Science Proves Creation

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,037
US
✟1,060,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Let's start with a couple of axioms.

1.) Matter and energy are finite. If not, we would live inside of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, solid mass, of infinite expanse. We don't. No really, I once had a supposedly educated scientist try to make the laughable argument that universe was pure infinite energy. His argument went down in flames.
2.) Space is infinite. Seriously, I've had people try to dispute this axiom. I've asked them to tell me where to find this magic wall that sets the boundary for the edge of empty space, and to describe what is on the other side of that wall.

Now for the science:


The second law of thermodynamics can be precisely stated in the following two forms, as originally formulated in the 19th century by the Scottish physicist William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and the German physicist Rudolf Clausius, respectively:

A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transform heat extracted from a source which is at the same temperature throughout into work is impossible.

A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible.

Source: thermodynamics | Laws, Definition, & Equations - Isothermal and adiabatic processes

In other words, heat is transferred from an area of greater concentration, to an area of lesser concentration.
With the radiation of a finite amount of heat, over infinite space, over infinite time, the universe would infinitely approach a temperature of absolute zero. There are inefficiencies in converting energy from one form to another. Any energy which isn't converted to work, is dissipated as heat. No work; no motion.


A temperature scale whose zero point is absolute zero, the temperature of 0 entropy at which all molecular motion stops, -273.15° C. The size of a degree Kelvin is the same as the size of a degree Celsius.

Kelvin -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics

In other words, no energy; no work. No work, no motion. No motion; no molecules.

The tangible universe as we perceive it could not, nor cannot, have existed, nor continue to exist, eternally.

Some would argue that the Singularity preexisted the current universe eternally, before the Big Bang.

Nonsense! The same laws would apply to the Singularity; and what would cause the Singularity to go "bang" In the relatively recent past? Eternity is a very long time. If the Singularity was going to go "bang:" it would have done so an eternity ago; and the universe would have already infinitely approached absolute zero.


"Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end" (Psalm 102:25–27).

Discuss...
 
Last edited:

Skreeper

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2017
2,471
2,683
30
Germany
✟91,021.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Let's start with a couple of axioms.

1.) Matter and energy are finite. If not, we would live inside of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, soiid mass, of infinite expanse. We don't. No really, I once had a supposedly educated scientist try to make the laughable argument that universe was pure infinite energy. His argument went down in flames.
2.) Space is infinite. Seriously, I've had people try to dispute this axiom. I've asked them to tell me where to find this magic wall that sets the boundary for the edge of empty space, and to describe what is on the other side of that wall.

Now for the science:


The second law of thermodynamics can be precisely stated in the following two forms, as originally formulated in the 19th century by the Scottish physicist William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and the German physicist Rudolf Clausius, respectively:

A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transform heat extracted from a source which is at the same temperature throughout into work is impossible.

A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible.

Source: thermodynamics | Laws, Definition, & Equations - Isothermal and adiabatic processes

In other words, heat is transferred from an area of greater concentration, to an area of lesser concentration.
With the radiation of a finite amount of heat, over infinite space, over infinite time, the universe would infinitely approach a temperature of absolute zero. There are inefficiencies in converting energy from one form to another. Any energy which isn't converted to work, is dissipated as heat. No work; no motion.


A temperature scale whose zero point is absolute zero, the temperature of 0 entropy at which all molecular motion stops, -273.15° C. The size of a degree Kelvin is the same as the size of a degree Celsius.

Kelvin -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics

In other words, no energy; no work. No work, no motion. No motion; no molecules.

The tangible universe as we perceive it could not, nor cannot, have existed, nor continue to exist, eternally.

Some would argue that the Singularity preexisted the current universe eternally, before the Big Bang.

Nonsense! The same laws would apply to the Singularity; and what would cause the Singularity to go "bang" In the relatively recent past? Eternity is a very long time. If the Singularity was going to go "bang:" it would have done so an eternity ago; and the universe would have already infinitely approached absolute zero.


"Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end" (Psalm 102:25–27).

Discuss...

Wait where did you show that science proves creation? All I see is some rambling about thermodynamics and a clear misunderstanding of the Big Bang. How does that "prove" a being created the universe?
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,819
45
✟917,196.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
You are ignoring that it seems that space-time can be changed and warped by gravity or dark energy.

Also you comment about infinite energy indicating infinite density is incorrect. The space of the universe would merely need to be larger. Much like the scale of various infinities (countable or uncountable) in pure mathematics.

You have also declared without reason or evidence that a singularity of the matter/energy of the universe would be bound by the same rules as the current universe. Relativity demonstrates that you can't simply extrapolate your understanding of the universe to all contexts.

