has lower boundaries, at least in real science. See Buscemi, Das, and Wilde on that.

Wrong! The change in entropy can clearly equal zero, as the equation shows that entropy can be positive or zero, but entropy cannot be negative.

And when would that be?

 

[edthecynic]

The way to understand that it is impossible for matter and energy to exist forever even if there is an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy to the system. So as time approaches infinity, no matter what the universe does, the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

Not according to the SLoT. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, the change in entropy can be ZERO, which means that when entropy equals zero there is NO loss of usable energy. You have simply through pontification and not math eliminated the "or equal to zero" part of the EQUATION.

That is totally unrelated to what I said.

You are like a money flinging poo.

Well then you are too STUPID to know what you said. You said EVERY exchange is a LOSS, and that is pure unscientific hogwash, as the equation proves.

 

[edthecynic]

The way to understand that it is impossible for matter and energy to exist forever even if there is an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy to the system. So as time approaches infinity, no matter what the universe does, the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

Not according to the SLoT. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, the change in entropy can be ZERO, which means that when entropy equals zero there is NO loss of usable energy. You have simply through pontification and not math eliminated the "or equal to zero" part of the EQUATION.

Entropy can never go to zero; it has lower boundaries, at least in real science. See Buscemi, Das, and Wilde on that.

Wrong! The change in entropy can clearly equal zero, as the equation shows that entropy can be positive or zero, but entropy cannot be negative.

And when would that be?

Yesterday!

If entropy in nature could not equal zero, no matter could exist!
Does matter exist???

 

[Picaro]

The way to understand that it is impossible for matter and energy to exist forever even if there is an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy to the system. So as time approaches infinity, no matter what the universe does, the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

Not according to the SLoT. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, the change in entropy can be ZERO, which means that when entropy equals zero there is NO loss of usable energy. You have simply through pontification and not math eliminated the "or equal to zero" part of the EQUATION.

Entropy can never go to zero; it has lower boundaries, at least in real science. See Buscemi, Das, and Wilde on that.

Wrong! The change in entropy can clearly equal zero, as the equation shows that entropy can be positive or zero, but entropy cannot be negative.

Uh .. no, it can't in real life; equations aren't real physics; math is an abstract language, not scientific fact. No surprise you can't make the distinction between abstraction and basic physics.

 

[ding]

The way to understand that it is impossible for matter and energy to exist forever even if there is an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy to the system. So as time approaches infinity, no matter what the universe does, the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

Not according to the SLoT. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, the change in entropy can be ZERO, which means that when entropy equals zero there is NO loss of usable energy. You have simply through pontification and not math eliminated the "or equal to zero" part of the EQUATION.

Entropy can never go to zero; it has lower boundaries, at least in real science. See Buscemi, Das, and Wilde on that.

Wrong! The change in entropy can clearly equal zero, as the equation shows that entropy can be positive or zero, but entropy cannot be negative.

And when would that be?

Yesterday!

If entropy in nature could not equal zero, no matter could exist!
Does matter exist???

No. It wasn't yesterday. Try again? Your poo missed the mark.

 

[edthecynic]

The way to understand that it is impossible for matter and energy to exist forever even if there is an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy to the system. So as time approaches infinity, no matter what the universe does, the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

Not according to the SLoT. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, the change in entropy can be ZERO, which means that when entropy equals zero there is NO loss of usable energy. You have simply through pontification and not math eliminated the "or equal to zero" part of the EQUATION.

Entropy can never go to zero; it has lower boundaries, at least in real science. See Buscemi, Das, and Wilde on that.

Wrong! The change in entropy can clearly equal zero, as the equation shows that entropy can be positive or zero, but entropy cannot be negative.

Uh .. no, it can't in real life; equations aren't real physics; math is an abstract language, not scientific fact. No surprise you can't make the distinction between abstraction and basic physics.

The equation is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, AKA, real life physics.

 

[Picaro]

The way to understand that it is impossible for matter and energy to exist forever even if there is an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy to the system. So as time approaches infinity, no matter what the universe does, the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

Not according to the SLoT. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, the change in entropy can be ZERO, which means that when entropy equals zero there is NO loss of usable energy. You have simply through pontification and not math eliminated the "or equal to zero" part of the EQUATION.

Entropy can never go to zero; it has lower boundaries, at least in real science. See Buscemi, Das, and Wilde on that.

Wrong! The change in entropy can clearly equal zero, as the equation shows that entropy can be positive or zero, but entropy cannot be negative.

And when would that be?

Why, can't you see? It's in an equation n stuff ... that's a substitute for the impossible in fantasy land, if you throw in math, you know.

 

[ding]

The way to understand that it is impossible for matter and energy to exist forever even if there is an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy to the system. So as time approaches infinity, no matter what the universe does, the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

Not according to the SLoT. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, the change in entropy can be ZERO, which means that when entropy equals zero there is NO loss of usable energy. You have simply through pontification and not math eliminated the "or equal to zero" part of the EQUATION.

That is totally unrelated to what I said.

You are like a money flinging poo.

Well then you are too STUPID to know what you said. You said EVERY exchange is a LOSS, and that is pure unscientific hogwash, as the equation proves.

No. That equation doesn't prove that. You are using it wrong. Like a talking monkey flinging poo.

What you are saying is so funny I am now picturing you living out of someone's basement.

 

[ding]

The way to understand that it is impossible for matter and energy to exist forever even if there is an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy to the system. So as time approaches infinity, no matter what the universe does, the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

Not according to the SLoT. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, the change in entropy can be ZERO, which means that when entropy equals zero there is NO loss of usable energy. You have simply through pontification and not math eliminated the "or equal to zero" part of the EQUATION.

