This Christian's disappointment with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron in Nightline debate.
Offline I watched some of the debate between the RRS and Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. I love and respect their ministry immensely, but I was disappointed in Ray and Kirk for not knocking the granny toss out of the park! I’m referring to the idea that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (a.k.a. the Law of Conservation of Energy) somehow “proves” that the universe is eternal and therefore needs no Creator. It does no such thing. When one takes into account the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (a.k.a. the Law of Entropy), this notion crumbles. To avoid debates about my definitions of each law, I’ve provided the definitions from www.physicalgeography.net:
| CHAPTER 6: Energy and Matter |
|
| (e). Laws of Thermodynamics |
The field of thermodynamics studies the behavior of energy flow in natural systems. From this study, a number of physical laws have been established. The laws of thermodynamics describe some of the fundamental truths of thermodynamics observed in our Universe. Understanding these laws is important to students of Physical Geography because many of the processes studied involve the flow of energy. First Law of ThermodynamicsThe first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. Einstein's famous equation (written below) describes the relationship between energy and matter: E = mc2In the equation above, energy (E) is equal to matter (m) times the square of a constant (c). Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. His equation also suggests that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed. Second Law of ThermodynamicsHeat cannot be transfer from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact of thermodynamics, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible. This law also predicts that the entropy of an isolated system always increases with time. Entropy is the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter in a system. Because of the second law of thermodynamics both energy and matter in the Universe are becoming less useful as time goes on. Perfect order in the Universe occurred the instance after the Big Bang when energy and matter and all of the forces of the Universe were unified. Third Law of ThermodynamicsThe third law of thermodynamics states that if all the thermal motion of molecules (kinetic energy) could be removed, a state called absolute zero would occur. Absolute zero results in a temperature of 0 Kelvins or -273.15° Celsius. Absolute Zero = 0 Kelvins = -273.15° CelsiusThe Universe will attain absolute zero when all energy and matter is randomly distributed across space. The current temperature of empty space in the Universe is about 2.7 Kelvins. |
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6e.html
This suggests that the universe had a beginning and, therefore, is not eternal. Here’s an illustration. When you’re playing pool, kinetic energy is transferred from your arm, to the stick, to the cue ball, to the rack. For a few seconds, balls scatter all over the table until finally they come to a rest. Why don’t they scramble across the table for all eternity? Well, with each transfer of energy, some usable, or kinetic, energy is lost until it is all gone. No ball rolls as fast as the ball that hit it until no balls roll at all. That’s exactly what’s happening with the universe on the atomic level.
Notice I didn’t say that energy is destroyed. I only pointed out that it is gradually being transferred into an unusable form. An eternal universe would require a constant supply of usable energy. However, according to the 2nd law, the universe is LOSING this supply and is headed toward Absolute Zero (see 3rd law), and because of the 1st law, it’s not creating anymore. Bottom line, the cosmic gas tank is headed toward “E” with no filling station in sight. Therefore, there had to be a point in time in which the universe began. Nothing with an end is eternal. Since the universe has an end, it HAD to have a beginning, and since it had a beginning, it had to have a beginner.
I wish Ray or Kirk would have explained this briefly, but they didn’t. Shame. They should have dominated that debate since RRS admitted they would have to call Leonardo da Vinci to prove the Mona Lisa was actually painted. *shaking head* I don’t fault Ray and Kirk’s position, just their lack of preparedness.
Let me get this straight. The roofing nail is "design," but the bat's sonar capability is an "accident." Hmm... Do you also believe tornadoes build trailor parks?
- Login to post comments
Offline
No, time is a physical thing.
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:Prove it
No, time is a physical thing.
I thought you'd never ask
(delta)t=t/(1-v^2/c^2)
Throw in Lorentz transformations and you get time as the fourth dimension.
Need more?
Black holes and time dilation. Black holes warp space(and hence time) such that any object caught in it's pull, will have infinite dilation.
Time can be manipulated and hence is physical.
Q.E.D
- Login to post comments
Offline AiiA wrote:Cpt_pineapple wrote:Prove it
No, time is a physical thing.
I thought you'd never ask
(delta)t=t/(1-v^2/c^2)
Throw in Lorentz transformations and you get time as the fourth dimension.
Need more?
Black holes and time dilation. Black holes warp space(and hence time) such that any object caught in it's pull, will have infinite dilation.
Time can be manipulated and hence is physical.