I have no idea what the real explanation for the whys and hows of the universe, but I think your self congratulatory post falls far short.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Let's start with a couple of axioms.

1.) Matter and energy are finite. If not, we would live inside of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, soiid mass, of infinite expanse. We don't. No really, I once had a supposedly educated scientist try to make the laughable argument that universe was pure infinite energy. His argument went down in flames.
2.) Space is infinite. Seriously, I've had people try to dispute this axiom. I've asked them to tell me where to find this magic wall that sets the boundary for the edge of empty space, and to describe what is on the other side of that wall.

Now for the science:


The second law of thermodynamics can be precisely stated in the following two forms, as originally formulated in the 19th century by the Scottish physicist William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and the German physicist Rudolf Clausius, respectively:

A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transform heat extracted from a source which is at the same temperature throughout into work is impossible.

A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible.

Source: thermodynamics | Laws, Definition, & Equations - Isothermal and adiabatic processes

In other words, heat is transferred from an area of greater concentration, to an area of lesser concentration.
With the radiation of a finite amount of heat, over infinite space, over infinite time, the universe would infinitely approach a temperature of absolute zero. There are inefficiencies in converting energy from one form to another. Any energy which isn't converted to work, is dissipated as heat. No work; no motion.


A temperature scale whose zero point is absolute zero, the temperature of 0 entropy at which all molecular motion stops, -273.15° C. The size of a degree Kelvin is the same as the size of a degree Celsius.

Kelvin -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics

In other words, no energy; no work. No work, no motion. No motion; no molecules.

The tangible universe as we perceive it could not, nor cannot, have existed, nor continue to exist, eternally.

Some would argue that the Singularity preexisted the current universe eternally, before the Big Bang.

Nonsense! The same laws would apply to the Singularity; and what would cause the Singularity to go "bang" In the relatively recent past? Eternity is a very long time. If the Singularity was going to go "bang:" it would have done so an eternity ago; and the universe would have already infinitely approached absolute zero.


"Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end" (Psalm 102:25–27).

Discuss...


And this "proves creation", how exactly?
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,518
9,486
✟236,268.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Let's start with a couple of axioms.
Axioms may be founded, or unfounded. Yours are unfounded, or - more accurately - founded on your misunderstandings. This renders them inadequate as premises for your subsequent argument.

1.) Matter and energy are finite. If not, we would live inside of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, soiid mass, of infinite expanse. We don't. No really, I once had a supposedly educated scientist try to make the laughable argument that universe was pure infinite energy. His argument went down in flames.
If the emboldened were true then this would also be true:
There are an infinite number of even positive integers. Therefore there is no space for the odd positive integers, therefore there can be no odd positive integers.
You don't understand the nature of infinities.

For his part, I imagine that the scientist, rather than laughing at your misunderstanding, periodically weeps at how lamentable humans can be, especially when deep ignorance fosters their confidence.

Discuss...
Since your axioms are flawed no further discussion is required.

D-
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,037
US
✟1,060,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
You are ignoring that it seems that space-time can be changed and warped by gravity or dark energy.

What effect would that have on the inevitable?

Also you comment about infinite energy indicating infinite density is incorrect. The space of the universe would merely need to be larger. Much like the scale of various infinities (countable or uncountable) in pure mathematics.

You left out "infinite expanse." How does one go about making infinite proportions larger?

No matter, you're mixing apples and oranges, in your strawman argument. The infinite matter would have to be infinitely dense, because of the infinite gravity. The infinite energy would would make the matter infinitely hot.

Are you really trying to make an argument for infinite matter and energy?

You have also declared without reason or evidence that a singularity of the matter/energy of the universe would be bound by the same rules as the current universe. Relativity demonstrates that you can't simply extrapolate your understanding of the universe to all contexts.

Let's surmise for just a moment that the singularity wasn't bound by any laws of physics. If it existed as a singularity for all eternity; then it must continue to exist as a singularity for all eternity. If it had stopped existing as a singularity in the relatively recent past; then it would have already stopped existing as a singularity, an eternity ago. Eternity has no bounds.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,037
US
✟1,060,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
There could be infinite dimensions in our universe with infinite matter, right?
Obviously the dimensions would be infinite; but what would make you believe that there would be infinite dimensions?
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,037
US
✟1,060,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
And this "proves creation", how exactly?
If all of the matter and energy in the universe infinitely approaches absolute zero, its' energy reduced to unreverable heat; then it could not have been anywher near its' current form and concentrtion for eternity. If the universe, as it can even be perceived, could not have existed eternally; then the only logical conclusion is that it was created. If anything has not preexisted eternity; it was created.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,037
US
✟1,060,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Axioms may be founded, or unfounded. Yours are unfounded, or - more accurately - founded on your misunderstandings. This renders them inadequate as premises for your subsequent argument.

