Observations of Great Debate - ID and thermodynamics

Great Debate, Intelligent Design, Supernatural And Thermodynamic Laws (between Buzsaw and jar only)This is a discussion thread for observers of the Great Debate between jar and Buz.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

I haven't had a chance to review the whole thing and make my judgement as to da winna or loser but:Jar is wrong in one important place. Infinity + 1 = infinity. Infinity is not a number. Arithmetic doesn't apply.

When doing calculations on thermodynamics, you frequently use a formula that describes the rate of energy transfer as a function of materials and, most importantly, the temperature gradient (difference in temperature divided by distance between them).However, when talking about the three laws, this formula and others like it seem to be completely disregarded.If you apply this formula to a case with an energy source that is capable of radiating any amount of heat you'd get the result that such a energy source would instantly fry everything else in the universe.So in short; does God have a (non-infinite) temperature?This message has been edited by Melchior, 12-21-2004 09:39 PM

I've heard that God is all places at once, its a given God knows the future(prophecy). This supports that God knows all and is all in all. Just wondering if God is able to be in the past, present and the future at the same time. The bible saying the resurrection of all that has lived will happen at the Great Judgement.Did God create the universe and just jump forward to the present point in universe time, to Create life on the earth.If God was able to jump forward in universe time is he still present in the past, present and future.I suppose time could be all apart of the closed system of the ID and thermodynamics. That God is able to be all places in time with the physical universe that was Created by God and for his pleasure.This would simply be including time with space in the closed infinity of all that is infered by our God knowing the future. The whole bible is based on prophecy, is he in the future, in the past, in the present. How can God can be in all places at once. Its really something to ponder.Just wonder if this is what Buz talks of the infinity of space and time all being a part of this closed system. I see time only going forward, but does that mean God can not go back in time? If God knows the future, is he already in the future? We all knows that God is the God of the living which is the present.The bible says to us now is the acceptable time to believe, but in prophecy talks of those impatient for the Judgment. It might well be that the time is growing short, but is that our time in the Present.I suspect that time is place only God is, but feel this only based on prophecy. I have no idea if he can go back in time, but if he knows the future and is already present in the future, and still yet present in the present. Prophecy kind of extends the infinity of the closed system of ID and thermodynamics. If God is present in the future because he knows the future, if he's in the present. Then how can we say he is not still present in the past.Prophecy is knowing something that never fails to come true. God gives us his Word that he is the same yesterday, today and forever. Its really awesome how Omnipotent God is.It says Jesus is the resurrection and the life (he has the keys). He is the door, the portal, the life , the way, the savior, the Word, God the Son, the baptiser, and more.I believe this is all we need to know, though he is more, but in Christ we then are also in the Father, and then if we're believers in Christ we are then all in all (meaning we are in the Father) too.Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. Heb 13:8The alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end Rev 22:13.This message has been edited by Craig, 12-21-2004 10:45 PM

Buz made the more serious error. As I pointed out in an earlier thread an infinite energy source renders the laws of thermodynamics moot at best. (I have a strong suspicion that its entropy must be zero and cannot increase which would violate the laws of thermodynamics, but Buz has yet to actually deal with that question).So for Buz's statement to be meaningful we must assume a finite God - Jar's first error is here. Pointing that that is inconsistent with Christian doctrine is not, strictly speaking, a refutation.Jar's other error is in trying to apply ordinary arithmetic to an infinite quantity. Unfortunately mathematics does't work like that. I think that Jar's argument would work, however, if he had based it on entropy rather than available energy.

Infinity + 1 can be defined in a meaningful fashion simply by extending the standard definitions. You do need to carefully specify which infinity you are talking about though.

You're absolutely right. I should have emphasised the equalization issue I brought up in my first post. It is a far better way of showing the impossibility of the whole idea. Even if there is an infinite source of energy, eventually B would be at the same level and even if they both still had infinite energy nothing could be done. They would both be powerless.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I generally don't like to discuss physics or mathematics (my brain shuts down at the mention of the words, my tongue lolls out of my mouth and I start drooling all over my keyboard and going "gagagagaga" like a 3-month-old). So in the interests of sanity I'll keep this brief.One issue I'm not sure I understand concerning the GD: Buz seems to be saying that an infinite quantity can be contained in a finite space. Jar, I didn't notice (or didn't understand) whether you addressed this or not. Although I'm aware that physics allows for all kinds of very weird and counterintuitive things, this seems to be beyond even quantum uncertainty and brane theory as to un-intuitive-ness. Could someone please explain, preferably without referring to mathematics, how an infinite anything can have a boundary?

"Moot at best" doesn't cut it. Specifically what in the td laws says so? What, specifically in these laws limits the total amount of energy that a closed system can have? Read the debate. I'm headed outa town today and not time to look it up, but I believe I said this system was relatively stable, being eternal with ebb and flow between A and B, but regulated by infinitely powerfull A, implicating variation in entropy in the process. I've always argued that God has been forever creating and destroying things at will, ever since I've been in EvC. Nonsense!!Gotta run. Fascinating subject. Have a good day, all!

Read the debate. I repeatedly stated boundless space and infinite time.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Of course an infinite energy source makes the laws of thermodynamics moot.Start with "energy can neither be created or destroyed" - what is the practical difference between drawing energy form an infinite energy source and creating energy ? There IS no difference !And no you can't have energy flowing back from B into A - that IS against the second law.No, it is a fact that an infinite energy source either contradicts the laws of thermdynamics or renders them moot. Therefore it is a fact that your claim is only meaningful with a finite energy source. Call it "nonsense" all you like - but it remains a fact.

Maybe both could have had a better argument if they phrased them with the use of set theory?I am still a beginner when it comes to Abstract Algebra but we briefly covered this concept of countable and uncountable sets. Two sets can both be uncountable and yet one can be abstractly more uncountable then another.For example, the real numbers and the plane are both uncountable but the plane is more uncountable than the real numbers yet they both have infinite order. The integers by contrast ARE countable and still infinite.I didn't really understand it too much and we only went into it superficially so if there is a bonified pure math guy out there who wants to correct me that would be great.If I am right though then taking A to be an uncountable set of units of work would show how transfering an infinite number of elements into B causes the system to contain both an infinitly uncountable set A and a infinitly countable set B from an originally empty B.The more I think about this as I type the more I feel there may be some kind of rediculous problem with thinking about it like this but I'll go ahead and post it anyway because I think it is at least interesting from a philosophical aspect. Talking about infinity is always so brain numbingly fun.P.S.The more I think about it. This type of think would really help buz more than jar.A' = A after the transfer. = A\B'
B' = B after the transfer.A = (A\B') U B' = A' U B'But since I trust that there is a better way to prove that a system cannot contain infinite energy then I conceed that there is probably a fatal flaw somewhere in my logic.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-22-2004 09:41 AMThis message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-22-2004 09:48 AM

Think how many decimal numbers there are between 0 and 1 - the answer is infinity. Yet they are clearly bounded below by 0 and above by 1.

Ah. Okay, I guess I see it. It was just another example of what I don't understand about math and physics - and why I didn't go into physics in the first place.(Q quietly heads off to a corner where his brain implodes.)

Actually, a plane and a line have exactly the same uncountable infinity of points.Proof (simplicity I'll consider the plane where each co-ordinate is in the range (0, 1) - the proof can trivially be extended to the whole of R² and R but it is notationally more difficult)Take a point x=(a, b) on the plane, where a= 0.a₁a₂... and b = 0.b₁b₂...We can then define a function f s.t. f(x)= 0.a₁b₁a₂b₂...f(x) is injection (if x != y, f(x) != f(y)), and a surjection (for all c = 0.c₁c₂c₃c₄... in the line there exists x = (a, b) in the plane s.t. f(x) = c : just let a = c₁c₃... and b = c₂c₄... ), since there exists a bijection, f, from the plane to the line, the two sets are the same size and the plane contains the same uncountable infinity of points as the line.QED.