Q.E.D
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:You're full of shit. Space time is not a material object; its an abstract concept to demonstrate the inseparable relationship of matter/energy, space, and time. This garbage you posted does nothing to prove time is physical. The fourth dimension is no more material than your warped imagination. Stop your fucking lying and don't waste any more of my time.AiiA wrote:Cpt_pineapple wrote:Prove it
No, time is a physical thing.
I thought you'd never ask
(delta)t=t/(1-v^2/c^2)
Throw in Lorentz transformations and you get time as the fourth dimension.
Need more?
Black holes and time dilation. Black holes warp space(and hence time) such that any object caught in it's pull, will have infinite dilation.
Time can be manipulated and hence is physical.
Q.E.D
Translation: 'I don't understand the physics so I am going to resort to insults!'
Did you just honestly say space-time is not physical???
Explain gravity lenses and Einstien rings! Gravity lenses is when a material object bends space-time!
How can and object bend space-time if space-time is not physical?!!. This is how we detect Dark-Matter!
If you have an actual argument bring it forth. Other wise don't resort to insults.
- Login to post comments
Offline Illustration of bending space-time
Apology plz.
- Login to post comments
Offline
I thought you'd never ask
(delta)t=t/(1-v^2/c^2)
? did you mean ? (<delta>d) 
- Login to post comments
Offline No offense Via but you are apparently having a serious problem understanding the responses you are receiving. It might be in your best interest if you read some on this subject from a source that is not only attempting to support their theistic beliefs and then, when you have a better grasp of the arguments and concepts you are going to encounter, the discussion might prove much more productive.
Let me get this straight. The roofing nail is "design," but the bat's sonar capability is an "accident." Hmm... Do you also believe tornadoes build trailor parks?
- Login to post comments
Offline Vessel wrote:I assume you mean that I don't understand the assertion that it is nonsensical to say something existed before time because, as the arguement goes, since time and space co-exist with the universe, there is literally no time or space for a cause of the universe to exist. Is that pretty much it? No, I got it loud and clear, and I thought I responded clearly. It's as unbelievable as Darwinism. As I said, one would have to believe NO THING (what rocks dream of) exploded into everything. I just don't have that much faith.No offense Via but you are apparently having a serious problem understanding the responses you are receiving. It might be in your best interest if you read some on this subject from a source that is not only attempting to support their theistic beliefs and then, when you have a better grasp of the arguments and concepts you are going to encounter, the discussion might prove much more productive.
First, no one is saying nothing exploded into everything or anything. In order to say this you would have to consider nothing a state of existence which is clearly non-sensical. Second there is no pre-universe time through or during which everything could have come to be. Third you keep bringing up infinite time which has nothing to do with anything I've referenced as a possibility. It is because of things like the wildly inaccurate phrasing of "nothing exploded into everything", which clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding of what I am saying, that I come to the conclusion that you are not understanding the scenario presented to you.
I would also like to add that it is not necessary to believe in the truth of any scenario as the way in which the universe is, or came to be, until there is ample evidence to consider a particular scenario true. There is absolutely no reason to have faith one way or the other so to claimone scenario takes less faith and one more is unimportant. A belief should not be formed either way if faith is required as support for that belief as faith can not make any differentiation between truth and fiction.
The only honest response to such questions is "I don't know until more evidence is gathered". I am simply presenting to you possibilities, not my personal beliefs. There is not enough evidence for me to presently hold a belief on the subject. But, as long as there are other possibilities to envoke some undefined 'god' concept creator token is not an option. In fact, it is never an option until it is supported by evidence of its own and not simply a lack of evidence for some other scenario.
I realize that you weren't yet envoking your god as an explanation but even your vague claim that the universe had to have been caused and that the cause must be beyond the universe (what you label supernatural and others might still consider natural) is not a necessary conclsion as you seem to think it to be. Until there is a necessary, or highly evidenced, conclusion why not just drop all the faith based beliefs and await accurate information?
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I thought you'd never ask
(delta)t=t/(1-v^2/c^2)
? did you mean ? (<delta>d)
▲
- Login to post comments
Offline So would you consider yourself more agnostic than atheistic?
I was also presenting a possibility... one that I happen to believe 
It seems many people automatically dismiss it primarily because of the other conclusions that would be drawn from it. As Julian Huxley said, "I suppose the reason we all lept toward Origin is because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."
I would argue that the fact we are here in the first place is ample evidence of a cause.
Let me get this straight. The roofing nail is "design," but the bat's sonar capability is an "accident." Hmm... Do you also believe tornadoes build trailor parks?
- Login to post comments
Offline So would you consider yourself more agnostic than atheistic?
