Entropy and Existence of a Divine Source

[malfunktion]

A response posed by a Christian friend of mine to the age old question of: "who created God?" What do the skeptics make of this:


Who created the thing that created God? And then we ask: what created the thing that created the thing that created the thing that created God? ...forever we go on and on. Think about that, if we do not have a stopping point for this question, we never get its answer. Without an end to that question, we can't exist. However, we do exist SOOO we know that a source does exist, that is, an unmoved mover or a nesessary first or God.

Maybe we could first find what we believe about this question: is the universe infinite? An infinite universe seems so feesible to so many people, but its just a bunch of poo sauce. Here's what I think: no matter if we're talking science, theology or philosophy, this idea of an infinite universe is totally bunk. Let science and its rational methods tell you about entropy. They'll tell you that ALL of the energy in the universe can not be created or destroyed. Science will also tell you that ALL of the energy in the universe moves from useful to non-useful energy (order to disorder) - this is entropy. For example, an ice cube melts in the sun. Then I take its water home and put it in my freezer, the refrozen water does not naturally shape itself back into its orginal form. It moves from an ordered configuration to a disordered configuration UNLESS we supply extra energy to help form it back to its original shape (ie, building an ice cube tray). The end result of entropy is HEAT DEATH, that is when all the useful energy is converted to non-useful energy. If we're living in a universe that wasn't created, meaning that we've already experienced infinity, HEAT DEATH would have already occured. Hence, the universe (according to science and "rational thinking") can NOT be infinite - it had a beginning. After climbing the giant hill of reason, scientists found the theology professors and philosophers who'd been waiting for them to come visit for years.

Now, the next question: does something that NEEDS a beginning come from nothing? Physical quantities need a beginning. So they either came from NOTHING or they were created. The big bang theory tells us that everything started in an infinite density. Ok, let's think about what that means....if I compact the moon to make it infinitely dense, what do I have left? NOTHING. So, science says "something came from nothing" which is TOTALLY impossible to repeat using the scientific method - hence, the BIG BANG is founded on faith, not reason.

If you're thinking about placing your faith in NOTHING versus placing your faith in a living God, its seems like a better idea to put your faith in God considering what this faith could potentially mean for your life.

For the skeptics out there who long for evidence and reason, I hope you find the best reasons. Think about this though, what reason does God NEED to exist. Tell me what evidence God needs to be real. We (humans) need evidence to exist - we need parents because we are contingent. Yet God needs not. You want evidence He exists, but why? Do you question your own existence in the same way? You've been in the world, you've learned how ordered it is, you've see the work of something much larger than you. How does this leave you room to be a skeptic? [let's debate...do you have a lack of reasons or a fear of accepting the reasons you have? Do you have a fear of becomming "spiritual?"]

[Ratman_tf]

We don't know enough about the universe to make a final statement on where it came from, if it is an open or closed universe, wether it oscillates or exists infinitley. There just isn't enough information available to us to make those definitive statements.

For the skeptics out there who long for evidence and reason, I hope you find the best reasons. Think about this though, what reason does God NEED to exist. Tell me what evidence God needs to be real. We (humans) need evidence to exist - we need parents because we are contingent. Yet God needs not. You want evidence He exists, but why? Do you question your own existence in the same way? You've been in the world, you've learned how ordered it is, you've see the work of something much larger than you. How does this leave you room to be a skeptic? [let's debate...do you have a lack of reasons or a fear of accepting the reasons you have? Do you have a fear of becomming "spiritual?"]

I have seen my parents. I have seen the world. I have not seen any kind of God, nor seen any evidence for him/her/it/them.

And I quite consider myself a spiritual person. My definition of spiritual is probably a bit different than yours, though.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by malfunktion
A response posed by a Christian friend of mine to the age old question of: "who created God?" What do the skeptics make of this:
I read everything, your friend doesnt seem to know exactly what entropy is and doesnt appear to have a firm grasp on reason...

I'll give this a very general Yahweh analysis...


However, we do exist SOOO we know that a source does exist, that is, an unmoved mover or a nesessary first or God.
I think you are being presumptuous.

Maybe we could first find what we believe about this question: is the universe infinite? An infinite universe seems so feesible to so many people, but its just a bunch of poo sauce. Here's what I think: no matter if we're talking science, theology or philosophy, this idea of an infinite universe is totally bunk. Let science and its rational methods tell you about entropy.
I'm familiar with the "infinite universe" postulate, need I remind you there is also a "finite universe" postulate. Hell, there is even a "multiverse" postulate.

They'll tell you that ALL of the energy in the universe can not be created or destroyed. Science will also tell you that ALL of the energy in the universe moves from useful to non-useful energy (order to disorder) - this is entropy. For example, an ice cube melts in the sun. Then I take its water home and put it in my freezer, the refrozen water does not naturally shape itself back into its orginal form. It moves from an ordered configuration to a disordered configuration UNLESS we supply extra energy to help form it back to its original shape (ie, building an ice cube tray).
Sorry, thats water changing from one natural phase to another.

If you like to play games of "I think I know what thermodynamics are", perhaps you should consider this:
Water evaporates and condensates in the clouds, then the water vapor forms very intricate snowflakes. No energy was introduced to order that disorder, but thats not a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

Another example:
In your typical sandy desert, the wind blows. This is kinetic energy and it throws around the dirt. The throwing around of the dirt is random, but the dirt forms itself into dunes and valleys. Violation of thermodynamics? No, the example is not a closed system.

