Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Observations of Great Debate - ID and thermodynamics
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 316 (174912)
01-07-2005 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by sidelined
01-07-2005 8:49 PM


Re: Universe
That is the question.Can you restrain an infinite amount of energy? If one is indeed harnessing it somehow which appears to be buz's arguement then the means by which an infinite amount can be so manipulated implies the existence of something powerful enough to do so.
That, of course, is what I've been saying all along, that there does exist in my Biblical hypothetical universe, such a supreme being, powerful enough to do so.
How can something exist with greater than infinite power without an unworkable paradox ensuing?
To suggest that in my system, my A/God has greater than infinite power is absurd, isn't it?
...... the situation can also result in no change in entropy.
......And, as I understand, it could also result in decreased entropy within my B.
Isn't that also how you people explain order and complexity observed in your alleged system, via alleged random mutation/ns effecting decreased entropy?

In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. It is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by sidelined, posted 01-07-2005 8:49 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by sidelined, posted 01-08-2005 2:47 AM Buzsaw has replied

portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 316 (174924)
01-08-2005 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Peeper
01-07-2005 9:53 PM


Re: Universe
I know personally I cannot understand infinity as a reality and barely as a concept. I am really interested in what buzsaw thinks are the ramifactions of infinite density since it would create an infinitely homogenous state in his system as I described in Message 114.
thanx
PM1K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Peeper, posted 01-07-2005 9:53 PM Peeper has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Buzsaw, posted 01-08-2005 8:39 PM portmaster1000 has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 138 of 316 (174941)
01-08-2005 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Buzsaw
01-07-2005 2:22 PM


Re: Universe
buzsaw
You fail to acknowledge my infinitely energetic "A," a Biblical concept that is no more mysterious than some of your own concepts, and a concept that does not specifically violate td laws.
Not at all.What is in debate is the boundless space point here.
God, creator, via his Holy Spirit releases an undetermined amount of this creative energy into areas of boundless space
ANY amount of energy{including infinite} inserted into an infinite space is,over time, bound by physical law to dissipate into an homogenous evenly distributed form which is the maximum entropy situation I am pointing out.
The difficulty with your god being infinitely energetic is presented by your previous post here.
buzsaw writes:
Not if the infinite higher density of energy is contained within A, occupying a limited amount of the universe system's boundless space.
If god is located within the space of our universe containing an infinite amount of energy then how is it restrained? We do not observe such a phenomena and you give no evidence to suggest why such a scenario can be seriously considered.
buzsaw writes:
Because you fail to smell the fulfilled prophecy coffee which we creationists observe, and the logic indicative that a supreme god exists in the universe, in that it is not logical that soooo much complexity and design which we observe would come to be randomly and natural selectively.
We are not discussing evolution here buz, however let us take this point for a run. We have learned a great deal about the structure of spacetime and and our understandings of particle physics through the electroweak theory is capable of detailing the actions of almost every phenomena within our universe.
The workings of the strong force are fairly well known and also uses methods developed for the electroweak theory to further understanding.New experiments in the search for gravitational waves and particle accelerators will open up huge new avenues for clarity
on remaining puzzles.
Now if you do not have a background allowing you to understand the level of accomplishment that science has established for objective reality then how are you qualified to state that the complexity of the universe need mean design? What specifically about present day experimentally verified evidence leads you to believe that simple laws cannot produce complex results?
sidelined writes:
In what way are you thinking energy would need to equalize?
buzsaw writes:
As in 2ltd, when energy goes from A to B within the closed system, a measure of equalibrium, be it small or great, is effected. The Great Debate between Jar and myself is not all that long. I suggest you go to archives and read it, since much of this we're discussing is covered in it.
When energy goes from your infinite energy system t the surrounding boundless space what equilibrium is achieved exactly?
sidelined writes:
There is no change in the amount of energy ever
.
buzsaw writes:
The amount of energy in B changes, relative to that in A in this closed system. I did not say that the systems energy changed, did I?
Excuse me buz, but how is a boundless space a closed system?
sidelined writes:
If work is being done entropy is increasing and the situation of heat death that I mentioned before is simply the attainment of maximum entropy.Recycling of galaxies further dissapates the heat into interstellar space while at the same tme the volume of space is increasing and thus spreading out of matter gradually diminishes the chances of matter recycling under gravity as time passes.
buzsaw writes:
1. If you read the quote from my op a few posts back, you will see that a noted scientist (likely secularist) does not agree that the recycling of galaxies dissapeates the heat into interstellar space, but that the particles eventually come together somewhere to recycle into new galaxies.
Unfortunately Dr.Grote Reber was a radio engineer and not a theoretical physicist.He was good in his field however as this wabsite shows {http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/9335/G_Reber.html} there are some physical discrepencies in his assumptions.
ENDLESS, BOUNDLESS, STABLE
UNIVERSE
GROTE REBER
Honorary Research Follow
CSIRO, Hobart
1977
UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA OCCASIONAL PAPER 9
Wholly set up and printed by the Printing Section, University of Tasmania
December 1977
ISBN 0 85901 051 1
"Dr Grote Reber" graduated from the Illinois Institute of Technology in 1933 and for the next ten years, while he pioneered the field of radio astronomy, was employed as an engineer by a Chicago radio corporation. He designed and built the world's first radio telescope and during this period was the only active radio astronomer. He arrived in Tasmania in 1954 and has spent much of his time since then making low frequency radio astronomy observations at various sites in the Tasmanian midlands. He has published many scientific papers in radio astronomy and also in other fields. In 1962 he was awarded the" Catherine Wolfe Bruce Gold Medal" by the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.
Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe is the text of a lecture delivered by Dr Grote Reber in the University of Tasmania on Wednesday, 8 September 1976.
Requests for copies of this publication should be addressed to Information Services, University of Tasmania, Box 252C GPO Hobart, Tasmania 7001.
ENDLESS, BOUNDLESS, STABLE UNIVERSE
Introduction
According to modern mysticism*, the radius of the universe is 10.4 x 1022 kilometres, corresponding to a symbolic time of 1.1 x 1010 years. The radius of the earth is 6.38 x 103 kilometres. The ratio of the former to the latter is 1.63 x 1019.
When the Hubble variable was discovered** in 1926 it had a value of 500 kilometres per second per megaparsec. During the past halfcentury this variable has gradually declined*** to 50.3 kilometres per second per megaparsec. The radius of the universe is inversely proportional to the magnitude of this variable. Accordingly the universe is expanding by a factor of 100 per century. Dividing this factor into the above ratio discloses that the expansion began here on earth 961 years ago, or 1015 AD during the dark ages. Obviously, western cosmology was born in the dark and has been there ever since.
