What's a God?

[Bishadi]

A dear,

coherency isn't a requirement in a post; as you so vehemently fail in

No it doesn't.


Wrong.
You continue to ascribe an incorrect meaning to the law. It applies to closed systems, which the Earth is not.
You are operating under a false assumption and fail to correct yourself.

not concerned with the earth; i am concerned with how living structures associate

you look to the earth and say (not closed) when we talking about living things.

what happened to keeping you feet on the ground?

Do you breath autonomically?

then the life itself is taking from its environment, by its own intent? Yes or no!

Life is NOT purposed.

where is that on this thread

or are you trying to bring down a fact i wrote "life: purposed to contine" as it contradicts your mind, rather than what you see in nature as true?

Instinctive life has purpose; you know it, and i know it! (and once a life is born; it is purposed to continue; all cases)

Thermodynamics has nothing to do with choice.

all life and all exchanges of mass, must comply with the law, or it is MOOT!

been trying to tell you that but maintaining the reality that actual experience must also follow the laws, or the laws are not real, is something you are having a hard time with.

You do not take into consideration YOU and YOUr observations as evidence; you go back to others (the earth is not a closed system) as you cop out to addressing reality square up.

 

[Oli]

coherency isn't a requirement in a post; as you so vehemently fail in

It is if you wish to be understood.
And congratulations on another garbled post.

not concerned with the earth; i am concerned with how living structures associate
you look to the earth and say (not closed) when we talking about living things.

Um, the living things are on the Earth - energy comes from outside...

Do you breath autonomically?

Of course.

then the life itself is taking from its environment, by its own intent? Yes or no!

No. It is not "intent".

where is that on this thread

The post I quoted.

or are you trying to bring down a fact i wrote "life: purposed to contine" as it contradicts your mind, rather than what you see in nature as true?

Your actual statement was "are you purposed when you eat by choice?"
And "Life: purposed to continue" is NOT a fact, as was shown to you in that particular thread.

Instinctive life has purpose; you know it, and i know it! (and once a life is born; it is purposed to continue; all cases)

Wrong again. Intent is not purpose.

all life and all exchanges of mass, must comply with the law, or it is MOOT!

So?
The Earth (which has life upon it) is not a closed system and does comply. And thermodynamics still has nothing to do with choice.

been trying to tell you that but maintaining the reality that actual experience must also follow the laws, or the laws are not real, is something you are having a hard time with.

You're still wrong.

You do not take into consideration YOU and YOUr observations as evidence; you go back to others (the earth is not a closed system) as you cop out to addressing reality square up.

Nope, you have it all wrong and fail to see it.

 

[Bishadi]

Your actual statement was "are you purposed when you eat by choice?"

and if "yes".... then you break the law!

period!

And "Life: purposed to continue" is NOT a fact, as was shown to you in that particular thread.

never a once, ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! has that been proven incorrect.................

And thermodynamics still has nothing to do with choice.

every choice you make is of mass and energy exchanging; so every action, metabolic process and breath you take is following nature, not the second law of thermodynamics that man created to assist in defining heat energy transfers (back when steam engines were being built)

2LoT is not a law, but simply a guideline! (pirate's code)


meaning if the law is a law, then there could be no neg entropy;

do you even know what the second is?

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium

its a principle

and when planck incorporated that principle into h (the base concept of energy), he incorporated a bias to time/direction of 's' from a macro analogy (above) into the math of physics (quantum level)

do you understand that?

have you read plancks paper?

are you going to talk about the earth being an open system to defend your understanding

or can you observe the reality of your own ability to chose what you eat while your body breaths on its own purpose (to continue) and realize that you are an example of "life abusing entropy"

perhaps you can feel like a dillinger or even kennedy, running moonshine and then have your whole family considered good guys for taking on the law!

 

[Oli]

and if "yes".... then you break the law!
period!

What utter nonsense: your body is not a closed system either.

never a once, ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! has that been proven incorrect.................

More blind dishonesty from you.
The replies in that thread showed how you were misconstruing the meaning of the words and that the premise was (and is) incorrect.

every choice you make is of mass and energy exchanging; so every action, metabolic process and breath you take is following nature, not the second law of thermodynamics that man created to assist in defining heat energy transfers (back when steam engines were being built)

Incoherent nonsense.

2LoT is not a law, but simply a guideline! (pirate's code)

No, it's a law.

meaning if the law is a law, then there could be no neg entropy;

Wrong again.

do you even know what the second is?
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium

Correct, and applies to closed systems... and note the words "over time".

its a principle

It's a law.

and when planck incorporated that principle into h (the base concept of energy), he incorporated a bias to time/direction of 's' from a macro analogy (above) into the math of physics (quantum level)
do you understand that?

Which has what to do your lack of understanding?

are you going to talk about the earth being an open system to defend your understanding

So you're disputing the Earth being an open system?

or can you observe the reality of your own ability to chose what you eat while your body breaths on its own purpose (to continue) and realize that you are an example of "life abusing entropy"

The second law has nothing to do with choice.
My body does breath by "purpose".
Life does not abuse entropy.

perhaps you can feel like a dillinger or even kennedy, running moonshine and then have your whole family considered good guys for taking on the law!

