Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Begining or Eternal

ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2016 8:52:04 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I would limit this discussion to atheists with scientific credentials, but I realize there are none on this website.

So, if you are an atheist that likes to pretend they are a scientist, tell me, is the universe eternal in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo or did it have a naturalistic beginning from nothing in violation of the 1st Law of Thermo?
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 12:26:21 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 8:52:04 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
I would limit this discussion to atheists with scientific credentials, but I realize there are none on this website.

So, if you are an atheist that likes to pretend they are a scientist, tell me, is the universe eternal in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo or did it have a naturalistic beginning from nothing in violation of the 1st Law of Thermo?

The laws of thermodynamics apply within the universe. It is a fallacy (the fallacy of composition) to apply them to the universe itself.
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 12:35:07 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 12:26:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/21/2016 8:52:04 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
I would limit this discussion to atheists with scientific credentials, but I realize there are none on this website.

So, if you are an atheist that likes to pretend they are a scientist, tell me, is the universe eternal in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo or did it have a naturalistic beginning from nothing in violation of the 1st Law of Thermo?

The laws of thermodynamics apply within the universe. It is a fallacy (the fallacy of composition) to apply them to the universe itself.

Good grief. The universe is merely the collection of all material things. There is no within or without. Category error.

Indeed, there is nothing outside of the universe, by definition. So how does this moron know anything about the universe without? Atheist anti-science mysticism rears its ugly head against science/reality once again.

Stop pretending to be rational. If you cannot answer the question, shut up.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 12:45:32 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 12:35:07 AM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/22/2016 12:26:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/21/2016 8:52:04 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
I would limit this discussion to atheists with scientific credentials, but I realize there are none on this website.

So, if you are an atheist that likes to pretend they are a scientist, tell me, is the universe eternal in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo or did it have a naturalistic beginning from nothing in violation of the 1st Law of Thermo?

The laws of thermodynamics apply within the universe. It is a fallacy (the fallacy of composition) to apply them to the universe itself.

Good grief. The universe is merely the collection of all material things. There is no within or without. Category error.

There is definitely a within, but good point about the without. Therefore the premise of your second option is flawed and therefore meaningless. Right?

Indeed, there is nothing outside of the universe, by definition.

Which rules out a beginning I would say.

So how does this moron know anything about the universe without?

I don't. The moron who assumed a "without" in his second option wrote the OP.

Atheist anti-science mysticism rears its ugly head against science/reality once again.

The only anti-science I have seen has come from you.

Stop pretending to be rational. If you cannot answer the question, shut up.

I have answered your question. It is based on the fallacy of composition and therefore is nonsense. Anything else?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 7:01:32 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 8:52:04 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
I would limit this discussion to atheists with scientific credentials, but I realize there are none on this website.

Implying you have scientific credentials.

So, if you are an atheist that likes to pretend they are a scientist, tell me, is the universe eternal in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo or did it have a naturalistic beginning from nothing in violation of the 1st Law of Thermo?

1) How many laws of thermodynamics are there?
2) What do you think they say?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 7:32:53 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 7:01:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/21/2016 8:52:04 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
I would limit this discussion to atheists with scientific credentials, but I realize there are none on this website.

Implying you have scientific credentials.

So, if you are an atheist that likes to pretend they are a scientist, tell me, is the universe eternal in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo or did it have a naturalistic beginning from nothing in violation of the 1st Law of Thermo?

1) How many laws of thermodynamics are there?
2) What do you think they say?

And here we have another ignorant and irrational atheist mystic who must introduce red herrings to avoid dealing with the unscientific claims of the atheist. I love watching these fools run.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 7:34:56 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 8:52:04 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
I would limit this discussion to atheists with scientific credentials, but I realize there are none on this website.

So, if you are an atheist that likes to pretend they are a scientist, tell me, is the universe eternal in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo or did it have a naturalistic beginning from nothing in violation of the 1st Law of Thermo?

Apparently you haven't been on the site for very long...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 7:40:10 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 7:32:53 AM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/22/2016 7:01:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/21/2016 8:52:04 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
I would limit this discussion to atheists with scientific credentials, but I realize there are none on this website.

Implying you have scientific credentials.

So, if you are an atheist that likes to pretend they are a scientist, tell me, is the universe eternal in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo or did it have a naturalistic beginning from nothing in violation of the 1st Law of Thermo?

1) How many laws of thermodynamics are there?
2) What do you think they say?

And here we have another ignorant and irrational atheist mystic who must introduce red herrings to avoid dealing with the unscientific claims of the atheist. I love watching these fools run.

Let me be straight with you. Neither of these laws imply anything you said. But if you want to understand thermodynamics, I will to do my best to explain it. To do that I need to see what you think the laws of thermodynamics are and where you went wrong.
You made claims about the first and second law and I was asking you to explain why you think thse laws imply what you think they do. That is not a red herring.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
MagicAintReal
Posts: 590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 11:15:17 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
I would limit this discussion to atheists with scientific credentials, but I realize there are none on this website.

What a baseless, empty statement.
I think you got stupider by writing it, scmike2, I mean ViceRegent.

So, if you are an atheist that likes to pretend they are a scientist, tell me, is the universe eternal in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo or did it have a naturalistic beginning from nothing in violation of the 1st Law of Thermo?

1. I'm not pretending.
2. The laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems, so *if* the universe is an open system, none of this would apply.

But that's not good enough.

3. As far as all evidence indicates, the space in our universe is exponentially expanding thanks to the Hubble constant and the Cosmological constant, and this is happening to space itself, not matter or energy, so the 2nd law isn't necessarily violated even *if* the universe is a closed system, because once all the stars burn out, space can keep expanding, at least, there's nothing necessarily holding back the cosmological constant.

4. The universe did have a naturalistic beginning from nothing, and this doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics, *if* the universe is a closed system, because the nothing state, when there was no universe, is actually a zero energy state with incomplete virtual particles popping in and out of existence, quantum fluctuations, with time, space, gravity, and energy fluctuating alongside those virtual particles, which, without stative space, cannot produce stative energy.
But, this state is unstable, such that if one of those particles can avoid annihilation, the particle can remain stative, which allows for stative space, but the stative space would be the size of one of those particles, before space expanded, so the energy from one of those stative particles that takes up the entirety of space, would be like the massive energy if there were matter that took up our entire current universe...the proportion of stative matter to stative space was massively energetic.

Thanks to the zero energy state's instability and quantum fluctuations, energy is guaranteed from zero energy, and there is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics, because matter wasn't created, it was a result of instability.

I'll expand, pun intended, on this if you ask.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 11:27:00 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/21/2016 8:52:04 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Is the universe eternal in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo or did it have a naturalistic beginning from nothing in violation of the 1st Law of Thermo?

What is a law of physics, and how is it known when and how it applies?
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 12:20:47 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 11:15:17 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
I would limit this discussion to atheists with scientific credentials, but I realize there are none on this website.

What a baseless, empty statement.
I think you got stupider by writing it, scmike2, I mean ViceRegent.

So, if you are an atheist that likes to pretend they are a scientist, tell me, is the universe eternal in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo or did it have a naturalistic beginning from nothing in violation of the 1st Law of Thermo?

1. I'm not pretending.
2. The laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems, so *if* the universe is an open system, none of this would apply.

Apparently you are pretending given your answer. First of all, the notion of a closed verses open system applies ONLY to the 2nd Law. It has nothing to do with the first. Second, the universe, being composed of all physical matter, is a closed system, by definition. Wow. we just schooled this dude in Science 101.

This fool continues to spout ignorance when he states the following:

3. As far as all evidence indicates, the space in our universe is exponentially expanding thanks to the Hubble constant and the Cosmological constant, and this is happening to space itself, not matter or energy, so the 2nd law isn't necessarily violated even *if* the universe is a closed system, because once all the stars burn out, space can keep expanding, at least, there's nothing necessarily holding back the cosmological constant.

The Laws of Thermodynamics do not concern themselves with the volume of the universe, making this claim irrelevant.

Having spoken science fictions, he finally turns to atheist mysticism with the following claim.

4. The universe did have a naturalistic beginning from nothing, and this doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics, *if* the universe is a closed system, because the nothing state, when there was no universe, is actually a zero energy state with incomplete virtual particles popping in and out of existence, quantum fluctuations, with time, space, gravity, and energy fluctuating alongside those virtual particles, which, without stative space, cannot produce stative energy.
But, this state is unstable, such that if one of those particles can avoid annihilation, the particle can remain stative, which allows for stative space, but the stative space would be the size of one of those particles, before space expanded, so the energy from one of those stative particles that takes up the entirety of space, would be like the massive energy if there were matter that took up our entire current universe...the proportion of stative matter to stative space was massively energetic.

Thanks to the zero energy state's instability and quantum fluctuations, energy is guaranteed from zero energy, and there is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics, because matter wasn't created, it was a result of instability.

We know this atheism mysticism for there is nothing here that has been observed, tested and repeated. Indeed, to go from zero energy to E>0 would violate the First Law.

Atheist mysticism = 0 / Science 1.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 1:01:30 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 12:20:47 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/22/2016 11:15:17 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
I would limit this discussion to atheists with scientific credentials, but I realize there are none on this website.

What a baseless, empty statement.
I think you got stupider by writing it, scmike2, I mean ViceRegent.

So, if you are an atheist that likes to pretend they are a scientist, tell me, is the universe eternal in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo or did it have a naturalistic beginning from nothing in violation of the 1st Law of Thermo?

1. I'm not pretending.
2. The laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems, so *if* the universe is an open system, none of this would apply.

Apparently you are pretending given your answer. First of all, the notion of a closed verses open system applies ONLY to the 2nd Law. It has nothing to do with the first.

Wrong. Both only apply to ISOLATED systems.

Second, the universe, being composed of all physical matter, is a closed system, by definition.

We don't know that. Definitions don't make things true and apart from that and the fist law most definitely does not apply to the universe as a whole, because a expanding universe looses energy, yes energy, not just energy density.

3. As far as all evidence indicates, the space in our universe is exponentially expanding thanks to the Hubble constant and the Cosmological constant, and this is happening to space itself, not matter or energy, so the 2nd law isn't necessarily violated even *if* the universe is a closed system, because once all the stars burn out, space can keep expanding, at least, there's nothing necessarily holding back the cosmological constant.

The Laws of Thermodynamics do not concern themselves with the volume of the universe, making this claim irrelevant.

Of course they do. One of the most basic functions in thermodynamics is volume.
That's precisely what p*dV stands for in the 1. law.

4. The universe did have a naturalistic beginning from nothing, and this doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics, *if* the universe is a closed system, because the nothing state, when there was no universe, is actually a zero energy state with incomplete virtual particles popping in and out of existence, quantum fluctuations, with time, space, gravity, and energy fluctuating alongside those virtual particles, which, without stative space, cannot produce stative energy.
But, this state is unstable, such that if one of those particles can avoid annihilation, the particle can remain stative, which allows for stative space, but the stative space would be the size of one of those particles, before space expanded, so the energy from one of those stative particles that takes up the entirety of space, would be like the massive energy if there were matter that took up our entire current universe...the proportion of stative matter to stative space was massively energetic.

Thanks to the zero energy state's instability and quantum fluctuations, energy is guaranteed from zero energy, and there is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics, because matter wasn't created, it was a result of instability.

We know this atheism mysticism for there is nothing here that has been observed, tested and repeated. Indeed, to go from zero energy to E>0 would violate the First Law.

Atheist mysticism = 0 / Science 1.

Sure, if you ignore MAR's explanation entirely. If you have no universe, you can't have a system, because a thermodynamic system is some macroscopic part of the universe and by extension, the universe itself. As such thermodynamics is not applicable here.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 1:06:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Of course they do. One of the most basic functions in thermodynamics is volume.
That's precisely what p*dV stands for in the 1. law.

Or pressure-volume work to be precise.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
MagicAintReal
Posts: 590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 1:35:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 1:01:30 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/22/2016 12:20:47 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/22/2016 11:15:17 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
I would limit this discussion to atheists with scientific credentials, but I realize there are none on this website.

What a baseless, empty statement.
I think you got stupider by writing it, scmike2, I mean ViceRegent.

So, if you are an atheist that likes to pretend they are a scientist, tell me, is the universe eternal in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo or did it have a naturalistic beginning from nothing in violation of the 1st Law of Thermo?

1. I'm not pretending.
2. The laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems, so *if* the universe is an open system, none of this would apply.

Apparently you are pretending given your answer. First of all, the notion of a closed verses open system applies ONLY to the 2nd Law. It has nothing to do with the first.

Wrong. Both only apply to ISOLATED systems.

Second, the universe, being composed of all physical matter, is a closed system, by definition.

We don't know that. Definitions don't make things true and apart from that and the fist law most definitely does not apply to the universe as a whole, because a expanding universe looses energy, yes energy, not just energy density.

3. As far as all evidence indicates, the space in our universe is exponentially expanding thanks to the Hubble constant and the Cosmological constant, and this is happening to space itself, not matter or energy, so the 2nd law isn't necessarily violated even *if* the universe is a closed system, because once all the stars burn out, space can keep expanding, at least, there's nothing necessarily holding back the cosmological constant.

The Laws of Thermodynamics do not concern themselves with the volume of the universe, making this claim irrelevant.

Of course they do. One of the most basic functions in thermodynamics is volume.
That's precisely what p*dV stands for in the 1. law.

4. The universe did have a naturalistic beginning from nothing, and this doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics, *if* the universe is a closed system, because the nothing state, when there was no universe, is actually a zero energy state with incomplete virtual particles popping in and out of existence, quantum fluctuations, with time, space, gravity, and energy fluctuating alongside those virtual particles, which, without stative space, cannot produce stative energy.
But, this state is unstable, such that if one of those particles can avoid annihilation, the particle can remain stative, which allows for stative space, but the stative space would be the size of one of those particles, before space expanded, so the energy from one of those stative particles that takes up the entirety of space, would be like the massive energy if there were matter that took up our entire current universe...the proportion of stative matter to stative space was massively energetic.

Thanks to the zero energy state's instability and quantum fluctuations, energy is guaranteed from zero energy, and there is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics, because matter wasn't created, it was a result of instability.

We know this atheism mysticism for there is nothing here that has been observed, tested and repeated. Indeed, to go from zero energy to E>0 would violate the First Law.

Atheist mysticism = 0 / Science 1.

Sure, if you ignore MAR's explanation entirely. If you have no universe, you can't have a system, because a thermodynamic system is some macroscopic part of the universe and by extension, the universe itself. As such thermodynamics is not applicable here.

Nicely put, thanks Fkkize, that's exactly what I was going to say, and you said, it...scmike 2, I mean ViceRegent is very ignorant to things against his beliefs.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 1:40:28 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 1:35:23 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Nicely put, thanks Fkkize, that's exactly what I was going to say, and you said, it...scmike 2, I mean ViceRegent is very ignorant to things against his beliefs.

Fkkize, atheist and mystic, at your service.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 1:54:33 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 1:35:23 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
At 5/22/2016 1:01:30 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/22/2016 12:20:47 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/22/2016 11:15:17 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
I would limit this discussion to atheists with scientific credentials, but I realize there are none on this website.

What a baseless, empty statement.
I think you got stupider by writing it, scmike2, I mean ViceRegent.

So, if you are an atheist that likes to pretend they are a scientist, tell me, is the universe eternal in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo or did it have a naturalistic beginning from nothing in violation of the 1st Law of Thermo?

1. I'm not pretending.
2. The laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems, so *if* the universe is an open system, none of this would apply.

Apparently you are pretending given your answer. First of all, the notion of a closed verses open system applies ONLY to the 2nd Law. It has nothing to do with the first.

Wrong. Both only apply to ISOLATED systems.

Second, the universe, being composed of all physical matter, is a closed system, by definition.

We don't know that. Definitions don't make things true and apart from that and the fist law most definitely does not apply to the universe as a whole, because a expanding universe looses energy, yes energy, not just energy density.

3. As far as all evidence indicates, the space in our universe is exponentially expanding thanks to the Hubble constant and the Cosmological constant, and this is happening to space itself, not matter or energy, so the 2nd law isn't necessarily violated even *if* the universe is a closed system, because once all the stars burn out, space can keep expanding, at least, there's nothing necessarily holding back the cosmological constant.

The Laws of Thermodynamics do not concern themselves with the volume of the universe, making this claim irrelevant.

Of course they do. One of the most basic functions in thermodynamics is volume.
That's precisely what p*dV stands for in the 1. law.

4. The universe did have a naturalistic beginning from nothing, and this doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics, *if* the universe is a closed system, because the nothing state, when there was no universe, is actually a zero energy state with incomplete virtual particles popping in and out of existence, quantum fluctuations, with time, space, gravity, and energy fluctuating alongside those virtual particles, which, without stative space, cannot produce stative energy.
But, this state is unstable, such that if one of those particles can avoid annihilation, the particle can remain stative, which allows for stative space, but the stative space would be the size of one of those particles, before space expanded, so the energy from one of those stative particles that takes up the entirety of space, would be like the massive energy if there were matter that took up our entire current universe...the proportion of stative matter to stative space was massively energetic.

Thanks to the zero energy state's instability and quantum fluctuations, energy is guaranteed from zero energy, and there is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics, because matter wasn't created, it was a result of instability.

We know this atheism mysticism for there is nothing here that has been observed, tested and repeated. Indeed, to go from zero energy to E>0 would violate the First Law.

Atheist mysticism = 0 / Science 1.

Sure, if you ignore MAR's explanation entirely. If you have no universe, you can't have a system, because a thermodynamic system is some macroscopic part of the universe and by extension, the universe itself. As such thermodynamics is not applicable here.

Nicely put, thanks Fkkize, that's exactly what I was going to say, and you said, it...scmike 2, I mean ViceRegent is very ignorant to things against his beliefs.

Well, since this moron has adopted the other moron's response, as his own, I shall respond to the other moron:

The other moron claims that physical matter can exist outside of the universe, but given that the definition of universe is all physical matter, any physical matter outside of the universe would be part of the universe, making it simply not possible for the universe to be an open system. Indeed, if these morons were right, there would be no such thing as the Laws of Thermo because matter and energy can pop into existence anywhere and anytime, meaning no isolated systems can exist. And yet the Laws do exist and function well. Of course, the first thing a mystic does is change the definition of scientific words. Since the universe is closed, by definition, all of the Laws of Thermo apply therein.

The other moron than claims that since the formula for work includes a variable for volume, my point about the expanding universe being irrelevant to the application of the first and second law is wrong. But here he is being obtuse. The issue is the whether of not an expanding universe can impact the creation of energy or matter. The first law says no, and that no matter how work is defined. Focus, morons.

The other moron then appoints MAR as the expert on this topic and that his mystical explanation settles the matter. Well, no. Mystics need to rely on high priests, but scientists rely on observation, testability and repeatability. Indeed, this other moron confirms he is anti-science when he claims that his position is acceptable since science does not apply to this question. I will stick with science, for its laws are clear, matter and energy cannot be created.
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 1:56:29 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
It is really simple for these morons to prove me wrong. Set up an experiment where you create matter and/or energy from nothing. I know a good number of power companies that would love to hear from you when do. Until they do, they are blowing mystic hot air.
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 1:58:52 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I would imagine that these atheist mystic will soon be selling snake oil and perpetual motion machines. LOL
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 2:30:14 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 1:54:33 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Well, since this moron has adopted the other moron's response, as his own, I shall respond to the other moron:

Well, you didn't.

The other moron claims that physical matter can exist outside of the universe, but given that the definition of universe is all physical matter, any physical matter outside of the universe would be part of the universe, making it simply not possible for the universe to be an open system.

First of all you can define things however you want, but making the universe just whatever exists doesn't make it so, we don't know that, it is what we presume to be the entirety of existence and secondly, that is not what I have said. I never said the universe is an open system, I said it's most likely not an isolated system.

Indeed, if these morons were right, there would be no such thing as the Laws of Thermo because matter and energy can pop into existence anywhere and anytime,

Well, that is exactly what happens. Particles and antiparticles pop in and out of existence all the time. The laws of thermodynamics are concerned with macrsoscopic properties, not microscopic ones.

meaning no isolated systems can exist.

Well, they don't.
That's one of the first things you are told when studying thermodynamics. We just have approximately isolated systems, for example when external influences are so negligable that for all intents and purposes we are dealing with an isolated system. A thermos jug can be regarded as an isolated system for a short duration. That however doesn't make it a an isolated system proper.

And yet the Laws do exist and function well.
For macroscopic systems, yes.

Of course, the first thing a mystic does is change the definition of scientific words. Since the universe is closed, by definition,
Demonstrating you have never studied thermodynamics. This being mere conjecture is what any student is told right from the beginning.

all of the Laws of Thermo apply therein.
If you haven't noticed, the keyword is "therin". If there was no universe, there was on inside of the universe for these laws to apply to.

The other moron than claims that since the formula for work includes a variable for volume, my point about the expanding universe being irrelevant to the application of the first and second law is wrong.

Not just the pressure-work formula, the first law of thermodynamics (and the second one with some maths).