The end result of entropy is HEAT DEATH, that is when all the useful energy is converted to non-useful energy. If we're living in a universe that wasn't created, meaning that we've already experienced infinity, HEAT DEATH would have already occured.
You shouldnt make up your own facts, it doesnt really make for a strong arguement.

Hence, the universe (according to science and "rational thinking") can NOT be infinite - it had a beginning. After climbing the giant hill of reason, scientists found the theology professors and philosophers who'd been waiting for them to come visit for years.

Now, the next question: does something that NEEDS a beginning come from nothing? Physical quantities need a beginning. So they either came from NOTHING or they were created. The big bang theory tells us that everything started in an infinite density. Ok, let's think about what that means....if I compact the moon to make it infinitely dense, what do I have left? NOTHING. So, science says "something came from nothing" which is TOTALLY impossible to repeat using the scientific method - hence, the BIG BANG is founded on faith, not reason.
Founded on faith? Check again.

Its call a theory. A theory is "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena". Note the words "widely accepted" do not imply "accepted by faith".

And by the way, the Big Bang theory isnt the only one, and all the other scientific "beginnings of the universe" theories dont require a devine creator to kickstart the process.

I'm not a scientist, I'm a Philosophy Teacher, but I know well enough that when science cant explain something, we leave it as "to be explained", we dont go "God of the Gaps" to fill in the blanks.

If you're thinking about placing your faith in NOTHING versus placing your faith in a living God, its seems like a better idea to put your faith in God considering what this faith could potentially mean for your life.
Thats not reasoning.

Faith is not reasoning.

Inner convictions are not reasoning.

I'm sorry, I'd rather place my faith in nothing than place my faith in something that exists outside the laws of physics. I'd rather place my faith in nothing than in mythology. I'd rather place my faith in "science" and "reasoning" than in ignorance.

For the skeptics out there who long for evidence and reason, I hope you find the best reasons. Think about this though, what reason does God NEED to exist.
I see no reason that God needs to exist. I say that the universe and the way it has gone can and did come about through purely natural and fully explainable phenomena, no deity required.

Tell me what evidence God needs to be real. We (humans) need evidence to exist - we need parents because we are contingent. Yet God needs not. You want evidence He exists, but why?
You've asked the same question 3 times, are you familar with Occams Razor?

Do you question your own existence in the same way?
I've questioned my own existence, I've concluded that I exist.

You've been in the world, you've learned how ordered it is, you've see the work of something much larger than you. How does this leave you room to be a skeptic?
I'm sorry, I dont know what you mean by "much larger than you". For some reason, the only thing I get out of this is "You never know...", sorry the "Arguement From Ignorance" is not a form of reasoning.

[let's debate...do you have a lack of reasons or a fear of accepting the reasons you have? Do you have a fear of becomming "spiritual?"]
What the f*dge are you talking about. You cant possibly be implying that I'm a skeptic because I'm afraid of becoming spiritual. I'd love to be spiritual, but I believe all things can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena, all things are bound by the laws of physics, for those reasons I am really unable to be spiritual without leaving the world of reasoning behind.

And yes, my beliefs are very well founded in reasoning, logic, and science. I have no faith.

[thaiboxerken]

Yahweh did a great job pointing out the fallacies in the original post.

I did go and address each point in a reply but hit the backspace button after all my hard work.. dammit. Anyway, I'll just address one point now cuz i'm tired

If you're thinking about placing your faith in NOTHING versus placing your faith in a living God, its seems like a better idea to put your faith in God considering what this faith could potentially mean for your life.

This is just, yet, another version of Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager states that it's better odds to worship a god than not because if there is a god, you're gonna get the goods.. if there is not go, then no foul. It completely ignores the point that there are over 8000's gods out there and many more religions. Also, the wager is an appeal to emotion and intimidation than reason.


As for the rest of the points.. your friend, malfunktion, is an idiot that lacks critical thinking skills and education on the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by malfunktion
Physical quantities need a beginning.
Says who? More to the point, the unspoken other half of this comment is that spritual quantities don't. Neither of these definitions have been shown to be necessarily true.

So, science says "something came from nothing" which is TOTALLY impossible to repeat using the scientific method
No it's not. We just don't have access to a black hole, or I would show it to you in action.

And in any case, how would the unscientificness of the big bang prove anything about Jesus? What in the heck is wrong with you people - even if you prove that the Big Bang is bunk, and quantum physics is a con job, that doesn't make you right. It just makes them wrong.

Disproving the scientific explanation is insufficient to prove the religious explanation. Maybe God did create the universe, and then died. Or went on permanent vacation. Or plans to eat it for lunch. How does the mere fact that the universe must have a creator tell you anything about the nature of that creator other than the mere fact that it can create?

If you're thinking about placing your faith in NOTHING versus placing your faith in a living God, its seems like a better idea to put your faith in God considering what this faith could potentially mean for your life.
Pascal's Wager. Debunked the day after it came out. BTW, threats of hellfire really don't have any place in a logical argument.

we need parents because we are contingent.
You can't present Aquinas' argument in a single sentence.

Yet God needs not.
Says who? You have defined God as that which "needs not," but what reason do we have to assume that your definition has any correlation to the real world? Why not just say that the original particle, the one that started the whole big bang, was a special particle that "needs not." As long as we are going to assign attributes to entities without even a shred of empirical evidence, why not make up fun stuff like Elves and pixies that "need not?"

You want evidence He exists, but why?
You owe me $1,000. I want you to pay me, right now. What's that? You want evidence that the debt exists, before you will act accordingly? But why?

If Christians weren't expecting us to do anything, then we wouldn't need evidence. But oddly, they seem to expect us to not only believe, but to modify our behaviour based on the existance of God. So why shouldn't we have some evidence for this? Or do you routinely alter your behaviour based on unproven (and unprovable!) concepts? There's a word for people who do that. It's called irrational.

Do you question your own existence in the same way?
Yes. And I prove my existance every day, by astonishingly simple acts like eating a cheeseburger. Can we get God to eat a cheeseburger? Wait, did Paul let God off the hook too? Can God eat pork if He wants to?

You've been in the world, you've learned how ordered it is, you've see the work of something much larger than you.
This is all true. But just because something is larger than me doesn't mean it wrote a Bible. The laws of evolution and gravity are larger than me, but they don't give a fig about whether I work on Sundays.

How can you make the leap from "the universe is ordered" to "the God of the Bible, who slaughters children and is afraid of iron chariots?" This leap is wholly unjustified. How can you not see that? The order might be a result of other gods, like Zeus. It might be the product of a machine. It could be anything. What links the Bible with the creator of the universe, other than the fact that the Bible claims to be linked to the creator of the universe?

How does this leave you room to be a skeptic?
How does the above argument leave you room to be considered a reasonable person?

[MRC_Hans]

EEeew. I was about to start a "pick to bits" of malfunction's post (interesting alias, btw, heheh), but Yahweh and Yahzi already did it elegantly and effectively. There doesn't seem to be anything left to reduce :p .

Seems believers must always resort to attacking the opposition. And fail.

Hans

[EvilYeti]

As a prime mover, God is as likely a candidate as anything else.

The "Who created God" question is not relevant, as human ideas of cause and effect do not apply to a supernatural entity.

[Brian the Snail]

To add to the other replies:

Originally posted by malfunktion

Now, the next question: does something that NEEDS a beginning come from nothing? Physical quantities need a beginning. So they either came from NOTHING or they were created. The big bang theory tells us that everything started in an infinite density. Ok, let's think about what that means....if I compact the moon to make it infinitely dense, what do I have left? NOTHING. So, science says "something came from nothing" which is TOTALLY impossible to repeat using the scientific method - hence, the BIG BANG is founded on faith, not reason.

This is false. There is plenty of very good evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct. In actual fact, it is the only theory which is still seriously considered by the vast majority of cosmologists (the competing Steady state theory died a death a long time ago). It also jibes well with General relativity (the expanding universe is one solution of the equations of GR). So Big Bang theory is certainly based on reason (and evidence) and not on faith.

General relativity predicts that the initial state of the universe is a singularity, a point of infinite density. I think this is what your friend is referring to here. But in actual fact, there are good reasons to believe that near to this singularity General relativity will no longer be an accurate description of reality, and that a more complete theory that incorperates quantum mechanics is needed to describe the very early stages of the universe. Until there is such a theory, the question of the existence of an initial singularity, and what this might mean for the existence of some kind of Prime Mover, is still very much an open one. Nevertheless, this open question certainly doesn't invalidate Big bang theory as a whole.

If you're thinking about placing your faith in NOTHING versus placing your faith in a living God, its seems like a better idea to put your faith in God considering what this faith could potentially mean for your life.

As others have pointed out, this seems to be a version of Pascal's wager. If you wish to rebut this argument, there's a lot of threads here that have discussed this before (just do a forum search for "pascals wager"), for example, this one:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9216

[Upchurch]

I wish I'd gotten here sooner before the carcus of this argument had been picked clean. :( ...and it had a lot of easily torn apart arguments too.

Just another point. While the Big Bang itself cannot be recreated, individual parts of it can, or can be tested for. Evidence of quantum fluctuations, for example, have been detected, and so on.

malfunktion, you're Christian friend who posed this argument has fallen into just about every fallacious scientific preconception and logical fallacy pitfall s/he could have when he formed this argument. This is a perfect example of fitting (or making up) facts to fit theory rather than fitting theory to facts. Evidence first, then conclusion. Not the other way around.

If s/he is truly interested in learning about the origins of the universe and answering the big questions, I suggest reading a book or taking a class in physics as well as reading their bible.

[thaiboxerken]

As a prime mover, God is as likely a candidate as anything else.


Yep, it could be pixies as well.

The "Who created God" question is not relevant, as human ideas of cause and effect do not apply to a supernatural entity.

Neither does reality. I guess when one talks about fictional entities, anything goes.

But we're talking about reality and why the god-beleivers reasoning is flawed.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Yep, it could be pixies as well.


You are making a gnostic claim of the nature of God; care to offer any proof?


Neither does reality. I guess when one talks about fictional entities, anything goes.

But we're talking about reality and why the god-beleivers reasoning is flawed.

Unfortunately for your argument, all present evidence points to a rule-based, finite universe with a definate beginning and uncertain end. Go far enough back in time and our reality ceases to exist. A nanosecond later it does.

Our universe is self-contradictory. Its own rules demand that it itself should not exist. Yet it does.

So here we have a need for a supernatural Prime-Mover, one which exists independant of the rules and dictums of our reality, yet is still "real".

