Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

This post has numerous problems.Firstly is is completely unclear what "SUOT" is meant to refer to. Identifying which mainstream cosmologies are included would be a good start.Secondly the list of alleged problems with "SUOT" is hideously wrong. The only positive point I can get out of it is that you reject the expansion of space and presumably General Relativity. Which would be a problem with the "BBUOH".Finally BBUOH seems to contradict the 2LoT. (Given infinite past time, continuous work being carried out throughout that time, and things "running down" entropy should have been maximised).(We can forget minor errors like the fact that the God of the Bible is not named "Jehovah").

quote:

---

1. My understanding of 2LoT there is no time limit for the application of work to entropy.

---

This makes no sense. My point was that if entropy is continuously increasing (at a non-infinitesimal rate) over an infinite time then entropy must reach the maximum possible. Nothing about "time limits" or the "application of work to entropy".

quote:

---

2. My understanding of 2LoT is that work can decrease entropy

---

The 2LoT forbids an overall decrease in entropy. That's what it SAYS. It only allows local decreases in entropy at the cost of an equal or greater increase in entropy elsewhere (so overall entropy stays the same or increases).

So summing up:1) The "theory" you oppose to your views to does not exist (as Son Goku told you). It is your invention2) The "problems" you claim that this rival theory has don't make sense. Either they are more of your inventions (making it a complete strawman) or they don't apply.3) Although you assert that your theory has no problems with the laws of thermodynamics you seem to rely on violations of the 2LoT (which you obviously don't understand even in the basic form).4) You seem to confuse "unknown" with "unfalsifiable" and even suggest that if the origin of something is known we can't tell if it is happening or not.5) It seems that your "theory" also relies on rejecting General Relativity, although you offer no alternative.If you wish to indulge in idle and uninformed musings that is your business. But why present them as ideas to be seriously considered ?

If you want to discuss thermodynamics, why don't you address Message 13 ?Until it's answered any claim that your "theory" is consistent with thermodynamics is an empty assertion.

quote:

---

Both POVs have evidence for lending credence to them, mine being the phenomena of complex design on earth and in the cosmos, compatibility with the LOT science laws as well as corroborating evidence of the credibility of the Biblical record. Yours has evidence based on a somewhat uniformitarian model and your definition of the properties of space.

---

Presumably you mean INCOMPATIBILITY with the laws of thermodynamics. You certainly seem happy to let the problem I raised in my initial reply remain unaddressed (your only response so far relied on denying the real 2LoT, which hardly indicates compatibility !). But that's not evidence for your ideas, is it ?The Bible's credibility is also a negative, since the two differing creation accounts are both contrary to the evidence (and the depiction of God in the second has more in common with the Gods of polytheistic religions than modern Christianity or Judaism).Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

How many times have I stated the work/manage factor relative to my hypothesis being effected by the intelligent omnipotent designer which you persistently refuse to acknowledge? I've explained how this does not contradict 2LoT. Where have I effectively been refuted on this thus far in this thread?

---

You were refuted in Message 13. And you are refuted by the 2LoT itself. The 2LoT asserts that the overall entropy NEVER decreases. WHen are you going to deal with this fact ?

quote:

---

In an eternal universe finite amounts of time become a figment of the imagination where the fat lady never sings. Omnipotence extends equalibrium infinity via work of the source of energy.

---

Wy do you have to cloak your admission that your ideas DON'T follow the laws of thermodynamics in such obscure language ?

quote:

---

Neither are infinite relative to 2LoT.

---

The 2LoT doesn't deal with infinities.In any universe that actually follows the laws of thermodynamics infinite time leads to maximum entropy. (Except in very weird special cases which you aren't invoking).

quote:

---

abe: You BBists often apply a bogus 2D analogy) having both an outside of and a before. Why (abe: do you do this)? Because there is no possible bonafide model for your theory of no outside of or before.