I have no idea what you're talking about here.
But I'll assume it's a irrelevant or wrong-headed as the rest of your post.

 

[Bishadi]

What utter nonsense: your body is not a closed system either.

not the sun, the moon, the earth or any single atom in the universe is within a 'closed system'

but that don't mean, that a life, by instinct is not directly going against a direction to equilibriate; life is purposed

just like tapping a pond; once you start it; it exists and will continue; forever if the environment allows it.

here is an example; light a fire, if you had the fuel for infinite time and nothing else changed; would the fire remain?

same thing with life, that spark will remain by its own intent/instinct/purpose

No, it's a law.

just as genesis is what shows creation to a religious person; the intellect of the complacent!

So you're disputing the Earth being an open system?

no

The second law has nothing to do with choice.
My body does breath by "purpose".
Life does not abuse entropy.

and you are all nonsense in just that section

well except the breathing part; the life having PURPOSE! (even if you don't)

 

[Oli]

not the sun, the moon, the earth or any single atom in the universe is within a 'closed system'

The universe itself is a closed system, and will eventually equilibrate.
Meanwhile everything's taking its time....

but that don't mean, that a life, by instinct is not directly going against a direction to equilibriate; life is purposed

Life is bucking the trend, but only temporarily. And the second law says nothing at all about conditions at any given moment, therefore life is NOT breaking the law.
And life is NOT purposed.

just like tapping a pond; once you start it; it exists and will continue; forever if the environment allows it.

Nope, the waves die out.

here is an example; light a fire, if you had the fuel for infinite time and nothing else changed; would the fire remain?

Is there a point to posing a hypothetical question?
If I were Superman could I fly?

same thing with life, that spark will remain by its own intent/instinct/purpose

Intent is not instinct and neither is purpose.

just as genesis is what shows creation to a religious person; the intellect of the complacent!
no

Oh, wrong again.

and you are all nonsense in just that section
well except the breathing part; the life having PURPOSE! (even if you don't)

And gain you show your complete lack of understanding and your inability to actually think.
Life does not have a purpose.
Life does not "abuse" entropy.

 

[Balerion]

Guys, guys, guys! Never mind! I just walked past a mirror, and...well...let me just say...I think I found what we were looking for! Awwwwwww yeeeaaahhhhhh! *Flexes awkwardly*

 

[Cris]

Stay on topic folks and stop the fighting. Show respect for other members even if you do not respect thier POVs.

 

[Bishadi]

Stay on topic folks and stop the fighting. Show respect for other members even if you do not respect thier POVs.

been trying to get some mod assistance to remove both trolloli and thenmostroll

i will reopen this thread again if need be

 

[Cris]

Bishadi,

Just try staying objective and on topic and avoid the personal attacks. If you have a valid point then explain it clearly. Just calling someone stupid or whatever doesn't help anyone.

It's a potentially good topic. We've had it before, but no harm in re-viewing with the current readers.

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi,

Just try staying objective and on topic and avoid the personal attacks. If you have a valid point then explain it clearly. Just calling someone stupid or whatever doesn't help anyone.

It's a potentially good topic. We've had it before, but no harm in re-viewing with the current readers.

i like the topic too but not a one post did i used any of the 'stupid' terms

but it is nice to see, that i can put enough on the table for the words to say the same thing

i see your point; i am wasting my time on the fools when anyone who reads the thread will be able to use the same words to simplify what is being said without calling someone stupid


What's a God?

 

[Enmos]

What's a God?

Here are some definitions form Dictionary.com:

- A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

- One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed.

- The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

- The Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute.

- One of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

- A supreme being according to some particular conception.

- A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
Also: The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

- A being conceived of as possessing supernatural power, and to be propitiated by sacrifice, worship, etc.; a divinity; a deity; an object of worship; an idol.

Etc.

 

[Bishadi]

Here are some definitions form Dictionary.com:

- A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

- One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed.

- The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

- The Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute.

- One of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

- A supreme being according to some particular conception.

- A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
Also: The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

- A being conceived of as possessing supernatural power, and to be propitiated by sacrifice, worship, etc.; a divinity; a deity; an object of worship; an idol.

Etc.

a fine example of what is observed within the worlds communities without identifying a particular diety (basically observed definition(s); objectively conveyed)

thanx

Thanx

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

-=-

Evidently, a god is any damn thing or notion any fool wants it to be.

 

[jessiej920]

-=-

Evidently, a god is any damn thing or notion any fool wants it to be.

Forget-me-not

I think people forget to feel the wind
They forget to look up
And see the great swaying trees
They forget to close their eyes
And listen to the whisper of the leaves
People forget the wind
They forget to look up
And we remain
All to human

 

[Enmos]

-=-

Evidently, a god is any damn thing or notion any fool wants it to be.

Exactly