Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evidence for Creation

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let's see it.

But... let's remember that just as a proposal which relies on fairies or gremlins is without credibility, any claim which relies upon beings which are asserted, yet devoid of objective evidence, is also devoid of credibility. Fairies are no more likely than Leprechauns, which are no more likely than gremlins, which are no more likely than God. There is no objective evidence for any of them. If you disagree, present your objective evidence.

Here is the point from which the intellectually honest must start.

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:25:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Let's see it.

But... let's remember that just as a proposal which relies on fairies or gremlins is without credibility, any claim which relies upon beings which are asserted, yet devoid of objective evidence, is also devoid of credibility. Fairies are no more likely than Leprechauns, which are no more likely than gremlins, which are no more likely than God. There is no objective evidence for any of them. If you disagree, present your objective evidence.

Here is the point from which the intellectually honest must start.

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".

This is answered with a straight forward conjunction argument.

1. Matter cannot be created or destroyed
2. Matter & energy exists
C. The matter & energy that exists was not created, and cannot be destroyed.

in the form of

1. A.B
2. A.C
3. A.B.C

That's literally the only conclusion I can see drawn from those 2 premises.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:37:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".

This is consistent with the existence of God. God's very nature as that of the creator dictates that there must be creation. We must recognize that a teacher is not a teacher without his or her students. A creator is no longer a creator if there is no creation; however, God, the teacher and creator, has always existed. Necessarily, the universe (rather, matter & energy) have always existed just as God has always existed.

Of course, this doesn't make too much sense when you think "Well, if God created the universe, then how could the universe always have existed?"

This presumes that time has always existed in the way that we understand it. There is currently a theory suggesting that time is an emergent property of quantum entanglement. Considering that God is supposed to be omnipresent, he should exist in and out of time. This would make sense. Only physical beings would be "trapped" by time (if this theory of quantum entanglement proves true), but God is not a physical being.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:46:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:37:05 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".

This is consistent with the existence of God. God's very nature as that of the creator dictates that there must be creation.
If there must be creation, then it is INconsistent with the existence of God. Since creation is not possible, there is nothing for a creator to do, and nothing for a creator to have done.

We must recognize that a teacher is not a teacher without his or her students. A creator is no longer a creator if there is no creation; however, God, the teacher and creator, has always existed. Necessarily, the universe (rather, matter & energy) have always existed just as God has always existed.
Well, if matter & energy have always existed, then what did "the creator" create?


Of course, this doesn't make too much sense when you think "Well, if God created the universe, then how could the universe always have existed?"
Bingo!

This presumes that time has always existed in the way that we understand it. There is currently a theory suggesting that time is an emergent property of quantum entanglement. Considering that God is supposed to be omnipresent, he should exist in and out of time. This would make sense. Only physical beings would be "trapped" by time (if this theory of quantum entanglement proves true), but God is not a physical being.
If the theory that time emerged from quantum entanglement, it says nothing for the existence of God. In fact, it leaves one to wonder how time could emerge from a process which is time-specific. The fundamental property of quantum entanglement (what Einstein called, "spooky action at a distance"), is the synchronicity behind the change in properties of two quantum particles, despite the distance between them. If you remove the temporal element, how is quantum entanglement then characterized? You can attempt to answer that if you wish. But the important question is...

How does that support the claim that a God (or "creator") exists?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:49:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Let's see it.

But... let's remember that just as a proposal which relies on fairies or gremlins is without credibility, any claim which relies upon beings which are asserted, yet devoid of objective evidence, is also devoid of credibility. Fairies are no more likely than Leprechauns, which are no more likely than gremlins, which are no more likely than God. There is no objective evidence for any of them. If you disagree, present your objective evidence.

Here is the point from which the intellectually honest must start.

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".

You must be terribly insecure if you can't discuss this in my thread, Beastt. Scared of being proved wrong again, are you?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:56:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Let's see it.

But... let's remember that just as a proposal which relies on fairies or gremlins is without credibility, any claim which relies upon beings which are asserted, yet devoid of objective evidence, is also devoid of credibility. Fairies are no more likely than Leprechauns, which are no more likely than gremlins, which are no more likely than God. There is no objective evidence for any of them. If you disagree, present your objective evidence.

Here is the point from which the intellectually honest must start.

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".

