First law of thermodynamics vs God vs Big Bang

by EndofMysteries 88 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  EndofMysteries

  First law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.

  How does that fit in with God and the Big Bang to you? Whether you believe in one, any, or both? Does it make one make more sense then the other to you?

  To me....if God exists then if energy always is and can't be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another then it would fit in with God, and would mean that everything in existence came from his power.

  For the big bang, it would not make sense that this energy came out of nothing and seems to violate that. The only way it would make sense to me would be if the big bang is an infinite cycle, the same concept as the formation and end of stars, all parts of the universe eventually get drawn together and condense and create a big bang and the cycle repeats.

  If both, then God would have expelled some of his energy to create the universe and that was the big bang.

  I find it no easier to understand the law of thermodyamics then God always having existed. Those who don't believe there could be an eternal God, do you find the law of thermodynamics easier to believe?

  Where did the energy initially come from since the law prevents it from being created? Doesn't make any more sense then God always having been.
• 

  Fisherman

  How do you reconcile Newtonian physics with Einsteinian with Quantum Mechanics? Are Bible documentations of "miracles" an other Bible reported phenomenons facts or myths? And how do you know?
  
• 

  Viviane

  For the big bang, it would not make sense that this energy came out of nothing and seems to violate that

  Why? The total energy of the universe is zero.

  To me....if God exists then if energy always is and can't be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another then it would fit in with God, and would mean that everything in existence came from his power.

  You just stipulated that energy cannot be created. Why could "god" energy have always existed but not some other, non-god form of energy?

  Where did the energy initially come from since the law prevents it from being created? Doesn't make any more sense then God always having been.

  Again, the total energy of the universe is zero, in balance. You're assuming some energy was created that remains.
• 

  Fisherman

  Why? The total energy of the universe is zero.

  Strike it for me to see.
  
• 

  prologos

  The total energy of the universe is two. 1 for mass/gravity, 1 for energy: radiation, movement od expansion. The two are ~balanced, given the illusion of 0. It's 1=1, but 1+1=2' If all the energy would be converted to mass (or anti-matter) too, and the twain should meet, you would have another #2 bang, BIG. If you have a pound of butter on one side of the scale, a pound of lead on the other, you have an equivalent balanced weight, but you have two pounds.
• 

  Fisherman

  two given the illusion

  I see, but
  

  2 what?
  
• 

  Coded Logic

  Wow Prologos, way to completely pull that out of your a$$. There is equal amounts of positive and negative energy in our universe. A pound of butter minus a pound of butter does NOT equal two. It equals zero. Here's something light to read on the topic: http://www.livescience.com/33129-total-energy-universe-zero.html

  If you want something a little more in depth I recomend this lecture by Krauss (starts at 12:50):

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwzbU0bGOdc

  To the question EndofMysteries raised, the First Law of Thermodynamics only address' energy changing from one state to another state. It says nothing about the origins or "creation" of that energy.

  More to the point, just because things in the universe follow certain laws doesn't mean the universe as a whole must follow those laws. The property of parts of a system don't always behave in the same way the entire system does. For example, just because airplane seats can't fly doesn't mean airplanes can't fly. Just because all sheep in the flock have a mother - it doesn't mean that the flock must then have a mother. For more on this, please see Fallacy of Composition.

  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  the First Law of Thermodynamics only address' energy changing from one state to another state. It says nothing about the origins or "creation" of that energy.

  
  

  
  

  More to the point, just because things in the universe follow certain laws doesn't mean the universe as a whole must follow those laws

  
  That was my point. Thanks!

  
  

  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  The zero-energy universe theory states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.[1][2]

  The theory was proposed in 1854 by William Thomson:
• 

  Viviane

  The total energy of the universe is two

  Yeah, no, it's not.

  1 for mass/gravity, 1 for energy: radiation, movement od expansion. The two are ~balanced, given the illusion of 0. It's 1=1, but 1+1=2' If all the energy would be converted to mass (or anti-matter) too, and the twain should meet, you would have another #2 bang, BIG.

  That's literally nonsensical gibberish.
• 

  prologos

  starting from zero, you would have to push I unit and pull another unit the other way to get the 2 unit separation. just because the thing snaps pack to zero, when your exertion stops, does not take away from the fact that two units were required to bring about the interesting "There is something" state. 2what? fisherman;--- 2 halves of the immense energy embodied in the Universe.