by Pinku 39 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
A book called the Bible says about those who chose to believe the lie of evolution to be without excuse when judgement is spoken. - Patrick
A book called the Bible says infanticide, kidnap and forced marriage, slavery and genocide, beating children, misogyny and homophobia are morally good.
* "Now is it pure stupidity to consider an incredible enormous and wise and ingenious creator behind all of this?" * No, it's not stupid. Intelligent people have believed variations of that idea for thousands of years and - on the face of it - it seems to make an intuitive kind of sense. So no, it's not stupid. But it IS incorrect, at least if you value evidence and reason. Every single piece of evidence when looked at without bias offers a simpler explanation than an "incredible enormous and wise and ingenious creator" which only believers seem to think requires no explanation at all! Have a little humility, show some intellectual courage and examine honestly the other side of the debate. (apologise for rubbish mobile phone formatting)
NVM... got my tenses mixed up LOL
The FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS states that energy can’t be created or destroyed.
Yep, applying that law to death is really interesting!
Thing is, if energy cannot be created or destroyed then how did all that energy get here in the first place?
abe
Therefore an external input is needed to sustain any closed loop cycle. So, how does the Universe thrive?
After stating "an external input is needed to sustain any closed loop cycle", you ask "So, how does the Universe thrive?" So you're implying or taking for granted that the universe is a "closed loop cycle". On what basis do you think and imply such?
I agree that "an external input is needed ot sustain any closed loop cycle". For example, earth's water cycle requres heat from the sun to evaporate water and cause it to rise so it can fall again as rain. Only theoretical, lossless closed loop cycles require no external input. However, I disagree with your overall point. I see no evidence that the overall energy flow in the universe is part of some cycle. I see overall energy flow as linear (flowing in one direction), not feeding back into some starting point, that is, not cyclic. I believe that there is nothing feeding the universe; it is winding down. I've heard often of and talked with one PhD physics professor about the so-called heat death of the universe. Consider a simple example: a hypothetical system (or "universe") that consists of stretched springs in an enclosed boundary. There is potentially useable energy in the system; it is potential energy stored in the stretched springs. When those springs are released, the energy is still in the system, but it's no longer useable. It ulitmately ends up simply as increased heat in the system. The temperataure of everything in the system will eventually equalize (heat flows in only one direction) and at that point, the system will have died a heat death. There is energy in the system, but it's not useable. Many think our universe is dying such a death. All useable energy will have been "spent".
The only question I have is where did the original energy come from? Who or what started the process? If it was not started by someone or something, then how did it start?
Those touting laws of physics should also consider the law of entropy and the law of cause and effect.
Reduced down, you said those touting the laws of physics should also consider the laws of physics.
Not a very good start to the drivel.
Thing is, if energy cannot be created or destroyed then how did all that energy get here in the first place?
Excellent question. The universe appears to have a net sum of zero energy.
"Now is it pure stupidity to consider an incredible enormous and wise and ingenious creator behind all of this?" -
You have a poor understanding of the very thing you proposed.
The zeroth law states that if systems A and B are both in thermal equilibrium with system C, then system B would have to be in thermal equilibrium with system A. The first law is the law of the conservation of energy. The second law is the law of entropy in closed systems. And finally, the third law is the law of absolute zero. That said, lets concentrate on the second law for now: "In all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves a system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state."
The second law of thermodynamics does not state that a system will always lose order or stay the same, it actually says that … In any closed system, the entropy of the system will either remain constant or increase.
The key thing to understand here is the term “closed system”. If something, the second law state that in time, everything is going to "die".
In statistics and data analysis, causalation is the fallacy of claiming a cause and effect relationship when either, none exists, the evidence does not support such a claim.
Entropy
Strictly speaking, entropy is the logarithm of the multiplicity of states, or the degree of dispersion of energy in a system. It is expressed by the equation Entropy = kB lnΩ, where kB is Boltzmann's constant and Ω is the multiplicity of the states.
A more commonly given definition is "degree of disorder in the system," and hence the Second Law of Thermodynamics is often explained as "systems become increasingly disordered." From the definition above, this is equivalent to saying that a system will tend to transition from less probable to more probable sets of states.
You are trying to mix religion and science, it won't work. We are here due to a series or random events, no god(s). Get over it.
Ismael
This is the charm of life. What greatly delights me seems to be ”utter bollocks," facile drivel" to others, and vice versa. Ultimately both are happy.
Yet here things could have been bit different. It seems those who disagreed did not read the post. What I highlighted is that “humans have never come anywhere even closer to the majesty of things in the nature--equipments humans have so far designed are clumsy and rudimentary in comparison with the things in nature.” Unfortunately, no one has commented on the essence of the posting!
‘Can’t we see the forest rather than trees?’
Yet here things could have been bit different. It seems those who disagreed did not read the post.
Ignorance wrapped in arrogance, pretending to know what others did and did not do. Why is it those that have the humility and secret knowledge act, when you scratch the surface, are ALWAYS the least informed and most arrogant?
Unfortunately, no one has commented on the essence of the posting!
Many, including myself, did. That's the "facile drivel" part.
