God, The Supernatural And the Three Laws

The so called supernatural processes don't violate the laws of thermodynamics. Of course you've not established what those processes are or even if they ever happened. The wolf eating grandma and little Red Riding Hood doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics either, but so what?You would have to establish that the processes were physical processes in order for them to comply or violate the laws of thermodynamics as that is what those laws are about. They don't say anything about mathmatical concepts, imaginations, aethetics, etc.You can't apply thermodynamics to non physical phenomena. But if you insist next time try applying calculus, trigonometry or set theory.lfen

Buz,The language of physics is not the same as ordinary speech. The ordinary usage of energy and the use of the word energy in physics and science are different. There is no implication in your passage.You have to grasp that in physics energy is measurable and quantifiable, it is not something you can just say passes from something to another. In ordinary speech we might say a drawing or art object has a lot of energy or is low energy but that is a different word, different concept than the energy the laws of thermodynamics addresses. " Then please stick with showing how the supernatural cannot exist within the the three laws" is yada and MEANS nothing. It appears to be a properly formed English sentence but what would it mean for anything to exist within the three laws? Nothing exists within the three laws, they aren't about existence at all. They describe the limits of behaviour (heat) for a class of existing objects. To ask someone to stick to showing something meaningless is to perversely require them to emulate your babbling nonsense.lfen

Okay then, what was the energy that was being passed? What units are used to measure it?lfen

If you don't have data how are you going to confirm that?lfen

Buz, that was your question in your OP.The passages you have offered don't satisfy the laws of Thermodynamics.You not established that the energy was anything that the laws apply to. Madonna may be said to give a high energy concert and have the power to excite her audience. Just because the words energy or power are used doesn't mean the discussion is about physics or thermodynamics.You do amusing straight faced parodies of science to satirize postitions that conflict with your beliefs.lfen

Well, Buz seems to be having fun. For me it's a lot like arguing with a fifth grader. The topic is meaningless and I'm wasting no more time on it.lfen

Ned,Your post has me actually laughing in my computer chair because the problem is not that Buz is "not competant to discuss these issues", but as I suddenly realized that the real problem is Buz is not competant to realize his incompetance!I don't know why I'm finding this so funny, Buz takes great pride and pleasure in his wild parody of science and the rest of us just tear our hair out! I'm finding this scenario hilarious. Brad appears to know sciences but insists on writing incomphrehensive turgid parody? of some sort of writing. Buz writes straight forward English it's just that it's raving nonsense. Buz annoys more people than Brad simply because at first blush it looks like he is discussing something.Might as well laugh as tear one's hair out over the inevitable. I imagine Buz is a decent person but I'm not going to try and teach him science it just isn't going to take.lfen

Yeah, but Jar, you went on to continue trying to educate him!!!?????Oh, well, guess you haven't gotten enough At least if's hilarity, right?lfen

Definitely laugh. From what Buz tells us he has a good life and is a decent person. What compels him to try to understand science based on looking up definitions in the dictionary is utterly beyond me, but really no harm is done as long as he's not allowed to teach science anywhere.lfen