This Prime-Mover could be God in the traditional sense, a super advanced race running a computer simulation, another meta-universe that spawns new universes, etc. There are many possibilities, all equally (un)likely. Pick whichever one makes you happy, but don't fall into the trap of believing you are operating from some meta-physical high ground by rejecting a belief in "God as prime mover" as flawed. It's as a legitimate hypothesis as anything else.

[Dancing David]

It comes from an infinite recursion of something, something did not come from nothing, it came from something as yet undefined.

read Guth.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Our universe is self-contradictory. Its own rules demand that it itself should not exist. Yet it does.

Please explain. I'm unfamiliar with this contradiciton.

[Bluefire]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Unfortunately for your argument, all present evidence points to a rule-based, finite universe with a definate beginning and uncertain end. Go far enough back in time and our reality ceases to exist. A nanosecond later it does.


What kind of evidence do you have for this? Rule-based yes. When you talk about time you should realize that time is a measurement of change, eg it's a measurement relative to other changes. As such time is a thing that happens within existence (or the universe), it doesn't apply to the universe at large. So it's "outside of time".

If you use the relativity model of universe (which big bang theory uses) (which is like the one I described) there literally is no earlier time to go to, there is no earlier nanosecond. To introduce that earlier nanosecond is to mix the relativistic and the classical aristotelian realist sense of time.

Sorry, It's one or the other.

(Also, it's still a debate over whether the big bang really is the earliest moment).


Our universe is self-contradictory. Its own rules demand that it itself should not exist. Yet it does.


Care to substantiate? I can find no universal rule that rules out it existing.


So here we have a need for a supernatural Prime-Mover, one which exists independant of the rules and dictums of our reality, yet is still "real".

This Prime-Mover could be God in the traditional sense, a super advanced race running a computer simulation, another meta-universe that spawns new universes, etc. There are many possibilities, all equally (un)likely. Pick whichever one makes you happy, but don't fall into the trap of believing you are operating from some meta-physical high ground by rejecting a belief in "God as prime mover" as flawed. It's as a legitimate hypothesis as anything else. [/B]

conclusions are drawn from available evidence. Not from arbitrary hypothesizing. Available evidence points to an entirely self-sufficient universe. There is no reason to invoke anything "outside" the universe or our existence as such.

[Shinytop]

I suppose asking who created God is as valid as asking who created The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, or any other fictional character. Sooner or later we may get to the origin of the myth.

[Martin]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Go far enough back in time and our reality ceases to exist. A nanosecond later it doesYou're assuming it's actually possible to go back in time to a point before the Universe existed.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Martinm
You're assuming it's actually possible to go back in time to a point before the Universe existed. It's a common mistake. Through Relativity, we learned that space and time is actually one thing that we call spacetime (gotta hand it to us physicists for creative labeling, huh?)

Time is not a linear quantity that streatches back forever any more than space is a volume that goes on forever. It is nonsensical to speak of a time before the existance of space, because space and time are the same thing. So, in essense, to speak of what happened "before" space existed is to speak of what happened "before" time existed. Our very concept of "before" is depenedent on our conception of time, which didn't exist "before" the beginning of the universe. Thus it is, as I said, nonsensical.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by malfunktion



For the skeptics out there who long for evidence and reason, I hope you find the best reasons. Think about this though, what reason does God NEED to exist. Tell me what evidence God needs to be real. We (humans) need evidence to exist - we need parents because we are contingent. Yet God needs not. You want evidence He exists, but why? Do you question your own existence in the same way? You've been in the world, you've learned how ordered it is, you've see the work of something much larger than you. How does this leave you room to be a skeptic? [let's debate...do you have a lack of reasons or a fear of accepting the reasons you have? Do you have a fear of becomming "spiritual?"]

I guess you are not talking to me, because I do not long for evidence and reason, I simply ' await ' it.. Since I have found it (evidence and reason) in an infinite number of other observations of the world around me, I find it most perplexing, that the entity that suposedly created it all, leaves no evidence of intelligent involvement.

And the last time I checked, the universe is not very ordered at all.. It is very chaotic, including the insignificant speck that we have labeled ' Earth ' and the creatures that inhabit it.

The supposition that we were supposedly created in the image ( spiritual, I suppose ) of some God who is the creator of everything else, says more about the inadequacy of such a God, than how wonderful it might be..

[jimlintott]

who created God?

I'll try to illustrate what is wrong with this question. Look at the picture below. Who created that shopping mall?

[Yahzi]

Gosh... he didn't look like a troll.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Gulliamo


Please explain. I'm unfamiliar with this contradiciton.

Cause and effect.

The birth of the universe is an effect without a cause, i.e. a contradiction. A violation of the most basic laws of thermodynamics.

And yet here we have something rather than the much more reasonable nothing.

Somthings fishy about that, in my opinion. :)

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Upchurch
It's a common mistake. Through Relativity, we learned that space and time is actually one thing that we call spacetime (gotta hand it to us physicists for creative labeling, huh?)


Got to hand it to a human physicist to make the common mistake of assuming our Universe is the only one out there. The concept of "spacetime" and its associated frames of reference apply to one universe only, our own. It neither indicates or contraindicates further frames of reference outside of our own spacetime.

For example consider the simulation argument (i.e. we live in the Matrix).

In that case our spacetime began when some super alien typed "run big_bang.exe" on his computer, then took off for a many billion year coffee break. Spacetime has one meaning for us and a different one for the creator.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Bluefire

As such time is a thing that happens within existence (or the universe), it doesn't apply to the universe at large. So it's "outside of time".


So the universe is a steady-state then?


If you use the relativity model of universe (which big bang theory uses) (which is like the one I described) there literally is no earlier time to go to, there is no earlier nanosecond. To introduce that earlier nanosecond is to mix the relativistic and the classical aristotelian realist sense of time.


Physicists don't like questions they can't answer, so they like to say things like "its not a valid question" in order to wriggle out of the sticky issues.

Feynman wrote an excellent essay on this, admitting that asking "why?" regarding the origin of the universe is a valid question, but a fundamentally unanswerable one. It was his opinion that it was not worth wasting time thinking about. I usually agree, but induldge myself from time to time.


Sorry, It's one or the other.

(Also, it's still a debate over whether the big bang really is the earliest moment).


If thats the case then its one and the other.


Care to substantiate? I can find no universal rule that rules out it existing.


Thermodynamics.


conclusions are drawn from available evidence. Not from arbitrary hypothesizing. Available evidence points to an entirely self-sufficient universe. There is no reason to invoke anything "outside" the universe or our existence as such.

If your fundamentalist belief system dictates such a faith-based position, thats fine. Just don't knock the beliefs of others.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Got to hand it to a human physicist to make the common mistake of assuming our Universe is the only one out there.To be fair, I wasn't assuming that this universe either is or is not the only universe. I was assuming, however, that when we referred to time, one is refering to the spacetime dimensions of this specific universe. To my knowledge there is nothing to indicate that other universes did or did not exist "prior" (quotes are used the same as in my last post) to our own, but I maintain that the question is meaningless because the concept of "before" this universe's spacetime is still within the context of this spacetime. The question of what there was before our universe existed as asked from the point of view of another universe's spacetime may have some meaning, but whatever that is becomes nonsensical here in this universe.
For example consider the simulation argument (i.e. we live in the Matrix).The problem with The Matrix argument is that both the simulation and the real world share a common time dimension. In other words, they still exist in the same universal system, even if it isn't perceived that way. That would not necessarily (and, indeed, probably couldn't) be true of our universe and another.

[thaiboxerken]

Holy cow, Yeti, STFU. You only make yourself look stupid.

There is no god.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Upchurch
The question of what there was before our universe existed as asked from the point of view of another universe's spacetime may have some meaning, but whatever that is becomes nonsensical here in this universe.

It may be nonsensical within our current understanding of things, but that may change. I prefer to reserve judgment. Since you are a physicist by trade I will acknoledge the practical need, as Feynman did, to focus on what the universe is, rather than why it is, in order to get meaningful work done. :)

The problem with The Matrix argument is that both the simulation and the real world share a common time dimension.

I don't understand this, do mean that the simulator and simulation experience time identically (i.e. the sim doesnt run 'faster') or that we are merely a subset of the higher space-time?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Holy cow, Yeti, STFU. You only make yourself look stupid.

There is no god.

Wow, an ad-hom with a little religious gnosticism thrown in to boot.

You fundies sure have a short temper!

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
The birth of the universe is an effect without a cause, i.e. a contradiction. A violation of the most basic laws of thermodynamics.

And yet here we have something rather than the much more reasonable nothing.

Your argument of "causation" fails at a quantum level, where not only is causation not present, were it present, the Universe could not exist. At a quantum level, information is energy, and causation at this level would require the transfer of information, thus energy, and the Universe would rapidly evaporate in an orgy of entropy (quantum evaporation).

In addition, many metaevents (e.g. neural triggering in your brain, noise in a schottky diode) can be shown to rely, at least partially, on the aggregations of quantum events, as this noise will modify the threshold at which meta-events are triggered. Causation being random (and due to Heisenberg's limit, uninterrogatable) in such situations, your argument that "all events are caused" doesn't hold water.

As well, there is no apparent violation of thermodynamics in a naturalistic origin of the universe. In order to have a violation, you must have on instance where you one level of energy (let's mark it T) and another where you have a higher or lower level of energy (T-1 or T1). As long as the universe started at zero energy there is no violation, as all the vailable tests and data indicates that our universe still has a net charge of zero energy.
The law of thermodynaics that you refer to is the first law, and it is often misconstrued to assert that "matter" or "enrgy" cannot be natural in origin. While this may be true in the realm that we occupy (the Newtonian sector), it also fails at a quantum level where we have empirically verified particles (particualy the postiron-electron pair) manifesting themselves from nothing and then returning to nothing (winking in and out of existing). The only reason this does not outright invalidate what we know about thermodynamics is that the net charge (negative gravitational energy balanced out by postive kinetic energy) remains zero.

Sorry to get into all that word-play and semantics, just had to set the record straight.

[Bluefire]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Cause and effect.

The birth of the universe is an effect without a cause, i.e. a contradiction. A violation of the most basic laws of thermodynamics.

And yet here we have something rather than the much more reasonable nothing.

Somthings fishy about that, in my opinion. :)

Yes, somethings fishy, but not in existence, it's your caricature that is fishy.

To start with, cause and effect:

Cause and effect as we know it doesn't deal with the literal creation of something from nothing. It deals with the recombination or the reformation of existing matter/energy/whatever. Even big bang theory as is generally understood does _not_ deal with a literal nothing creating something. (Some use a singularity or quantum fluctuations and such stuff). But that is (or rather, maybe was, if big bang theory is correct) also existents with certain properties which can act causally.

This "pre-big bang" state is sometimes refered to as the "primeval atom".

The point is, the alternative to a 'something' coming from 'nothing' is _not_ "god". It is simply the something (or todays state of existence) coming from earlier states.

The jury is still out on whether there is a limit to how far back we can go in time (my suggestion would be that big bang was caused by even earlier states of universe or existence).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

I don't understand this, do mean that the simulator and simulation experience time identically (i.e. the sim doesnt run 'faster') or that we are merely a subset of the higher space-time? It may not run at the same pace, but there are at least two distinct time points in common: the entrance into the sim from the real world and the departure. (There are more than two of these for the "enlightened" folks who move back and forth between the sim and IRL, but everyone would have at least the two at birth and death) So, it's not unreasonable to assume that such a sim runs approximately at the same time rate as IRL.

But regardless, that's not exactly what I was refering to. In essense, the sim doesn't have it's own independent metric. This is hard to explain in English (as opposed to explaining it in mathematics, where it's still hard to explain but makes more sense), but a metric is how you measure local spacetime. Depending on where you are in our spacetime, the time axis in 4D Cartisian coordinates may not be pointing in the same direction as the time axis in another part of spacetime.

Where ever the sim is being hosted, it will necessarily have to have the same local metric as the surrounding spacetime. An alternate universe, which presumably has it's own version of spacetime, would have a different metric, and could even possibly have a different kind of metric. A metric with three time axis and one space axis, for example, or two time and two space or 32 time and 57 space, etc. I don't know if that's even possible, but my point is that there is nothing that necessitates that another universe's metric should be anything like ours.

So, maybe we could define what happened "before" the big bang in a hypothetical alternate universe that defines time in three dimensions and space in one dimension, but it would be, as I said, meaningless in our universe where we measure time in one dimension and three space dimensions. There wouldn't necessarily be a direct correlation that would allow us to answer the question.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings, I hope you are well and happy.


Who created the thing that created God? And then we ask: what created the thing that created the thing that created the thing that created God? ...forever we go on and on. Think about that, if we do not have a stopping point for this question, we never get its answer.

This reminds me of a great quote philosophy is questions that may never be answered and religion ( some) are answers that may never be questioned

But regardless there are some flaws as to your “conclusion”.

Answers can be found but you/ they start with an question that is meaningless in this forum. They start with Who created the thing that created God
This is of course meaningless unless you have already proven your God to be factual. To use your statement as means to prove your God is illogical.

The burden of proof would be theirs to prove their God if that was done then we would seek answers to who created “him”. I must assume this is in response to someone pointing out to them that their belief in a “intelligent designer” being requires to create something so complex as life here is a self defeating belief.

The statement always goes basically “ nothing can create itself, anything so complex needs to be created by something more complex”

The logical response is “ well then your God would be very complex and so need something far more complex to create “him””.

The response will follow “ Well everything but God needs to be created.”

To which David Brooks gives us the best response. To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy. –David Brooks-

You can delve deeper and ask what is the realm of existence where God existed before he created the universe? And who created that as it could not be your God as it would mean a “place” has always existed like you believe God did so therefore it is just not God that has always existed. So if that realm of existence has always existed and needed no creator why not this one?

Without an end to that question, we can't exist.

Why? You believe God exist without such an answer, we can prove we “exist” ( a known) but you can not do the same with a God ( a belief and unknown).



However, we do exist SOOO we know that a source does exist, that is, an unmoved mover or a nesessary first or God.

LOL as Yahweh said so well, that is VERY presumptuous. It is a self serving and illogical statement and in reality a statement of belief not a statement of fact.

1- we do exist that is a known.
2- We do NOT know there is a source, you believe that it is in no way a known.
3- Using your “logic” why does not your “ God/mover” need a mover?
4- How is it you declare this God a “unmoved mover” I would be interested in seeing the facts to prove this.

Maybe we could first find what we believe about this question: is the universe infinite? An infinite universe seems so feesible to so many people, but its just a bunch of poo sauce.

“poo sauce”..LOL These scientific words are over my head.

Your friend finds it “poo sauce’ that the universe is infinite but not a God and the realm of existence that God existed in before this universe. The “ well he lives outside of time and space” does not fly as that still is a realm of existence and in their “logic” would need to be created.

Here's what I think: no matter if we're talking science, theology or philosophy, this idea of an infinite universe is totally bunk.

Bunk and poo sauce.. I fear booger head is soon to follow.


Let science and its rational methods tell you about entropy. They'll tell you that ALL of the energy in the universe can not be created or destroyed. Science will also tell you that ALL of the energy in the universe moves from useful to non-useful energy (order to disorder) - this is entropy.

“useful and non useful energy” ? are they not relative terms? Useful to who, non useful to who? This is an illogical statement.

Energy and matter change form. Energy can be degraded by friction but not destroyed.


For example, an ice cube melts in the sun. Then I take its water home and put it in my freezer, the refrozen water does not naturally shape itself back into its orginal form.

An ice cube in NOT an ice cubes “original form” it is on a gross form water and causes and conditions “convert” it to ice. If it was in cube form someone placed water in a try to attain this form them moved it to the sun to melt.

On a subtle level the, ice cube nor the water really exists. The water does not in and of itself exist it is comprised of non-water elements first hydrogen and oxygen and further the hydrogen and oxygen don not exist as they are comprised completely of non-hydrogen and oxygen elements.


It moves from an ordered configuration to a disordered configuration UNLESS we supply extra energy to help form it back to its original shape (ie, building an ice cube tray).

“ordered configuration” “disordered configuration” This is illogical. Water is a disordered configuration? Useful to who? A frozen river is useless to a hydro plant or better a swim team but great for the operator to ice skate on the skate team.

The end result of entropy is HEAT DEATH, that is when all the useful energy is converted to non-useful energy.

Heat death? The melted ice cube is not useless to one who needs a drink or a plant that needs water or millions of other needs. This is a totally illogical line of thinking.

If we're living in a universe that wasn't created, meaning that we've already experienced infinity, HEAT DEATH would have already occured.

???? what? Why? This statement is totally with out reason.

Heat does not destroy the ice cube or the water it only changes form, when the water evaporates it appears as clouds and when the cause and conditions are right it again appears as rain or snow. I assume they have heard of the hydraulic cycle?

Hence, the universe (according to science and "rational thinking") can NOT be infinite - it had a beginning.

Your friend and I mean them no disrespect have little grasp of the nature of things even on a 9th grade level.

Please help them to understand when anything dies say a body the elements of that body return to their simpler states. The water of the body 70-80% say if the body were HEAT DEATH –ed for example in a fire would evaporate and again reappear as rain or if the body rotted in the ground the elements could be found if you will in the plants. They do not just simply disappear.



After climbing the giant hill of reason, scientists found the theology professors and philosophers who'd been waiting for them to come visit for years.

lol


Now, the next question: does something that NEEDS a beginning come from nothing?

Being they have failed to prove that “something” “life” needs to be created the following statements/question is irrelevant.

Physical quantities need a beginning.

A statement of belief but completely supported by any facts and non even offered.

So they either came from NOTHING or they were created.

The 3 factor is the matter and energy has always been, without beginning or end. Many say this is not possible yet believe their god is just that and while they fail to consider it the realm of existence of that God need also have always been.

We can prove with measurable facts that this matter and energy exist, we can see how all things compound arise and then die falling into decay. We see this is not a one time event but a cycle that is endless.

God on the other hand may very well be true but is an unknown and can not be measured and at this time anyway is without and evidence.

A question that they need ask themselves is why this being spent all this “time” before just throwing us together 6000 years ago by Christian standards.

The big bang theory tells us that everything started in an infinite density.

To me, my thinking is the big bang is just what we see as reality of all that is compound all matter , the big bang would be the death of an older universe and subsequently the rebirth of the energy and matter in a new form.

If you're thinking about placing your faith in NOTHING versus placing your faith in a living God, its seems like a better idea to put your faith in God considering what this faith could potentially mean for your life.

Without going too deep here for this statement to have any validly or be relevant in any form they must first prove this “ living God”



For the skeptics out there who long for evidence and reason, I hope you find the best reasons. Think about this though, what reason does God NEED to exist.

Strange questions. They may well have asked a non believer in Santa what reason does Santa need to exist. This is a meaningless question.

Tell me what evidence God needs to be real.

The question is of course worded poorly in that it seems they are asking what evidence God needs to believe in something. I assume they mean what evidence do we need to believe in God. For me and I can not speak for all but the same factual evidence I need to formulate a solid belief or come to a logical conclusion that it is truth. I have not seen that for their God/creator.

We (humans) need evidence to exist –

Not true. At birth your brain does not seek out or require evidence of anything in order to complete the birth or back to fertilization.

we need parents because we are contingent.

Well that is one right. To be in this form such is required is their other forms, I do not know.

Yet God needs not.

Hmm, got any proof to go with that statement?


You want evidence He exists, but why?

Why not? Should we just believe everyone who says everything? If everything everyone says is truth there are millions of gods and none etc.

Do you question your own existence in the same way?

Silly statement.

You've been in the world, you've learned how ordered it is, you've see the work of something much larger than you.

yes the universe, nature all provable, a God is nothing more then a belief until the data proves other wise. There belief that their God created this is no more valid that my saying the great pumpkin did.


How does this leave you room to be a skeptic?

All I can say is ?????????????? what?

let's debate...do you have a lack of reasons or a fear of accepting the reasons you have? Do you have a fear of becomming "spiritual?"

This is the usual personal attacks that will be directed toward anyone who will not simply fall behind them and say they will believe what they do and say. This has everything with there self image, a need to be right at something, on the “right and winning team” then it has to do with a God.

Just what I believe.
May all be well and happy.

[Bluefire]

So the universe is a steady-state then?


If you mean eternal yes, If you mean that there is no literal creation of something out of nothing and no return of something to a literal nothing, then yes it could be said to be a steady-state in that respect.

That doesn't mean that changes doesn't occur within the existence of course, that depends on the properties of the existing elements.


Physicists don't like questions they can't answer, so they like to say things like "its not a valid question" in order to wriggle out of the sticky issues.


Au contraire. Some scientists think they have found the answer in the properties of the singularity and quantum fluctuations. Now I do have some serious objections to the interpretations some scientists do in this area. But I think it's wildly unfair to accuse them of simply pushing off the question. The notion of spacetime beginning in the singularity is a mathematical consequence of some theories that have proved to be correct in the currently testable circumstances.


Feynman wrote an excellent essay on this, admitting that asking "why?" regarding the origin of the universe is a valid question, but a fundamentally unanswerable one. It was his opinion that it was not worth wasting time thinking about. I usually agree, but induldge myself from time time.


Ad verecundiam arguments won't help you here.

Asking the question of "what caused big bang" is valid, (at least as long as the part of big bang theory that posits it as the beginning of everything isn't proved to be absolutely correct).

