I thought you might consider this quite balanced viewpoint (imo), from Victor Tosh, helpful.

Question posed: The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed - only transferred. Could this immutable scientific law be applied to the Big Bang with formless energy crossing a space-time event horizon to create our cosmos?

Victor's response:
Laws are meant to be broken. Scientific laws are not immutable pronouncements by some deity, but descriptions of Nature that are found to be valid under a wide range of circumstances but are subjects to testing and modification, if necessary.

The first law of thermodynamics, one of the axioms in the axiomatic formulation of thermodynamics, is no exception. It is not some sacred commandment. It is part of the description of the thermodynamic behavior of matter that we see within this universe.

But we have since done better than simply postulating ad hoc axioms. We have a beautiful theorem, Noether’s theorem, that basically amounts to the statement that if a physical theory is invariant under certain mathematical transformations, the result is a conserved quantity. Very specifically, if a physical theory remains the same under time translation (that is, if the laws of physics are the same today as they were yesterday and will remain the same tomorrow) the result is energy conservation. This, combined with the statistical behavior of large numbers of particles, together let us derive the laws of thermodynamics, as they apply to physical systems within this universe.

I emphasized the expression, “within this universe”. None of this tells us anything about the beginning of the universe. (It certainly wasn’t “formless energy” — whatever that means — and no “space-time event horizon” was involved either, and least none that we know about. It may have involved a so-called initial singularity — at least that’s what general relativity tells us — but don’t take that for granted either, since we have no reason to believe that general relativity paints a valid picture of the extreme early universe, when unknown quantum effects of gravitation may have played an oversize role.)

I think the opinion that the conservation laws are not prefect is a rational sound landing zone, but typing that they are false or untrue, leaves you skidding all over the place or leaves you like that millionaire, who rejects the label, as they can only absolutely account for $999,900.

Flashback to a scene in Caveman which is prohibitively off topic. — Vera Mont

As long as it defeats the aspirations of the antinatalists!

It's human tradition to abuse innovation. Like nuclear energy abused to produce nuclear bombs!
Extendable wrists to 'cop a feel but don't reveal,' bar games.
Sorry to disappoint you with my experience of my own trad, red blooded male thought processes.
I feel conflicting emotions. Slight shame but also happy that thinking about women is still part of my psyche. Not perhaps the most PC ways to think about what could be done with extendable wrists.
Don't let my abuse of your innovative thinking redirect your innovative thinking Vera.
I will just need to control my tendency to overburden and misappropriate the concept of extension.

Extendable wrists would be good. — Vera Mont

:lol: Sounds like a pickpockets dream. Young men in crowded bars with lot's of women would also challenge each other to games called 'wandering hands,' and 'cop a feel but don't reveal!'
At least the women could slap them from a distance! Would it change the rules of boxing?

The time dilation formula is:
t=to/√(1-(v^2- c^2 )
t would be the time passed on Earth.
to would be the time passed on the ship.
v^2 would be the square of the velocity of the ship, which you want to be 0.95% light speed, which is 285000000 meters per second. c being 300000000 meters per sec.
After substitution, that would give us:
t=to/√(1-(8.1225x10^16 / 9 x10^16)
t=to/√(1- 0.9025)
t=to/√0.0975
t=to/0.312249899

You suggest this planet is 100 light years away and the ship is travelling at 0.95% light speed. So, from the standpoint of those on Earth, 105 years would have passed before the ship reaches the planet.
So we have 105 years = time passed on ship / 0.312249899
So due to time dilation, the people on the ship would have aged 105 x 0.312249899
which is 32.78 years.
So, according to the time dilation formula, a newborn baby on Earth would be 105 years old when the ship reached the planet and a 20-year-old astronaut on the ship, would be 52 (almost 53) when the ship reached the planet.

I find that very easy to believe, because you've demonstrated over and over again that you are extremely biased in your approach, and you either willing deny, or completely misunderstand what is written by the experimenters you yourself referenced. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right back at you. You should stare into a mirror and repeat the words above to yourself again and again. Perhaps your fog will then lift.

You told me this much earlier in the thread, and I explained to you exactly why "false" is a better word. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, you tried to, but you failed miserably, as your logic is badly flawed and you just repeat your flawed logic without tackling any counter points made or offering any evidence to support your position.
You repeat silly, extreme words such as 'false' and 'untrue' for conservation of energy and I think that's the rock your viewpoint dies on.

The law of conservation states something perfect and complete, conservation, when experiments show that in reality things are not perfect and complete, in the way that this principle states. So it is an ideal which does not take into account the reality of the imperfections which actually exist in the world. Therefore it's simply false, like any other Utopian ideal. — Metaphysician Undercover

This exemplifies your 'silly' viewpoint imo. I have never heard a physicist expound the law of conservation of energy as a 'perfect law.' If they did then I would argue against them.
Most or all physicists would reject the word perfect. Most would probably call the conservation of energy law 'complete,' yes, as most are convinced by the proposition that any 'missing' energy is simply changed into other forms. Like that millionaire I mentioned, still looking for his missing $100.

I argued that in reality there is no such thing as a "closed" or "isolated" system. So this idea is a fiction, an imaginary scenario, created by human minds, as the scenario in which the law of conservation would be true. But since there is no such scenario in reality, the law of conservation is not true. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, you did, and this is due to your own misunderstanding of the complexities of the physics involved.
I found the points made by those who fully accept the conservation laws in the physics stack exchange much more compelling than those, like you, who dissented.

Energy being conserved means it does not spawn out of nothing nor disappear into nothing. If it is going out due to wasteful/resistive forces, then while we may not know where it went, we know it still exists in the same quantity. Thus 100% conservation

If you are $100 dollars short of being a millionaire because you just can't find the missing $100, it's not that you don't own the $100, it's just 'hidden' for now then I think that's a very poor reason for no longer calling yourself a millionaire. You're reasoning for calling the conservation of energy law false or untrue is ridiculous in my opinion. I think you should perhaps start using terms like 'imperfect' or even 'incomplete' as opposed to 'false' or 'untrue,' when offering your interpretation of conservation of energy. You might be taken more seriously by doing so.

Who is the "I" then? — Benj96

I dont know, therin lies the rub and adds to the why god is non-existent.

Perhaps to experience all forms of yourself - including ones where you are not omniscient and everywhere? To feel what it's like to not have answers, to be contradicted, to feel ignorant. To ask why, to know what mystery is? To feel what it's like to forget? To feel what it's like to discover, to change, to reiminagine meanings? — Benj96

If I am an omnigod, then I know all such answers. You are suggesting god still has things to learn and experience. That contradicts the omni's.

I think if a God was truly omniscient they would know what it's like to not be omniscient also and all the emotions and uncertainties that come with that — Benj96

Exactly

They would be able to put limitations on the self in pursuit of new perspectives? — Benj96

How can an omnigod create new perspectives. If it can then it was never an omnigod.

Would you rather no children ever believed in Santa? Would you rob them of their childhood and have them born with a full set of adult knowledge instead? I think many would find that disagreeable (they have their own truths) compared to yours. — Benj96

Absolutely yes! I would rather tell a different story about the joy of giving and of celebrating life.
I like fantasy and do not wish to stop children fantasizing but it's like dealing with a child's invisible friend.
I would never deny to the child that for them, they believe in their friend. I would also however try to gently find out why they needed such a manifestation, and I would keep telling them that supernatural monsters/ghosts/angels/demons/orcs/elves/fairies don't exist. I would not deny the Santa (the anagram of satan) BS to a particular child, until society decides to remove it officially, as interacting children would be damaged by parents taking individual stances on the issue. I despise the fakery of the Christmas festival and would replace it with a secular celebration, called something like 'life day,' or perhaps even a humanist version of a 'thanksgiving' day. That's probably a whole other thread.

And what I'm saying by "that for which no greater thought can ever be conceived" is a thought that is greater than that which any one person can ever prove outright to all others - is a truth that none of us can have full ownership over - and that truth would be what reality truly is. — Benj96

'The greatest thought' is no different than asking 'what is the biggest number?' These are simple questions of relativity.

If you knew fully what reality is there is simply no need for anyone else to ever exist. There purpose would be meaningless. As you already know everything. The greatest of all thoughts possible. — Benj96

Yep, you're getting there! If there are no more questions, then humans can terminate, as there is no more purpose, except perhaps to repeat the whole thing again, perhaps with some variation on the sequence of events and the rules of the game. Sir Roger Penrose's CCC fits this quite well.
But you are talking about a timespan of possibly trillions of years here.

You may find this discussion on the physics stack exchange, exemplifies the argument between folks on the conservation of energy issue:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98066/experimental-proof-for-conservation-of-total-energy

I hope that it will not rain tomorrow

uttered by you while planning a picnic expresses a banal hope. Uttered by me when the betrothed at an outdoor wedding, it expresses a quite significant hope. Uttered by residents of the community on the banks of a raging, overflowing river, the sentence expresses a still more significant hope. The significance, again, is partly a function of how invested the hoper is in the outcome. This explains why significant hopes are typically accompanied by intensity of speratic feeling.

Don't forget, hope as essential as it is, can be conflicting. Many a farmer may conflict with the hope mentioned above. I personally love to walk in the rain. How welcome is the rain when it's been too hot.
How justified might it be to utter a hope such as 'I hope I die.' Or 'I hope your die.'
If I am suffering beyond help, then my hope for death is warranted. My hope for the death of another is also warranted if they are my constant abuser.
This is one of the most interesting parts of the human experience, when hopes clash!
The hopes of the many, the hopes of the few or the hopes of the one.

How can we identify irrefutable intent some billions of light years away before we emerged any more than you can identify irrefutable intent that Sarah, aged 72 tried to make a sandwich at 7 o clock in Seattle today? — Benj96

Sarah can go on the internet and confirm her existence and activity to many people. all over the planet, anytime she wants using the internet. This god, with all its power, seems to have no such ability to prove its existence or reveal its intent.

But the intent can never be picked up and said "here is intent, in my hand, look at it. There." — Benj96

But you can communicate your intent anytime you choose to. It seems god cant or chooses not to, which in my opinion, just makes god appear unable or incompetent or infantile or non-existent.

Santa is real as a child — Benj96

No it's not, it's a lie told to children that they fall for, but then children are easily fooled. You can even make them think you can make your thumb disappear!

"That for which no greater thought can be conceived" - Anselm. — Benj96

As all thoughts have not happened yet, this is a stupid assumption.

What would you, God Universeness, do instead of Vera? God Universeness please explain to us mere mortals of the ways of your universeness (how apt haha) ? What is the right thing to do? What ought we value? Where did you come from, why do you exist and why were we created?

Pray tell, almighty Universeness. — Benj96

I already role played god earlier. I would not have created anything as I would be unable to know what and why I was, and I would have no needs. Only I exist at the beginning or eternally, and I am ineffable to anything outside of me and there is no outside of me. WHY WOULD I CREATE THAT WHICH IS INFERIOR TO ME?

Are we participating in the same thought-experiment, or have you advanced to another level? — Vera Mont

No, it's the same thought experiment, I am just pushing it on to the point where human intellect and scrutiny of the 'words of gods' presented to us by humans, are finally rejected as BS lies and more and more of us realise that the theism trick is akin to the money trick and is just another tool that the nefarious few have used to maintain their status and power since we came out of the wilds.
Sorry, god Vera, we have to expose you as a fake and the same for those other gods you mentioned.
It's been fun but now, you need to return to the fable pages of human storytelling.
You played your god role very well! You told me nothing of value and remained cryptic at all times. You even passed any blame onto other gods.

In the UK, data released on Tuesday November 29th, 2022, from the 2021 census show that those describing themselves as Christians now account for just 46.2 percent of the population – down from 59.3 percent in 2011, and from 72 percent in 2001.

Gods will hopefully go extinct in the human psyche, in the not-too-distant future.
I hope so anyway!

Maybe they just don't know any better. — Vera Mont

So perhaps it's time to tell them why you had a need to create them. Then they will know better.

There is nothing contradictory about being a benevolent dictator. — Vera Mont

A god cannot be inaccurate! I am beginning to lose faith in you!
Despot: a ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way.
Benevolent dictator: A totalitarian leader who exercises absolute political power over the state, but is perceived to do so to benefit the population as a whole.
Make up your omniscient mind god Vera, Despot or Benevolent Dictator, which is it? and please explain this apparent tendency you have for making conflicting statements about your nature.

It's what all polities secretly or openly yearn for. Whenever they raise up a tyrant, or allow one to rise on their power, they're hoping that this time, this one, will keep his promises to protect them and make the right decisions for them, provide for them and make them great again. It's rarely happened, but they keep the faith. — Vera Mont

Is this your way of admitting you are not an omnigod and are in fact fallible?
I am beginning to become suspicious that you are what and who you claim to be god Vera!
Do you have a gender, god Vera?

All in good time. — Vera Mont

Not good enough. I think you are just a human who is trying to con us into thinking you are a god!
I think we should rise up and destroy you and your followers!

We are talking about "the system". The energy is lost to the system. That all the energy could be accounted for by measurements of things other than the system is pure speculation. And this has never been proven because to measure it is to bring it into "the system", and all systems have been observed to lose energy. So in reality, this hypothesis that all the energy could be accounted for with other measurements, has actually been disproven. That's the point I am arguing, 100% of the energy has never been accounted for, ever, in any experiment, and that's why the law of conservation has been proven to be false. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your point then is merely about the definition of 'a closed system.'
From Wiki:
A closed system is a natural physical system that does not allow transfer of matter in or out of the system, although — in contexts such as physics, chemistry or engineering — the transfer of energy (e.g. as work or heat) is allowed.

Pay careful attention to the 'although' part. The 0.1 joules convertion to other forms of energy IS therefore considered part of 'the system.'

The graph shows .9 joules of potential energy, and .9 joules of total energy at the initial position. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not confirmed but I agree it looks pretty close to 0.9 joules on the poorly detailed graph offered in the experiment.
As I drilled down a little further into the data provided in the experiment I tried to consider where a 0.9 value for total energy could come from based on the formula used and the data offered.
I could not get to a total energy of 0.9 joules using the height (position) graph and the velocity graph.
At v=0 the glider is at rest so KE=0.
If the height of the glider is 1m as suggested at the start of the first graph then mg(1) = total energy.
or mg=0.9 joules. this means the mass of the glider would have to be 0.0918 and no such tiny glider mass is given in the table containing three glider masses.
So, I am obviously misunderstanding the data presented. I don't see the m, and h (v is 0) (g is 9.8) data that produces the guesstimated 0.9 joules value at the beginning of a run of the experiment. Can you?
I would need to find experimental results offering a clearer data set.
There is no point continuing to debate with you about a guesstimated quantity of energy loss in the first 1.5 second that I can't confirm or deny using the data provided in the experiment I linked to.
My position on conservation of energy remains solid but if I have time, I will look for a better data set.
Perhaps you should do the same, as I don't see why I should do all the search work.
I have old physics textbooks from uni, perhaps I will look in those.

Did I interpret this correctly? — Benj96

Yes, that was the basis of the original god stories. As you know, there were pantheons of gods before the mono one became 'preferred.' All those early ones had human based or nature based or fauna based characteristics. Those early fables all described the good and bad aspects of different gods, as a guide for humans to consider, when they faced the everyday dilemma's they faced. Unfortunately, it was soon discovered that this was a brilliant way for the nefarious few to control and rule the majority and the majority at the time were unable to prevent it. The majority of humans are still paying for that failure today.

I think we can safely say if it didn't exist in your mind, you would have no means to use it in a sentence. Just as I can't use "shlemgipple" in a sentence unless the sentence is to define what a "shlemgipple" is for another. Then they can use the term Shlemgipple, argue about Shlemgipple, question the behaviour of, origin of, use of, appearance of, nature of - a Shlemgipple. — Benj96

I think you quantify and qualify the god situation quite well here. God and Shlemgippie seem identical to me ........ meaningless ...... nothing ....... no existence in reality. The random imaginings of the human mind do not create or give credence to, a god/universal sentient mind. In the same way that random fluctuating white noise (the CBR) does not contain an unknown musical masterpiece (even if aspects of string theory are true). Anything akin to a universal collective intellect, lies in our transhuman future, not our big bang past.

In what way do you mean "exist"? — Benj96

As a sentient conscious mind with intent. If god existed, we should be able to identify irrefutable intent in the early universe. A simple example might be. Why are there trillions of stars that we will probably never visit? or Why does the planetoid pluto exist? What role does it play in god's plan.
If we were created by this god? why make all this other seemingly superfluous stuff?
Even if it created other species, there still seems to be an awful lot of wasted space?
C'mon god @Vera Mont explain your intent! :halo:

So? Have you heard how they talk about one another's gods? Those are my ancestors they're maligning. Wash out their mouths with bleach, consign them to some kind of hell of their own imagining, or ignore them? Tough choice... Naw! easy choice. I'm a very lenient and forgiving despot: ignore them. — Vera Mont

I just realised you are role playing god and I should have read the above as the word of god Vera. Sorry god Vera, that answers my question to you about who 'they' are and yes, it would be your god ancestors.
So, you have decided to ignore your creation due to disappointment with their performance so far.
At least you didn't come down amongst us yourself, pretend to be one of us, talked like a schizophrenic, antisemite, defeatist, that recognised the power and authority of Rome and then made yourself into a pointless blood-sacrifice. Or was that one of the ancestors your learned from, along with that maniac god of the OT. I won't ask you about Chronos, Zues, Odin or even Allah, Yahweh or Anu for now.
You still have to tell me more about your contradictory feelings of despotism, leniency and forgiveness.

If I'm god, you don't get to set my parameters or my default. I am that I am and that's all that Iyam — Vera Mont

Does that mean that this is gods song: :lol:

So? Have you heard how they talk about one another's gods? Those are my ancestors they're maligning. Wash out their mouths with bleach, consign them to some kind of hell of their own imagining, or ignore them? Tough choice... Naw! easy choice. I'm a very lenient and forgiving despot: ignore them. — Vera Mont

Who are 'they?' Exclusively your ancestors? Who will do the bleach washing or the ignoring or the judging? God the criminal?
I like your confused lenient and forgiving despot, it matches the god contradiction quite well.

We are a system with specific characteristics and defining features within a much larger system built of basic building blocks which underlie both itself and US as a fraction in and of itself. — Benj96

You are an emerging panpsychist imo.

To whom is a creator-god answerable? From whom would such an entity fear derision? — Vera Mont

To its creation and from it's creation or else it's creation has no value to its creator and this would make the creator an idiot under any human rational judgement I can conceive of.

If God is a narcisstic I don't really care because they would have made me, food, sex, entertainment, knowledge and love exist so I ain't complaining lol. All good things worth a compliment or two. — Benj96

Don't forget your impending judgement, impending servitude in heaven or suffering in hell to add to any suffering you might have experienced here, including any bad food, bad sex, and bad entertainment you may have went through. Don't get me wrong, I have always and will always choose to live life and will never choose to live life as a curse, but god better not have an existent, as I for one will forever try to smack it as hard as I can wherever I think it will hurt it most. If god exists then it is a damn criminal.

