Energy and God

[Spiritual Leo]

Albert Einstein let us know that " energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another."

Now this quote has thrown me into an intellectual dilemma even though I have heard it for many years now. Unfortunately many atheists stop questioning "God" once they have their mind set and I know that personally. Not too long ago I stopped questioning, but this quote brought everything back. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so doesn't that mean that it has no beginning and no end? If there is a beginning to energy and an end to energy, then we have cleary been wrong in our science but we are, in fact, right because it cannot be created or destroyed---no beginning and no end, just transformation. . . which brings me to my question: If it is accepted that energy cannot be created or destroyed, then isn't that scientific evidence that it is possible for something to be beginningless and endless? Creationists claim that god is beginningless and endless, but why have they not mentioned this? It would strengthen their arguement.

Personally I don't care for religion, but this was an honest question that just popped into my head so I wrote it here.

Looking forward to the replies

 

[Patrick Williams]

Albert Einstein let us know that " energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another."

Now this quote has thrown me into an intellectual dilemma even though I have heard it for many years now. Unfortunately many atheists stop questioning "God" once they have their mind set and I know that personally. Not too long ago I stopped questioning, but this quote brought everything back. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so doesn't that mean that it has no beginning and no end? If there is a beginning to energy and an end to energy, then we have cleary been wrong in our science but we are, in fact, right because it cannot be created or destroyed---no beginning and no end, just transformation. . . which brings me to my question: If it is accepted that energy cannot be created or destroyed, then isn't that scientific evidence that it is possible for something to be beginningless and endless? Creationists claim that god is beginningless and endless, but why have they not mentioned this? It would strengthen their arguement.

Personally I don't care for religion, but this was an honest question that just popped into my head so I wrote it here.

Looking forward to the replies

Wow, pretty profound insight there, I like it very much!

I am a Christian and believe in God but I also think that the Western, scholastic mindset has so put God in a "box" that God has lost His grandeur and that is why people never make the connection you just made.

In the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition (which is the oldest), mystery occupies a MUCH, MUCH larger space in our concepts of God. Remember, "God" is just a nomenclature or a label to identify the Infinite One. The truth is, we cannot even begin to grasp the concept of God because our finite minds just cannot expand enough to understand. When Moses asked God (our label, remember, not His name) what His name was, what did God reply? He said, "Tell them, 'I AM' sent you".

Now, when you look at that, you say to yourself, "What kind of silly name is that?" (I mean, really, who uses a verb for their name?! : - ). It is difficult for us to understand because we give names without any reference to anything but the ancients did not do that. To them, a name described something or told you about the thing. So, When God said His name was "I AM", He was stating that He was the ground of all being, the only existing One from which all things derive - the Eternal One without beginning or end and the fount from which everything has its being. God IS LIFE, EXISTENCE, Reality and the sum of all things. Without Him, nothing would be and within Him, everything exists.

What is God? We can only use finite language to describe an infinite being but the words that people use are: Light, Energy, Spirit, Love, Consciousness, Mind, etc...

All of these words are small attempts to grasp the ineffable, the intangible and the unknowable.

To sum it up, though, it is a good thought. Energy - which is what God is, He is Conscious being, Life, Light, existence - never ends but is only transformed.

It is interesting that scientists are now discovering that matter is really just ultra-compressed energy and that, as we delve deeper and deeper into the nano-worold of matter, it is filled with wide open spaces and is simply energy that has compressed and coalesced to form what we see.

The more science progresses, the more it seems to validate (not invalidate) the fact of there being a God or Life Force behind all of this.

Anyway, great thought on your part, thanks for sharing it!

 

[Spiritual Leo]

Wow, pretty profound insight there, I like it very much!

I am a Christian and believe in God but I also think that the Western, scholastic mindset has so put God in a "box" that God has lost His grandeur and that is why people never make the connection you just made.

In the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition (which is the oldest), mystery occupies a MUCH, MUCH larger space in our concepts of God. Remember, "God" is just a nomenclature or a label to identify the Infinite One. The truth is, we cannot even begin to grasp the concept of God because our finite minds just cannot expand enough to understand. When Moses asked God (our label, remember, not His name) what His name was, what did God reply? He said, "Tell them, 'I AM' sent you".

Now, when you look at that, you say to yourself, "What kind of silly name is that?" (I mean, really, who uses a verb for their name?! : - ). It is difficult for us to understand because we give names without any reference to anything but the ancients did not do that. To them, a name described something or told you about the thing. So, When God said His name was "I AM", He was stating that He was the ground of all being, the only existing One from which all things derive - the Eternal One without beginning or end and the fount from which everything has its being. God IS LIFE, EXISTENCE, Reality and the sum of all things. Without Him, nothing would be and within Him, everything exists.

What is God? We can only use finite language to describe an infinite being but the words that people use are: Light, Energy, Spirit, Love, Consciousness, Mind, etc...

All of these words are small attempts to grasp the ineffable, the intangible and the unknowable.

