Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 7:31 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question for agnostics and atheists
#32
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists
I'll defend myself thank you. I made the mistake of posting before I went on my weekend and the bookmark isn't at home. Thus is the nature of shift-work. On to more questions:

(December 3, 2009 at 5:10 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Just because the universe seizes to function does not mean it stops existing. The universe is then still there.
Ceasing to function does not equal ceasing to exist. For my purposes of existing, from the perspective I have as a life form in a cold universe(or that of life forms in general), ceasing to function is ceasing to exist by definition of existing being living. I supposes if motion, existance, gasses and solids are all states of belonging then being at an absolute stand still is a state. I just wouldn't call that existance.

(December 3, 2009 at 8:02 am)Joe Bloe Wrote: Reality Test #1
See the tree over there...put your head down and charge.
Thanks I like that. I like dealing with the senses to test my reality as well. I won't be testing life vs death theories anytime soon with those tools though (hopefully).

(December 4, 2009 at 7:56 pm)padraic Wrote: My cynicism comes from previous experience with self- identifying Christians on this forum.Those people almost invariably have an agenda and are incapable of independent thought. A hint is a broad question without stating a position.The question itself often reveals some basic ignorance. In your case a lack of understanding of the term 'atheist'.

Then,after having a few teeth extracted the apologist will present its own position, invariably heavy on authority and dogma and light on science and logic.

When pressed,the apologist will attempt to provide a scientific explanation for its position and fail badly. Perhaps THE most popular apologist cliche is an appeal to the Second Law Of Thermodynamics.The explanation given invariably shows a profound ignorance of that law.

Your posts have followed a tediously predictable pattern.I neither resile from nor apologise for my initial cynicism.


Bored now

Apologies from you are moot, none required, I'm the new guy. I am capable of independant thought and I am not locked on any course, but I do have an agenda. You obviously have some preconcieved notions of who I am and that is defeatest to any kind of open discussion. I'm not trying to earn your trust just didn't want to offend anyone. Sorry if I bore you. Feel free not to help me.

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Oh boy, it seems your statements suffer from what they are describing: total chaos.

Nope, that is not at all what the second law states. Please be sure not to parrot something you do not understand.
What decreases according to the second law is entropy. Not energy. Energy is conserved according to the much appraised law of Energy Conservation, that same law that ensures that miracles like the ones in the bible can not happen. If you use science to prove or disprove things, be prepared to deny facts from the bible you might hold dear. It is not that you can cherry pick a random law of nature and deny others.

I understand very little and am endeavoring to learn so excuse my parroting. I won't know if I understand something correctly unless I put it out there and someone smater than me debunks it. I am wholly (no pun intended) prepared to disprove the bible, my beliefs and the things I hold nothing dear. That's why I'm here.
O.K. here's my more detailed undertanding and please point out specifics that are wrong:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Entropy is the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter in a system and it increases in a closed system. Just after the Big Bang all forces were momentarily unified then thermodynamic skicked in. Because of the second law of thermodynamics both energy and matter in the Universe are becoming less useful as time goes on. The Universe will attain maximum entropy and absolute zero when all energy and matter is randomly distributed across space. It applies to all macroscopic systems with well-defined temperatures.

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: No, the second law is valid only for isolated systems with constant heat energy. In the case of our universe the heat energy is constantly fed by burning stars, which is basically a conversion of nuclear energy to heat energy.

Are you saying our universe is not a macroscopic closed system?


(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: The term 'usually' is quite funny. Do you mean that the law of nature sometimes has a day off?
No meerly my attempt at being tentative and equivocal

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: There is no law of nature that prescribes degradation. Degradation is a moral or ethical value, not a physical one.
degredation in this case was my laymens term for loss of exergy. In thermodynamics, the exergy of a system is the maximum useful work possible during a process that brings the system into equilibrium with it's reservoir. If the reservoir is space then exergy is the potential of a system to cause a change.

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: If you apply your version of the law to the universe it will indeed become a messy business, but the universe will not stop to exist (as leo stated already).
see above
(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Indeed the universe will still be growing, since it expands and its expansion rate is increasing.

Are you saying that infinitely before the BigBang the universe existed and will continue infinitely after all things in it entropy?

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: It does not follow from the fact that things have an end that they must have had a beginning. That's pure nonsense.
It does not follow from the fact that things have an end that they must be finite, since they could be infinite to start with.
Also be careful not to mix up infiniteness in terms of volume, with infiniteness in terms of age.
I define infiniteness in any terms as boundless, illimitable and immeasurable. If the universe is the space or heat reservoir of the objects (or smaller closed systems easier to measure) in it and has an absolute value equal to maximum entropy then it has a defined and measurable point. Thus it is my conclusion that it has an end that is measurable and therefore minimum entropy (perfect balance) would be constituant to a begining

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Ah, chaos theory, another poorly understood yet much abused theory to arrive at mystical conclusions.
Tell me, how exactly does nature prove chaos theory? Generally a scientific theory is tested to nature by man and then the theory , if verified, is said to describe nature. Nature does not act as an intelligent agent on its own embarking on a scientific endeavour to prove some theories.
perhaps I'll start another thread on having the chaos theory explained to me. I'd like to keep this one as focused as possible so I can learn something, one at a time.