The current accepted value for the Hubble constant {not variable} I believe is in the range of 70 +/_ 7 Km/s*MPc {not as noted in the above paragraph Km/s/Mpc} This is a severe error in terms of units of measurement and is the first alarm to go off.The man really is not in his field here.The Hubble constant is used in determining distance realtionship to velocity in the Equation v=Hd.
The radius of the universe is NOT inversely proportional to the magnitude of this constant.
I will point out other errors if you wish but I need to try and sum up this post soon.
2. Then too, don't forget ID HS which manages the energy in B so as to recycle things per ID. The Bible indicates that God, via the HS creates, recreates and destroys things in the universe. Revelation 20, If I recall, prophesies that God will eventually destroy the earth and "heavens" that we observe and he will create new heavens and a new earth. This, imo, is pretty scientifically observed stuff, though we are not in agreement as to how it works.
Perhaps you can reestablish for me the verses of the bible that indicate that this is so?
sidelined writes:
Infinite energy in a given space within the universe would be immediately apparent from anywhere within that universe.Also by what means do you restrain infinite energy? To do so means you have greater than infinite energy which is absurd.
buzsaw writes:
1. One would reason by the same token that highly condensed black holes would be more observable than live stars and galaxies, which, of course, is not the case.
2. I believe it's already been established that infinite energy cannot be increased.
Buz, black holes do not have infinite energy. Black holes are detectable in X-ray and are observable just as stars are.
And of course you cannot increase infinite energy.
sidelined writes:
No the conservation law speaks about the energy we observe not how it came to be.
Listen buz. We do not know how the universe actually started.We can only work our physical model back to a thing called Planck time which is the time it takes {10 * -43 sec.}light to travel across the Planck length {approx. 10 * -35 meters} This is the shortest time that has any physical meaning.
So we cannot speak of what the universe was doing before this vanishingly minute slice of time.All we can do is measure energy now and in doing so we find that it is an abstract quantity that is conserved in all phenomena.This quantity is called energy.
buzsaw writes:
So, like I said, your concept has no explanation as to how energy came to be. My hypothesis maintains that according to td 1, it had to have had no beginning. The Great Debate was whether my Biblical hypothesis satisfies the td laws. I maintain it does and your alleged theory implicates a problem which mine doesn't have, the problem of "what about before.
Yours does not explain where energy came from either.You state it is from god however you give no explanation from the bible for what energy is and therefore you are in the same boat as us.What the limitations of science indicate is that there are experiments that we cannot yet perform either because the amount of energy required to reproduce the conditions are beyond us or we have not yet reached the level of subtlety of model which will allows to test in ways that will allow us to examine this unknown.And where does your model account for what occured before?
sidelined writes:
Buz. You state that time never began.How can we measure time{you do know what a clock is doing right?}if it never started?If time is absent in A then how do you propose action can be taken there?
buzsaw writes:
1. What, in the td laws demands that time must be measurable? Nothing that I'm aware of. The only things in my system which can be measured by time is the life span of things in the universe.
2. Eternally existing ID God (A) determines the time measureable life of things in B, so action is "taken" by ID.
Well work is a shorthand for the derived SI units expressed thus m2kgs-2 Sqaure meters per kilogram per second squared.This form applies to energy and heat as well so,yes, time is an essntial part of the thermodynamic laws.
I do not quite grasp what you are stating here though it may be I am simply tired.Could you elaborate please?
sidelined writes:
Actually buz that is what we do observe in the universe.
.....And actually, my friend, I just don't think a few centuries out of billions of years can establish anything as to whether your interpretation of what you see in this miniscule timespan is correct.
Why is that buz. The observations are consistent with the model and our model also has the special property lacking in yours.It allows us to predict phenomena we have not yet observed and the means by which to test for these new phenomena.
The volume of research over the past century from which we derive modern mechanisms of great diversity such as laser reading for hard drives GPS,hall effect transitors for our cars,quantum cryptography,Scanning tunneling microscopes,Superconducting quantum interference devices just to name a fleeting few of the derived technology from just a few basic principles found only within the 20th century.
Please allows us to ask you to derive similar technologies.
sidelined writes:
What did you not understand buz? You say "If there was an alleged big bang, all the energy which exists today existed before the big bang" To this I said No.I further explain that we {includes you} do not know so we cannot say all the energy which exists today existed before the big bang.
buzsaw writes:
....And what did you, my friend, not understand, in that my hypothesis, I say "hypothesis," which says td law 1 has ALWAYS been been in effect and that there IS an
explanation. IN JEHOVAH GOD'S UNIVERSE, TIME, ENERGY, AND BOUNDLESS SPACE HAD NO BEGINNING AND WILL HAVE NO ENDING. IT IS, HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND FOREVER WILL BE INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED, CHANGED AND MANAGED BY HIS PROVIDENCE
This has not answered the concern I expressed to you.How can there be time inherent in a universe where time never began?{as in NO BEGINNING} Why will you not answer this buz?

