29 Jul 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasI have won this debate. Why?
Of course it is a religion that should be better suited in the Spiritual Forum, where you will win.
Because if it is science, then why don't you use scientific arguments? Why do you refuse to discuss it as science?
Why? Because you will lose. And have lost.
Because I don't rely on cosmic accidents, coincidences, rolls of the dice, etc. like science does.
This is the atheist forum, not a science forum.
Originally posted by @humyIf you are implying that this energy has always existed, then you, like twhitehead, are wrong.
correct; but I asked how do you know it must have 'come'; comprehend?
If it didn't 'come' then it didn't "come from nothing" because it didn't 'come'; comprehend?
This energy, matter, and the universe was created. You just don't like it.
29 Jul 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasYour thinking is muddled and blinded you to the first rule of the fight club:
Of course it is a religion that should be better suited in the Spiritual Forum, where you will win.
Because if it is science, then why don't you use scientific arguments? Why do you refuse to discuss it as science?
Why? Because you will lose. And have lost.
In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another.
To wit: science has correctly intuited--- and that's all it is, because it is otherwise a theoretical stab in the dark--- that this energy source is otherwise unattributed but decidedly necessary.
29 Jul 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhSo you do also believe in an Intelligent Design character up in the blue, designing a 'perfect solar eclipse' and a spherical planet?
Your thinking is muddled and blinded you to the first rule of the fight club:In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another.
To wit: science ...[text shortened]... in the dark--- that this energy source is otherwise unattributed but decidedly necessary.
29 Jul 17
Originally posted by @chaney3And this has to do with 'perfect' Solar Eclipses - how?
I have won this debate. Why?
Because I don't rely on cosmic accidents, coincidences, rolls of the dice, etc. like science does.
This is the atheist forum, not a science forum.
You are reaching for straws here. Losers do that.
29 Jul 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasScience grasps at straws, and does much guessing.
And this has to do with 'perfect' Solar Eclipses - how?
You are reaching for straws here. Losers do that.
You have no clue how things happened. Your giant ego prevents you from being humble, and you remain defiant of design.
Fine by me. Science has already admitted its ignorance, you are just late to the party.
29 Jul 17
Originally posted by @chaney3If you hate science so much, then why are you here miserably trying to push your religious view of some designer in the sky here? Here in the Science Forum?
Science grasps at straws, and does much guessing.
You have no clue how things happened. Your giant ego prevents you from being humble, and you remain defiant of design.
Fine by me. Science has already admitted its ignorance, you are just late to the party.
You are using your hated science every day, yet you use the fruits of science every time you start your computer, logging on the internet - and then you tell us that you hate science?
Yes, you should go back to stone age, when science didn't exist, reinvent the wheel.
You lose. You just lose. You don't have a clue of how science work.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeAgree. Totally agree.
Sir, you haven't even won the struggle in your head to post something logical.
It takes more than saying that one has won the struggle to actually win the struggle.
To continue to say that one hate science and think to have won in a debate of science is just a loss by itself.
To win is to know the arguments, the right arguments, not pretending to know, but actually to know. It's like bragging about having s*x with the prettiest girl in the class only because he has her in his mind while m*st*rb*ting. It doesn't really work that way.
Sorry to say, but he is *the* loser here in Science Forum.
29 Jul 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnas
So you do also believe in an Intelligent Design character up in the blue, designing a 'perfect solar eclipse' and a spherical planet?
A consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that a perpetual motion machine of the first kind cannot exist.
That is to say, no system without an external energy supply can deliver an unlimited amount of energy to its surroundings.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy#cite_note-2
55. THE first law of thermodynamics is nothing more than the principle of the conservation of energy applied to phenomena involving the production or absorption of heat. Two ways lead to a deductive proof of this principle.
We may take for granted the correctness of the mechanical view of nature, and assume that all changes in nature can be reduced to motions of material points between which there act forces which have a potential. Then the principle of energy is simply the well-known mechanical theorem of kinetic energy, generalized to include all natural processes.
Or we may, as is done in this work, leave open the question concerning the possibility of reducing all natural processes to those of motion, and start from the fact which has been tested by centuries of human experience, and repeatedly verified, viz. that it is in no way possible, either by mechanical, thermal, chemical, or other devices, to obtain perpetual motion, i.e. it is impossible to construct an engine which will work in a cycle and produce continuous work, or kinetic energy, from nothing.
We shall not attempt to show how this single fact of experience, quite independent of the mechanical
view of nature, serves to prove the principle of energy in its generality, mainly for the reason that the validity of the energy principle is nowadays no longer disputed.
It will be different, however, in the case of the second law of thermodynamics, the proof of which, at the present stage of the development of our subject, cannot be too carefully presented. The general validity of this law is still contested from time to time, and its significance variously interpreted, even by the adherents of the principle.https://ia902306.us.archive.org/1/items/treatiseonthermo00planrich/treatiseonthermo00planrich.pdf
What blue are you imagining which can be described as blue but which is not blue, but rather beyond blue?
If this system has energy and it cannot be its own source of the same, that presupposes the creation of that energy which makes up the system from some other means.
Since that system contains the blue, said Intelligent Designer cannot also be in the blue, but rather must necessarily outside fo the blue, of the system.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28862
Originally posted by @fabianfnasI think, deep down, he knows that to be true.
Sorry to say, but he is *the* loser here in Science Forum.