To make up for the last god. Having experienced mortality in my own permeable skin, rather than through an intermediary, like the last guy, I have learned sympathy as well as antipathy for the mortals. — Vera Mont

:rofl: What a great idea, An omnigod that can learn from the shortfalls of the previous god that held the position. Us mortals will be watching what you do god Vera! Remember what happened to that previous god you are typing about! :scream:

It depends on the "it" you're referring to. Antinatalism and suicide pertains to "it" as a human (part of the total "it" - perhaps the part with the capacity to be most aware of itself). "IT" (capitalised) as the entire universe, well, suicide and antinatalism is irrelevant to such an existent as it supposedly can never not be "IT" — Benj96

This is your god posit Ben, you are the dictator of what IT IS. Does the god you posit have a body and a mind and other component parts or is it a concentration/undefined combinatorial of fundamentals?

Ok Mr Smith, I believe ya! I know you like the cryptic path

A narcissistic god seems so ridiculous.
2m
— universeness

Doesn't narcissism require other selves? If a God was to exist as the entirety of everthing, to whom would it be being narcisstic for? As everything is self. — Benj96

Yep, you got it! That's why a god would not create us because it would be an admission of its own narcissism.

To imagine God as human is absurd but to imagine human as a product of some elegant, extremely powerful and diversely potential universal principle, well that's a bit more palatable — Benj96

Good, I prefer god posited as a concentration of fundamentals, it gets us a step closer to the concept of a singularity or perhaps even a mindless spark with no intent that has no current existence. Could even play the role of the beginning of that which is now perhaps an eternal conformal cyclical cosmology as suggested by Roger Penrose. We could also use it as the spark of the multiverse etc. All good fun to muse over as is the OP. Good fun.

I were a god I would not make a creation in the first place. — Tom Storm

That sound logical to me! Why would you have a need to, unless you suffer from some human style need to be worshipped. A narcissistic god seems so ridiculous.

What's the first thing that came to mind when you read the OP? — Agent Smith

God doesn't exist.

of Course "It" has the choice to refuse accepting that "it" is. Is that not the basis for both antinatalism and suicide? — Benj96

Did you not suggest earlier that these options (death or non-existence) were not available to the god described in your OP. I don't see where antinatalism would come in. You did not suggest this god could reproduce? Are you suggesting it can impregnate one of its creations, like what happened to Mary (a.k.a rebellious woman.)

Well how is one part of oneself inferior to the rest of itself? — Benj96

So, you are now going for a god 'in our image' that has distinguishable parts?
An anthropomorphised god, not a nebulous god entity?
Why are humans so anthropocentric in their musings about the universe's origins?
The anthropic principle indeed!

to the fact that it IS. — Benj96

Then IT has the burden to prove IT IS or else that which IT created is quite justified in refusing to accept IT IS.

Too, the hypothetical scenario fails to capture everything that is God. — Agent Smith

Which is?

Well I think any self respecting god would surround you with the opportunities, people and experiences to learn that for yourself. — Benj96

That's not my issue. My issue is how this god perceives the reason for its own existence and why it would choose to create that which is and always will be obviously inferior to itself.

I was going with:

if you were suddenly the creator. The start of all - the alpha, the end of all - the omega, and everything in between, what would you do with your time as this entity? — Benj96

in the OP.
You are not an emergent god in the OP, you are the god that some humans choose to have faith in, to imo, try to, sate their primal fears.

if we had some means of making someone God, — ToothyMaw

Well, at least I prefer your inference that we create god, it cannot create us or itself.

You would retain the information your brain contained before becoming Go — ToothyMaw

So not an eternal god then, an emergent god that knew less than it did before it became god.
What label do you want to assign to this emerging god. I think the monotheists need to know?
semi-god? lesser god (but compared to what?) The OOOO would have to exist as an ideal before this god could satisfy such credentials. So the OOOO's would have to exist before this emerging god.

I thought about it some more, and I would actually make a committee before becoming God and consult with them about what to do with my Godly powers. The committee members would represent the interests of the people, and I would only do what we agree on, and nothing more. — ToothyMaw

:rofl: Good paradox. A god that creates before it is created! I assume god becomes god as soon as it becomes.

Your purpose would be your own to decide I suppose, as you would be God. — Benj96

But your god would surely fail at what I am convinced (with my fallible human brain) would be its first thought. Why am I?