Db, the heat term is the deltaH term. You need to read j_IR1776wg's response to your post.

That's thinking outside the box :)

I apologize if I offended you regarding use of the word "nonsensical" to you. Perhaps I have been reading too many of the other posts in this blog to keep track of whose postings are whose. You are always reasonable in your posts, and are worthy of respect.

Multiple universes are quite possible, and maybe such a universe has the answer to this question.

I am not saying that we must accept all postulates of a great mind, but we can't immediately discount them, as is often the case with atheists on this topic.

My "intimidation" regarding the use of Einstein was necessary. The strategy of atheists has been to discount anything that disagrees with their worldview. It takes someone of exceptional chutzpah (like ewv) to claim intellectual superiority to Einstein. If Einstein, arguably the most intelligent and scientific human mind ever to exist, was willing to consider the possibility of a god, that in itself should be enough to at least keep the debate open. It should prevent people from closing the debate as "nonsensical" or "absurd" or any of the other words that atheists routinely use to shut down debate.

It seems to me that one can believe that the existence of one or more eternal all knowing all powerful perfect immortal beings that are everywhere is valid, or that logic itself is valid, but not both.
I choose logic.

The choice of a definition of a deity is important here. I accept some of AR's definitions of a Biblical god
and reject others, and I will explain the points separately as follows.

"God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that

invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . .

Christians should reject much of the above portion of the definition. If one accepts that Jesus was the son

of the Biblical god, then the Biblical god has made a reasonable attempt to give Christians the power to

conceive of the Biblical god through communication with his son. This is an indirect communication that is

admittedly unacceptable to Objectivists. Christian teaching actually validates man's consciousness and his

concepts of existence in that Christians believe that they are in made in God's image and likeness.

"Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . "
While Christian men and women are expected to use their minds, they ought to be subordinated to the will of

God. It is for this reason that I have said, to the disagreement of Fred Speckmann, that Christians should

not be able to take all of Galt's oath.

"Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s

power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . "

Christians should reject much of the above statement. The standards were laid out in the Ten Commandments.

One does indeed have to have faith that Moses actually did communicate with God at the burning bush.

However, the person of Jesus reinforced such standards of value.

The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for

reasons he is not to question." -Galt's Speech

This part of Galt's speech should be rejected by Christians completely. Christians (yes, including

Catholics) are encouraged to read the Bible as God's handbook on how to live a proper life. I have never

found reading zombie-like. The purpose of such reading is precisely to discover God's purpose for the

Christian life. Moreover, the reasons for such instructions are also laid out. Such reasons included "so

that you may live long in the land". The best reason that the Biblical god gave was in Exodus 20:5-7.

"You shall not worship them (false gods) or serve them, for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting

the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

but showing loving kindness to a thousand generations to those who love Me and keep My commandments. You

shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes

His name in vain.…"

Why can we not be comfortable with no origin? Some people can be comfortable with no origin, particularly

Objectivists. Admittedly, this is a significant problem that theists must confront. However, even atheists,

as noted by the number of people participating in this blog, want to know from whence they came. The

JudeoChristian tradition teaches that God made us to seek God. While that may be true, it is not

particularly satisfying.

Conservation of matter and energy implies things have always been.
This, of course, is true since the "big bang". Before such a big bang, if there was such a time, is not

answered adequately by atheism. Deism's answer for such a time isn't all that great either.


Adding God doesn't solve a puzzle. Who created God?
The addition of God into the equation doesn't solve all puzzles.
It would solve many puzzles, but it creates another that cannot be solved satisfactorily either.

Uh d wiki begins its definition of entropy thus..".In thermodynamics, entropy (usual symbol S) is a measure of the number of specific ways in which a thermodynamic system may be arranged, commonly understood as a measure of disorder" A measure of disorder..

J, entropy is about heat not order. In addition, there is no reason to believe that the Universe is limited or fits the definition of a isolated system.

It's the old prove they don't exist trap

ok, imagine for a moment how comments like yours and teri's are viewed by an atheist. It does nothing to advance an argument about truth.

If that is correct, that would mean these Gods are just part of and bound by the universe.

I still think that multiple universes are far more likely then infinite super beings.

j, even geniuses like Newton can make mistakes or be driven by emotion and culture. Newton on the wrong side of the longitude debate, into alchemy- for example.. I disagree with Rand on The Theory of Evolution. You do not have to accept the whole of a person's thoughts or work to recognize and value other parts of their work as objectively valid. It seems as though you are saying we must accept all postulations of geniuses as that is the most valuable litmus. I disagree.
Why would you try to intimidate in arguments regarding truth? I'm confused.

ewv says, "The onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive." Where you, Ayn Rand, khalling, and all atheists disagree with me is on the application of this point. A statement of non-existence of a deity is actually a positive statement. Those who make the case for atheism are stating positively that no deity exists. For that, atheists argue that they do not have to prove his non-existence. It is the burden of those who say that a deity exists to prove their case. This is a logical fallacy. Both atheists and theists are making positive statements, and therefore, the onus is on both of them. AR and Peikoff derides agnosticism "by rejecting arbitrary assertions." With all due respect to everyone involved here, agnosticism is the one case for which the onus must not be proven. Atheism has never and can never be proven. It may indeed be correct, but it cannot be proven. The burden of proof lies on both atheists and theists. Atheists have felt (and I do mean "felt") no need to justify their belief in no god because they think that they only have to battle theists.

I said, “Some scientists theorize that this universe was created by a big bang.”
Others have theorized that it grows and collapses in cycles, recreating itself each time.
I accept these theories as possible much more then infinite super beings.
In my opinion, existence would not stop existing even if this universe fully collapsed on to itself.

The increase in entropy of the universe generally implies a progression toward disorder. A spontaneous process only happens when the deltaG is less than zero.
deltaG = deltaH - T*deltaS
If deltaH is sufficiently negative, then deltaS can actually be negative, resulting in increased order. Such cases do happen. They don't happen often, but are not impossible.

I agree that Newton's numerological studies of the Bible is mysticism. However, the kind of numerology that Newton did was an attempt to decipher patterns in the same way that intelligence agencies have attempted to do with regard to their enemies' encrypted messages, as was done successfully just prior to The Battle of Midway. Do not dismiss numerology so quickly; today it is called cryptography.