OT: Frank and Dave's Philosophical Kebab Emporium

don't think that still answers my question.

if the only use for light is to provide that, ie light, no other reason, what happens to the energy that once created that light, it has no other form to take on, you just have darkness again until you create more energy.

i can accept there are rules where the plant cow etc is true and energy has formed into another form, but does that theory stack up as a rule in general and apply to everything?

are we saying things never die, just turn into something else?

we can now days recycle a lot of things that can be turned into energy to once again use, but we still have a lot of things go to land fill that once had energy to supply them, so where has it gone?

 

J , put your hand beside a turned on lightbulb and you'll feel heat, that's the light transferring again into another form of energy, roughly..it may not be our intention but the light energy excites the sir molecules it hits and it is converted to heat which then effects the nature of the molecules, say the sun light heating ice turning it from solid to liquid to gas..

 

I'm the last person to try and explain this because like you I am not scientifically orientated but how I see it - everything that you can actually put your hands on [things as you say in land fill] will erode and decay down into it's lowest form, maybe dust [?] this can then grow plants in etc. etc. The things you can't put your hands on like light is powered from a different source, electricity [?] which is still there powering anything you plug in. Gosh that's an awful explanation ...

 

My first two questions were mere appetisers for the third. "How should you like God to be?". My answer is I don't need him. I find him a little awkward, often hilarious, and always intrusive in any of the ways I could imagine him be. Especially the religions' ways of fancying him.

But let's suppose he is just that power that doesn't let your 'spirit' decompose before the happy maggots start their work, but 'breathes' it into a new life being born again. As let's cut the chase - because that's our main fear here , as we'd happily forego all the other 'fuzzy needs' if we could just settle for that one. That simple God would suffice, and would be less awkward, less hilarious, less intrusive than all the alternative imaginations of Him. Or wouldn't he?

Now, should you like that God to play the lottery in assigning you a new life? Or have him assign you to a 'deserved' life? The latter takes you on the shortcut straight back to the hell & heaven stories, which I personally find very oppressive. And hilarious, for here we have a God that keeps tabs. And a God who has an infallible algorithm of morals with which to judge your 'deserving' of what new life or after life.

If you should want God to play the lottery in assigning you a new life... what should be His point of existing anyway? To man the switches? To empower the humongous grid with his teats milk?

 

Yeah, I got your view from reading this thread so all good.

As for the outside source providing the energy. On RHCs instruction I've just attempted to read up on thermodynamics, the 5 stages of the universe and how spontaneous entropy or something about quantum tunnelling (that lead down another path)could result in going from the heat death of the universe to another big bang of equal size to the one theorized to begin it all as we currently know it. Or....another possible stage beyond the comprehended laws of physics where those laws break down....My head hurts and I'm doing it a disservice but it appears to be a theory to explain how the energy goes from high activity to no activity and back again within a closed or open system. In effect God isn't needed energy wise it holds to RHC's constant transfer statement....That's as far as I've got which funny enough isn't far and won't answer your obvious question of something out of nothings origin's starting point. Although there is debate I think on whether the Universe is even "it" or is it part of an even bigger "it" containing many universes ....

Be it God or Not , the sheer scale of this is wonderous..and to be able to work each day with those scales and not get lost is impressive.

 

i get the heat part from the bulb frank, but what about energy bulbs that don't supply a lot of heat?

they was designed to have as little impact on the environment as possible, still hold true with them that you get some benefit or another form taking on from the heat, or is it of little significance and impact on things it ends there.

 

You're smartly wumming the mighty purpose of the thread with your lowly science questions

I'll give you an answer tho...

Incandescent old-school bulb uses electrical energy for light and heat. But fluorescent new-school bulb uses same energy for light and heat.

 

I think for theists the whole area of thermodynamics and big bangs is interesting or mega interesting depending on whether you want to now that much about it It strikes me though that for atheists and possibly agnostics it's a race to prove that God doesn't exist, since most of the big bang stuff and it's extensions is supposition anyway, it's going to be a long race!

 

Well I did ask the question does other levels of existence always require a landlord lol...

And again from one person who uses flowery language to another are you meaning to show your emotions on the subject (see above paragraph as point of reference)? You ask questions like an analyst but use language laced with more than a little pre judgement when reviewing a response.

I don't mean you're judging me necessarily, it just seems a clash of styles so to speak.

You asked me why I could contemplate the existence of God without evidence and I told you the reasons I would consider the existence of God and admitted they were selfish and ultimately irrelevant to anyone but me and even then only relevant while pondering..

You set the parameter at an entity I answered within that parameter. You didn't ask if I would prefer a continuation or transference of existence from this to something else without the need of a conscious entity at all? Or another alternative through science,of an extension of this life to the point of relative everlasting life. Both of these alternatives would fufill my fluffy list.

As I stated I don't live my life day to day on the basis of God existing or not existing so why the insistence on taking literally one part of my response to your specific question when the first statement of this paragraph is the important part of my answer?

It feels very like you are producing a strawman argument to convey your views on anyone who isn't ...Well..Atheist."

Maybe you dislike the irrationality of my reasoning? I try to be rational when it's an advantage but I enjoy my emotional response to the world just as much and accept its part of me. I try not to be ruled by only head or only heart.

 

No. This is predominantly the religion thread

 

Ask yourself where the 'light' came from in the first place.

 

****e, but good effort

 

I think that's unlikely, JB. My reasoning is simply that agnostics think the god(s) question is insoluble, and atheists think god's existence is a non-question, like the existence of fairies, etc. Neither will bother trying to disprove god(s) for the reasons given. My experience of theists and thermodynamics is, unfortunately, limited to some painfully ignorant arguments against Evolution.


P.S. I use 'Philosophy' in the title of this thread in the older definition, hence covering all modern science and philosophy. Science, Religion, Ethics, Morality: all are welcome here!

 

Might as well **** Sisu's thread right off then. **** him

 

Well as an assigned agnostic (I hate limiting labels when my very position is to keep all ideas open) I'm coming last in that race as I'd assume you'd have to understand it first before you could then use it to try and disprove God.

 

Not exactly my intent, mate.

To be fair, as I said in the OP (I know most people don't read it ... no names, you know who you are!), Sisu's post was highjacked from the original topic into a general science debate and so thought a more general thread was needed. This be that thread. Besides, I like talking science and religion.

 

#mutuallyexclusive

 

Shucks, thanks RHC.

 

I think, personally, as institutions, science and religion are indeed mutually exclusive, although I know many scientists who disagree. As an atheist, I like talking religion in the same way a christian, for example, likes talking about Roman or Greek mythology. Or any fiction, really. You don't have to be a Zeus-fearing person to enjoy The Odyssey or the tales of Heracles.

 

I did mean purely in terms of bringing it up in discussions such as this. Those studying thermodynamics will be of all bents so no, it wasn't a generalised perception about atheists per se from me.