I was also presenting a possibility... one that I happen to believe
I would argue that the fact we are here in the first place is ample evidence of a cause.
I consider myself an atheist as I have no god beliefs. I have never believed in a god, am unsure what most people think they are refering to when referencing a 'god', see no evidence of any existence that might be what people are referring to when using the term 'god' and therefor see no reason to consider such an existence a possibility.
Until the point that one can show me what a god is (not what one is not) and evidence (not simply unanswered mysteries) that leads to the existence of a god, I could not form a belief in such an existence. I don't even understand what it is theists think they believe in. To speak of a god is simply to speak of an answer all token for those things which are not understood. The term seems to carry no meaning of its own.
So, call me atheist or agnostic, it makes no difference to me as I lack any definable understanding of what a god is supposed to be and therefor lack both belief (atheist) and knowledge (agnostic) of any god or gods.
I am unfamiliar with the quote you present and am therefor unsure whether or not the statement is taken out of context. it seems likely it is. With all due respect to Julian Huxley, if you can show me a single atheist on these boards who holds no god belief simply because they find that holding a god belief is undesirable or restricts their freedoms, sexual, moral, or otherwise, I would be amazed. I find it hard to believe that this is what Huxley was saying. Is this what you are presenting the quote as saying?
Such a claim is nothing but anti-atheistic propoganda that many theists use to attempt to paint atheists as immoral or degenerate. It seems to be nothing more than the theist projecting their own emotion based reason-be-damned belief system onto the atheist to make them seem as if they are on intellectually equal footing.
So any atheists here atheist simply because a god belief would restrict you from living your willy-nilly life of sexual pleasure? Bueller?
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
- Login to post comments
Offline I would like a response to my evidence plz.
- Login to post comments
Offline I would like a response to my evidence plz.
I thought it was an adroit use of visual aids. Is that the kind of response you want?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:I would like a response to my evidence plz.
I thought it was an adroit use of visual aids. Is that the kind of response you want?
Thank you.
Actually I was talking to AiiA.
- Login to post comments
Offline I said "many people," not "all people." I've mentioned before that I too used to be an atheist. I can honestly say that it had nothing to do with lifestyle. I had outgrown Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and God was just the next invisible thing to disgard. However, I couldn't go on with the just-so claims of Darwinism. Pardon the pun, but there was too much god-of-the-gaps reasoning involved. I did my own research and came to the conclusion that this world could not possibly have come about any other way than design.
Let me get this straight. The roofing nail is "design," but the bat's sonar capability is an "accident." Hmm... Do you also believe tornadoes build trailor parks?
- Login to post comments
Offline So you agree that the argument from origin of the universe can go to an atheist and a deist equally, as it's speculation to talk about what was "before" the Big Bang.
And you are left with the argument from design. My limited understanding of biology conviced me that Darwin was right and the argument from design for living things fails or in other words, evolutionary biology has a very good picture with lots of evidence about the origin of the apparent design in living organisms.
That leaves the argument from design for the constants and laws of nature. Even if this argument is correct it only supports a deist god, one that set things up and then left. Of course this is still an argument from lack of understanding, so given the history of such arguments it is very likely to fall when more evidence comes to light. On the other hand, we are very biased in trying to understand the origin of this design because whatever the laws of the universe, as long as we exist to think about them, they will be perfectly adjusted for our existance (I think this is the weak anthropic principle).
So in the end, I think both the atheist and the deist position are consistent with the evidence we have. Occam razzor would suggest that the simplest, atheist position should be adopted, but everyone is free to choose.
Cheers,
richard
P.S. Your signature shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary biology. I suggest you change it if you want to be taken seriously when debating such topics.
A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.
- Login to post comments
I think is lame to quote myself. But as the discussion goes in circles I guess the arguments have to go to...
A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.
Just on a side note, if you even bothered to open science book in regards to bats and sonar you would understand that it is no "accident" but a survival tool, perfected over millions and millions (roughly 35 million) years, thanks to evolution. Not some creator, and almost all bats can see, but use sonar in complete darkness or near complete darkness. However the degree of sonar capability varies from species to species, new world (american) bats use a high pitch (ultrasonic) sonar, while old world bats (australia and some found in africa) use a much more cruder form of sonar that uses audiable clicks. Yeah, even your signature shows your lack of understanding of basic scientific principles, theories and probably laws as well.
Ok so far
talking about our space and our time, time and space may exist in other possible universes
Not necessarily, theoretically nothing can cause time and space
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html
If you follow the theory, that nothing caused the universe to pop into existence then this is correct
Nothing needs to exist, if nothing caused this universes creation
That which may exists outside our time is not necessarily infinite
Sorry Rev I did not have a chance to read your link yet but wouldn't the creation of something require at least two points in time? A point before the thig was created and a point when it was created. I don't understand how people can postulate a creation event while denying that time existed.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
This is our universe thus our time, the beginning of our universe was the beginning of our-time single point bang off we go , time may or may not exist outside our universe, so one could speculate about the possibility of two ponits in time, but as far as we are concerned there only needs to be one point
There may have been time before this universe, but as this is outside our universe, then this would be outside our understanding at present
I have heard of theories that the univers will expand at increasing speeds until parts of it rupture and split from ours creating universes that are are completely separate.
here is an except from such an article:
"In their model, dark energy becomes very dense and sets the universe expanding at such a rate that it approaches the big rip. The universe tears into small patches that rush away from each other faster than the speed of light. But the destruction is then halted, as the density of dark energy becomes equal to the density of the universe. At this point, each patch crunches in on itself. "All the patches, of which there are a huge number, will separately contract into disparate universes," says Frampton. Each patch will then bounce outwards again, creating a new universe."
NewScientist
is this what you are referring to?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Let me put it this way;
it is impossible for time and the universe to have a beginning. I hope that is simple enough for everyone to grasp.
If you think this is wrong it is because you do not know what either is.
Let me illustrate. If time began, what started time?
I'm asking you this, not because time had a beginning (it did not), but to get you to think. Many of you don't seem to be able to wrap your mind around this. You are unknowingly contradicting yourself if you say time had a beginning. Saying time had a beginning will result in an infinite regression. An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, and for any proposition in the series Pn, the truth of Pn requires the support of the truth of Pn+1. There would never be adequate support for P1, because the infinite series needed to provide such support could not be completed. Why? In saying time was caused, that which caused time also would have needed to have existed in TIME! It's impossible for a cause not to have time ITSELF!
Time existed before the bigbang.
The universe existed before the bigbang.
The concept that there was NOTHING is absurd! There was always stuff (and it wasn't a god. If anyone says this you simply pulled it out of your ass).
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
The Big Bang timed the universe to be 14.5 billion years old. Time is interlinked with space, no space, no time. Our universe did have a beginning.
It's an interesting hypothesis,
I was thinking along these lines
Time for us started at the creation of our matter, no matter no gravity no time, gravity/matter and time are linked
That which may or may not exist without gravity has no time, as we perceive it
Think of it this way, once matter is created you can start a stopwatch, for that matter in that universe
Matter = gravity = time, as we understand it
Energy was accelerated, creating matter, at this point our time as we perceive it began
Possibly but not within our understanding of time
Possibly
True
but once one starts talking about before our universe, any hypothesis is as good as another until we determine the truth
Stuff that doesn't exert a gravitational field does not exist within our understanding of time
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Time can be manpulated. Time is physical. Time cannot exist without space.
This topic is speculation of what happened before the Big Bang. It could be a multiverse or a singularty. Nobody knows for sure, and we may never know.
The reasoning bears out.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Then explain why time can be manipulated.
Fine. Prove the multiverse exists, I'll buy you a ticket to Sweden to collect your noble prize.
Indeed without stuff, there is no measurement, thus no time as we understand it
But velocity cannot be measured without stuff, with our understanding of time, we assume acceleration cause-and-effect, but this acceleration velocity cannot be measured until the creation of matter, ie there's nothing to measure it against, until gravity is created thus space-time as we understand it, ie no gravity no space-time no time, because we are lacking a dimension to measure time against
Energy that exist without exerting a gravitational field exists outside are understanding of time, without all 4 dimensions, are understanding of time is nonsensical
Unless you care demonstrate, how time can be measured in less than 4 dimensions
Possibly
Nope I'm saying that it is beyond our understanding at the moment, it is plausible that mankind may reach a point where science can give a explanation
"stuff had to have existed" without evidence, this is hypothetical speculation, one could speculate anything without evidence, hypothetical speculation how-ever plausible to an individual, does not make it necessarily true
Temperature is not a material thing and is a measure, it can be "manipulated" by increasing or decreasing heat or cold.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
No, time is a physical thing. Time slows as things move faster. If time wasn't physical, there would be no time dilation.
Temperature is a measure of heat (a form of energy).
Translation: 'I have no proof of the multiverse but I believe it anyway, and I laugh at Theists because they believe without proof.'