Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

As far as we are aware it is a closed system.
However even if it is not a closed system the totality of all things of which the universe is a part (e.g. the universe plus a creator in Buz's example) would be a closed system.
At some point all that there is has to be closed system in the sense that there is no external source of energy available.
The 2nd law tells us that in any closed system (a system that has no other external sources of energy) entropy will always increase. No because there is an external energy source. It is called the Sun. As result of this the entropy of the Earth plus Sun system has indeed increased. The entropy of the sun is increasing all the time.ICANT a perpetual motion machine is not just a system that goes on for a long time!!A perpetual motion machine is one that is self energising.
Imagine a light bulb connected to a solar panel in a dark enclosed room. Imagine if the light from the bulb could be absorbed by the solar panel, turned into electricity and then used to light the bulb. Such a bulb would be self sustaining. Such a bulb would be a perpetual motion machine in thermodynamic terms.No such thing is possible because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Entropy increases, much of the energy is "lost" (to heat from the bulb, to heat in the electrical wires etc. etc.) and the bulb cannot self sustain it's own energy source perpetually. It may do so temporarily but ultimately all of the energy in the system will be of a form that is useless.However if you put the solar panel in the sun and use the energy from the sun to light the bulb here is an external energy source and the bulb is not a perpetual motion machine because the bulb is not self sustaining and the system is not closed (no matter that the Sun will last a very very long time).You need to understand what is actually meant by a perpetual motion machine and not just take a possible common sense interpretation of the two words involved. There are lots of sources on the web if you genuinely are interested.

Thanks for citing this for this thread where it's on topic. What I'm agreeing to is that the 2nd law does not apply to the BBUH. It can't violate what does not apply.I still see the BB temporal (to the past/not eternal) universe theory as a violation of the 1st law since the temporal (to the past) as requiring a T=0 which:1. Accounts for no place/area for the event to happen.
2. Energy begins to exist.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Well on what basis does the 2nd law not apply to the BBUH?
On what rational basis can you claim exemption?BB Theory and the 1st Law
While we are on the subject - The first law of thermodynamics may not apply to BB theory for any of the following reasons -1) It is at least possible that the total energy of the universe is zero thus energy is ultimately conserved. (see the T=0 thread)
2) The law of conservation of energy tells us that the total amount of energy in a closed system does not change with time. If time is a component of the universe created in the BB then "prior" to or at T=0 there is no time in which energy can change. Thus the 1st law may not apply.
3) Prior to the Planck time who knows what physical laws applied to the universe. None of our current theories can adequately describe the universe at this very early stage. In such unknown and extreme physical conditions there could be mechanisms at work that are completely alien to the foundations on which our current physical models are built.The Difference Is...One Off Vs repeated Violation
The difference here Buz is that according to BB theory whilst the 1st law of thermodynamics may or may not have been violated at a single instant billions of years ago we have no reason to think that it does not apply to the universe today.In comparison your theory doesn't just violoate the 2nd law of thermodynamics at a one off historical point billions of years ago. BBUH very definitely violates or rejects the 2nd law of thermodynamics at all times up to and including now. You are effectively saying that the 2nd law of thermodynamics, one of the key laws of nature, does not apply and is actually wrong. Now. Today. In the face of all the evidence to the contrary.Surely you can see the relative weakness of this position?And Another Thing....GRAVITY
One other thing (not directly related to the laws of thermodynamics) - Gravity. In a non expanding eternal universe what has stopped all the mass of the universe attracting all the other mass to form one huge star that ultimately ends up as one huge black hole? Given enough time and a lack of separation due to expansion this is surely logically what would happen?Is the creator continually overriding the law of gravity as well as the 2nd law of thermodynamics?Are there any physical laws that you are not prepared to forego in an effort to force nature to fit your preconceived notion of a biblically compatible model of the universe?I think you need to read up on the possible scenarios for the long term fate of the universe postulated by science. You then need to work out why these do not apply to your eternal universe. Eternity is a long time and a lot can happen as a result of even the slowest physical processes.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The Hartle and Hawking's No Boundry theory predicted the universe is "closed." That is the reason it was not accepted.I thought observations was stacked in favor of an open universe as there is not enough matter to cause a collapse.The Instanton we talked about earlier would create an inflating open universe. I do understand what a perpetual motion machine is. I just needed to know if you knew.The example you gave about the sun powering the light bulb is great.
We know one day the sun will burn out and will no longer be able to supply power to light the bulb.What if the sun had an endless supply of power? Then it could power the bulb forever.Buzz's universe has a creator that has an endless supply of power He will never run out. Why does it at some point have to be closed?The only way you can come to that conclusion is to assume there is no God with infinite power.The God we talk about is everywhere, knows everything, with limitless power. God is an infinite entity. He has no limitation.I am asked to believe that the minuscule very hot infinite density, infinite energy thingamajig that produced our universe with all it's energy was just a fluke. A once in an eternity happening. It appeared from an absence of anything.If there was ever a total absence of anything there would still be a total absence of anything.Energy can not be created according to science.Since we are here there has never been a total absence of anything.That means that something has always existed.You are at liberty to believe what you want about how that something produced the magnificent universe we are privileged to live in.You see I believe that something was God.God = I AM = All that there is.The universe can not exist without God but God can exist without the universe. He was here before the universe and He will be here after the universe has melted with fervent heat.You believe that something was an accident waiting to happen.I personally believe it is a lot easier to Believe in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.Man has a problem with that because if God created everything we see including us then that would make us subject to Him. For many that is unthinkable and unacceptable.Rather than it was just an accident that the something produced what we see.Back to the perpetual motion machine. You do realize the self inflating open universe that came from that something that has always existed and will continue to expand forever is a perpetual motion machine with no outside power source.My universe (I will not speak for Buzz's as we do differ slightly in our belief) has an outside source of energy and therefore is not a perpetual motion machine. It also has a beginning and an end.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Closed in a thermodynamic sense (as in no energy in or out of the closed system) has got nothing to do with closed in any topological sense (i.e. the shape of the universe).If you close a suitcase it has nothing to do with it's thermodynamic status.You are adding 2 apples to 2 pears and coming up with 9 bananas. The two forms of "closed" have nothing to do with each other. Yes but it doesn't because of increasing entropy. Because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Fine. Buz'z creator however cannot then be claimed to be consistent with the 1st law of thermodynamics which states that there is a finite and unchanging amount of energy in the universe. Buz has claimed that his universe is consistent with the 1st law of thermodynamics. Closed means no external energy source. In Buz's hypothesis he actually stated that the amount of energy in the system never changed. Never increased and never decreased. The creator managed the energy but did not create new energy. The system was closed according to Buz.Maybe you should read what Buz was actually proposing. I don't dispute that an omnipotent omniscient God could break the laws of physics at will and do whatever he wants.However if this is what is being claimed then why bother to argue in scientific terms? Why bother arguing in terms of the laws of thermodynamics that God just ignores anyway? Why argue that the Big Bang never happened if God could have just as easily created the universe via that method too?At least God based BB is consistent with the observed evidence. As things stand Buz's (or more accurately your interpretation of Buz's theory) picks the evidence that fits your preconceptions and simply tells us God can ignore any rules that get in the way.A theory that exaplains everything actually explains nothing. The evidence tells us that the universe we inhabit has evolved from a very hot, very dense, very small prior state. That much is all but indisputable.How that initial state came to be is the subject of much research and thought. We were looking at some of these in the T=0 thread.
There are those who think the BB is the work of God. As we discussed in the T=0 thread not necessarily. Why does the existence of something prove it has always existed? You exist but you have not always existed.By your own logic - Since we have been here we have never witnessed anything without a beginning. That means something always has a beginning - Is just as valid a conclusion. Well if your God has been pumping entropy-reversing energy into the universe in direct violition of the first law of thermodynamics for eternity already the universe would actually already be melted in fervent heat.That does not appear to have happened. Oh but I forgot the creator can change the laws of physics to stop these things happening. No problem then. My mistake. Is cosmological expansion a thermodynamic event?
What is the topology of the universe?I get the feeling that you neither know nor care about the answers to these questions as you have already decided on your own unsubstantiated version of reality. There is a long history of religion claiming to answer the questions that science could, at the time, not answer.For example - Newton attributed gravity directly to God. Einstein amongst others did not accept that answer. As a result Einstein progressed our understanding of both gravity and the cosmos by explaining the mechanism behind gravity (curved spacetime).Whether or not science will eventually answer the question of cosmological origins remains to be seen. However simply declaring that God did it is a road to ignorance. If we accept that God did it then what? Do we stop research into cosmological origins? Do we cease pondering the scientfic answers to such questions? Do we stop studying the universe, the stars, the galaxies and their evolution in time as we already know that God did it all by means of his infinite power and will alone?
What if there is some truth to string theory (for example)? What if the technologies of tomorrow are dependent on our research into string theory now? What if our research and discoverey of possible causes of the origins of the universe one day result in technologies that will take mankind to the stars?If we had accepted the answer that God did it every time we hit a probelm that we could not answer or a phenomenon that we could not explain we would still be sitting in caves praying to the Gods of fire for the warmth of the flames that they bring us.You accept God did it if that makes you happy. But the knowledge and the progress of the human race both up till now and into the future will depend on people who do not accept that answer and who are willing to spend their lives investigating the alternatives.

