The Second Proof of God

[ding]

Could it be that Ed doesn't know how to use the equation?

 

[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.

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.

Ed, why could no matter exist if the change in entropy could not equal zero?

And please don't say because matter exists in the real world like a talking monkey flinging his poo.

 

[edthecynic]

Could it be that Ed doesn't know howto use the equation?

More likely YOU don't understand it.
What would happen if the entropy of a stable atom could not equal zero???

 

[ding]

Could it be that Ed doesn't know howto use the equation?

More likely YOU don't understand it.
What would happen if the entropy of a stable atom could not equal zero???

Stay focused Ed, we are discussing the universe.

When did entropy equal zero, Ed? It's a simple question.

 

[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.

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.

Ed, why could no matter exist if the change in entropy could not equal zero?

And please don't say because matter exists in the real world like a talking monkey flinging his poo.

I liked it better when you said I was "money" flinging poo.

If the entropy of a stable atom was a positive amount, then the electron orbiting the nucleus would lose the energy it needs to maintain the speed it needs to maintain its orbit and would split the atom preventing atomic matter from existing.

 

[Picaro]

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.

Ed, why could no matter exist if the change in entropy could not equal zero?

And please don't say because matter exists in the real world like a talking monkey flinging his poo.

I liked it better when you said I was "money" flinging poo.

If the entropy of a stable atom was a positive amount, then the electron orbiting the nucleus would lose speed/energy and would not be able to maintain its orbit and would split the atom preventing atomic matter from existing.

lol lol lol Ed now explains atomic theory. lol lol lol

 

[Picaro]

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.

Really, Ed? You should publish on that; it's a guaranteed Nobel Prize for you.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Ed, why could no matter exist if the change in entropy could not equal zero?

And please don't say because matter exists in the real world like a talking monkey flinging his poo.

I liked it better when you said I was "money" flinging poo.

If the entropy of a stable atom was a positive amount, then the electron orbiting the nucleus would lose speed/energy and would not be able to maintain its orbit and would split the atom preventing atomic matter from existing.

lol lol lol Ed now explains atomic theory. lol lol lol

So tell me, what is the change in entropy over time of the electrons orbiting a stable atom if not 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.

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.

Really, Ed? You should publish on that; it's a guaranteed Nobel Prize for you.

That answer is a testament to your complete ignorance of science.
Thank you.

 

[ding]

And that's what it's like when your school janitor thinks he is smart because he works at a school.

 

[ding]

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!

Do you even know what entropy is, Ed?

 

[Montrovant]

Where have I ever indicated such a thing? Do you think you are arguing with someone else?

Doesn't matter anymore. You've proven your true character.

You make a claim that I believe something, I ask when I've ever said something like that, and you just blithely pass it right by. You might want to consider your own character, when you both refuse to give definitions for terms you use and refuse to explain why you think I believe something I've never said or hinted at.

I can do anything I want. I don't need you to get my message out. You have been weighed and measured and found to be lacking.

Good for you. Did you decide I was telling you you could not do something? Do you often feel as if people are telling you you cannot do things?

Need a cookie?

No. I decided you were dishonest.

I see. I'm dishonest because you asked me if I believed in something I've never said or indicated I believe? Got it.

 

[ding]

Doesn't matter anymore. You've proven your true character.

You make a claim that I believe something, I ask when I've ever said something like that, and you just blithely pass it right by. You might want to consider your own character, when you both refuse to give definitions for terms you use and refuse to explain why you think I believe something I've never said or hinted at.

I can do anything I want. I don't need you to get my message out. You have been weighed and measured and found to be lacking.

Good for you. Did you decide I was telling you you could not do something? Do you often feel as if people are telling you you cannot do things?

Need a cookie?

No. I decided you were dishonest.

I see. I'm dishonest because you asked me if I believed in something I've never said or indicated I believe? Got it.

No. You are dishonest in that you deny that intelligence/consciousness is the most complex and advanced thing the universe has created.

Your argument is that since we don't know everything that exists you can't say that it is.

I guess you will never be able to understand the purpose of the universe until you know everything about the universe. That's very convenient for you to ignore everything we do know.

This is just one example of your dishonesty, bro.

 

[Toro]

Here is the third proof of God.

 

[Toro]

If it helps you see him that way.

The point is that even if there is a god who created the universe, it doesn't mean there is a Christian god, a son of God named Jesus Christ, or a heaven where you go when you die.

In fact, it is almost certain that there isn't a Christian god, if you take your argument to its logical conclusion, since the creation of the universe as you stated is nothing like the creation of the universe in the Bible.

 

[ding]

If it helps you see him that way.

The point is that even if there is a god who created the universe, it doesn't mean there is a Christian god, a son of God named Jesus Christ, or a heaven where you go when you die.