---

Those who do, do have valid models. Or are doing so for illustrative purposes (using a perspective that cannot exist only to explain).

quote:

---

Your theory satisfies none of the LOTs. Why?
1. Because your source of energy was part and parcel of spacetime at T=0.
2. Every temporal system must have a zero to be temporal.
3. There was no mechanism for equilibrium at all since there was allegedly no outside of and no before the expansion.
4. There was only expansion; nothing to equalize; no A and B; just expansion, violating 2LoT.
5. Having no outside of and no before, your temporal system had no place to have happened and no time to have happened, violating all science as well as common sense and logic.
6. Space, energy, matter and time all had to have just magically popped into existence as properties of space at alleged T=0, contrary to 1LoT.
7. IMO, your alleged theory of temporal expansion, having, by necessity to have had a zero factor is grossly more magical than my eternal energy designer unbounded space hypothesis, no matter how much QM, math, etc you apply to it.

---

1) So far as I can understand it indicates that the model is in agreement with 1LoT.2) makes no sense (in fact it seems to assert that your "eternal " universe must be wrong).3) Makes no sense (in fact it seems to assert that the laws of thermodynamics cannot apply to closed systems),4) Seems to be a crazy misrepresentation5) is nonsensical (apparently denying that time can exist)6) directly contradicts 1) AND assumes that there must be a time prior to T=07) Your opinion of something you clearly don't understand in the slightest is clearly worthless.

quote:

---

So called Biblical evolutionist BBists as well as YUC (Young Universe Creationists all have major biggie problems:

​

1. The Biblical god, Jehovah, is Biblically eternal/infinite. That can't be possible in any temporal universe hypothesis or theory since, as I've documented, Jehovah has a certain dwelling place in the heavens.
2. There being no outside of eliminates the notion as some have posited in the past that somehow God exists outside of the universe.

---

Since you're the one raising nonsensical objections to science because you believe that it contradicts your beliefs I'd say that you're the one with the problem

Look, Buz, the problem is that you don't really understand any of what you are talking about Not even at the level of an educated layman.

quote:

---

Not only that, but how could we know that there was a T<10-43, since this mumerical spacetime symbol would also require a T<0?

---

The symbols involved are basic mathematics. If you can't even understand them (and by the above statement it appears that you don't) how can you possibly make sensible comments ?
(If you really think you understand it, try explaining the point in plain English).

quote:

---

No matter how old the universe might be, if it's temporal at all, It appears to me that you still have a greater problem then I have with the BBUH in that yours defies the observable thermodynamic laws of science.

---

I think you made another mistake. I think you mean "doesn't defy" since - we know that your uninformed speculations contradict thermodynamics while the real rival views do not.
Why is that a problem ?

quote:

---

The speculation and we don't knows appear to be acceptable in conventional science on behalf of BBists and evolutionists but not on ID Biblical creationists.

---

Oh they would be perfectly acceptable - if they were used in the same way. But they aren't, are they ?

quote:

---

Ben Stein and EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed comes to mind here.

---

You mean that when you don't have any good arguments you should start calling your oppoenents Nazis ?

quote:

---

My understanding is that the T equals time and the numbers pertain to doubling of the size of the universe or rate of expansion. Correct me if mistaken.

---

No, the numbers are just a measurement of time.

quote:

---

The basis of my point is that the T<10-43 wrong?

---

Well it seems that you don't understand the '<' symbol, either. T < 10^-43 on it's own covers all the time up to 10^-43 seconds.And quibbling over whether the zero point is correct or not seems a bit pointless. So far as I know it represents a best guess. If it turns out to be wrong because the exotic states in the early stages of the universe lasted a bit longer then the measuring system would be changed to match.

quote:

---

If you have a T<0 nothing?

---

Simple answer no.More complicated answer if thee was a T<0 follow.

quote:

---

What do you mean by in the same way?

---

That it is deployed in similar circumstances for similar reasons. For instance Faith used "I don't know" as an excuse to avoid supporting her assertions. That isn't a valid use at all - if she didn't know enough to discuss the matter she didn't know if her assertions really are true.In your case if you are going to plead "I don't know" with regard to the thermodynamic violations in your model you are going to have to deal with the fact that you asserted that there were none. If you don't know how they are avoided, then you aren't in a position to make those assertions.

quote:

---

How does your T<0 them?

---

It's YOUR T<0. I don't assume that there was one.

quote:

---

1. How so, if energy comes into existence at T<0?

---

What T<0 ? Your point 1 doesn't mention any such thing, let alone give reason to think that there is one. Anyway isn't the whole point of using T=0 to imply that there is NO prior time - no "T < 0" ? Especially as your point 3 denies the existence of a T < 0.

quote:

---

2. Every temporal (pertaining to time; not eternity)
observable system has had a 0 or a beginning.

---

That doesn't help. It still looks as if your "eternal" universe can't include time and therefore isn't this one. If that's not what you mean you need to explain more.

quote:

---

3. Having no outside of, what is there to equalize relative to a bounded expansion?

---

In other words you assume that the balance can't be due to internal forces and even you can't think of why the "no before' would be relevant.

quote:

---

4. Why is my number 4 a crazy assumption? Your objection is a bare assertion.

---

I said that it seems to be a crazy misrepresentation.
I hope you concede that I know how your post seems to me and that I don't need any evidence of that beyond my own word.The "no A and B" is pretty nuts - I mean if whatever "A" and "B" are are important WHY NOT SAY WHAT THEY MEAN ? Why just leave them as meaningless symbols ?And how do you get to a violation of 2LoT ? You don't say.It looks like you're taking the balloon analogy incredibly literally - and getting it completely wrong as a result.

quote:

---

5. No. I'm arguing that time must exist for anything temporal to happen. T

---

Obviously that isn't all of what you meant, since you also talk about a "place to happen". Please tell me why it makes sense to demand a time that is not time and a space that is not space. Or indeed what it is that supposedly HAPPENED. I don't know of any theory that proposes that anything happened without time - and I bet you don't know either (and I expect you to provide references to support any such assertion).

quote:

---

6. Every temporal thing we observe which has happened has had a time in which it happened.

---

I'll just quote your 6 again to show that the two statements are entirely different: It only makes sense to say that they "popped into existence" IF there was a time when they didn't exist. In short the alleged violation is entirely your creation.

quote:

---

7. Why? How is anything temporal having no before or outside of not magical?

---

Aside from the fact that your view of "temporal" clearly deals with time passing within the universe (confirming my view that in your mind no time can pass in your "eternal" universe) why is there a problem ? What is wrong with the idea that space is bounded or past time is bounded ? There's nothing obviously magical in either.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

There are indeed numerous messages concerning your assertions and the Laws of Thermodynamics. The question is whether you intend to answer them with more than assertions.I'm still waiting for a response to Message 13

quote:

---

This is likely effected via the recycling of energy within the system thus rendering it a perpetual system, nevertheless compatible to 2LoT. That's my hypothesis. That's all it is, but I'm vehement in claiming that status for it.

---

So your system works by violating the laws of thermodynamics in a way that is consistent with them ? The reason you so vehemently assert that your "hypothesis" agrees with the laws of thermodynamics is because it isn't true ? It certainly seems so given your refusal to deal with the points that have been raised against your assertion.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I requested that you answer Message 13. Quoting it without addressing the content is not an answer.The point of Message 13 is that you invoked a clear-cut violation of the 2LoT. This is not opinion, but objective fact. The 2LoT forbids any decrease in the total entropy. That IS the 2LoT.Your attack on mainstream science is also seriously in error. The Big Bang theory proper does not deal with T<0. The various other cosmological theories or hypotheses underlying the Big Bang include those that deny the existence of T<0 win.

quote:

---

As you said it can stay the same. In a perpetual model such as mine it would remain stable, never reaching equalibrium, the source of energy remaining greater; this all by work management of the ID creator/designer. Science has no such perpetual model. That doesn't mean it is not a possibility if there is an omnipotent designer. Nor does it mean it necessarily violates 2LoT.