My axioms are empirecal. That's what makes them axioms/

What misunderstandings?

If the emboldened were true then this would also be true:
There are an infinite number of even positive integers. Therefore there is no space for the odd positive integers, therefore there can be no odd positive integers.
You don't understand the nature of infinities.

For his part, I imagine that the scientist, rather than laughing at your misunderstanding, periodically weeps at how lamentable humans can be, especially when deep ignorance fosters their confidence.
You're feeble stab at an anaology was entertaining; but lets talk about reality, instead of abstract non sequiturs. Let's tak about Physics.

Are asserting that matter and energy are infinite? If so, I'd like to hear your argumant. I'd find that quite entertaining.



Since your axioms are flawed no further discussion is required.

You have yet to point out a flaw.

Waiting.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,819
45
✟917,196.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
What effect would that have on the inevitable?
The effect was that you casually declared that infinite space as one of your axioms when in the universe today it can be warped and twisted and even created.

You axiom is wrong in the current universe, so it's preposterous to declare it as an axiom of the universe's beginning.

You left out "infinite expanse." How does one go about making infinite proportions larger?

No matter, you're mixing apples and oranges, in your strawman argument. The infinite matter would have to be infinitely dense, because of the infinite gravity. The infinite energy would would make the matter infinitely hot.

Are you really trying to make an argument for infinite matter and energy?
I don't know the properties of of infinite mass or energy, and I don't know how they interact with some other greater expanse of potential of new space generated by some other process.

I don't know these things, and neither do you.

The properties of near infinite density and mass around black holes are mysterious, why on Earth do you feel confident to make declarations about the properties of unknown and possibly unknowable substances of the early universe.

My comments about mathematics was to point out that it is not incoherent for things to be both infinite and of a different scale.
Let's surmise for just a moment that the singularity wasn't bound by any laws of physics. If it existed as a singularity for all eternity; then it must continue to exist as a singularity for all eternity. If it had stopped existing as a singularity in the relatively recent past; then it would have already stopped existing as a singularity, an eternity ago. Eternity has no bounds.
Why?

Time itself may be generated by the process of expansion, I don't know. No one is declaring that the singularity that existed at the beginning of the universe was eternal and unchanging, it may not even have had time.


In addition, can you explain how an alternative would function? How does a creator get around the paradoxes around time and space at the begining of the universe?
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,518
9,486
✟236,268.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
My axioms are empirecal. That's what makes them axioms/
Now you are just being silly. If your comments (decribed by you as axioms) were empirical they wouldn't be (couldn't be) axioms. They would be well established observations that were, nevertheless, subject to dismissal by contrary observations.
As a side note, since you are implictly expressing this purported axiom mathematically, it should be remembered that such axioms are not necessarily true.

What misunderstandings?
Your inability to understand that matter and and energy can be infinite in an infinite universe. Since the logic is straightforward, yet you cannot grasp it, I fear it is beyond my pedagogical skills to bring you to understanding.

You're feeble stab at an anaology was entertaining;
I'm glad you were entertained. I'm sorry you were not educated. (See previous comment regarding pedagogy.)

Are asserting that matter and energy are infinite? If so, I'd like to hear your argumant. I'd find that quite entertaining.
I am not so asserting. I am stating that we do not currently know the finite/infinite status of mass, energy or space. The onus on you is to demonstrate that mass and energy cannot be infinite and this you cannot do with non-axioms. What else do you have?


You have yet to point out a flaw.
You have yet to recognise any of the serious flaws identified by myself and others.

The wait is over. But the weight of responsibility to present a coherent and cogent argument for your belief remains.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
If all of the matter and energy in the universe infinitely approaches absolute zero, its' energy reduced to unreverable heat; then it could not have been anywher near its' current form and concentrtion for eternity.

The space-time continuum, is only 13.7 billion years old.
You are essentially arguing against the claim that it is eternal.
So, what's that about?

If the universe, as it can even be perceived, could not have existed eternally; then the only logical conclusion is that it was created

Doesn't follow.

Instead, the only logical conclusion is that it hasn't existed eternally.

How you jump from that to "therefor, some being created it", is unclear. Well, not that unclear off course... because it's rather obvious that you are just engaging in the fallacy of assumed conclusion coupled with an argument from ignorance.


If anything has not preexisted eternity; it was created.

Again: does not follow.

And current models of the universe, do not have the universe existing for eternity.

You have a very strange idea of how things are "proven".
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
You have yet to point out a flaw.
Waiting.

Well, your wait is over.

I just pointed out to you that "the universe can't have existed for eternity" does not automatically translate to "therefor, some being created it".

It just translates into "therefor, the universe has NOT existed for eternity".
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums