Using Science to prove that God EXISTS!!!

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

Undisputable Fact Number One:  Based on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the universe is NOT infinitely old, rather it had a beginning.

Undisputable Fact Number Two:  Based on the 1st law of Thermodynamics, energy within the natural universe is conserved; it can NOT be created by natural forces.

Undisputable Conclusion:  The existence of the universe requires a beginning to the universe by a supernatural force.

[Alcon]

You are wildly misconstruing scientific theory.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae261.cfm

[John Dibble]

You are wildly misconstruing scientific theory.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae261.cfm

But...but... the conclusion is undisputable!

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

You are wildly misconstruing scientific theory.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae261.cfm

No, you just don't know how to read.  The link you gave is in agreement with what I posted on the first thread concerning the 2nd law of Thermo.  Using language in the terms of the link you cited, we are not currently in a 'heat bath of photons', therefore, the universe is not infinitely old...it had a beginning.

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

You are wildly misconstruing scientific theory.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae261.cfm

But...but... the conclusion is undisputable!

You should think more before talking, that way you won't waste as much time removing your foot from your mouth.

[afleitch]

You are wildly misconstruing scientific theory.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae261.cfm

But...but... the conclusion is undisputable!

You should think more before talking, that way you won't waste as much time removing your foot from your mouth.

He still talks more sense with his foot in his mouth than you do with your feet on the ground

[John Dibble]

You are wildly misconstruing scientific theory.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae261.cfm

But...but... the conclusion is undisputable!

You should think more before talking, that way you won't waste as much time removing your foot from your mouth.

He still talks more sense with his foot in his mouth than you do with your feet on the ground

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

He still talks more sense with his foot in his mouth than you do with your feet on the ground

Well, if you and he are in agreement, then you two should have no problem proving the universe is infinitely old even though there is still plenty of usable energy.  

Then you two can split the million dollars when you win the Nobel prize for physics.

But, as it currently stands, the percentage of scientists in DISsagreement with you is somewhere on the order of 100%.  But, hey, don't let that discourage you.

[jokerman]

This has absolutely nothing to do with proving God exists.

Contrary to popular misconception, big bang theory does not say that all the matter in the Universe came from nowhere.

As a devout Christian, people like these who try to take what they learned in High School science and disprove scientific theories they know nothing about in actuality, embarasses me.

[John Dibble]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncaused_causer

The above is on the idea you have described here, as well as criticisms. Go to that section, specifically the scientific ones.

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

This has absolutely nothing to do with proving God exists.

Contrary to popular misconception, big bang theory does not say that all the matter in the Universe came from nowhere.

As a devout Christian, people like these who try to take what they learned in High School science and disprove scientific theories they know nothing about in actuality, embarasses me.

so which one of the below items are you disputing?

Undisputable Fact Number One:  Based on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the universe is NOT infinitely old, rather it had a beginning.

Undisputable Fact Number Two:  Based on the 1st law of Thermodynamics, energy within the natural universe is conserved; it can NOT be created by natural forces.

[7,052,770]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncaused_causer

The above is on the idea you have described here, as well as criticisms. Go to that section, specifically the scientific ones.

Did you even bother to read it yourself before posting the link?  Because if you would  have, you would have noticed that the writer was totally unable to come up with anything that would point to the universe being infinitely old and his response to his own arguments was..."[An finite age for the universe] is still an open question, although the standard Big Bang cosmology is consistent with it.... [Arguments for an infinite age for the universe are] however, are NOT compatible with the current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe."

So, even the link you posted had to admit my claim that the universe had a beginning is:
1) is consistent with Big Bang cosmology
2) is compatible with the current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe.

What you are going to find is that any scientist trying to argue for an infinite age of the universe will have to admit that his argument runs contrary to current scientific understand, i.e. the theory of an infinitely old universe runs contrary to the laws of nature as science currently understands them.

Thanks for helping me make my point!

[John Dibble]

You read it how you wanted to - nothing in there validated your point whatsoever. The end statement was infact that there is no scientific consensus that the universe has a finite age.

Further, nothing in your point really proves God anyways - even assuming a universal finite age, it could have been something else entirely that brought it about, including natural forces that we simply do not currenlty know about.

[Emsworth]

Undisputable Fact Number One:  Based on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the universe is NOT infinitely old, rather it had a beginning.

Undisputable Fact Number Two:  Based on the 1st law of Thermodynamics, energy within the natural universe is conserved; it can NOT be created by natural forces.

I suppose that divine energy is somehow exempt from your "Undisputable Facts"?

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

nothing in there validated your point whatsoever.

Except the tiny part about a finite age of the universe being "compatible with the current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe."

---

The end statement was in fact that there is no scientific consensus that the universe has a finite age.

That is because he was admittedly conjecturing outside of the known laws of the universe, but when confined to what is known about the laws of the universe, these “non-consensus” opinions are NOT "compatible with the current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe."
 
This guy just won’t admit that his own science proves him wrong; therefore, he moves the argument outside of current scientific understanding.

---

Further, nothing in your point really proves God anyways - even assuming a universal finite age, it could have been something else entirely that brought it about, including natural forces that we simply do not currently know about.

“Including natural forces that we simply do not currently know about”?  Really?

So, you are like the scientist you quoted – when your idea runs contrary to current scientific understanding, you claim current theories are wrong and that you will be proven right when science replaces its current theories.

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

Undisputable Fact Number One:  Based on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the universe is NOT infinitely old, rather it had a beginning.

Undisputable Fact Number Two:  Based on the 1st law of Thermodynamics, energy within the natural universe is conserved; it can NOT be created by natural forces.

I suppose that divine energy is somehow exempt from your "Undisputable Facts"?

explain what you mean

[7,052,770]

jmfcst...even if everything you're saying is true (which it isn't) who says that God is the cause?

[John Dibble]

So, you are like the scientist you quoted – when your idea runs contrary to current scientific understanding, you claim current theories are wrong and that you will be proven right when science replaces its current theories.

Let me tell you a little story about something called "The Law of Gravity". It was previously thought that we knew everything about the behavior of gravity, so it was thought of as a scientific law. Later it got booted down to theory, because it turned out that gravity behaves differently in certain circumstances, and we don't know everything about it after all. The lesson - 'current scientific understanding' is not absolute and all knowing, so it's foolish to pretend otherwise.

[Emsworth]

Undisputable Fact Number One:  Based on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the universe is NOT infinitely old, rather it had a beginning.

Undisputable Fact Number Two:  Based on the 1st law of Thermodynamics, energy within the natural universe is conserved; it can NOT be created by natural forces.

I suppose that divine energy is somehow exempt from your "Undisputable Facts"?

explain what you mean

Why should one apply your argument to natural energy, but not to supernatural energy (i.e., the energy of God)?

In other words, why is it possible for supernatural energy to predate the universe, but not possible for natural energy to predate the universe?

[A18]

This doesn't prove God exists. However, I suppose 'supernatural' means anything not following the normal laws of the universe.

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

jmfcst...even if everything you're saying is true (which it isn't) who says that God is the cause?

Then simply replace the word "God" with "supernatural force".  Since the 2nd law of thermo leads to the conclusion that the natural universe is finite, it requires a supernatural event to set it into motion.

The universe still contains useable energy, therefore the universe is not infinitely old.  That is a undisputable fact as long as we stay within the limits of current scientific understand.

Basically, unless mankind proves current theories wrong by discovering the power to create energy from nothing, we are stuck with a finite age for the universe.  In other words, unless man finds a way to harness what would currently be considered the supernatural power of creation, he is left with the conclusion that there must have been a supernatural force in order for the universe to exist.

[jokerman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Err.......what?

Why is it labeled "Ebowed more or less" and changed the word "devout" to "marginal."

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

So, you are like the scientist you quoted – when your idea runs contrary to current scientific understanding, you claim current theories are wrong and that you will be proven right when science replaces its current theories.

Let me tell you a little story about something called "The Law of Gravity". It was previously thought that we knew everything about the behavior of gravity, so it was thought of as a scientific law. Later it got booted down to theory, because it turned out that gravity behaves differently in certain circumstances, and we don't know everything about it after all. The lesson - 'current scientific understanding' is not absolute and all knowing, so it's foolish to pretend otherwise.

Again, you're basing your argument on presumption of undiscovered theories that will prove current theories wrong.  Basically, your basis is nothing more that "hope" itself because your ideas contradict every single scientific observation made by man.

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

Why should one apply your argument to natural energy, but not to supernatural energy (i.e., the energy of God)?

In other words, why is it possible for supernatural energy to predate the universe, but not possible for natural energy to predate the universe?

Natural energy defines the natural universe - you can't have one without the other.

Supernatural forces, likewise by definition, are defined as those not limited to the laws of the natural universe.  That is why they would be super-natural...or maybe 'super' should be replace with 'extra'.  (I didn't invent the term.)