Did God already create a perpetual energy machine?

[ryan2006]

God is behind everything in my heart. Now, when the sun goes up and the sun goes down, that is perpetual motion. And the universe is 100% efficient. It neither loses or gains energy. When a law of science says you can not create nor destroy energy they are saying they don't believe in an eternal world. Now I am going to use God in vague terms. God created the past, present and future and say that all that is contained in this spirit world and the next are very much the same. They both are in motion. The bible proves a future exist is a dim future for a non-believer in Christ. However, it is my belief that the spirit world and the cosmos are intertwined. God created light it is constant at 186,000m/sec squared. Proving that the system works forever is proving that God created motion forever, but he has allready done that by saying that the world is Eternal. When it says the stars will fall from the sky I wonder if that means the end of time and motion in a physical world and an eternal life in motion in the spirit world free from flesh.

[ryan2006]

Will an editor here please change the title of this thread for me? Instead of "Did allready..." change it to "God allready..." That was what I thought I initially put. Thank you.

[modest]

The title has been changed.

 

~modest

[Boerseun]

Ignoring your shaky premise of God having anything to do with it, I'll adress your question as to whether a planet revolving around a star counts as a "perpetual motion machine".

 

The answer is No.

 

There is no energy being drawn from the system.

 

A planet revolves around a star because of the very same reason you're standing on the surface of the Earth. You're both simply following the curvature of space/time created by the mass of the planet (or star, for that matter).

 

Saying that a planet orbiting a star is a "perpetual motion machine" is akin to saying you standing on Planet Earth is a perpetual motion machine.

 

It's not. It's gravity. And if you were to take any energy from an orbiting planet, eventually the planet's orbit will decay, and it will fall into the star.

 

There's nothing perpetual about it - it simply takes longer than than the timescale the human mind is used to.

 

Also, the rest of your statement has to do with inertia. Like Newton tells us, a moving body will keep moving until stopped. A rotating planet will keep rotating on its axis, until stopped by friction of some sort. A case in point is the moon, which is slowly decellerating planet Earth's rotation. Our days are becoming longer. Eventually, Earth will be tidally locked to the moon (as the much smaller moon has already been locked to Earth) because energy is being sucked out of the system - in the form of tides.

 

There is nothing "perpetual" about anything, here. And even if it was God who did it, God, like anything else, has to obey the laws of thermodynamics. The Laws of thermodynamics trumps the Laws of God - and that particular statement is, indeed, cast in stone.

[C1ay]

The bible proves a future exist is a dim future for a non-believer in Christ.

 

In accordance with the rules here I'm going to call you on that. I expect to see your PROOF the next time I visit this thread! Bear in mind, scientific proof is verifiable and testable.

[CraigD]

God is behind everything in my heart.

Many people believe this. It’s important, though, not to allow what one feels in one’s heart to override what one sees with ones eyes. At its heart, science is very much about favoring what one observes (and, importantly, what others also observe) over what one believe must be true.

 

Put another way, we can say that, at its heart, science is about honesty. Scientists - meaning anyone who adheres to the scientific method – are free to believe in – meaning consider the possibility of – absolutely anything, but before stating a datum, must actually measure it, and have others measure it, and have these measurements agree.

 

Being scientific doesn’t mean always being correct. It does mean always being careful. I believe that, by failing to seek and find confirmation of the various claims he’s made in this and other threads, Ryan is being careless, and thus unscientific. For example:

Now, when the sun goes up and the sun goes down, that is perpetual motion.

Best scientific theory and evidence predicts that, in the distant future, the sun will cease to rise and set when observed from the Earth.

 

Tidal interactions of the Earth and Moon, and to a much lesser degree, the Earth and Sun and other bodies, is gradually slowing the Earth’s rotation.

 

Examining ancient sediment has shown that, over a period of about 600,000,000 years, the length of the solar day has increased by about 2 hours, from about 22 hours to the present value of about 24. Direct measurement using very precise clocks show that the exact duration of the day, though subject to fairly large fluctuations (on the order of 0.001 seconds), is gradually increasing, by about 0.00002 seconds/year.

 

Although Earth-Moon tidal interaction slows the Earth’s rotation This, however, is not believed to be what will ultimately cause the Sun to cease to rise and set over Earth. According to best current theory, the Earth may become tidally locked with the Sun due to increased Sun-Earth tidal interaction during the Sun’s red giant phase, about 5,000,000,000 years from now. Or it may be engulfed and consumed by the Sun – considerable uncertainty exists in scientific predictions of the Earths future.

 

While favoring one’s heartfelt beliefs over well-defined, observable data is unscientific, it’s even more unscientific to describe the physical universe in terms of things and effects that have not been precisely defined, or, worse, things and effects that have been experimentally tested for and not found to exist. For example:

However, it is my belief that the spirit world and the cosmos are intertwined.

Despite centuries of scientific testing of many hypotheses about the spirit world, none of it has shown that the spirit world actually exists in a form that could have any effect on observable reality. Although billions of people believe in their hearts that this must not be true, honest observation show it to be so.

[nutronjon]

to have a sincere theology thread, there must be acceptence of God. Those in power over this forum will not accept the existence of God, no matter how you express a belief in God. This makes the forum nothing bet a mouse trap for the cats who like to play with mice. If they can not win the arguments, the next step will be to penalize you for preaching, and if that doesn't silence you, you can be banned.

[Nootropic]

Last time I checked you didn't have to be a believer in God (or a Christian for that matter) to have a "sincere" discussion about theology. And also, this a forum for DISCUSSING SCIENCE and NOT preaching religion, so if people feel the need to preach, there are other forums for that. This is clearly not the place for that, so a ban for continuing to preach religion is certainly not illogical.

[Buffy]

to have a sincere theology thread, there must be acceptence of God. Those in power over this forum will not accept the existence of God, no matter how you express a belief in God.

That is your personal opinion. Many others--I daresay most theologians--would disagree with it. Theologians do not require a belief in God in order to discuss the topic.

 

The more broadly accepted definition of Theology is the systematic and rational study of religions and their doctrines based on recorded human experience.

 

If you wish to hold the belief in your own personal definition of the word, it is your right to do so, but to insist that others share it is selfish and offensive.

 

If you wish to debate the nature of the definition of the term, you're more than welcome to open a thread on the topic, but this post is considered off-topic in this thread.

This makes the forum nothing bet a mouse trap for the cats who like to play with mice. If they can not win the arguments, the next step will be to penalize you for preaching, and if that doesn't silence you, you can be banned.

Participation on this forum is voluntary, and the rules and purpose of the Theology forum here are very clearly stated, so calling it a "trap" is more than disingenuous and is hardly justified by an appeal to an unconventional definition of the word. If you do not agree with them, you do not have to participate. Your insistence otherwise is not too different from screaming persecution for standing up in a Christian church and interrupting the minister with protestations that Mohammed is the one true prophet.

 

People receive infractions for being persistently offensive to others, not for what they believe.

 

Vegetarianism is harmless enough, although it is apt to fill a man with wind and self-righteousness, :phones:

Buffy

[CraigD]

to have a sincere theology thread, there must be acceptence of God.

I fundamentally disagree with this assertion.

 

I think that to have a sincere theology thread, there must be agreement upon a definition of God to be applied within the context of the thread. I think one of the most common reasons that theology threads fail to be enjoyable and satisfying to their participants is a conflation of many definitions of God, each of which could be useful within a particular discussion, but conflated, aren’t useful.

 

If a discussion of the nature of God is to be scientific, the definition of God used must be scientific, which is to say, it must be usable to make testable predictions. I think such definitions are rare – other than trivial, tautological ones (eg: “God is that which must exist for anything to exist”, “God is a synonym for the universe”), I’ve encountered scientifically testable definitions of God that resemble the practical, intuitive definition I believe most theists have only in science fiction (notably Robert Sawyer’s Hugo award-nominated 2000 novel ”Calculating God”).

Those in power over this forum will not accept the existence of God, no matter how you express a belief in God.

This is correct. Expressions of a belief in God, no matter how emphatic of beautiful (and, IMHO, some of the most beautiful poetry and prose written are expressions of a belief in God) are not scientific proof of the existence of God, and should not be accepted as such. This is not to say such belief or its expression is a bad thing, only that they are not and should not be conflated with things scientific, other than as evidence of a person’s or people’s belief in a particular expression of God.

This makes the forum nothing bet a mouse trap for the cats who like to play with mice.

I can see how one feeling oneself in the role of a mouse would have this impression, but as someone I suspect nutronjon considers one of the cats, I can attest that I, and I think most of the other cats, don’t enjoy the impasse and miscommunication that seems to so often occur between theists, agnostics, and atheists in this forum. However, having a Theology forum notwithstanding, hypography is a science forum, not a religious one, so will continue to have and enforce the prime rule that claims be backed up, and further, backed up by objective, verifiable data, not statements of faith.

[Moontanman]

God is behind everything in my heart. Now, when the sun goes up and the sun goes down, that is perpetual motion. And the universe is 100% efficient. It neither loses or gains energy. When a law of science says you can not create nor destroy energy they are saying they don't believe in an eternal world. Now I am going to use God in vague terms. God created the past, present and future and say that all that is contained in this spirit world and the next are very much the same. They both are in motion. The bible proves a future exist is a dim future for a non-believer in Christ. However, it is my belief that the spirit world and the cosmos are intertwined. God created light it is constant at 186,000m/sec squared. Proving that the system works forever is proving that God created motion forever, but he has allready done that by saying that the world is Eternal. When it says the stars will fall from the sky I wonder if that means the end of time and motion in a physical world and an eternal life in motion in the spirit world free from flesh.

 

Are you saying that you learned this stuff as science in college?

[C1ay]

to have a sincere theology thread, there must be acceptence of God.

 

No you don't and that's not what this forum is for. If you read the rules for this forum you'll see it says,

 

This is not a forum for preaching the word of God (regardless of which one you may subscribe to). It is a forum for rational discussion of religious thought, and varieties thereof. How does science and religion interact? How does religion impact society? What is the role of religion in education? Why are wars fought over religious ideas? These are examples of topics we hope to see here.

 

Theology is a valid topic of social science that can be discussed without ever invoking deities. There need be no endless debate on the existence of deities and there are plenty of other forums on the web where such debates can be taken. We have provided a place here to discuss religion as a social science without debating God and there is no need for anyone here to accept God as part of such discussions. This forum is not for preaching or proselytizing.

[ryan2006]

Well, if I can not express my faith in a theology discussion than I would rather not play a part on this site. Goodbye and farewell. And on your site the introduction says "Science hypography for 'everyone'. " Goodbye.

[Overdog]

Well, if I can not express my faith in a theology discussion than I would rather not play a part on this site. Goodbye and farewell. And on your site the introduction says "Science hypography for 'everyone'. " Goodbye.

 

I think expressing your faith is fine on this site, as long as you do so without making claims of special knowledge with respect to Nature or the Universe.

 

Saying "I believe there is a God", is not the same thing as claiming God created the Universe, or the Universe IS God, or other similar claims to special knowledge.

[nutronjon]

Last time I checked you didn't have to be a believer in God (or a Christian for that matter) to have a "sincere" discussion about theology. And also, this a forum for DISCUSSING SCIENCE and NOT preaching religion, so if people feel the need to preach, there are other forums for that. This is clearly not the place for that, so a ban for continuing to preach religion is certainly not illogical.

 

I assure you, it is a violation of rules to state God is the stuff of the universe and forces that organize it. I have penalized for doing so and warned of being banned if I presist in my argument that we need to accept the existence of God. In these forums one can not make a factual statement about the existence of God, so who can there be sincere of theology?

[nutronjon]

No you don't and that's not what this forum is for. If you read the rules for this forum you'll see it says,

 

 

 

Theology is a valid topic of social science that can be discussed without ever invoking deities. There need be no endless debate on the existence of deities and there are plenty of other forums on the web where such debates can be taken. We have provided a place here to discuss religion as a social science without debating God and there is no need for anyone here to accept God as part of such discussions. This forum is not for preaching or proselytizing.

 

How is it against the rules to say God is the stuff of the universe and forces that organize it, and still be possible to discuss our ideas of God?

[Overdog]

How is it against the rules to say God is the stuff of the universe and forces that organize it, and still be possible to discuss our ideas of God?

 

Nutron, I just gave you the answer in my previous post. Did you even read it?

 

You are claiming you are some kind of Shaman or Prophet or something, with special knowledge that you and only you has which we can't verify. We would have to be fools to believe you...show proof or bug out.