Response: You failed to provide any proof that matter/energy cannot be created. So your premise fails from the start.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:26:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:56:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Let's see it.

But... let's remember that just as a proposal which relies on fairies or gremlins is without credibility, any claim which relies upon beings which are asserted, yet devoid of objective evidence, is also devoid of credibility. Fairies are no more likely than Leprechauns, which are no more likely than gremlins, which are no more likely than God. There is no objective evidence for any of them. If you disagree, present your objective evidence.

Here is the point from which the intellectually honest must start.

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".

Response: You failed to provide any proof that matter/energy cannot be created. So your premise fails from the start.

Well, you certainly qualify for the comic relief in the forum. What the heck do you think the The First Law of Thermodynamics is, Silly? It's the law of physics which states that matter/energy can be neither created, nor destroyed. So you fail...

... again.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Toviyah
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:29:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Let's see it.

But... let's remember that just as a proposal which relies on fairies or gremlins is without credibility, any claim which relies upon beings which are asserted, yet devoid of objective evidence, is also devoid of credibility. Fairies are no more likely than Leprechauns, which are no more likely than gremlins, which are no more likely than God. There is no objective evidence for any of them. If you disagree, present your objective evidence.

Here is the point from which the intellectually honest must start.

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".
It's only true in a closed system, having already existed. In other words, it is certainly logically possible for matter/energy to be created sans a closed system (id est, pre-creation)
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:31:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:56:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Let's see it.

But... let's remember that just as a proposal which relies on fairies or gremlins is without credibility, any claim which relies upon beings which are asserted, yet devoid of objective evidence, is also devoid of credibility. Fairies are no more likely than Leprechauns, which are no more likely than gremlins, which are no more likely than God. There is no objective evidence for any of them. If you disagree, present your objective evidence.

Here is the point from which the intellectually honest must start.

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".

Response: You failed to provide any proof that matter/energy cannot be created. So your premise fails from the start.

You failed to read anything about physics. You will read it in more advance classes after u grow up . The first law of thermodynamics what does it say Fati. Read it before commenting
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:32:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:49:49 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Let's see it.

But... let's remember that just as a proposal which relies on fairies or gremlins is without credibility, any claim which relies upon beings which are asserted, yet devoid of objective evidence, is also devoid of credibility. Fairies are no more likely than Leprechauns, which are no more likely than gremlins, which are no more likely than God. There is no objective evidence for any of them. If you disagree, present your objective evidence.

Here is the point from which the intellectually honest must start.

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".

You must be terribly insecure if you can't discuss this in my thread, Beastt. Scared of being proved wrong again, are you?

Firstly, your thread claims (but doesn't deliver) "proof" of God. Secondly, how do you see a bunch of failed assertions, devoid of evidence to support them as "proof" of anything more than your ignorant desire to believe?

My thread is in regard to creation, not necessarily a creator, and not necessarily your version of the extra-cosmic sky-fairy who poofs things into existence by talking to himself.

I'm simply discussing things coming into existence, which did not formerly exist. Since this seems to be the premise of theism, it's appropriate for this forum. But since it makes no assertions about a God one way or the other, it's very much unlike your thread. I'm asking questions based on two pieces of evidence. You're making claims you can't support.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:39:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:29:57 PM, Toviyah wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Let's see it.

But... let's remember that just as a proposal which relies on fairies or gremlins is without credibility, any claim which relies upon beings which are asserted, yet devoid of objective evidence, is also devoid of credibility. Fairies are no more likely than Leprechauns, which are no more likely than gremlins, which are no more likely than God. There is no objective evidence for any of them. If you disagree, present your objective evidence.

Here is the point from which the intellectually honest must start.

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".
It's only true in a closed system, having already existed. In other words, it is certainly logically possible for matter/energy to be created sans a closed system (id est, pre-creation)

You seem to be suggesting an open system existing independently of the universe. Do you have any evidence to support such conjecture? And what evidence do you have to suggest that the properties of matter/energy only apply to a closed system? Earth is an open system (it obtains outside energy). Can you create matter/energy on Earth?

Tell me what properties of a pre-creation state would over-ride the known properties of matter/energy. You seem to be suggesting that the properties of non-creation/non-destruction are properties of the universe, and that without the universe, these properties would no longer apply. In what pre-creation state has this been shown to be logical, or possible, given that the laws of thermodynamics presents this as properties of matter/energy, rather than properties of closed systems.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:41:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:31:34 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:56:42 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Let's see it.

