Peer review my thinking
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2015, 10:39 AM
Peer review my thinking
Hi, I wanted to share a thought with you. As an engineering student, I have a good background in physic, but not as much as a physician ( especially in relativity and quantum physic). Long story short, I think I proved there was no heaven and that god doesn’t exist/ isn’t omnipotent and wanted to know where is the error in my explanation (if there’s one). Notice that what you’re about to read may be total bullshit due to my lack of comprehension of certains physic principles.

First, let’s say universe is a closed thermodynamic system. if the system is closed, there can’t be information exchange with another system outside of it, information stay inside the universe. when someone go to heaven, there’s obviously an information transfert on the person shape or personality or anything that make this person, this person. Since information can’t get out of our universe, there are two possibilities (actually not!). Either there is absolutely no soul and heaven or there is an heaven, but inside our universe. Since it’s in our universe, it’s not heaven at all.

Same principle can be made on god omnipotence. if he is inside our universe, he’s not god because he would obey the same physic law as us. If he is outside of our universe, he can’t do anything since he can’t transfert information into our universe; if he did so, he would be considered to be inside our universe.

corollary about god; some religion say he is everywhere at once and can see all of us at the same time. If he could do it, and even being able to transfer information outside of our universe, the universe would be dark. He would visual information to see us, thus absorbing light. since he is everywhere, no light could travel because it would be immediatly transferred outside the universe because god looked at it.

So, I could continue that kind of reflexion for a while. Is there problem with my thinking? can it be changed to still be valid with minors corrections? Don’t be rude, I’m talking in a field i’m not an expert. I also don't know if i'm in the good subforum.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2015, 10:56 AM
RE: Peer review my thinking
(21-02-2015 10:39 AM)geniusrobot Wrote:  ...
First, let’s say universe is a closed thermodynamic system.
...

Let's not.

Therefore god.

Checkmate, atheists!

In other words, with your definitions of 'universe' and 'heaven' you can define god(s) out of existence. Change the definitions and POOF! god(s) exist.

Meanwhile... Welcome to the forum. You could do well here.

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
21-02-2015, 11:15 AM
RE: Peer review my thinking
The theist always has an escape hatch....... "God" has "powers".

That's why they'd make a predictable boring movie.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2015, 12:05 PM
RE: Peer review my thinking
I'm a commerce student but I do understand a bit of philosophy so after reading through the OP the statements you make are vague and feels like random stuff strung together to sound like high grade science

Quote:First, let’s say universe is a closed thermodynamic system. if the system is closed, there can’t be information exchange with another system outside of it, information stay inside the universe. when someone go to heaven, there’s obviously an information transfer on the person shape or personality or anything that make this person, this person. Since information can’t get out of our universe, there are two possibilities (actually not!). Either there is absolutely no soul and heaven or there is an heaven, but inside our universe. Since it’s in our universe, it’s not heaven at all.

a soul has to be defined here, if its the layman definition then what you have here is the usage of Substance Dualism the idea that things can exist independently of any physical matter which has not been supported by anything in science ever

you have yet to define what information means

heaven is simply a place for a soul to go to, so the subject of heaven only has any meaning if the existence of a soul

Quote:Same principle can be made on god omnipotence. if he is inside our universe, he’s not god because he would obey the same physic law as us. If he is outside of our universe, he can’t do anything since he can’t transfert information into our universe; if he did so, he would be considered to be inside our universe.

omnipotence is a term you need to define here
god needs to obey natural laws means nothing if the definition of omnipotence accommodates that without creating any paradoxes

Quote:corollary about god; some religion say he is everywhere at once and can see all of us at the same time. If he could do it, and even being able to transfer information outside of our universe, the universe would be dark. He would visual information to see us, thus absorbing light. since he is everywhere, no light could travel because it would be immediatly transferred outside the universe because god looked at it.

this last para makes no sense at all by the mere virtuous fact that you have not told us what information even means here among other things

you need to rigorously define each term in a simple language
this is a mandatory requirement if you want to convince people of anything, they need to know the meaning you use for what your saying otherwise you might as well be speaking a language that the audience doesn't even understand
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2015, 12:22 PM
RE: Peer review my thinking
DLJ nailed it. You haven't considered the possibility that the universe ISN'T a closed thermodynamic system.

