The First Law Of Thermodynamics

[Damien the Leper]

Reform Mormonism was brought up in another thread. R.M. is not a movement which I am familiar with but I did a google search that brought up their Gospel Doctrine blog. Within the blog there is a hypothetical conversation between a Reform Mormon and a Christian. I thought it interesting as it then applied the First Law of Thermodynamics. I don't claim to be a physicist or any expertise in sciences. I barely got through them with the B's I fought kicking and screaming for so be patient with me if/when anyone chooses to respond.

“In its simplest form, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. The amount of energy in the universe is constant – energy can be changed, moved, controlled, stored, or dissipated. However, this energy cannot be created from nothing or reduced to nothing. Every natural process transforms energy and moves energy, but cannot create or eliminate it….The First Law of Thermodynamics is one of the absolute physical laws of the universe. Everything in the entire universe is affected by this law, as much as time or gravity… A burning log in the fireplace seems to violate the principles of conservation of matter/energy. Burning the log appears to create energy and destroy matter. In reality, the energy and matter are only changing place and forms; they are not being created or destroyed. The wood in the log has chemical potential energy, which is released when it is burned. This released energy appears in the form of heat and light. The matter of the log is changed into smoke particles, ash, and soot. The log’s total energy and mass before burning are the same as the mass and energy of the soot, ash, smoke, heat and light afterwards.”

This is the hypothetical conversation:

CHRISTIAN: Do you believe that God created the universe?

REFORM MORMON: No.

CHRISTIAN: Who do you think created it then?

REFORM MORMON: No one created it. The elements from which all things are organized are eternal; they have no beginning or end.

CHRISTIAN: But everything has a beginning.

REFORM MORMON: Where do you believe God came from?

CHRISTIAN: God has always existed.

REFORM MORMON: So you believe that God has no beginning?

CHRISTIAN: That’s right. God has no beginning.

REFORM MORMON: But that contradicts your other belief—that ‘everything has a beginning.’

CHRISTIAN: That doesn’t apply to God.

REFORM MORMON: If it doesn’t apply to God, why shouldn’t it apply to the universe in general?

CHRISTIAN: I don’t know. It just doesn’t. It’s a mystery.

REFORM MORMON: But you’re accepting as true two ideas that are mutually exclusive. On the one hand you’re saying that everything which exists has a beginning, but on the other hand you’re saying that God, who also exists, has no beginning.

Am I off base for recognizing the, albeit strong and appropriate, logic as presented in this case?

What is the LDS response to the First Law of Thermodynamics?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Reform Mormonism was brought up in another thread. R.M. is not a movement which I am familiar with but I did a google search that brought up their Gospel Doctrine blog. Within the blog there is a hypothetical conversation between a Reform Mormon and a Christian. I thought it interesting as it then applied the First Law of Thermodynamics. I don't claim to be a physicist or any expertise in sciences. I barely got through them with the B's I fought kicking and screaming for so be patient with me if/when anyone chooses to respond.

This is the hypothetical conversation:

Am I off base for recognizing the, albeit strong and appropriate, logic as presented in this case?

What is the LDS response to the First Law of Thermodynamics?

There isn't one. The logic is the refutation of the Kalam argument as well as Aquinas (I think it was him or else the yahoo before him, Anselm)....... it takes faith to say it is God. But that is the extra step hypothesis that is unnecessary. The physicist logically and impeccibly says what you say of God fits in very nicely with what we already know about the Cosmos based on the laws and math we currently understand, hence the universe could very well be as the logical statement says. In other words, God is the unnecessary hypothesis in the scenario.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[TAO]

Reform Mormonism was brought up in another thread. R.M. is not a movement which I am familiar with but I did a google search that brought up their Gospel Doctrine blog. Within the blog there is a hypothetical conversation between a Reform Mormon and a Christian. I thought it interesting as it then applied the First Law of Thermodynamics. I don't claim to be a physicist or any expertise in sciences. I barely got through them with the B's I fought kicking and screaming for so be patient with me if/when anyone chooses to respond.

This is the hypothetical conversation:

Am I off base for recognizing the, albeit strong and appropriate, logic as presented in this case?

What is the LDS response to the First Law of Thermodynamics?

Valentinus, the Christian could simply reply by saying that God was the exception to the rule, just as 0 divided by 0 is not non-existant - it's 0. Both are fine logical positions, just... different.

In any case, yeah, Law of Thermodynamics makes sense for me, and it does fit in with some degree of Mormon theology well. Organization rather than creation ex-nihlo, and other things involved.

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus, the Christian could simply reply by saying that God was the exception to the rule, just as 0 divided by 0 is not non-existant - it's 0. Both are fine logical positions, just... different.

That's fine so long as the Christian can defend that position with an explanation other than "Because He's God". Wow! Just typing out that sort of explanation made me want to vomit.

In any case, yeah, Law of Thermodynamics makes sense for me, and it does fit in with some degree of Mormon theology well. Organization rather than creation ex-nihlo, and other things involved.

My favorite parts:

neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed

this energy cannot be created from nothing or reduced to nothing

[blackstrap]

0/0 = 0 contradicts 2 other laws . 0/0 = 1 and 0/0 = undefined . Which is it ?

[Damien the Leper]

0/0 = 0 contradicts 2 other laws . 0/0 = 1 and 0/0 = undefined . Which is it ?

Please explain further. I'm interested in where you are going with this.

[Freedom]

Please explain further. I'm interested in where you are going with this.

I know where I would go with this. There are inherent contradictions in what we know of reality. 1 x 0 = 0, therefore 0/0 should equal 1, but math tells us that 0/0 is 0. Science tells us that nothing can go faster than light, however this contradicts the horizon principal. Thus, to play devils advocate, one can say that argue the 'christian' point of view even though it appears to be contradictory because there are many apparent contradictions in what we observe.

[CASteinman]

0/0 = 0 contradicts 2 other laws . 0/0 = 1 and 0/0 = undefined . Which is it ?

Only one of those three options is actually correct under the most commonly observed real number algebraic axioms. "Division by Zero is Undefined". Not 1. Not Zero. Undefined.

[CASteinman]

Am I off base for recognizing the, albeit strong and appropriate, logic as presented in this case?

The RM sort of says things that are roughly as I would say them. My cosmology is actually a bit more complex but this is a fair reduction.

[djholmess]

By Christian you guys mean Mormon right? My answer would be simply to point out that I believe that the first law of thermodynamics is part of Gods material creation. As I believe God is spirit, not material, this law in no way contradicts his eternal nature.

[blackstrap]

And yet 10 to the power of -99 divided by 10 to the power of -99 is technically 1 .. Odd things happen as we approach zero. Odd things happen as we approach infinity. I suspect odd things happen as we approach God.

[wenglund]

Reform Mormonism was brought up in another thread. R.M. is not a movement which I am familiar with but I did a google search that brought up their Gospel Doctrine blog. Within the blog there is a hypothetical conversation between a Reform Mormon and a Christian. I thought it interesting as it then applied the First Law of Thermodynamics. I don't claim to be a physicist or any expertise in sciences. I barely got through them with the B's I fought kicking and screaming for so be patient with me if/when anyone chooses to respond.

This is the hypothetical conversation:

Am I off base for recognizing the, albeit strong and appropriate, logic as presented in this case?

I believe the logic breaks down by equivocating the meaning of the word "everything." The hypothetical Christian evidently used the word to mean all that God created (i.e. the universe); whereas the hypothetical RM used the word to mean "all things that exist." There isn't a contradiction on the hypothetical Christian's part, just different meanings between the interlocutors.

What is the LDS response to the First Law of Thermodynamics?

I don't know that we disagree with it as far as our physical universe goes. Beyond that, I am not sure we can say or should even care at this point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 20, 2012 by wenglund

[Kerry A. Shirts]

By Christian you guys mean Mormon right? My answer would be simply to point out that I believe that the first law of thermodynamics is part of Gods material creation. As I believe God is spirit, not material, this law in no way contradicts his eternal nature.

But your explanation assumes that God is, and that spirit exists in the material world. You first have to define the terms, and then show any evidence for them. Otherwise you appear to simply being claiming something without evidence, which can logically be simply dismissed without evidence.....

[KevinG]

I was going to start a discussion about Newtons Third Law of Motion but I was afraid I'd get a lot of push-back.

[Damien the Leper]

By Christian you guys mean Mormon right? My answer would be simply to point out that I believe that the first law of thermodynamics is part of Gods material creation. As I believe God is spirit, not material, this law in no way contradicts his eternal nature.

No. That is not what I meant in the OP. Where it says Christian in the quotation...I mean non-LDS Christian.

[BCSpace]

REFORM MORMON: But you’re accepting as true two ideas that are mutually exclusive. On the one hand you’re saying that everything which exists has a beginning, but on the other hand you’re saying that God, who also exists, has no beginning.

Am I off base for recognizing the, albeit strong and appropriate, logic as presented in this case?

What is the LDS response to the First Law of Thermodynamics?

LDS doctrine accepts and is compatible with all science. In this case, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Where one can define a beginning or an end is when one gets changed into the other. This goes hand in hand with smaller and larger infinities wherein we can say in one sense that God has always existed as God and in another sense define a point where God became God; all without logical or rational conflict.

Edited July 20, 2012 by BCSpace

[Damien the Leper]

I believe the logic breaks down by equivocating the meaning of the word "everything." The hypothetical Christian evidently used the word to mean all that God created (i.e. the universe); whereas the hypothetical RM used the word to mean "all things that exist." There isn't a contradiction on the hypothetical Christian's part, just different meanings between the interlocutors.

Ugh! How annoying that a discussion falls apart on the basis of a technicality.

I don't know that we disagree with it as far as our physical universe goes. Beyond that, I am not sure we can say or should even care at this point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I understand what you're saying. But I am now interested in how the First Law applies to all things that transcend our known physical universe...and not because I should care but because I'm fascinated by the First Law itself.

[Damien the Leper]

LDS doctrine accepts and is compatible with all science. In this case, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Where one can define a beginning or an end is when one gets changed into the other. This goes hand in hand with smaller and larger infinities wherein we can say in one sense that God has always existed as God and in another sense define a point where God became God; all without logical or rational conflict.

I like the burning log analogy provided in the quote. It says that the log isn't actually destroyed but its energy is transferred/transformed into the fire. Therefore, nothing was destroyed.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

LDS doctrine accepts and is compatible with all science. In this case, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Where one can define a beginning or an end is when one gets changed into the other. This goes hand in hand with smaller and larger infinities wherein we can say in one sense that God has always existed as God and in another sense define a point where God became God; all without logical or rational conflict.

PFFFFT! You repeat far too often things you have simply been told without looking into it yourself. Victor J. Stenger will thrash your assumption that Mormonism and science is compatible. Read his brand new book "God and The Folly of Faith." Refute that, and I may think you have a possible chance to redeem such silliness as you posted here.

[Cobalt-70]

Actually, the First Law is compatible with the idea of an ex nihilo creation as understood by non-Mormon Christians. Space, it turns out, is a form of negative gravitational potential energy. Thus, when matter/energy and space are created together in a big bang, the positive matter-energy cancels the negative space energy, and the First Law is satisfied.

If you assume that Mormon cosmology applies to this physical universe, then Mormon cosmology corresponds more to the obsolete "steady state" theory of cosmology, rather than the expanding universe that we currently observe. But as soon as you start to talk about hypothetical things happening outside the physical universe that was created by the big bang, which most religions including Mormonism and trinitarianism require to one extent or another, then science really doesn't have much to say.

[volgadon]

PFFFFT! You repeat far too often things you have simply been told without looking into it yourself.

That is a cheapshot which could be levelled at anyone, even at readers of Stenger.

[volgadon]

I just started Stenger's book a few minutes ago. I hope the rest of the book is better than the tendentious, inaccurate and preposterous foreword. Please tell me it isn't more of the same pap and pablum.

[BCSpace]

LDS doctrine accepts and is compatible with all science. In this case, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Where one can define a beginning or an end is when one gets changed into the other. This goes hand in hand with smaller and larger infinities wherein we can say in one sense that God has always existed as God and in another sense define a point where God became God; all without logical or rational conflict.

PFFFFT! You repeat far too often things you have simply been told without looking into it yourself.

Not at all. In fact, I'm usually the one doing the telling and I am confident in my research and understanding of LDS doctrine and science. People often fail to differentiate between atheist or anti Christian/Mormon conclusions and actual science and they also often don't even know what science is.

Victor J. Stenger will thrash your assumption that Mormonism and science is compatible. Read his brand new book "God and The Folly of Faith." Refute that, and I may think you have a possible chance to redeem such silliness as you posted here.

Bring him here and I will debate him. Or perhaps you'd like to represent his pov?

Edited July 21, 2012 by BCSpace

[Mudcat]

Reform Mormonism was brought up in another thread. R.M. is not a movement which I am familiar with but I did a google search that brought up their Gospel Doctrine blog. Within the blog there is a hypothetical conversation between a Reform Mormon and a Christian. I thought it interesting as it then applied the First Law of Thermodynamics. I don't claim to be a physicist or any expertise in sciences. I barely got through them with the B's I fought kicking and screaming for so be patient with me if/when anyone chooses to respond.

I think hypothetical conversations make great straw men.

This is the hypothetical conversation:

CHRISTIAN: Do you believe that God created the universe?

REFORM MORMON: No.

CHRISTIAN: Who do you think created it then?

REFORM MORMON: No one created it. The elements from which all things are organized are eternal; they have no beginning or end.

CHRISTIAN: How can you prove that?

REFORM MORMON: The first law of Thermodynamics, silly.

CHRISTIAN: How does that account for the Big Bang?

REFORM MORMON: There was all this stuff before the Big Bang

CHRISTIAN: But if the theorists are right and time began at the Big Bang, how can you say something existed before the Big Bang?

Edited July 21, 2012 by Mudcat

[Calm]

But I am now interested in how the First Law applies to all things that transcend our known physical universe...

This assumes that what we refer to as physical laws are consistent within and without physical space as we know it.

I do not believe this is an assumption we are safe in making. Newton's laws are laws up to a certain level of understanding of the material world and then past that understanding cease to function effectively in telling us what is happening or should happen. How do we know this is not the case for other laws that have been determined by what amounts to limited observation....though much less limited than what Newton had to work with, still it is limited?

As soon as we introduce the concept of transcendence, I am not sure what else can be said in regards to physical laws.

Edited July 21, 2012 by calmoriah