But... let's remember that just as a proposal which relies on fairies or gremlins is without credibility, any claim which relies upon beings which are asserted, yet devoid of objective evidence, is also devoid of credibility. Fairies are no more likely than Leprechauns, which are no more likely than gremlins, which are no more likely than God. There is no objective evidence for any of them. If you disagree, present your objective evidence.

Here is the point from which the intellectually honest must start.

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".

Response: You failed to provide any proof that matter/energy cannot be created. So your premise fails from the start.

You failed to read anything about physics. You will read it in more advance classes after u grow up . The first law of thermodynamics what does it say Fati. Read it before commenting

I usually agree with the things I've seen you write.
This time I have to object strenuously. Fatihah will NEVER grow up! I think that's rather obvious. It's what ALL of the evidence supports. Fthehhh!
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 5:28:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:26:50 PM, Beastt wrote:

Well, you certainly qualify for the comic relief in the forum. What the heck do you think the The First Law of Thermodynamics is, Silly? It's the law of physics which states that matter/energy can be neither created, nor destroyed. So you fail...



... again.

Response: Well, you certainly proved once again how stupid atheists are agnostics are on the forum. A specialty of your. A law stating that something is true is not proof that it is actually true, BRAINDEAD DUMMY. You have to prove the law, and you clearly cannot. Dummy.

Furthermore, we know the law is stupid because you have no observable evidence of non-life creating life STUPID. That alone proves that matter/energy is not uncreated, since neither is responsible for originating life.

As usual, another dumb, deluded, brainwashed atheist is exposed. Debunked as usual.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 5:30:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:31:34 PM, debateuser wrote:

You failed to read anything about physics. You will read it in more advance classes after u grow up . The first law of thermodynamics what does it say Fati. Read it before commenting

Response: the first law of physics has not been, nor has been, EVER proven. DUMMY. Nor do you have proof of it. Dummy. So you've as usual shown yourself to be a brainwashed dummy, for accepting something as true simple because "it says so". Debunked as usual.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 5:48:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Let's see it.

But... let's remember that just as a proposal which relies on fairies or gremlins is without credibility, any claim which relies upon beings which are asserted, yet devoid of objective evidence, is also devoid of credibility. Fairies are no more likely than Leprechauns, which are no more likely than gremlins, which are no more likely than God. There is no objective evidence for any of them. If you disagree, present your objective evidence.

Here is the point from which the intellectually honest must start.

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".

Why did you make that second limitation?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:03:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 5:48:44 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Let's see it.

But... let's remember that just as a proposal which relies on fairies or gremlins is without credibility, any claim which relies upon beings which are asserted, yet devoid of objective evidence, is also devoid of credibility. Fairies are no more likely than Leprechauns, which are no more likely than gremlins, which are no more likely than God. There is no objective evidence for any of them. If you disagree, present your objective evidence.

Here is the point from which the intellectually honest must start.

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".

Why did you make that second limitation?

I didn't "make" any limitations. I included pertinent evidence.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:04:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:03:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:48:44 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Let's see it.

But... let's remember that just as a proposal which relies on fairies or gremlins is without credibility, any claim which relies upon beings which are asserted, yet devoid of objective evidence, is also devoid of credibility. Fairies are no more likely than Leprechauns, which are no more likely than gremlins, which are no more likely than God. There is no objective evidence for any of them. If you disagree, present your objective evidence.

Here is the point from which the intellectually honest must start.

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".

Why did you make that second limitation?

I didn't "make" any limitations. I included pertinent evidence.

Pertinent evidence? Is what you said a reference to the first law of thermodynamics?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:07:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 5:30:50 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:31:34 PM, debateuser wrote:

You failed to read anything about physics. You will read it in more advance classes after u grow up . The first law of thermodynamics what does it say Fati. Read it before commenting

Response: the first law of physics has not been, nor has been, EVER proven. DUMMY.
Nothing in science is ever claimed to have been "proven". Science doesn't subscribe to the concept of "proof" just as you don't subscribe to the concept of knowledge. "Proof" is a fallacious concept. For you, knowledge is a fallacious concept.

Nor do you have proof of it.
No one has any "proof" of anything (aside from math and alcohol).

Dummy.
Get some new material, okay?

So you've as usual shown yourself to be a brainwashed dummy, for accepting something as true simple because "it says so". Debunked as usual.
A physical law is a statement always observed to be true. When you have evidence that it's untrue, notify the Nobel Prize academy.

Isn't it about time for you to poke your butt to the west and grovel for a few minutes?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:09:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:25:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is answered with a straight forward conjunction argument.

1. Matter cannot be created or destroyed
2. Matter & energy exists
C. The matter & energy that exists was not created, and cannot be destroyed.

in the form of

1. A.B
2. A.C
3. A.B.C

That's literally the only conclusion I can see drawn from those 2 premises.

The law which you are referring to is the first law of thermodynamics. This is a law of nature, and therefore, is a physical law that only applies within the arena of space time, but it doesn't apply to the origin of the arena itself.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:10:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Let's see it.

But... let's remember that just as a proposal which relies on fairies or gremlins is without credibility, any claim which relies upon beings which are asserted, yet devoid of objective evidence, is also devoid of credibility. Fairies are no more likely than Leprechauns, which are no more likely than gremlins, which are no more likely than God. There is no objective evidence for any of them. If you disagree, present your objective evidence.

Here is the point from which the intellectually honest must start.

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".

Please see what I just posted. I would feel dumb writing the exact same thing :P
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:12:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 5:28:55 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:26:50 PM, Beastt wrote:

Well, you certainly qualify for the comic relief in the forum. What the heck do you think the The First Law of Thermodynamics is, Silly? It's the law of physics which states that matter/energy can be neither created, nor destroyed. So you fail...



... again.

Response: Well, you certainly proved once again how stupid atheists are agnostics are on the forum. A specialty of your. A law stating that something is true is not proof that it is actually true, BRAINDEAD DUMMY. You have to prove the law, and you clearly cannot. Dummy.
No laws are ever "proved" as "proof" is a fallacious concept. Aside from maths and alcohol, proof doesn't exist, silly.

Furthermore, we know the law is stupid because you have no observable evidence of non-life creating life STUPID.
Uhm... yeah.
Except the First law of thermodynamics says absolutely nothing about abiogenesis, which is what you're referencing (non-life to life).

That alone proves that matter/energy is not uncreated, since neither is responsible for originating life.
I'm not sure what you're tripping on, but really... "Just say no". It has obviously, already destroyed what brain you had. We're not even talking about life here. Understand?

As usual, another dumb, deluded, brainwashed atheist is exposed. Debunked as usual.
Everytime you post, five Muslims deconvert in complete shame. No one can blame them.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:14:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:07:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:30:50 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:31:34 PM, debateuser wrote:

You failed to read anything about physics. You will read it in more advance classes after u grow up . The first law of thermodynamics what does it say Fati. Read it before commenting

Response: the first law of physics has not been, nor has been, EVER proven. DUMMY.
Nothing in science is ever claimed to have been "proven". Science doesn't subscribe to the concept of "proof" just as you don't subscribe to the concept of knowledge. "Proof" is a fallacious concept. For you, knowledge is a fallacious concept.

Nor do you have proof of it.
No one has any "proof" of anything (aside from math and alcohol).

Dummy.
Get some new material, okay?

So you've as usual shown yourself to be a brainwashed dummy, for accepting something as true simple because "it says so". Debunked as usual.
A physical law is a statement always observed to be true. When you have evidence that it's untrue, notify the Nobel Prize academy.

Isn't it about time for you to poke your butt to the west and grovel for a few minutes?

Response: Then if nothing in science is said to be proven, then you've just proven my argument that you have no proof that matter/energy was uncreated. The dummy exposes himself as usual.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:15:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:09:03 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:25:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is answered with a straight forward conjunction argument.

1. Matter cannot be created or destroyed
2. Matter & energy exists
C. The matter & energy that exists was not created, and cannot be destroyed.

in the form of

1. A.B
2. A.C
3. A.B.C

That's literally the only conclusion I can see drawn from those 2 premises.

The law which you are referring to is the first law of thermodynamics. This is a law of nature, and therefore, is a physical law that only applies within the arena of space time, but it doesn't apply to the origin of the arena itself.

No, you have no evidence that it doesn't apply outside of space-time. And in claiming that, you're suggesting the law to be a property of space-time, rather than a property of matter/energy. But it's a property of matter/energy, not of space-time. And you can't credibly state that anything about that property would change outside of space-time, since no such condition is known to exists. And if matter were to be created, it would have to be created within space-time, as matter has mass and is a part of nature, which also exists in space-time.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:16:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:04:45 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:03:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:48:44 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Let's see it.

But... let's remember that just as a proposal which relies on fairies or gremlins is without credibility, any claim which relies upon beings which are asserted, yet devoid of objective evidence, is also devoid of credibility. Fairies are no more likely than Leprechauns, which are no more likely than gremlins, which are no more likely than God. There is no objective evidence for any of them. If you disagree, present your objective evidence.

Here is the point from which the intellectually honest must start.

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".

Why did you make that second limitation?

I didn't "make" any limitations. I included pertinent evidence.

Pertinent evidence? Is what you said a reference to the first law of thermodynamics?

Yes it is.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:20:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:15:50 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:09:03 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:25:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is answered with a straight forward conjunction argument.

1. Matter cannot be created or destroyed
2. Matter & energy exists
C. The matter & energy that exists was not created, and cannot be destroyed.

in the form of

1. A.B
2. A.C
3. A.B.C

That's literally the only conclusion I can see drawn from those 2 premises.

The law which you are referring to is the first law of thermodynamics. This is a law of nature, and therefore, is a physical law that only applies within the arena of space time, but it doesn't apply to the origin of the arena itself.

No, you have no evidence that it doesn't apply outside of space-time. And in claiming that, you're suggesting the law to be a property of space-time, rather than a property of matter/energy. But it's a property of matter/energy, not of space-time. And you can't credibly state that anything about that property would change outside of space-time, since no such condition is known to exists. And if matter were to be created, it would have to be created within space-time, as matter has mass and is a part of nature, which also exists in space-time.

No evidence that it doesn't apply outside of space/time? Dude it's a natural law so by it's very definition it applies in the arena of space/time.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:26:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:16:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:04:45 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:03:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:48:44 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Let's see it.

But... let's remember that just as a proposal which relies on fairies or gremlins is without credibility, any claim which relies upon beings which are asserted, yet devoid of objective evidence, is also devoid of credibility. Fairies are no more likely than Leprechauns, which are no more likely than gremlins, which are no more likely than God. There is no objective evidence for any of them. If you disagree, present your objective evidence.

Here is the point from which the intellectually honest must start.

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".

Why did you make that second limitation?

I didn't "make" any limitations. I included pertinent evidence.

Pertinent evidence? Is what you said a reference to the first law of thermodynamics?

Yes it is.

Then you're just wrong. The first law of thermodynamics is not the statement that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. Rather, it is the statement that in a closed system matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is an important distinction. You are basically asserting the creation of the universe happened in a closed system, which is a limitation you have no grounds to place on others hypothesis of creation. Also, laws are not statements of fact, rather they are observations. From what we see, in a closed system matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is not a theory, this is a law. Does this hold true outside of our observation, no one knows. You're just asserting things you have no right to.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:26:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:20:34 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:15:50 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:09:03 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:25:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is answered with a straight forward conjunction argument.

1. Matter cannot be created or destroyed
2. Matter & energy exists
C. The matter & energy that exists was not created, and cannot be destroyed.

in the form of

1. A.B
2. A.C
3. A.B.C

That's literally the only conclusion I can see drawn from those 2 premises.

The law which you are referring to is the first law of thermodynamics. This is a law of nature, and therefore, is a physical law that only applies within the arena of space time, but it doesn't apply to the origin of the arena itself.

No, you have no evidence that it doesn't apply outside of space-time. And in claiming that, you're suggesting the law to be a property of space-time, rather than a property of matter/energy. But it's a property of matter/energy, not of space-time. And you can't credibly state that anything about that property would change outside of space-time, since no such condition is known to exists. And if matter were to be created, it would have to be created within space-time, as matter has mass and is a part of nature, which also exists in space-time.

No evidence that it doesn't apply outside of space/time? Dude it's a natural law so by it's very definition it applies in the arena of space/time.
I'm not arguing that it doesn't apply within space-time. It clearly does. But that doesn't automatically mean that it doesn't apply outside of space-time. But since matter has mass, it would have to be created within space-time, were we know the law DOES apply.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:31:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:26:30 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:16:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:04:45 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:03:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:48:44 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Let's see it.

But... let's remember that just as a proposal which relies on fairies or gremlins is without credibility, any claim which relies upon beings which are asserted, yet devoid of objective evidence, is also devoid of credibility. Fairies are no more likely than Leprechauns, which are no more likely than gremlins, which are no more likely than God. There is no objective evidence for any of them. If you disagree, present your objective evidence.

Here is the point from which the intellectually honest must start.

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".

Why did you make that second limitation?

I didn't "make" any limitations. I included pertinent evidence.

Pertinent evidence? Is what you said a reference to the first law of thermodynamics?

Yes it is.

Then you're just wrong. The first law of thermodynamics is not the statement that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. Rather, it is the statement that in a closed system matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is an important distinction. You are basically asserting the creation of the universe happened in a closed system, which is a limitation you have no grounds to place on others hypothesis of creation. Also, laws are not statements of fact, rather they are observations. From what we see, in a closed system matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is not a theory, this is a law. Does this hold true outside of our observation, no one knows. You're just asserting things you have no right to.

Now take that high-powered intellect and focus. Are you trying to suggest that matter/energy was created outside of space-time, and then inserted into space-time as it formed? Or did you over-look the fact that matter has mass and requires space?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:45:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:31:26 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:26:30 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:16:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:04:45 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:03:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:48:44 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:22:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
Let's see it.

But... let's remember that just as a proposal which relies on fairies or gremlins is without credibility, any claim which relies upon beings which are asserted, yet devoid of objective evidence, is also devoid of credibility. Fairies are no more likely than Leprechauns, which are no more likely than gremlins, which are no more likely than God. There is no objective evidence for any of them. If you disagree, present your objective evidence.

Here is the point from which the intellectually honest must start.

1. Matter/energy exists
2. Two properties of matter/energy is that it can transition from one state to the other, (E=MC^2) but neither can be created, nor can they be destroyed.

Keeping those premises in mind, provide your evidence that the universe was "created".

Why did you make that second limitation?

I didn't "make" any limitations. I included pertinent evidence.

Pertinent evidence? Is what you said a reference to the first law of thermodynamics?

Yes it is.

Then you're just wrong. The first law of thermodynamics is not the statement that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. Rather, it is the statement that in a closed system matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is an important distinction. You are basically asserting the creation of the universe happened in a closed system, which is a limitation you have no grounds to place on others hypothesis of creation. Also, laws are not statements of fact, rather they are observations. From what we see, in a closed system matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is not a theory, this is a law. Does this hold true outside of our observation, no one knows. You're just asserting things you have no right to.

Now take that high-powered intellect and focus. Are you trying to suggest that matter/energy was created outside of space-time, and then inserted into space-time as it formed?

I'm not asserting any such thing. I'm a naturalist, and an atheist.

Or did you over-look the fact that matter has mass and requires space?

Well, matter is given mass by interaction with the higgs field. So, without the higgs field matter wouldn't have any mass. But I see no reason why matter requires space. I mean, I don't understand the concept of matter without space, but that doesn't make it impossible. And I've never seen matter without space, but I've also never seen a lack of space, have you? Matter, in alot of cases, is defined by its occupation of space, but that's just because that's one of the qualities it holds in our universe. Can you tell me why matter requires space? Maybe matter requires space because for matter to exist, it must reside in space. But is residence in space a requirement for existence? I guess it might be, so maybe space is a requirement for existence. But, I don't know, and I doubt you do either.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:49:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:09:03 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:25:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is answered with a straight forward conjunction argument.

1. Matter cannot be created or destroyed
2. Matter & energy exists
C. The matter & energy that exists was not created, and cannot be destroyed.

in the form of

1. A.B
2. A.C
3. A.B.C

That's literally the only conclusion I can see drawn from those 2 premises.

The law which you are referring to is the first law of thermodynamics. This is a law of nature, and therefore, is a physical law that only applies within the arena of space time, but it doesn't apply to the origin of the arena itself.

True. The same applies to our notions of causality and explanations of events.

Then again it appears that there is a perfectly good possible explanation for energy, notable that there is net zero energy in the universe.