A centipede was happy quite, until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg comes after which?'
This raised his doubts to such a pitch
He fell distracted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Buzsaw, posted 01-07-2005 2:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Buzsaw, posted 01-08-2005 10:29 PM sidelined has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 139 of 316 (174942)
01-08-2005 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Buzsaw
01-07-2005 9:58 PM


Re: Universe
buz
sidelined writes:
That is the question.Can you restrain an infinite amount of energy? If one is indeed harnessing it somehow which appears to be buz's arguement then the means by which an infinite amount can be so manipulated implies the existence of something powerful enough to do so.
buzsaw writes:
That, of course, is what I've been saying all along, that there does exist in my Biblical hypothetical universe, such a supreme being, powerful enough to do so.
Buz,this statement does not square with your previous post where we have you say this.
buzsaw writes:
2. I believe it's already been established that infinite energy cannot be increased
So now we have the problem of explaining how your god restrains an infinite energy when by definition infinite is not containable else the entity doing so has more than infinite energy which would mean the energy he uses is greater than infinite which is of course absurd.
Isn't that also how you people explain order and complexity observed in your alleged system, via alleged random mutation/ns effecting decreased entropy?
The energy is borrowed from the sun which dissipates a greater amount of energy into space than is intercepted by earth and its living creatures.The net effect is an increase in overall entropy in the universe since we obtain far less energy than the sun expends.
This message has been edited by sidelined, 01-08-2005 10:48 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Buzsaw, posted 01-07-2005 9:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Buzsaw, posted 01-08-2005 10:35 PM sidelined has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 316 (175104)
01-08-2005 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by portmaster1000
01-08-2005 12:20 AM


Re: Universe
I know personally I cannot understand infinity as a reality and barely as a concept. I am really interested in what buzsaw thinks are the ramifactions of infinite density since it would create an infinitely homogenous state in his system as I described in Message 114.
There are things in your ideological system/universe that is beyond understanding, such as where the energy from your alleged big bang came from, if that is what you believe. By the same token, I don't fully understand the omnipotence of God and how he could forever exist. At least the concept I can't fully explain satisfies td 1 and if you agree with Sideline, yours and his fails, in that energy has not forever existed.

In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. It is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by portmaster1000, posted 01-08-2005 12:20 AM portmaster1000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by portmaster1000, posted 01-10-2005 12:12 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 169 by Peeper, posted 01-14-2005 12:01 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 316 (175119)
01-08-2005 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by sidelined
01-08-2005 2:35 AM


Re: Universe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
buzsaw
You fail to acknowledge my infinitely energetic "A," a Biblical concept that is no more mysterious than some of your own concepts, and a concept that does not specifically violate td laws.
Not at all.What is in debate is the boundless space point here.
God, creator, via his Holy Spirit releases an undetermined amount of this creative energy into areas of boundless space
ANY amount of energy{including infinite} inserted into an infinite space is,over time, bound by physical law to dissipate into an homogenous evenly distributed form which is the maximum entropy situation I am pointing out.
You fail to recognize that infinite inergy is not inserted into an infinite/boundless space in my system. Infinite energy only exists in the A of my system. The limited amount of energy in the B of my system is limited to the amount A releases, regulated by A's ID, into B. Both A and B exist within my boundless space system. A = God, B = that outside of A.
SL quote: The difficulty with your god being infinitely energetic is presented by your previous post here.
buzsaw writes:
Not if the infinite higher density of energy is contained within A, occupying a limited amount of the universe system's boundless space.
What I meant to convey here is that the infinite energy of A was greater than limited energy B. I assumed the context of this quote made that clear, but apparantly not.
If god is located within the space of our universe containing an infinite amount of energy then how is it restrained? We do not observe such a phenomena and you give no evidence to suggest why such a scenario can be seriously considered.
In the Great Debate, Jar kept talking about "infinite amount" and I tried to convey it as "infinitely energetic," since it would be unknown how it is restrained if it is uncountably infinite..... Or if it is countably infinite, whether it is recycled as in a perpetual engine or what.
What specifically about present day experimentally verified evidence leads you to believe that simple laws cannot produce complex results?
We've got our hands full here without going into this topic. My comment was simply to show that we both have concepts having questions not fully answerable.
When energy goes from your infinite energy system t the surrounding boundless space what equilibrium is achieved exactly?
1. I keep needing to remind you that no energy goes into or out of this system. It is a boundless space closed system. Go back and read. This system/universe consists of boundless space and all that exists within boundless space, including A (God) and B, (all that is outside of God, A)
2. Energy is equalized to what ever degree is determined by ID A. There is no way, of course, for finite itty bitty man on this itty bitty dot called earth within this itty bitty Milky Way galaxy, one of billions of galaxies, to measure how much energy omnipotent God has introduced into "B" of his universe/system in which he exists.
...... how is a boundless space a closed system?
A closed system is a system which receives no energy from outside of the system. It is also a system out of which no energy goes. Pray tell, how can energy possibly leave a boundless space system, since no other space exists to house another system? And if by definition, boundless space is all existing space, how can there be another system existing from which energy can come, since all existing space is in the boundless space system?
sidelined writes:
If work is being done entropy is increasing and the situation of heat death that I mentioned before is simply the attainment of maximum entropy.Recycling of galaxies further dissapates the heat into interstellar space while at the same tme the volume of space is increasing and thus spreading out of matter gradually diminishes the chances of matter recycling under gravity as time passes.
buzsaw writes:
1. If you read the quote from my op a few posts back, you will see that a noted scientist (likely secularist) does not agree that the recycling of galaxies dissapeates the heat into interstellar space, but that the particles eventually come together somewhere to recycle into new galaxies.
SL Response: Unfortunately Dr.Grote Reber was a radio engineer and not a theoretical physicist.He was good in his field however as this wabsite shows {http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/9335/G_Reber.html} there are some physical discrepencies in his assumptions.
I stated earlier in the thread that I did not agree with everything in the link. I quoted a statement in the link so as to show that my concept is not all that off the wall and that a noted scientist says a relatively stable infinite working universe exists with stuff recycling continually in it. See my op in the Great Debate.
It would be too off topic here to get into all of Grober's stuff, some of which I would not subscribe to. His also, unlike mine, does not factor in ID God in his system.
Perhaps you can reestablish for me the verses of the bible that indicate that this is so?
Sure. My apologies. I said somewhere in Revelation 20. It's Revelation 21, verse one, the prophet John, desciple of Jesus speaking:
And I saw a new heavenand a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth are passed away.......
Then this, beginning with II Peter 3:10 (ASV):
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 3:11Seeing that these things are thus all to be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy living and godliness, 3:12looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 3:13But, according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 3:14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for these things, give diligence that ye may be found in peace, without spot and blameless in his sight. 3:15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; 3:16as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 3:17Ye therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware lest, being carried away with the error of the wicked, ye fall from your own stedfastness. 3:18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and for ever. Amen.
I appreciate, your patience, Sidlined, and the way you articulate your thoughts, so as to be able to dialogue. I'll try to address some of what I missed here in another sitting. The posts are getting so long, it takes a fair amount of time to cover it all, especially this old fart (me) being the slow thinker that I am.

In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. It is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by sidelined, posted 01-08-2005 2:35 AM sidelined has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 316 (175123)
01-08-2005 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by sidelined
01-08-2005 2:47 AM


Re: Universe
So now we have the problem of explaining how your god restrains an infinite energy when by definition infinite is not containable else the entity doing so has more than infinite energy which would mean the energy he uses is greater than infinite which is of course absurd.
That God (A) is infinitely energetic does not mean that he must release it all into B within the system. That's where ID factors in. he releases into B at will and withholds/restrains energy at will, unlike what would be the case in a secularist random system.

In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. It is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by sidelined, posted 01-08-2005 2:47 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by sidelined, posted 01-08-2005 10:45 PM Buzsaw has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 143 of 316 (175125)
01-08-2005 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Buzsaw
01-08-2005 10:35 PM


Re: Universe
buzsaw
That God (A) is infinitely energetic does not mean that he must release it all into B within the system. That's where ID factors in. he releases into B at will and withholds/restrains energy at will, unlike what would be the case in a secularist random system.
You are neglecting to answer the question buz.By what means do you restrain that which,by definition,{infinite energy} is not restrained.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Buzsaw, posted 01-08-2005 10:35 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Melchior, posted 01-08-2005 11:58 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 149 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2005 10:12 PM sidelined has replied

Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 316 (175134)
01-08-2005 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by sidelined
01-08-2005 10:45 PM


