Yes or No. Is the universe 12,000 years old? Dont hide behind your bible. No but

[Emsworth]

The 1st and 2nd Laws relate to the natural forces, not supernatural

The distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" phenomena is utterly arbitrary. On what objective basis can you claim that some events are more "natural" than others?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Pretty much the only difference between someone with an undergraduate degree and someone with a graduate degree is that the latter person has done some form of research or study that led to a thesis or a dissertation, which uncovered some heretofore unknown fact.  Additionally, the latter person will likely have studied some topic to a larger depth than the coverage topics receive in an undergraduate program.

Anyone with an undergraduate degree in physics can be reasonably expected to have learned all or at least nearly all of the knowledge available with regards to general physics, including electricity and magnetism, quantum mechanics, and general relativity.

Remember this info: 

1)  In the real world, a degree doesn't mean a person is right.  In fact, most people learn just enough in college to be dangerous.

2) Don't ever let someone's credentials keep you from questioning their "facts".  Don't ever back down simply because someone has the "better" credentials.

---

His use of gravity as a means to supposedly decrease entropy is a second semester physics problem and is quite trivial.  My answer was concise and correct.

I appeal to MUON2.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This should answer jmfcst's argument.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#EBC

[riceowl]

Which one?

Who ever said it was 12,000 years old?

That one?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This should answer jmfcst's argument.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#EBC

That section is out of date....they no longer believe in the possiblility of the "Big Crunch"

[John Dibble]

This should answer jmfcst's argument.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#EBC

That section is out of date....they no longer believe in the possiblility of the "Big Crunch"

Actually, it hasn't been entirely ruled out.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This should answer jmfcst's argument.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#EBC

That section is out of date....they no longer believe in the possiblility of the "Big Crunch"

While they think it won't apply to our universe, it could apply to some other universe with the same laws of physics.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This should answer jmfcst's argument.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#EBC

That section is out of date....they no longer believe in the possiblility of the "Big Crunch"

Actually, it hasn't been entirely ruled out.

Very well....In any case, his link reaffirms my stance: "The final entropy of the Universe as it approaches the Big Crunch singularity would be larger than the initial entropy of the Universe because of the heat added by nuclear fusion in stars, so a recollapse does not involve a decrease in entropy."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This should answer jmfcst's argument.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#EBC

That section is out of date....they no longer believe in the possiblility of the "Big Crunch"

Actually, it hasn't been entirely ruled out.

Very well....In any case, his link reaffirms my stance: "The final entropy of the Universe as it approaches the Big Crunch singularity would be larger than the initial entropy of the Universe because of the heat added by nuclear fusion in stars, so a recollapse does not involve a decrease in entropy."

The question is what happens at that singularity.

[Gabu]

Remember this info: 

1)  In the real world, a degree doesn't mean a person is right.  In fact, most people learn just enough in college to be dangerous.

2) Don't ever let someone's credentials keep you from questioning their "facts".  Don't ever back down simply because someone has the "better" credentials.

---

His use of gravity as a means to supposedly decrease entropy is a second semester physics problem and is quite trivial.  My answer was concise and correct.

I appeal to MUON2.

The fact that a person has a degree does not mean that the person is correct about something in the person's field of study, but it does make the person more likely to be correct, given that the person has spent four years of his life devoted to the subject.

How much time have you spent studying physics, and what gives you such total confidence that your answer was correct.  I simply find it kind of strange that someone who, to my knowledge, is more into theology than science, is now claiming to be a master of physics.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The fact that a person has a degree does not mean that the person is correct about something in the person's field of study, but it does make the person more likely to be correct, given that the person has spent four years of his life devoted to the subject.

How much time have you spent studying physics, and what gives you such total confidence that your answer was correct.  I simply find it kind of strange that someone who, to my knowledge, is more into theology than science, is now claiming to be a master of physics.

This “gravity” problem does not require a masters in physics.  And problem solving skills are not limited to science, though I do have a degree in EE.  Thermo is the study of the flow of energy, if you can keep track of the energy flow, you can pass thermo.  This guy lost track of the flow of energy.

You can't decrease entropy (increase usable energy) by the attritional force of gravity.  Anyone who has worked a problem converting potential energy into kinetic energy has enough knowledge to debunk his argument.  He has not deceased entropy at all, in the best case, it has remained constant.

If this were a cloud of gas, then the solution becomes more obvious since the collapsing gas would start to heat and thus start to radiate energy into space.  Since it is losing energy in the form of heat radiation, its amount of usable energy is decreasing.

Did the space shuttle Columbia increase its usable energy when it fell to earth?  No, rather it transferred kinetic energy (its orbital velocity) into heat when it burned up.  As its kinetic energy was transferred into heat, the spacecraft’s speed decreased.  In the end, the shuttle/earth closed system used up (increased entropy) its kinetic energy by the heat it produced while the shuttle experienced the friction of the earth’s atmosphere.

[nlm]

Hehehehe - as if, the mind of fundamentalists is a closed system.

Well it is true that it is impossible for external forces to act on it.

Sing it brother.

[MissCatholic]

this thread is still going...i thought nobody liked me or read any of my posts.

[??????????]

NLM,

It would appear that JMF actually has more of an open mind then yourself. He believes and is willing to believe in supernatural forces that cannot be seen by any human eye. He believes in spiritual forces beyond what can be explained by science. To me, a person who believes that way is the one that actually has an open mind because he's keeping his mind open to the possibility of such things existing.

You on the other hand are the one that's truly close minded. You don't not believe in any spiritual force (God, angels, demons, etc) unless science can provide you with proven logic and facts. I think you need to re-evaluate who you are calling closed and open minded.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

For a second example of decreasing entropy, start with a closed system large enough to allow significant gravitational forces among its components. Gravity provides a 'negative energy' that can take a completely disordered system and organize it into a radically symmetric arrangement around a common center of gravity.

You are increasing kinetic energy, but decreasing potential energy, so entropy does not decrease.  If this were a gas, you would be heating up the gas which would radiate and thus you would be losing energy and increasing entropy.

"Can Gravity Decrease Entropy? "

"The answer is simple, but I'll just give you a hint. We've already seen that as it shrinks, it loses energy. The energy has to go somewhere. Where does it go? If you figure that out, you'll see that the total entropy is not actually decreasing - it's just leaving the gas cloud and going somehere else!"

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/entropy.html

---

That is basically what I said in my post, “you would be heating up the gas which would radiate and thus you would be losing energy”.  Those who believe gravity can decrease entropy simply lose track of the flow of energy.  

---

For those easily impressed with credentials...the author, John Baez, is a mathematical physicist working on quantum gravity using the techniques of "higher-dimensional algebra".   He holds a PhD (not a B.A.), so call him “Dr. Baez”.  He is world renown in his field and is a full-time (not part-time) professor of mathematics at the University of California, Riverside.….and, to top it off, the singer Joan Baez is his cousin.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

For a second example of decreasing entropy, start with a closed system large enough to allow significant gravitational forces among its components. Gravity provides a 'negative energy' that can take a completely disordered system and organize it into a radically symmetric arrangement around a common center of gravity.

You are increasing kinetic energy, but decreasing potential energy, so entropy does not decrease.  If this were a gas, you would be heating up the gas which would radiate and thus you would be losing energy and increasing entropy.

Found some more agreement...I am really starting to become impressed with this Baez character!  Though, like any professor, he took 30 minutes to say what I did in two...

---

jmfcst..."You are increasing kinetic energy, but decreasing potential energy"

Baez..."As the gas ball collapses, it loses energy: the kinetic energy goes up, but the potential energy goes down even faster!"

---

jmfcst..."If this were a gas, you would be heating up the gas"

Baez..."Since the kinetic energy goes up, the gas gets hot."

---

jmfcst..."you would be losing energy"

Baez..."Energy goes down, temperature goes up!...As the gas ball collapses, it loses energy"

---

I had a professor in Applied Electromagnetism that used to scare me to death.  The next class day after taking each test, he would solve all the test problems on the chalk board.  He took the WHOLE chalk board for each problem, and since I hadn't taken near as much space to solve it, I was sure I got it wrong.  But each time I received my test back, I blew his curve away. 

[nlm]

NLM,

It would appear that JMF actually has more of an open mind then yourself. He believes and is willing to believe in supernatural forces that cannot be seen by any human eye. He believes in spiritual forces beyond what can be explained by science. To me, a person who believes that way is the one that actually has an open mind because he's keeping his mind open to the possibility of such things existing.

You on the other hand are the one that's truly close minded. You don't not believe in any spiritual force (God, angels, demons, etc) unless science can provide you with proven logic and facts. I think you need to re-evaluate who you are calling closed and open minded.

Interesting take. However, I would not argue that somebody believing in Merlin, Zeus, Thor, And Ethereal killer aardvarks quailified them as open minded. And I really don't see a difference between your point and that. Open minded to me would mean somebody that was open to the information that is available, not somebody that believes what is convenient or somebody that believes what their mother taught them simply because their mother taught it to them. I would also note that I have never stated that an invisible, ethereal, human like being was not responsible for the creation of all things; only that it seems to be so unlikely as to be easy to dismiss.

My entire position on this can be boiled to "I don't know, and you know what, nor does any other human dwelling on this planet right now seem to know either."

If I'm reading jmfsct position correctly - he is stating that he does know, but can use only circular logic to justify his position. It is the use of circular logic that defines him as closed minded, as it defines any that use it.

So perhaps I am being closed minded by insisting that I do not know and jmfsct is being open minded by insisting that he does know. It seems like an odd arguement to make and would involve insisting that I did know and that no other possibility existed outside of what jmfst believed, but who am I to judge.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If I'm reading jmfsct position correctly - he is stating that he does know

Yes, I am saying that I do know.  Or, at the very least, I am saying that the "force" behind the bible is real.  The only "stretch" that I could be guilty of is that I consider that real "force" to be telling the truth.

I did NOT become a Christian through logical conclusions; rather I became a Christian when Christ presented himself to me after reading the bible for about an hour one night in Oct ’92 while I was alone in my apartment and completely sober.

---

…but can use only circular logic to justify his position. It is the use of circular logic that defines him as closed minded, as it defines any that use it.

To the contrary, I was closed minded PRIOR to coming to a first-hand knowledge of Christ.  Before Christ found me, my mind was closed to God’s presence and therefore I had no way of accepting him.

That may sound strange, but it is exactly what the bible says:

“in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him” (1Cor 1:20)

Not only could I not know him in my previous state of closed mindedness, but God chose it to be that way, that is why the above verse says “in the wisdom of God…[God blinded the world]”.

Therefore, you shouldn’t expect that I could show you empirical evidence even if I wanted to; for God, in his wisdom, chose that the world could not see him through worldly wisdom. 

If he allowed the world to view him through its wisdom (as if worldly wisdom could even grasp the Holy God), then people could boast and say, “I believed in God because I figured him out in my mind.”  But God has denied the world any boasting rights.

So, do NOT think that I am claiming to have a better mind more capable of grasping God.  There is nothing that makes me any different, or any smarter, or any more worthy of God's attention.

[nlm]

NLM,

It would appear that JMF actually has more of an open mind then yourself. He believes and is willing to believe in supernatural forces that cannot be seen by any human eye. He believes in spiritual forces beyond what can be explained by science. To me, a person who believes that way is the one that actually has an open mind because he's keeping his mind open to the possibility of such things existing.

You on the other hand are the one that's truly close minded. You don't not believe in any spiritual force (God, angels, demons, etc) unless science can provide you with proven logic and facts. I think you need to re-evaluate who you are calling closed and open minded.

Interesting take. However, I would not argue that somebody believing in Merlin, Zeus, Thor, And Ethereal killer aardvarks quailified them as open minded. And I really don't see a difference between your point and that. Open minded to me would mean somebody that was open to the information that is available, not somebody that believes what is convenient or somebody that believes what their mother taught them simply because their mother taught it to them. I would also note that I have never stated that an invisible, ethereal, human like being was not responsible for the creation of all things; only that it seems to be so unlikely as to be easy to dismiss.

My entire position on this can be boiled to "I don't know, and you know what, nor does any other human dwelling on this planet right now seem to know either."

If I'm reading jmfsct position correctly - he is stating that he does know, but can use only circular logic to justify his position. It is the use of circular logic that defines him as closed minded, as it defines any that use it.

So perhaps I am being closed minded by insisting that I do not know and jmfsct is being open minded by insisting that he does know. It seems like an odd arguement to make and would involve insisting that I did know and that no other possibility existed outside of what jmfst believed, but who am I to judge.

Yes, I am saying that I do know.  Or, at the very least, I am saying that the "force" behind the bible is real.  The only "stretch" that I could be guilty of is that I consider that real "force" to be telling the truth.

I did NOT become a Christian through logical conclusions; rather I became a Christian when Christ presented himself to me after reading the bible for about an hour one night in Oct ’92 while I was alone in my apartment and completely sober.

To the contrary, I was closed minded PRIOR to coming to a first-hand knowledge of Christ.  Before Christ found me, my mind was closed to God’s presence and therefore I had no way of accepting him.

That may sound strange, but it is exactly what the bible says:

“in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him” (1Cor 1:20)

Not only could I not know him in my previous state of closed mindedness, but God chose it to be that way, that is why the above verse says “in the wisdom of God…[God blinded the world]”.

Therefore, you shouldn’t expect that I could show you empirical evidence even if I wanted to; for God, in his wisdom, chose that the world could not see him through worldly wisdom. 

If he allowed the world to view him through its wisdom (as if worldly wisdom could even grasp the Holy God), then people could boast and say, “I believed in God because I figured him out in my mind.”  But God has denied the world any boasting rights.

So, do NOT think that I am claiming to have a better mind more capable of grasping God.  There is nothing that makes me any different, or any smarter, or any more worthy of God's attention.

All you have done here is use more circular logic to justify being closed minded in an attempt to explain it away as being open minded. You allowed this fairy tale to become the center of your existance, and have closed off all other possibilities - you have, do you deny that?

If it helps you get through the day, great. I have nothing against Christians in a generic sense - only with the ones that cause problems for other people, of which you are one.

I don't expect you do anything jmfsct other than to continue in your fantasy land and judge others based on your mystical dellusions.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All you have done here is use more circular logic to justify being closed minded in an attempt to explain it away as being open minded. You allowed this fairy tale to become the center of your existance, and have closed off all other possibilities - you have, do you deny that?

The only reason you consider me "closed minded" is that YOU have closed your mind to the possibility of the existence of anything you can't measure.  You're basically arguing over the legitimacy of the "rules of the game" when you're not in a position to set the rules yourself.

If there is a God you can’t measure, and if he chose for you not to be able to measure him, then who is the one that is “closed minded”?

Others on this board that don’t believe in Jesus, yet believe in the possibility of Christianity being true, do not consider those possibly touched by God as “closed minded”.

For instance, if someone is not a Christian, yet believes that the Christianity could possibly be true, then they wouldn’t consider the Apostle Paul “closed-minded” for converting to Christianity when Christ slapped him off his horse in Acts 9.  To the contrary, Paul would have indeed been “closed-minded” if he had not converted to Christianity.

Like I said, YOU have closed your mind to the possibility of the existence of anything you can't measure.  And are accusing me of being “closed minded” for believing in a relationship with a force that I am experiencing yet you can not measure.

You’re like a blind man accusing those who can see of being “closed minded” because they can see the stars and you can’t, nor can you touch the stars to verify their existence.

---

I have nothing against Christians in a generic sense - only with the ones that cause problems for other people, of which you are one.

Yeah, and people also had a problem with Jesus, that is why they killed him and his followers.

[nlm]

Do you even know what circular logic is? Cause that was just a load more of it. As I stated before, I have not closed my mind to the possibility that you are right, I have simply looked at the evidence and dismissed your belief as being so unlikely that it isn't worth considering in a serious manner, just as I have looked at the possibility that Odin is the all father and dismissed it. It is no more likely than the other religions.

As a culist, I'm fairly confident that is beyond your ability to grasp.

let me ask an interesting question - are the true believers in Islam also closed minded because they fail to believe as you do. How about the true belivers in Wicca? Or the true believers in invisible killer aardvarks? Or how about an actual atheist?

I would imagine your answer would need to be yes given the reasoning (or lack there of) you are using.

Have you not completely closed your mind to them being correct? Why does your belief deserve more respect than you are willing to give other beliefs? I'm certainly as open to all those beliefs as I am to yours. Are you?

There is a difference between being closed minded and not being willing to make stuff up (or allow other to do so for you) and then believing it without the possibility it is incorrect. But again, I'm sure that is beyond a cultist.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I have simply looked at the evidence and dismissed your belief as being so unlikely that it isn't worth considering in a serious manner

Then what did you make of Nebuchadnezzar's writings which back up the bible's account of the Tower of Babel?

---

let me ask an interesting question - are the true believers in Islam also closed minded because they fail to believe as you do. How about the true belivers in Wicca? Or the true believers in invisible killer aardvarks? Or how about an actual atheist?

I believe that there are unseen "forces" behind the world's religion.  I just don't believe those other "forces" are telling the truth.  I believe they are demons.

---

I would imagine your answer would need to be yes given the reasoning (or lack there of) you are using.

Your imagination is Wrong.

---

There is a difference between being closed minded and not being willing to make stuff up (or allow other to do so for you) and then believing it without the possibility it is incorrect. But again, I'm sure that is beyond a cultist.

Are you saying that I have made up my relationship with Christ?  For what purpose or motive would I have done that?

[John Dibble]

I believe that there are unseen "forces" behind the world's religion.  I just don't believe those other "forces" are telling the truth.  I believe they are demons.

And what evidence do you have that your 'force' is not among these demons? What evidence do you have that the other 'forces' are demons at all?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I believe that there are unseen "forces" behind the world's religion.  I just don't believe those other "forces" are telling the truth.  I believe they are demons.

And what evidence do you have that your 'force' is not among these demons? What evidence do you have that the other 'forces' are demons at all?

Well, if God has denied you evidence that he even exists, how can you ask for evidence that he is telling the truth?

[John Dibble]

I believe that there are unseen "forces" behind the world's religion.  I just don't believe those other "forces" are telling the truth.  I believe they are demons.

And what evidence do you have that your 'force' is not among these demons? What evidence do you have that the other 'forces' are demons at all?

Well, if God has denied you evidence that he even exists, how can you ask for evidence that he is telling the truth?

Well, if you can't even prove the existence of these supposed 'forces' then how can you further claim that one of them is truthful and the others are demons? You've made a claim - back it up.