You also need to prove that no information exchange can take place given something like "omniscience". You can't have energy exchange, but if we're pretending an omniscient god is on the table for consideration, why would energy exchange be necessary for knowledge?

(Also, holy fuck, just how many joules per second would we be talking about if it WERE necessary?)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
21-02-2015, 04:07 PM
RE: Peer review my thinking
I can tell you that you will immediately be dismissed by any theists, since their arguments for god is rooted in special pleading, whatever logical limitations you construct, god is beyond that. See the Kalam cosmological argument.

Having said that though, the bible asserts god is not of this world but very much a part of it, it asserts a very contradictory nature of god. God comes down to talk to Adam in the garden of Eden and walks with him. God wrestles all night with Jacob and can't beat him until he punches him in the groin. God appears to Moses as a burning bush and shows Moses his backside. (moons Moses?)

The firmament was a place that separated the waters of heaven from the dry land of Earth, it was apparent that heaven was literally above a physical dome in the sky just a few miles above Earth. Needles to say, no Christian would defend this nonsense now since we've been far beyond the mythical firmament. They just redefine the firmament to mean "the heavens", even though it was a dome right above the Earth, directly from Sumerian mythology.

Hebrew cosmology:

[Image: Ancient-Hebrew-view-of-universe.png]

Sumerian cosmology:

[Image: sumerian.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
21-02-2015, 04:13 PM
RE: Peer review my thinking
Quote:Hi, I wanted to share a thought with you. As an engineering student, I have a good background in physic, but not as much as a physician

Did you mean "physicist?"

I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson is great but if I have a cold I'm not going to see him.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2015, 04:16 PM
RE: Peer review my thinking
*sniffs* Do I detect the aroma of a bait and switch? Consider

Okay I will throw out a bone...thermodynamics, lets take a peek...

The four laws of thermodynamics define fundamental physical quantities (temperature, energy, and entropy) that characterize thermodynamic systems. The laws describe how these quantities behave under various circumstances, and forbid certain phenomena (such as perpetual motion).

The four laws of thermodynamics in informal terms are:

Zeroth law of thermodynamics: states that if each of two systems is in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law helps define the notion of temperature.

First law of thermodynamics: states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.

Second law of thermodynamics: states that the entropy of a closed system tends to increase to its maximum value (entropy is the amount of energy not available for work, sometimes in formerly referred to as “disorder” or “chaos”). Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.

Third law of thermodynamics: reduces to the conclusion that absolute zero can never be reached in a finite amount of time.

I bring this up because it seems that pseudoscience type creationists, and those who puppet their words even though they do not understand the principles in question, like to posit that the second law of thermodynamics refutes evolution. They grasp at this straw of this disingenuous misinformation by claiming that since entropy increases in a closed system, evolution or the emergence of an ordered universe is impossible, requiring an outside creator.

As a solid rebuttal, it is easy to point out that the earth, bombarded by energy from the sun, is not a closed system, and though our observed universe is probably indeed a “closed system” (if that means anything), the second law of thermodynamics applies only to the energy of particles, which did not exist at the earliest stage of the Big Bang. The second law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to the topic of evolution, and completely useless as a theistic argument.

You can further debunk your opponent by following up with this question, “since you obviously imagine that the Second law, which is derived from within the universe, applies to the universe as a whole, does the First law also apply? Since the First law states that energy/matter cannot be created, doesn’t that rule out the creation of the universe?”

intriguing...no really Big Grin

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
21-02-2015, 04:29 PM
RE: Peer review my thinking
Magic motha fucka.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2015, 07:48 PM
RE: Peer review my thinking
OP, as others have pointed out, theism = magic, so while you might convince a skeptic with your argument, don't expect to convince a theist.

Your argument, OP, is very similar to the one I use to debunk the concept of "the supernatural" as useless. If god is not of the natural order then there is no way anyone can have any information about him. As soon as someone claims to have information about god then god has entered the natural order and become a part of it. Therefore he cannot be supernatural (above or outside of nature). If god is not outside of nature he is subject to it, and something less than the standard tri-omni, personal, interventionist god.

But as I said, theism = magic, therefore, god. In this case, god can somehow communicate with our reality, yet not be subject to its laws or any other aspect of it. Because he's god. Or something like that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: