If energy can neither be created nor destroyed...

If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, doesn’t that law suggest that a god exists? that God is that energy and all comes from it as a original source and it continues to perpetually exist?

Yes.

Not sure if it is that simple.

It means that the universe is infinite, without beginning nor end.

No gods.

mannequin01

I believe it would depend on how you define god.

Why do you say that mannequin01?

Well, lets not fall into the definition of God thing, but rather just refer to it as an intelligent energy source, leaving the personal tailoring behind.

Why does it seem as so this intelligent energy source is so distant?

What is your experience with this?

mannequin01

OK, I can live with that.

Refer to God as an intelligent energy source - this becomes the basis for conversation then.

How could it be? Energy and matter are the same thing, just in different states - you are matter and energy.

Sorry, what is my experience with what?

Umm . . . I don’t see it that way. Could you please give me a little more info to convince me? Specifically how it makes that suggestion.

From what you say, God perpetually exists. The God is intelligent enough to create all others things from itself.

The thing which boggles my mind is where did that energy come from?

If energy cannot be destroyed, why do stars die out and where does that light go when its journey to Earth is finished? What happens to that light which is energy?

How did this so-called God, for lack of a better word, come to be?
It almost seems fictitious when you think about it.

Is it because our minds are not capable of conceiving what is actually the truth of it?

How can anything always have existed?

If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, couldn’t that mean that our so-called universe, as a universe, or as universes, might not be so infinite?
It/they might be transformed into a diamond in the rough someday?
Or one single pearl in one single oyster…

The First Law Of Thermodynamics only applies to what happens within the Universe not to the Universe as such
Now that does not rule out the possibility of it being infinite only that it would not be the reason as to why it is

Arcturus Descending

The topic of energy is one that has led many people into a state of confusion and thought dispersion.

If everything never existed, as opposed to always existing, then we would not be here discussing this.

Energy cannot not be destroyed - it can only be transformed. Stars do not die out entirely - but they do go supernova, whereby they eject most of their mass and in some cases possibly all of their mass - this would indicate that the mass left behind is still there - lending abstraction to what a star actually is - for the sake of explanation, a star’s mass needs to glow for there to be a star - when this mass no longer glows - the star is not there - but the mass is. The mass remains in the universe.

Star formation is closely related to planet formation.

When the light’s journey to planet earth has finished it does not go anywhere - it remains in the universe - it is either transferred/transformed into heat through absorption or reflected to be absorbed or further reflected by something else. Light is also capable of dispersion.

:wink:

Arcturus Descending

Another way of saying what I was saying is as surreptitious57 put it . . .

Thermodynamics: the branch of physical science that deals with the relations between heat and other forms of energy (such as mechanical, electrical, or chemical energy), and, by extension, of the relationships between all forms of energy.
[size=85]Thank you Google dictionary . . .[/size]

Exactly . . . When we speak of anything, we are speaking about things inside of the universe. When we speak of everything, we are speaking of the universe. The universe is not an anything - it is an everything. As to why the universe is - many people have attempted a description through dissatisfaction of not knowing.

Arcturus Descending I have contemplated your idea of universe transformation many years ago - it provided me with many hours of amusement.

:smiley:

Absolute nothing cannot persist so there will always be something rather than nothing but within the Universe individual universes will still die
The notion of absolute nothing only holds true at the quantum level because so called empty space at the classical level is not actually empty

“If?”, an open or closed system? We’re not really sure on that account. Any “If” appears subjective to that uncertainty.

If the Universe is a closed system then god is not likely. Maybe a god did exist as energy and the matter now in existence is all that is left. Still connected, one, abstractly.
If the Universe is an open system, well then it’s anybodies guess.

imo: the catbird seat is to hold no particular preference.

I agree with Urwrong here (with my insertion).

Furthermore, this style of argument is often misused. We are identifying a source of matter and energy for the whole universe and based solely on that, we deem it appropriate to label that source ‘God’. This is fine, I suppose, if this is really how you want to define God (i.e. the source of all matter and energy), but people usually mean more than this. The argument is usually carried a lot further than just tacking on a label–it’s usually followed up with: therefore, there is a Heaven and Hell, and God loves us, and everything the Bible says is true, etc., etc., etc., which of course is an equivocation. For example, the introduction of an intelligent source of all matter and energy seems to have slipped in? Why? Well, because if we are to identify this source as God, he’s gonna have to be intelligent. But a source of matter/energy as such need not possess any intelligence whatsoever.

In a nutshell, I’m not sure what labeling this source ‘God’ gives you.

We do not really know where the energy comes from. So we do not know either where the universe comes from, why it exists, if it exists (note that „universe“ is a concept) … and so on. The task of the physicists is not to answer questions like those. Science does not think (cp. Heidegger). Those questions must be answered or at least discussed by philosophers or theologians.

If there is only matter and energy and if there is convertability of both and if we too consist of both, then the energy may be the godlike one (thus also: the cause/reason for everything else), whereas the matter may be just the other one. If that is true, then God is always everywhere, thus also around you and in you.

Is that true? What do you think about that?


There are at least two realms: a physical one and a spiritual one.

Are there two realities then, or do both realms belong to the same reality?

Both realms belong to our world. I would not use the word “reality” in this case, because this word has got too many definitions that are too much controversal.

This is what Wikipedia wrote introductorily about “reality”:

More: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality .

Reality may pertain to things that exist but science makes a distinction between what is real and what can be observed
Since it only investigates observable phenomena and has absolutely nothing to say about whether or not any of it is real

Science speaks loud and clear to the masses via osmosis … ergo …if “it” isn’t proven by science … it isn’t real/true.