You may be right.The Hartle and Hawking's No Boundry universe would end in a big crunch. Thus it is closed. This system would have a limited amount of energy within it. The only way I can see that any energy could be added would be if it was a subsection of a larger system.The self-inflating universe of the Instanton would expand forever does not end in a big crunch. Thus it is open. Energy could be added to this system or it has unlimited energy.Correct this if it is wrong. You have a very strange definition of absence.
You also have a very strange definition of anything.I always thought absence meant not present.
I also thought anything meant everything that ever was.Put the two together and you have a non presence of everything that ever was. When we create energy from an absence of anything and we create life from an absence of anything then and only then will I believe there was ever an absence of anything. String Theory says it has happened many times already. I say God created everything.You say it all came about by natural means.So what difference does it make if we examine how God accomplished the job or how natural accidents accomplished the job?What would be the difference in the outcome other than a few scientist would be relieved of trying to prove God is not necessary and then could spend all their energies in the pursuit of what actually took place?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Closed in thermodynamic terms has nothing to do with the sort of closed and open you are referring to. My definition of nothingness is no different to yours. I just question your assumption that nothingness is the natural state of things and that nothingness will remain nothingness unless some sort of omnipotent sky being says differently.
Arguably the universe was naturally inevitable. Not naturally impossible as you assert. How are we to produce and be present in this state of 'nothingness' that will convince you? Seems like a form of paradoxical self verification to me. Maybe. Maybe not. String theory has yet have any predictions verified. Until that happens nothing indicated by this theory should be taken as anything more than hypothesis. Depends what you mean by how. If you mean abandoning reliable conclusions and scientific knowledge when these happen to conflict with preconceived notions of what God has or has not done then the results would be catastrophic in terms of restricting the progress of knowledge. The paranoid delusion that working scientists set out to 'disprove God' just demonstrates how little you know about science or scientists. What actually took place?
I refer you to my point a couple of paragraphs above regarding abandoning knowledge.
I rest my case.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hold on tiger.If there was an absence of anything as in my definition there would be no sky being to say anything. Only if there was something to turn into the universe. Now you are beginnig to understand the problem. You can convince me but try to convince those die hard scientist that have put their life into the study and see how far you get. Straggler science has as many preconveived notions and assumptions as religiion does.All preconceived notions are what I would suggest abandoning.Let the Scientist do science and not worry about religion. I would hope that is what the majority does now anyway. If not we are in deep trouble. I think I said some. You will have to agree that some are very vocal that means they are very occupied with the concept that God can not exist. If I was for abandoning knowledge I would be down on the river bank or in the boat fishing rather than sitting here conversing with you.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

OK our physical definition of nothingness appears to be the same but you are quite right to point out that I do indeed omit the supernatural omnipotent sky being. Not necessarily. ICANT it doesn't matter how many times you boldly assert this. It does not become any more true. How can you claim to know this as fact?
By the same logic you apply I can equally well assert that everything has a beginning.
The fact is neither of us truly know if either of these assumptions is correct or not. Something possibly coming from nothing is not the same as something being present simultaneously with nothing in order to witness nothing. This is no different to me asking you to show me God creating the universe. I know many physicists. No physicist I know would claim any theory that has not been verified by prediction is any more than a hypothesis. Working out how to test their theories is how most of those whose life work you dismiss so readily actually spend their days. Ingenious, innovative and technologically grounbreaking many of these methods of testing often are. Science has a method of weeding out preconcived notions. It is called verification by prediction. Innaccurate theories make innaccurate predictions.
Lets see some creationist predictions so that we can test their theories? Even the most vocal never say God can not exist. Evidence based conclusions are never certain. Based on the evidence God is deeply improbable. Hmmmm. If only those who have stood in the way of knowledge progressing in times gone by had gone fishing instead......Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

1. Mine is a unique eternal perpetual machine type universe with intelligent omnipotent designer and source of energy managing the flow of energy by intelligent work and design. Yours is a temporal system of natural processes unmanaged by intelligent agent.2. Since the 2nd Law requires positive entropy all the way yours is subject to the 2nd Law whereas my unique system is not. I say "unique" because it is unique to what mainline science researches, studies and acknowledges.3. The BBUH satisfies the 1st Law since energy is neither created or destroyed. it is always equal to the power existing within the designer, the amount of which is unknown.4. Yours violates the 1st Law since energy comes to exist. This nonsense about a zero energy universe doesn't exempt yours. That is far fetched and not the prevalent thinking in mainline science so far as I am aware.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

You got just about as much chance of getting something from an absence of anything as I have of taking you back to the beginning and letting you see God create the universe. I thought you said you was going to read Turok's paper on his and Hawking's Instanton. Check their claims out. Only because they can't prove it. In their mind He does not exist and they are trying to prove it to the world. Yea I wonder how many great things have slipped by in the last few years because there is so much division in the scientific ranks because of the evolution creation debate.There are a lot of good scientist on both sides that are wasting precious time. I wonder what could have been......God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

There are a lot of good scientist on both sides that are wasting precious time.

---

Yeah, cuz we all know that it was a bunch of theologists who just put the Phoenix lander on Mars and not a bunch of scientists who can't even remember how the laws of thermodynamics work. After all, landing a probe on Mars requires a deep understanding of thermo (since that's where you're going to get the energy to power the lander) and as we've just seen, no scientist understands thermo.We're still waiting, Buzsaw:How do you reconcile an eternal universe with the second law?How do you reconcile the perfect engine of god with the second law?What on earth do you mean by "temporal" and how do you reconcile your claim that your universe is not "temporal" with the second law?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I sort of agree. But not for the same reasons. Now that there is indeed something our chances of being present to witness true "nothingness" are indeed zero.To rephrase your comment I could equally as well say -"You got just about as much chance of demonstrating the existence of eternity as I have of taking you back to the beginning of the universe to witness the Big Bang"Your outright rejection of something from nothing (as you put it) as impossible whilst unquestioningly accepting eternity as perfectly viable is contradictory. I said I would read the Guth paper on inflation and the zero energy universe and I did. Nothing untested was advocated as more than a hypothesis in that paper.
I have not read the Hawking Instanton paper. Did you provide a link? If so in which message? I will indeed check it out but I would be surprised if any scientist is claiming to have definitively solved the problem of cosmological origins as you seem to be suggesting. I dispute that. No scientist who has ever really thought about the nature of science would claim that evidence based research will ever prove or disprove anything.
The likes of Dawkins (whom I assume you are referring to) are in fact fervent disbelievers in the concept of proof (or disproof) in the context of science. Proof is the realm of mathematics and certainty is the realm of faith.
The point being made by Dawkins et al is that if we are to believe in something because it cannot be disproved we would logically believe in every God and every other piece of mystical nonsense that has ever been thought up by the human imagination. To most working scientists the whole EvC debate is a sideshow that they are only dimly aware of and even less interested in. It is far more important to the creationists attempting to legitimise their flawed position by falsely dressing their theories in the clothes of science to illegitimately bask in the authority that true science has gained by means of it's practical results.Why else would Buz and yourself argue for a biblically consistent universe in terms of the laws of thermodynamics? You dress your theories in the language of physics whilst claiming that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to an omnipotent creator as soon as the very laws you are advocating become a problem for your pet model of the universe.Why bother even mentioning the laws of physics at all? What is the point if an omnipotent creator that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants is ultimately your answer to every difficult qustion anyway?I'll let you have the last word if you want. This thread is all but done so I will leave it at that.No doubt see you elsewhere.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I can not speak for Buz. I can only speak for my self.I am at EvC because I was stuck on an Island for 15 years. My ability to keep up with what was going on in the world was hampered by many things. Working, building a church and parsonage, providing a living for family and having little computer skills.The computer skills came and then I found a whole new world of knowledge that I never knew existed. One day I found EvC and thought it was a good place to learn. Because of my arguing I have had to study as I have never studied in my life. I have studied and read more since joining EvC over a year ago than I had since I got out of college in 1972. My favorites in IE is so long I had to start using a second computer for my research as it was getting impossible to navigate through all the different sites I have visited and am visiting.Now as to why I would argue concerning a biblically consistent universe in terms of the laws of thermodynamics.I believe if science it true and my Bible is true they should agree.
Not that I expect total agreement because many people have been involved in copying the scriptures over the thousands of years. Man has a way of injecting himself and his biases into whatever he is doing.So if science says the earth is old my Bible should agree. Mine does.
If science says all land mass was in one place at one time my Bible should agree. My Bible does.
If science says the land masses was divided into what we see today my Bible should agree. My Bible does.
If science says the universe is expanding my Bible should agree. It does.
If science says the universe is going to die my Bible should agree. It does.
I think Buz and I Believe pretty much the same things. We just believe in different mechanics.God created the universe for man to inhabit as a place to get ready to spend eternity with Him. God moves in mysterious ways His wonders to perform. His ways are not our ways, nor His thoughts our thoughts, His are much higher. This universe and everything in it is held together by the power of God. In Jesus we move and have our being and everything that exists does so because Jesus exists. God will bring this universe to His conclusion in His own time.I have been able to find several nuggets of information in this thread as we have discussed many things.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Buz why bother argue in terms of the laws of thermodynamics if every thermodynamic objection to your hypothesis can just be swept aside by means of an omnipotent creator? What is the point?Given all the observational physical evidence isn't it just about certain that the universe has evolved to it's present state from a previous very hot, very dense, very small state? However you may want to account for that initial state.If you want to incorporate and omnipotent God into the whole scenario why not make them responsible for this initial state of the universe? At least that does not violate the laws of physics and fly in the face of all observational evidence and tested scientific conclusions.In summary lets compare -BBUH
1) Violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics continually and eternally.
2) Logically results in a huge gravitational singularity.
3) Fails to explain any of the observed phenomenon of the universe (abundance of the light elements, cosmic background radiation, ongoing expansion of spacetime etc. etc.)
4) Has no experimental evidence in it's favour whatsoever.
5) Fails to make any predictions.
6) Has been declared as inherently untestable and thus fails the basic tes of any scientific hypothesis.
7) Relies fundamentally on the concept of eternity for which there is no empirical evidence whatsoever.
8) Is ultimately based on a preconcieved philosophical position that has no basis in objective reality whatsoever.VersusBig Bang
1) Logically infers a beginning point that is the subject of ongoing research but about which the BB theory itself says nothing at all.
2) Logically results in the abundance of light elements which have been physically observed
3) Logically results in the existence of, and an exact value for, the CMB. The CMB has subsequently been detected and measured to be in accordance with this logical prediction.
4) Is based firmly on the observational evidence of the ongoing expansion of the universe
5) Has been verified by the gold standard of scientific objectivity - namely specific measurable prediction.
6) Is inherently falsifiable thus meeting the other main criteria of a scientific theory.
6) Is being continually verified by past and ongoing experimental projects (COBE, WMAP, LHC etc,. etc. etc. etc.)
7) Requires no ongoing or current violation of known laws of physics or any external and ongoing management by immaterial beings for which we have absolutely no objective evidence whatsoever.The choice is yours. You decide.