To sum it up, though, it is a good thought. Energy - which is what God is, He is Conscious being, Life, Light, existence - never ends but is only transformed.

It is interesting that scientists are now discovering that matter is really just ultra-compressed energy and that, as we delve deeper and deeper into the nano-worold of matter, it is filled with wide open spaces and is simply energy that has compressed and coalesced to form what we see.

The more science progresses, the more it seems to validate (not invalidate) the fact of there being a God or Life Force behind all of this.

Anyway, great thought on your part, thanks for sharing it!

Patrick I really enjoyed reading your response to my Thread, not only because it was interesting, but also because it was honest and I could sense it in your writing. Science on the one hand is really exciting to me and I appreciate it, but on the other hand science has been concerning itself with "God" which is strange to me, so I had to find scientific evidence against there claims. Untimately no one can prove or disprove the existence of god, but scientists have been challenging the concept of God very well, so the only way to throw a curve ball is to use science against science. Of course philosophical reasoning is most important in debating "god" so I looked hard and found an error, I suppose.

I may not be religious, but I enjoy the study.

Looking forward to reading more from you.

Take care

 

[Radiantshadow]

My knowledge of physics is amateur and rusty, but here is what I recall from high school:

1. The law of conservation, stating that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, was devised by Isaac Newton in reference to thermodynamics.

2. Einstein's most well-known equation, e=mc^2, actually contradicts (1) because it describes how binding energy - the energy required to keep all parts in a system together - is released. If I remember correctly, atoms release a small surplus of energy that exceeds the cumulative mass-energy sum of its parts when unbound; in essence, this means energy can in fact be created from nuclear fission with the loss of mass in atoms.

As I said, my memory is sketchy and incomplete, but I believe (1) is still generally true in most cases dealing with closed systems. Our universe is not a closed system, see the Big Bang and metric expansion, and does not always follow Newton's conservation.

Disclaimer: This is not meant to be controversial, merely the sharing of widely-accepted (and foggily recalled) scientific findings. Science seeks evidence for arguing theory, following a philosophy known as empiricism that arose in competition with rationalism and, on a wider scale, mysticism. One can only use science to infer the validity of metaphysical concepts, not to prove or disprove their existence. They are separate planes that must be acknowledged within their spheres.

 

[Spiritual Leo]

My knowledge of physics is amateur and rusty, but here is what I recall from high school:

1. The law of conservation, stating that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, was devised by Isaac Newton in reference to thermodynamics.

2. Einstein's most well-known equation, e=mc^2, actually contradicts (1) because it describes how binding energy - the energy required to keep all parts in a system together - is released. If I remember correctly, atoms release a small surplus of energy that exceeds the cumulative mass-energy sum of its parts when unbound; in essence, this means energy can in fact be created from nuclear fission with the loss of mass in atoms.

As I said, my memory is sketchy and incomplete, but I believe (1) is still generally true in most cases dealing with closed systems. Our universe is not a closed system, see the Big Bang and metric expansion, and does not always follow Newton's conservation.

Disclaimer: This is not meant to be controversial, merely the sharing of widely-accepted (and foggily recalled) scientific findings. Science seeks evidence for arguing theory, following a philosophy known as empiricism that arose in competition with rationalism and, on a wider scale, mysticism. One can only use science to infer the validity of metaphysical concepts, not to prove or disprove their existence. They are separate planes that must be acknowledged within their spheres.

While reading your post, I realized how interesting physics can be, but I must say this: You stated that " atoms release a small surplus of energy that exceeds the cumulative mass-energy sum of its parts when unbound; in essence, this means energy can in fact be created from nuclear fission with the loss of mass in atoms" which made me confused for a moment. If the energy that exceeds the cumulative mass-energy sum of its parts when unbound results in a creation of energy due to nuclear fission from the loss of mass in atoms, then would't that be a transformation of energy from one form into another? If not, you must explain how?

 

[Radiantshadow]

While reading your post, I realized how interesting physics can be, but I must say this: You stated that " atoms release a small surplus of energy that exceeds the cumulative mass-energy sum of its parts when unbound; in essence, this means energy can in fact be created from nuclear fission with the loss of mass in atoms" which made me confused for a moment. If the energy that exceeds the cumulative mass-energy sum of its parts when unbound results in a creation of energy due to nuclear fission from the loss of mass in atoms, then would't that be a transformation of energy from one form into another? If not, you must explain how?

Yeah, physics is fascinating! I wish I could do it more justice here, but hopefully I'm not making any physicists cringe.

I don't believe so because, if I recall correctly, it is not the mass loss that creates the energy per se, it's just a required event. Something must be removed to disturb the equillibrium of forces within an atom; it won't release energy prior to being sundered and, when it does, it's emergent and not dependent on the amount of mass lost. My wording was rushed there and I apologize. Splitting an atom is roughly akin to what happens when dropping a rock from a high altitude: it shatters, creating sound waves that rush out from the area of impact. Thing moves fast. Thing breaks. Thing shoots out new stuff it didn't know it had.

I really wish I had my textbook handy to verify the mechanics >.>