Re: Universe
I think what he means is that God does not have to follow for example Fourier's law (determines heat transfer) unless God wants to. That is, God plays along for the most part, but the laws of nature is just guidelines for him that can be broken at any time for whatever purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by sidelined, posted 01-08-2005 10:45 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by sidelined, posted 01-09-2005 3:26 AM Melchior has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 145 of 316 (175151)
01-09-2005 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Melchior
01-08-2005 11:58 PM


Re: Universe
Melchior
Then the talk of thermodynamic laws is pretty much a waste of his time isn't it. It is odd that playing with the laws without understanding the restrictions that those laws place upon what can and cannot occur should be considered a buttress for his arguements.
{sigh}What next?Angels and path integrals? Quantum chromodynamics and the pearly gates? Jesus and the uncertainty principle?
The mind doesn't merely boggle.It squeals and explodes.
This message has been edited by sidelined, 01-10-2005 02:10 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Melchior, posted 01-08-2005 11:58 PM Melchior has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Melchior, posted 01-09-2005 2:46 PM sidelined has replied

Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 316 (175248)
01-09-2005 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by sidelined
01-09-2005 3:26 AM


Re: Universe
Well, as I understand it, it's either that, or he claims God has some other method of storing energy that we can't ever detect and that does not affect us, from which he can, at will, convert this endless energy to for example infrared radiation at any point of the universe and at any time.
Either way, it's rather confusing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by sidelined, posted 01-09-2005 3:26 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by sidelined, posted 01-10-2005 10:11 AM Melchior has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 147 of 316 (175454)
01-10-2005 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Melchior
01-09-2005 2:46 PM


Re: Universe
Melchior
Either way, it's rather confusing.
I agree. I must refrain from chasing the rabbit down that hole I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Melchior, posted 01-09-2005 2:46 PM Melchior has not replied

portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 316 (175493)
01-10-2005 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Buzsaw
01-08-2005 8:39 PM


Infinite Density Again
buzsaw writes:
There are things in your ideological system/universe that is beyond understanding, such as where the energy from your alleged big bang came from, if that is what you believe. By the same token, I don't fully understand the omnipotence of God and how he could forever exist. At least the concept I can't fully explain satisfies td 1 and if you agree with Sideline, yours and his fails, in that energy has not forever existed.
I have no problem with energy or God existing forever. I simply wanted to know if the infinite energy (and probably infinite mass as well) of your infinite, boundless space causes infinite density throughout.
If so, isn't there a problem when trying to relate such a model with the universe we've observed?
thanx
PM1K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Buzsaw, posted 01-08-2005 8:39 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2005 10:38 PM portmaster1000 has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 316 (175667)
01-10-2005 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by sidelined
01-08-2005 10:45 PM


Re: Universe
You are neglecting to answer the question buz.By what means do you restrain that which,by definition,{infinite energy} is not restrained.
I did answer it by saying it is unknown how the omnipotence of God/infinitely energetic God works as well as that it is unknown as to whether it is countably or uncountabally functioned. I also showed that by the same token there are problematic unknows in secularist big bang theory, such as where the energy came from relative to td1. You're requiring more of me than you are of yourself by requiring me to have all the answers to everyting. I'M NO SCIENTIST AND NO SCIENTIST HAS ALL THE ANSWERS.

In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. It is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by sidelined, posted 01-08-2005 10:45 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by sidelined, posted 01-10-2005 11:49 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 316 (175676)
01-10-2005 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by portmaster1000
01-10-2005 12:12 PM


Re: Infinite Density Again
I have no problem with energy or God existing forever. I simply wanted to know if the infinite energy (and probably infinite mass as well) of your infinite, boundless space causes infinite density throughout.
If so, isn't there a problem when trying to relate such a model with the universe we've observed?
In the great debate with Jar and here in this thread only A (God) is infinitely energetic. B is not. Both A and B are within the system/universe. I hope that answers your question.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-10-2005 22:42 AM

In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. It is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by portmaster1000, posted 01-10-2005 12:12 PM portmaster1000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Percy, posted 01-11-2005 9:47 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 153 by portmaster1000, posted 01-11-2005 11:12 AM Buzsaw has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024