God, The Supernatural And the Three Laws

I don't know about satisfying the three thermodynamic laws, but it sure satisfies the three laws of bad opening posts: poorly argued, poorly written and poorly formatted.Buzz, could you please explain your perverse attraction to topics about which you know nothing?I suggest a complete rewrite of the OP following this outline:

1. Introduce your topic. This part of your post is already excellent. The existing 1st sentence is a wonderful starter.
   ​
2. Your post should have three points, one for each of the three thermodynamic laws.
   ​
3. Each point should begin with a brief description of that law, followed by an explanation of how the supernatural is consistent with it.
   ​
4. Finish with a summary sentence or short paragraph.

--Percy

If it weren't for your propensity for involving yourself in discussions on topics about which you know nothing, I might indeed contemplate if there's a deeper or hidden meaning in your post as you suggest to PaulK. But the post is from you, not from someone who knows what he's talking about when it comes to thermodynamics.So now we once again see the all-to-familiar pattern of you uttering total nonsense, then shifting your efforts to asserting over and over in varied forms that your post makes perfect sense.My suggestion to you is unchanged. Quit this annoying defense of the nonsensical and rewrite your post so it clearly makes your point as well as making sense. My guess is that you can't even state the three laws correctly with a book in front of you, so go ahead, prove me wrong!--Percy

Nice job! Sure, add them to the OP.--Percy

A closed system would be of finite size. Something infinite cannot be contained within something finite.--Percy

What you're really asking is if the energy density for any point in space can be infinite. The answer is no. Ultimately the amount of energy a finite space can contain is limited by it's volume and is probably a function of Planck's constant. And your understanding of space is informed by what? Astrophysicists at the University of Montana this year conducted an analysis of the cosmic background radiation that yielded a diameter of the universe of about 156 billion light years. This number must be regarded as extremely preliminary until verified by other teams of scientists, but the important point is that it reflects the thinking of experts in the field who, as shocking as this might seem, appear to disagree with your view that the universe has no size. They used a two dimensional visual analogy because it's much easier to explain that way. If the analogy doesn't work for you that's one thing, but it doesn't mean they're claiming two dimensional models are appropriate for addressing problems in three dimensional space.Any chance of this thread returning to the original topic?--Percy