In fact, it is almost certain that there isn't a Christian god, if you take your argument to its logical conclusion, since the creation of the universe as you stated is nothing like the creation of the universe in the Bible.

Why would that even matter to you at this stage?

Are you seriously suggesting that you need to know who God is before you can accept that there is a Creator?

Seems a little disingenuous to me. Almost like you want to skip the part you are uncomfortable with and jump to the part you are comfortable with. You won't fare any better in that argument but I couldn't even begin to have that discussion with you until you at least believed there was a Creator, Spinozaian or otherwise. It would be illogical. Think about it. How could you be genuine in your argument of one God over another when you believed in neither.

 

[Toro]

Why would that even matter to you at this stage?

Are you seriously suggesting that you need to know who God is before you can accept that there is a Creator?

Seems a little disingenuous to me. Almost like you want to skip the part you are uncomfortable with and jump to the part you are comfortable with. You won't fare any better in that argument but I couldn't even begin to have that discussion with you until you at least believed there was a Creator, Spinozaian or otherwise. It would be illogical. Think about it. How could you be genuine in your argument of one God over another when you believed in neither.

The question is, are you really interested in science or instead are you attempting to reinforce your specific religious views?

Because most Christians who attack science and the origins of the universe do so by juxtaposing the scientific argument with the Christian religion. IOW by attacking science, they attempt to reinforce Christianity as an alternative explanation for the origins of the universe.

This, of course, is a logical fallacy and false comparison.

 

[ding]

Why would that even matter to you at this stage?

Are you seriously suggesting that you need to know who God is before you can accept that there is a Creator?

Seems a little disingenuous to me. Almost like you want to skip the part you are uncomfortable with and jump to the part you are comfortable with. You won't fare any better in that argument but I couldn't even begin to have that discussion with you until you at least believed there was a Creator, Spinozaian or otherwise. It would be illogical. Think about it. How could you be genuine in your argument of one God over another when you believed in neither.

The question is, are you really interested in science or instead are you attempting to reinforce your specific religious views?

Because most Christians who attack science and the origins of the universe do so by juxtaposing the scientific argument with the Christian religion. IOW by attacking science, they attempt to reinforce Christianity as an alternative explanation for the origins of the universe.

This, of course, is a logical fallacy and false comparison.

I love science and when I began my journey I couldn't help but see the connection between the two. What you are really asking me is can I be objective about science while having religious beliefs. Yes, it isn't hard to be objective. In fact, that is one of the central teachings of all religions. Most people just don't know this. To see reality you have to die to self. Which is why it is so much easier to see reality about things we have no vested interest in. Being objective has rewards.

I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say, most Christians attack science and the origins of the universe by juxtaposing the scientific argument with the Christian religion. Even the way you worded it is suspect. You start with the premise that most Christians attack science . That just isn't the case. Is it possible that you are confusing that with their defense of their faith against attacks? Or has it been your observations that Christians go out of their way to attack science?

 

[G.T.]

You make a claim that I believe something, I ask when I've ever said something like that, and you just blithely pass it right by. You might want to consider your own character, when you both refuse to give definitions for terms you use and refuse to explain why you think I believe something I've never said or hinted at.

I can do anything I want. I don't need you to get my message out. You have been weighed and measured and found to be lacking.

Good for you. Did you decide I was telling you you could not do something? Do you often feel as if people are telling you you cannot do things?

Need a cookie?

No. I decided you were dishonest.

I see. I'm dishonest because you asked me if I believed in something I've never said or indicated I believe? Got it.

No. You are dishonest in that you deny that intelligence/consciousness is the most complex and advanced thing the universe has created.

Your argument is that since we don't know everything that exists you can't say that it is.

I guess you will never be able to understand the purpose of the universe until you know everything about the universe. That's very convenient for you to ignore everything we do know.

This is just one example of your dishonesty, bro.

his logic is sound


the dunderhead logic is to make proclamations about what you dont know...thats literal fucking stupidity and why your intellect, trolling or not, is straight trashbags

 

[ding]

I can do anything I want. I don't need you to get my message out. You have been weighed and measured and found to be lacking.

Good for you. Did you decide I was telling you you could not do something? Do you often feel as if people are telling you you cannot do things?

Need a cookie?

No. I decided you were dishonest.

I see. I'm dishonest because you asked me if I believed in something I've never said or indicated I believe? Got it.

No. You are dishonest in that you deny that intelligence/consciousness is the most complex and advanced thing the universe has created.

Your argument is that since we don't know everything that exists you can't say that it is.

I guess you will never be able to understand the purpose of the universe until you know everything about the universe. That's very convenient for you to ignore everything we do know.

This is just one example of your dishonesty, bro.

his logic is sound


the dunderhead logic is to make proclamations about what you dont know...thats literal fucking stupidity and why your intellect, trolling or not, is straight trashbags

And ignore what you do know?