---

This point has already been refuted. Since you have infinite time, and since you do NOT have entropy remaining unchanged for all that time - or any reason to think that entropy was not increasing for all that time you still need an explanation for WHY the universe has not reached equilibrium. Your first attempt directly contradicted the 2LoT - yet you ignored that and went on claiming that your hypothesis was consistent with the 2LoT.

quote:

---

1. I didn't say it dealt with the BB proper. I've shown factually that BB theory being temporal requires a T<0. Nobody yet has substantially refuted that fact. If mistaken please cite where. The fact that it, being temporal, requires such renders it in violation of the LOTs.

---

You claim that the BB theory posits a T < 0 and claims that the energy of this universe must have popped out of nothing. Neither is true. I have not seen any valid argument from you to support either of these alleged "facts". Indeed it is highly unlikely that any model including a finite past would include a T < 0, since the origin of the time axis would almost certainly be placed at the very beginning of time. That would be the natural thing to do. (And of course if it were not done then there would still be no innate significance to the fact that there was time prior to an arbitrarily chosen zero point).

quote:

---

2. If other cosmological BB theories are temporal how can they deny a T<0? All temporal models would require a T<0, including YUC (young Universe creationist.)

---

As I point out above, this assertion is clearly false. It is easy and natural for a model including a finite past to deny a T < 0.

quote:

---

1. My first attempt did not directly contradict the 2LoT. Your response required clarification and you got it.

---

Your first reply alleged that overall entropy could be decreased in direct violation of the 2LoT. This is the first time you have actually tried to answer that fact - and your answer is a simple denial of the obvious truth.

quote:

---

2. I did not say entropy remained unchanged. My position was that it is relatively stable with the source of energy always greater

---

If you allow for the REAL 2LoT your only option is to say that entropy remains effectively unchanged for all but a finite period of your infinite past. Any non-infinitesimal change continued over an infinite period adds up to an infinite change.

quote:

---

3. You choose to ignore my contention that my model factors in omnipotent ID, not researched or addressed by conventional science. Nobody has yet substantiated that this model cannot be reconciled with 2LoT.

---

Since this assertion is both unscientific and irrelevant it SHOULD be ignored. If you wish to contend that such an entity permits you to ignore the 2LoT then say so - and stop asserting that your model is compatible with the laws of thermodynamics.

quote:

---

4. How many times do I need to remind you that this is a perpetual model where energy is managed by work of the intelligent source of energy effecting ID?

---

This is essentially a repeat of your 3rd point, and it is irrelevant. The only way it could be relevant is if it permits you to ignore 2LoT - which falsifies your assertion that your "hypothesis" is compatible with it.

quote:

---

Paul, you keep on keeping on ignoring my valid points and repeating your false unsupported arguments.

---

As usual, a complete falsehood.

quote:

---

1. Any temporal universe model must have a beginning point, i.e. T<0. Right?

---

Your use of "temporal" is completely unclear. If it includes any universe in which time passes (as seems to be the case) your assertion is absolutely false. If it refers to universes with a finite past then your "i.e." is false for the reasons I have already stated. Such a model would almost certainly DEFINE T = 0 to be the beginning with NO T < 0. Since I already explained this fact in the post you are replying to it seems that you are ignoring MY valid points.

quote:

---

2. Since a temporal universe MUST have a beginning, all forces, energy, matter and space had to have come into existence from nothing. Right?

---

Wrong. If there is no prior state where these things did not exist (i.e. they existed at T = 0) then they cannot have come into existence out of nothing.

quote:

---

3. Pray tell, how does the above temporal model comply with any of the observed laws of science?

---

You haven't cited any model. Rather you have just made two obviously false assertions. Indeed both points have already come up in this discussion.

quote:

---

You keep eating up the thread, alleging "False" as you skirt around my valid points.

---

No, YOU are eating up the thread evading MY valid points. Need I point out that your "reply" to Message 13 came very late and completely failed to address the content. And as can easily be seen, I had already explained why point 1 in your second list had already been refuted IN THE POST YOU WERE REPLYING TO.