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Which part of nature is outside the universe??

no part of nature is outside of universe in my opinion.

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: When you apply scientific results/theories correctly you cannot draw your conclusion. Also, if you adopt your conclusion you'll have to deny empirical findings, like star formation, you see around you.

I enjoyed your taggy attack, but sadly to say it is no way near a coherent argument.

It wasn't an attack or an argument, just a very simple statement of my premise. Why are you on the defensive? I'd like just to have a discussion without the usual staunch standpoints, argumentative debate and egos. I'm willing to agree to disagree if it comes to it.
Reply



Messages In This Thread
Question for agnostics and atheists - by tackattack - December 2, 2009 at 6:34 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Darwinian - December 2, 2009 at 6:35 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by leo-rcc - December 2, 2009 at 6:39 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by padraic - December 2, 2009 at 6:50 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by tackattack - December 2, 2009 at 7:35 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Joe Bloe - December 2, 2009 at 12:25 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Pope Alfred - December 2, 2009 at 2:00 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Purple Rabbit - December 2, 2009 at 5:53 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Ace Otana - December 2, 2009 at 12:54 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Violet - December 2, 2009 at 4:55 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by fr0d0 - December 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Violet - December 2, 2009 at 5:46 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by littlegrimlin1 - December 2, 2009 at 5:56 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Purple Rabbit - December 2, 2009 at 6:16 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by tackattack - December 3, 2009 at 2:26 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Purple Rabbit - December 3, 2009 at 2:38 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by tackattack - December 3, 2009 at 3:30 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by leo-rcc - December 3, 2009 at 5:10 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Joe Bloe - December 3, 2009 at 8:02 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Purple Rabbit - December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by rjh4 - December 10, 2009 at 3:59 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by theVOID - December 10, 2009 at 4:17 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by rjh4 - December 10, 2009 at 4:40 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by theVOID - December 10, 2009 at 5:03 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Purple Rabbit - December 12, 2009 at 4:53 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by rjh4 - December 12, 2009 at 3:50 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Purple Rabbit - December 4, 2009 at 5:26 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by padraic - December 4, 2009 at 7:56 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Purple Rabbit - December 5, 2009 at 5:26 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Rhizomorph13 - December 4, 2009 at 8:11 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by padraic - December 5, 2009 at 1:33 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Eilonnwy - December 5, 2009 at 2:19 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by padraic - December 5, 2009 at 8:29 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Purple Rabbit - December 5, 2009 at 5:15 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by leo-rcc - December 5, 2009 at 10:16 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by padraic - December 5, 2009 at 6:47 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Purple Rabbit - December 5, 2009 at 7:29 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by tackattack - December 6, 2009 at 4:38 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by leo-rcc - December 6, 2009 at 6:27 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by theVOID - December 6, 2009 at 7:13 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by tackattack - December 6, 2009 at 7:58 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Purple Rabbit - December 6, 2009 at 11:21 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by downbeatplumb - December 6, 2009 at 1:02 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by tackattack - December 7, 2009 at 12:16 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by tackattack - December 8, 2009 at 3:19 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by theVOID - December 8, 2009 at 3:41 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by tackattack - December 8, 2009 at 4:10 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by theVOID - December 8, 2009 at 4:55 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by tackattack - December 8, 2009 at 5:00 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by theVOID - December 8, 2009 at 5:35 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by tackattack - December 8, 2009 at 7:50 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by theVOID - December 8, 2009 at 9:24 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by tackattack - December 9, 2009 at 2:22 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by theVOID - December 9, 2009 at 2:47 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by tackattack - December 9, 2009 at 7:21 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Autumnlicious - December 9, 2009 at 4:52 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by Autumnlicious - December 9, 2009 at 2:04 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by tackattack - December 9, 2009 at 5:39 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by tackattack - December 10, 2009 at 5:05 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by theVOID - December 10, 2009 at 5:43 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by rjh4 - December 11, 2009 at 9:49 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by theVOID - December 11, 2009 at 9:58 am
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by tackattack - December 10, 2009 at 9:15 pm
RE: Question for agnostics and atheists - by theVOID - December 11, 2009 at 6:39 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Question about death to Atheists. Mirek-Polska 97 18078 February 13, 2017 at 2:18 pm
Last Post: downbeatplumb



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)