Summations Only

Clearly if you have an object of infinite energy, then if you transfer a finite amount of energy from it, it still has an infinite amount of energy.Now Jar is, I think, wrong to suggest that this violates the first law of thermodynamics, because the system starts and finishes with an infinite amount of energy. His references to "infinity plus one" don't necessarily apply; the use of cardinal numbers would seem more appropriate then the ordinals, in which case infinity plus one is infinity. But the existence of such an object would allow you to violate the second law of thermodynamics. All you need to do is take an ordinary fridge and hook up your infinite source of energy to it as a power source; and the resulting system immediately violates the Clausius statement of the second law. After one cycle of the fridge, the power source is still in the same state (possessing infinite energy) hence the system as a whole operates in a cycle; and the fridge transfers heat from a cooler to a hotter body, or it wouldn't be a fridge.---I think I may have too much time on my hands.

In which case:(1) God is not omnipotent.
(2) Eventually he will run down.In fact, that would explain a lot ... God has already run down. Which is good, I guess, unless some idiot finds him and puts new batteries in.I wonder if Hell has frozen over.

Wrong. And wrong.Perhaps you could show your working. That way I could point out where your mistake is.

The souls of the damned.

That's not such a stupίd question.The first two laws can be expressed in the form of statements about closed systems: for example you might state the First Law as: Now it is true that if you substituted "open" for "closed" in that sentence, it would not be true. But that is not to say that the law does not apply to open systems.Let me give you a parallel example. The Second Law can be expressed as (amongst lots of other ways of expressing it, including statements about closed systems): It is expressed in terms of refrigerators. But this does not mean that the Second Law only applies to refrigerators. We can derive consequences from that statement which apply to everything. More or less by definition. If the universe was open, you'd have to have something which was not part of the universe, but which could communicate with it --- stuff could travel from the not-part-of-the-universe to the universe and/or vice versa.But in that case, in what sense would the not-part-of-the-universe not be part of the universe?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But your modified concept of God wouldn't be eternal. At best he'd participate in the eventual heat-death of the universe, at worst he's already dead.

I think that Buz thinks that God is in the closed system.

Yes, it's puzzling isn't it? Buzsaw apparently wants his god to be "scientific" in the sense that he's bound by the laws of thermodynamics. But it's hard to see why. If he was bound by the laws of hydrodynamics as well then Jesus would have sunk when he tried to walk on water. The ability to suspend the laws of nature is surely one of the most important qualifications for being a god. But Buz doesn't seem to see it that way.

If, after eight years and over eight thousand posts on this forum, you have not yet grasped the fact that the Big Bang does not violate the law of conservation of energy, then I can only suppose that you have not been paying attention.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box - [/qqs] does not work.

Reference? Since you mention thermodynamics, perhaps you could show us some actual math rather than windy vacuous rhetoric.Or perhaps you can't, and the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics knows more about this than you do.

Could you try to back this up with some facts --- instead of reciting this sort of worthless drivel over and over again as though mere repetition added up to an argument?

If you'd just said "no", that would have required much less effort on your part.

Forum rules require you to supply your own inaccuracy and dishonesty instead of merely linking to that supplied by others.

What you have supplied may have occupied over a hundred posts, and may be your own, but not even the most charitable could call it reasoning.

Nothing you're blithering about has anything to do with the Big Bang, you know that, don't you?