Entropy can never go to zero; it has lower boundaries, at least in real science. See Buscemi, Das, and Wilde on that.

Wrong! The change in entropy can clearly equal zero, as the equation shows that entropy can be positive or zero, but entropy cannot be negative.

Uh .. no, it can't in real life; equations aren't real physics; math is an abstract language, not scientific fact. No surprise you can't make the distinction between abstraction and basic physics.

The equation is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, AKA, real life physics.

When does entropy equal zero?

 

[Picaro]

The way to understand that it is impossible for matter and energy to exist forever even if there is an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches is that for every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy to the system. So as time approaches infinity, no matter what the universe does, the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

Not according to the SLoT. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, the change in entropy can be ZERO, which means that when entropy equals zero there is NO loss of usable energy. You have simply through pontification and not math eliminated the "or equal to zero" part of the EQUATION.

Entropy can never go to zero; it has lower boundaries, at least in real science. See Buscemi, Das, and Wilde on that.

Wrong! The change in entropy can clearly equal zero, as the equation shows that entropy can be positive or zero, but entropy cannot be negative.

Uh .. no, it can't in real life; equations aren't real physics; math is an abstract language, not scientific fact. No surprise you can't make the distinction between abstraction and basic physics.

The equation is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, AKA, real life physics.

the equation is a descriptive, not a scientific fact. Nothing can go to zero, it can only approach limits. The 'zero' in the equation is just a plug in, not anything actually ever achievable in reality. That is real life physics.

 

[edthecynic]

Not according to the SLoT. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, the change in entropy can be ZERO, which means that when entropy equals zero there is NO loss of usable energy. You have simply through pontification and not math eliminated the "or equal to zero" part of the EQUATION.

Entropy can never go to zero; it has lower boundaries, at least in real science. See Buscemi, Das, and Wilde on that.

Wrong! The change in entropy can clearly equal zero, as the equation shows that entropy can be positive or zero, but entropy cannot be negative.

And when would that be?

Yesterday!

If entropy in nature could not equal zero, no matter could exist!
Does matter exist???

No. It wasn't yesterday. Try again? Your poo missed the mark.

Hey pinhead, that was satire! Your STUPID question didn't deserve a serious answer, but nice guy that I am I followed the joke answer with a serious one anyway knowing it would go over your pinhead.

Now try to argue the real answer that followed. Oh that's right, you can't, which is why you chose to harp on the humor

 

[Picaro]

Not according to the SLoT. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, the change in entropy can be ZERO, which means that when entropy equals zero there is NO loss of usable energy. You have simply through pontification and not math eliminated the "or equal to zero" part of the EQUATION.

Entropy can never go to zero; it has lower boundaries, at least in real science. See Buscemi, Das, and Wilde on that.

Wrong! The change in entropy can clearly equal zero, as the equation shows that entropy can be positive or zero, but entropy cannot be negative.

Uh .. no, it can't in real life; equations aren't real physics; math is an abstract language, not scientific fact. No surprise you can't make the distinction between abstraction and basic physics.

The equation is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, AKA, real life physics.

When does entropy equal zero?

When Ed tries to think. Only known case in the universe.

 

[ding]

Entropy can never go to zero; it has lower boundaries, at least in real science. See Buscemi, Das, and Wilde on that.

Wrong! The change in entropy can clearly equal zero, as the equation shows that entropy can be positive or zero, but entropy cannot be negative.

And when would that be?

Yesterday!

If entropy in nature could not equal zero, no matter could exist!
Does matter exist???

No. It wasn't yesterday. Try again? Your poo missed the mark.

Hey pinhead, that was satire! Your STUPID question didn't deserve a serious answer, but nice guy that I am I followed the joke answer with a serious one anyway knowing it would go over your pinhead.

Now try to argue the real answer that followed. Oh that's right, you can't, which is why you chose to harp on the humor

When does entropy equal zero?

 

[edthecynic]

Not according to the SLoT. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, the change in entropy can be ZERO, which means that when entropy equals zero there is NO loss of usable energy. You have simply through pontification and not math eliminated the "or equal to zero" part of the EQUATION.

Entropy can never go to zero; it has lower boundaries, at least in real science. See Buscemi, Das, and Wilde on that.

Wrong! The change in entropy can clearly equal zero, as the equation shows that entropy can be positive or zero, but entropy cannot be negative.

Uh .. no, it can't in real life; equations aren't real physics; math is an abstract language, not scientific fact. No surprise you can't make the distinction between abstraction and basic physics.

The equation is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, AKA, real life physics.

the equation is a descriptive, not a scientific fact. Nothing can go to zero, it can only approach limits. The 'zero' in the equation is just a plug in, not anything actually ever achievable in reality. That is real life physics.

If the change in entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist. Matter actually exists in the real world, so the change in entropy can equal zero.

 

[edthecynic]

Wrong! The change in entropy can clearly equal zero, as the equation shows that entropy can be positive or zero, but entropy cannot be negative.

And when would that be?

Yesterday!

If entropy in nature could not equal zero, no matter could exist!
Does matter exist???

No. It wasn't yesterday. Try again? Your poo missed the mark.

Hey pinhead, that was satire! Your STUPID question didn't deserve a serious answer, but nice guy that I am I followed the joke answer with a serious one anyway knowing it would go over your pinhead.

Now try to argue the real answer that followed. Oh that's right, you can't, which is why you chose to harp on the humor

When does entropy equal zero?

When it is not a positive number. DUH!