But here he is being obtuse. The issue is the whether of not an expanding universe can impact the creation of energy or matter. The first law says no, and that no matter how work is defined. Focus, morons.
You again, completely miss the point. Being 1) that (molar) volume is, contrary to your claims, a state function in basic phenomenological thermodynamics and 2) that a expanding universe, increasing in volume that is, looses energy. The first law of thermodynamics does not apply here.

The other moron then appoints MAR as the expert on this topic and that his mystical explanation settles the matter.

How fortunate that you are an expert on thermodynamics without the most basic understning of it.

Well, no. Mystics need to rely on high priests, but scientists rely on observation, testability and repeatability. Indeed, this other moron confirms he is anti-science when he claims that his position is acceptable since science does not apply to this question. I will stick with science, for its laws are clear, matter and energy cannot be created.

Sure lol, you stick to science, except when the people who study it point out you are wrong.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 2:45:20 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Notice no experiment creating energy and matter. Mystics are long on hot air, short on results. I will wait patiently for these fools to demonstrate the truth of their claims scientifically. Until then, they are anti-science mystics.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 2:54:24 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 2:45:20 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Notice no experiment creating energy and matter. Mystics are long on hot air, short on results. I will wait patiently for these fools to demonstrate the truth of their claims scientifically. Until then, they are anti-science mystics.

Dude, particle-antiparticle pair production is well documented. When you are talking about microscopic scales then thermodynamics is not your way to go, quantum mechanics is, because as I said, thermodynamics deals with macroscopic systems, not microscopic ones and anything related to the origin of the universe is most certainly microscopic.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 2:57:36 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 2:54:24 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/22/2016 2:45:20 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Notice no experiment creating energy and matter. Mystics are long on hot air, short on results. I will wait patiently for these fools to demonstrate the truth of their claims scientifically. Until then, they are anti-science mystics.

Dude, particle-antiparticle pair production is well documented. When you are talking about microscopic scales then thermodynamics is not your way to go, quantum mechanics is, because as I said, thermodynamics deals with macroscopic systems, not microscopic ones and anything related to the origin of the universe is most certainly microscopic.

Still no experiments or other scientific data, just atheist mysticism. Until they produce something scientific, I will let these morons go. Anyone else?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 3:01:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 2:57:36 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/22/2016 2:54:24 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/22/2016 2:45:20 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Notice no experiment creating energy and matter. Mystics are long on hot air, short on results. I will wait patiently for these fools to demonstrate the truth of their claims scientifically. Until then, they are anti-science mystics.

Dude, particle-antiparticle pair production is well documented. When you are talking about microscopic scales then thermodynamics is not your way to go, quantum mechanics is, because as I said, thermodynamics deals with macroscopic systems, not microscopic ones and anything related to the origin of the universe is most certainly microscopic.

Still no experiments or other scientific data, just atheist mysticism. Until they produce something scientific, I will let these morons go. Anyone else?

Since you are apparently unable to use a search engine, I'll help you out on this one.
http://www.sciencedirect.com...
It's well documented.
But since you dropped all my points I'll take this as a concession.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 3:05:57 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Did this moron just cite an article where preexisting matter/energy was transformed into another form of matter/energy to "prove" the creation of matter/energy out of nothing?

ROFL The mystic sees darkly even in the brightest light.
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 3:08:19 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
But at least this moronic mystic admits his knowledge does not come from science but Google. Can you imagine how idiotic atheists would sound if Google did not exist?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 3:13:43 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 3:05:57 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Did this moron just cite an article where preexisting matter/energy was transformed into another form of matter/energy to "prove" the creation of matter/energy out of nothing?

ROFL The mystic sees darkly even in the brightest light.

Well I won't waste any more time explaining stuff to you. Come back to me should you ever have an argument.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 3:15:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
What did this moron just say:

"But since you dropped all my points I'll take this as a concession."

This moron has conceded by his own standard. I love exposing atheist mystics.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 12:43:11 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 11:27:00 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/21/2016 8:52:04 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Is the universe eternal in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo or did it have a naturalistic beginning from nothing in violation of the 1st Law of Thermo?

What is a law of physics, and how is it known when and how it applies?
Is a member credible who cannot explain what a law of physics is, or how science understands and validates it, yet wants to appeal to it for authority?

Can a member without the courage to be accountable for his knowledge and ignorance the right to call any other member a fool?

Can a member be respected who cannot argue respectfully but must run his own commentary on how well he is doing, rather than leaving that to the reader to decide?