Great Debate, Intelligent Design, Supernatural And Thermodynamic Laws (between Buzsaw and jar only)

So we will go through this in even smaller steps. After the transfer does A have less energy? Not at all.Are A and B in the same system?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

1. A portion of omnipotent A's energy has left A and entered B, increasing the energy in B with an equalizing effect between omnipotent A and energized B.2. A, having omnipotency is no less potent after the transfer than before. Of course. I've made that crystal clear, haven't I? They are both in a system of omnipotent energy/power, just as they are both in a system of unbounded space and infinite time, being the same system.

---

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

Okay, so A still has as much energy as before the transfer. Correct?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Some energy has left omnipotent A, but omnipotent A, having unlimited potency, remains equally as potent as before that energy left omnipotent A.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

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

After the transfer does A have as much energy as before the transfer?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

A, being omnipotent remains with equal potency as before but has released energy, loosing it to B. Your wording is too generalized to give you a flat yes or no, given the nature of omnipotency. I see the trap you're trying to lead me into by your wording, but not falling into it.I need to hit hay as it's nearly one AM here and work to do tomorrow, so tooledo for now. If you have a response at hand, go ahead and post if you wish and I'll sleep on it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

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

Buz, You have to stop using nonsense words.When it comes to the Laws of Thermodynamics words like omnipotent or potency have no meaning. They play no part in the Laws of Thermodynamics and so let's just drop them.There is no trap. You just need to start using words that have some meaning.The Laws of thermodynamics involve energy, not potency or omnipotence.So yet another time.Does A have the same amount of energy after the transfer as before?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Nonsense, but for the sake of your limited vocabulary, I'll use words you understand.A, having unlimited energy remains equally energetic as before but has released energy, loosing energy to B.Your wording is too generalized to give you a flat yes or no, given the nature of unlimited energy. I see the trap you're trying to lead me into by your wording, but not falling into it.I need to hit hay as it's nearly one AM here and work to do tomorrow, so tooledo for now. If you have a response at hand, go ahead and post if you wish and I'll sleep on it.

---

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

In Message 17 Buz says A and B are in the same system.In the OP Buz says we are talking about the Laws of Thermodynamics.In Message 13 Buz affirms that it is a closed system.In Message 17 Buz affirms that energy is transfered from A to B.In Message 23 Buz affirms that after the Transfer A still has as much energy as before the transfer.Based on that, the Closed System that consists of A & B Violates the 1^st. Law of Thermodynamics.Here is the reasoning.We have a closed system (Buz agrees with that).In the closed system there are two objects, A & B (Buz agree with that).Before the transfer A has infinite energy and B has 0 energy (Buz agrees with that).That means that the system has infinite energy (Buz agrees with that).After the transfer A has the same amount of energy and B has greater than 0 energy (Buz agrees with that).That means that the sytem after the transfer has more energy than before the transfer.The 1^st. Law of Thermodynamics says that in a closed system, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Since after the transfer the system has more energy than before the transfer, it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar, you're arguing total nonsense here. My op, describing a relatively stable system, being eternal, has always had energy in B, but for argument's sake, regardless of whether you start with zero energy in B or some energy in B, any in-system transfer of energy from A to B remains within the closed unlimited energy system. In no way can you possibly be adding energy to the unlimited energy system that was not already in this closed system of unlimited energy before transfer occurs.

---

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

Buz, what I have shown is that it is impossible to have an infinite energy source in a closed system under the Laws of Thermodynamics.The 1^st. Law of Thermodynamics says that energy within a closed system cannot be created or destroyed. Your assertion requires a condition where the energy in a system increases.A has an amount of energy.The total energy of the system is the energy of A.A transfers energy to B.A still has the same amount of energy.B now has more energy.The total energy of the system is now the sum of A plus B(including the additional energy from A).That means the closed sytem now has more energy. That is imposible under the 1^st. Law of Thermodynamics.That is why it is impossible to build a perpetual motion machine within the confins of the Laws of Thermodynamics. And there is the problem. Under the Laws of Thermodynamics you cannot have a system with unlimited energy.I believe that this is the crux of our disagreement. I say, and the Laws of Thermodynamics say, that your system as outlined in your OP is impossible.I believe I have shown why it is impossible.You need to show how, within the Laws of Thermodynamics, what I laid out above is not true.For reference, here it is again:

quote:

---

A has an amount of energy.

​

The total energy of the system is the energy of A.

​

A transfers energy to B.

​

A still has the same amount of energy.

​

B now has more energy.

​

The total energy of the system is now the sum of A plus B(including the additional energy from A).

​

That means the closed sytem now has more energy.

---

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Your argument fails in that a portion of infinite A's energy was transferred to B, leaving infinite energy A still infinitely energetic but energizing B with an amount of energy, previously existing within A. Infinite energy means no matter how much energy A dispenses, A's energy remains infinitely energetic/potent. This is what we call the supernatural dimension which ID creationists believe evidentually exists in the universe. Remember, this is my hypothesis, not yours, though you also profess to believe in the supernatural. So you must debate the topic on that basis. Does MY hypothesis violate the td laws? A thousand times no!!! The total energy of the system is NOW the sum of A's still infinite energy plus B's energy {having been energized by energy from infinitly energetic A)Can you spell "infinite," Jar. Do you really know what it means, Jar? If so, please debate sensibly and forthrightly on the basis of the correct meaning of the word, "infinite."That's all I presently have time for with an appointment coming up in my schedule. I will address the rest of your post later.

Yes. Correct, therefore the closed system has more energy.To Buz and the Moderators.I believe I have adequately refuted Buz assertions made in the OP.I believe I have shown that it is impossible within the Laws of Thermodynamics to have an Infinite Energy source.In summary, I have shown that under the Laws of Thermodynamics it is impossible for the energy within a closed system to increase.I have shown that in the scenario described by Buz the total energy in the system increased.Buz has agreed with the above statement as shown by this quote from the preceeding message: Note: according to Buz, A still has the same amount of energy but B now has more energy thus the total energy in the system increased.As I said in message three of this thread: I will allow Buz to make his final statement and summary and then I believe the discussion should end.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Either of you are free to slow things down.Besides, dragging the topic out over a longer time will torture the members of the "peanut gallery", which are currently being forced to be silent on the theme of the topic. Adminnemooseus

No.The closed system has same total energy.To Jar and the Moderators.I believe I have Jar has failed to refute Buz's assertions made in the OP.He has failed to show that it is impossible within the Laws of Thermodynamics to have an Infinite Energy source.In summary, He has failed to show that Laws of Thermodynamics laws were violated in my closed syatem by increasing total energy.He failed to show that in the scenario described by Buz the total energy in the system increased.Jar has agreed with the statements above by agreeing with this quote from Buz's preceeding message that infinitely energetic A within the system energized B within the same system, indicating no increase of energy to the total system:Buz writes:
The total energy of the system is NOW the sum of A's still infinite energy plus B's energy {having been energized by energy from infinitly energetic A)Note: according to my statement, agreed with by Jar, A remains infinitely energetic and B has more energy energized by infinitely energetic A within the same system, thus the total energy in the system has not been increased.So Jar messed up in message three of this thread.I will allow Jar to make his final statement if he's not energetic enough to continue. If Jar is, indeed, energetic enough to continue, I will try to get to the rest of his previous post which I didn't have time to address, being outa town most of today.

---

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