Logical Hierarchies

It works perfectly well in any bounds. I mean here that you cannot in principle construct a machine to extract energy from a heat reservoir without a heat sink. It's difficult to believe that you don't understand this. Visit Tom Bearden's site and see if he will let you invest in his project? You might become millionaires ... and ... I will be proved wrong ;o)

Heat is not energy as you seem to believe, EBTX. Machines are very limited in every way and that has nothing to do with nature. There are many processes in nature that are not heat related.

EBTX,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you wish to posit a universe with a no beginning, you are compelled to do so in opposition to the evidence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

What evidence? I haven't seen any, or do you refer to a big-bang scenario? But even the most ardent big-bang supporters have to concede that this can hardly be called a beginning.

I'm surprised to see that one can jump to the conclusion that the universe was born out of a singularity: Redshift does not imply that this expansion started from a singularity at all. If the universe is expanding, then we can merely conclude that it is doing so from the start of our observation. We just can't go back and claim that the universe has always expanded. This is a logical fallacy.

Anyone claiming that the universe has a beginning must offer a clear mechanism what induced this beginning, and most of all, must show what generated all the substance in the universe. Because we have no such creation scenario beyond any reasonable doubt, we have to conclude that the universe is an omnipotent construct of existence.

Sure, some directional component of the universe is observable, but how do these massive jets of matter fit into all of this?





"It only takes one white crow to proof that not all crows are black."

Jan,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Anyone claiming that the universe has a beginning must offer a clear mechanism what induced this beginning, and most of all, must show what generated all the substance in the universe. Because we have no such creation scenario beyond any reasonable doubt, we have to conclude that the universe is an omnipotent construct of existence.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is not to address the ultimate issue of origin but the assumptions you have made in your post.

If those claiming creation ex nihilo (me included) are obligated to show cause or you are to assume the claim is false, why are not Relativists obligated to show cause for relavistic affects.?

Seems we have a case of "Moving the Goal Posts" when comparing validity of Relativity to that of its alternatives.



Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'm surprised to see that one can jump to the conclusion that the universe was born out of a singularity:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I don't think that the universe was born out of a singularity in a big bang ... but I do believe that it had what amounts to a "beginning".
If one wishes to postulate a "no beginning" scenario ... one must equally give reason as to <u>why it had no beginning</u>. Neither "beginning" nor "no beginning" is a logical default position. Do you get it? There are four basic alternatives regarding beginning-end, any one of which, if true, would require an explanation which rules out the other three. In my view, there is not sufficient evidence to rule out any yet. Hence, they remain all on the table for discussion. I favor "beginning-no end" based on what I see as the preponderance of evidence. Others may interpret the same data as meaning that the preponderance of evidence favors "no beginning-no end".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'm surprised to see that one can jump to the conclusion that the universe was born out of a singularity:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I don't think that the universe was born out of a singularity in a big bang ... but I do believe that it had what amounts to a "beginning".
If one wishes to postulate a "no beginning" scenario ... one must equally give reason as to <u>why it had no beginning</u>. Neither "beginning" nor "no beginning" is a logical default position. Do you get it? There are four basic alternatives regarding beginning-end, any one of which, if true, would require an explanation which rules out the other three. In my view, there is not sufficient evidence to rule out any yet. Hence, they remain all on the table for discussion. I favor "beginning-no end" based on what I see as the preponderance of evidence. Others may interpret the same data as meaning that the preponderance of evidence favors "no beginning-no end".
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I relate the beginning issue with "ex nihilo", which is assumed to be nonsense, so that all forms in the universe existed without being created. Thus, we cannot point to a moment in time when it suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Likewise, the no-end issue begs the question where should all forms go when the universe reaches its end.

Like you said, one can take a position that feels comfortable, since no solid proof has been tabled for all conceivable beginning-end scenarios

"If QM concludes Nature is absurd, SR's statement is that Nature is a complete moron."