But that does not transfer to the universe as such.

The universe is (by definition) all that exists. It is the sum of all parts. So positing the question: What caused the universe implicitly asks for a nothing to explain a something. Asking for a cause "outside the universe", is like asking for a thing that isn't among the existing to explain a cause.

Hence, the question is nonsensical.

Now, alot of confusion on this issue relate to the definition of "universe". Some use my definition (The sum of all there is), and for us the scientific task is simply to find (by observing the evidence) the nature of the existing elements. Since there is no "external", there is no external explanations to be had.

Others use the "universe" as a part of that which is. And then of course there could be an external cause, in the form of a super universe, or "my definition" universe which is simply "all there is" which includes the "their definition" universe.


If thats the case then its one and the other.


My point was that the christians cosmologians often use the big bang theory (which uses _only_ their relativistic time) to prove that the universe "began". And then they want to use the argument in a way that needs the classical aristotelian sense of time to work. So in the argument from universe had a beginning --> it must be caused tis doesn't make sense.


Thermodynamics.


Please explain how that contradicts the existence of the universe. (Yes, I have heard, and answered, many variants of cosmological arguments involving thermodynamics, but I want to know just exactly which variant you're using).


Originally posted by EvilYeti

If your fundamentalist belief system dictates such a faith-based position, thats fine. Just don't knock the beliefs of others.

sed s/faith/reason/

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by EvilYeti



You fundies sure have a short temper!

ROFLMAO!

Short fuse when strong beliefs are countered or even suggested.

[Dancing David]

It is not something from nothing, it is something from something going to something. The fact that our universe is closed does not measn it came from 'nothing', it came from something that we do not have the means to contact or understand. We may have budded off of a universe that budded from another universe. In the bahavahad gita and other souces similar infinite recursions are discussed.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
------------------------------------------------------
Our universe is self-contradictory. Its own rules demand that it itself should not exist. Yet it does.
------------------------------------------------------

Please explain. I'm unfamiliar with this contradiciton. [/B]
I'll explain quickly...

Some fundamentalists maintain that the Big Bang implies that the universe "self-created" itself. This would be a contradiction as something cannot contradict itself. But of course it only maintains its "self-contradictory" status if you ignore everything stated in Big Bang Theory, the Laws of Quantum Physics, and all of the Laws of Physics. The "our universe is self-contradictory" is nothing more remarkable than your standard Arguement From Ignorance.

[malfunktion]

Haha...I never knew you guys would have so much fun with this post. Thanks Randi-ites. Being a historian, I have to admit, my science isnt the sharpest part of my game so your commentary on entropy along with some additional reading of my own has cleared things up.

With all the fun had...perhaps I will post a "my Christian friend said part 2" at a later date.

This forum rawks.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Dancing David
We may have budded off of a universe that budded from another universe.
I don't think that's quite right, David.

As someone pointed out, we know that particles spontaneously appear and disapear all the time. This is not a problem, as long as the net effect is zero. Apparently even Nature can borrow, as long as it pays back. The point is that these particles are not coming from another universe: they are coming from nothing at all.

But imagine a particle popping into existance (from nothing) when there isn't a universe. No universe = no space. No space means that even one tiny particle has infinte density. So BOOM! and there you go.

Eventually the entire universe will exhaust itself, and that other particle, the one that was supposed to cancel out the first one, will appear, and the entire universe will pay back its energy debt (with interest) and vanish. At the end of the game, the score will be zero.

All without any interaction whatsoever with other universes. Each of which is playing their own game, without any regard to ours.


Which brings up the single most important question physics has yet to investigate: what's the vic on inflationary energy?

:D

(err for those of you who don't know, "vic" is the weekly interest rate a loanshark charges)

[Nefertiti]

Perhaps, not all questions have answers?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Nefertiti
Perhaps, not all questions have answers?

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. -Albert Einstein

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" A.Einstein

[EvilYeti]

"Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain' into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

--Richard Feynman

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by Yahzi


The point is that these particles are not coming from another universe: they are coming from nothing at all.

They are not coming from nothing. They are coming from the post-big bang vacuum of space (assuming that the BB theory is correct). Spacetime is not nothing.

But imagine a particle popping into existance (from nothing) when there isn't a universe. No universe = no space. No space means that even one tiny particle has infinte density. So BOOM! and there you go.

You say "no universe = no space". What evidence do you have that suggests that particles spontaneously appear in the absense of spacetime? I know, I know-- You said "imagine". Fine and dandy, as long as we don't confuse that which we can imagine with reality-- Otherwise, we might start fooling ourselves into thinking we have the answer.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by gentlehorse

They are not coming from nothing. They are coming from the post-big bang vacuum of space (assuming that the BB theory is correct). Spacetime is not nothing.

So you're saying the vacuum is not nothing?

Sounds kinda funny when you put it that way. ;)

But I agree. At this point I'll settle for convincing people that matter does spring into being from mere vacuum. After that we can argue about where the first particle came from.

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by Yahzi

So you're saying the vacuum is not nothing?

As you say, no universe = no space. No vacuum, no quantum fluctuations-- nothing. Spacetime is not nothing.

Sounds kinda funny when you put it that way. ;)

I agree.

But I agree. At this point I'll settle for convincing people that matter does spring into being from mere vacuum. After that we can argue about where the first particle came from.

Where matter springing into being from the vacuum is concerned, I assume you're talking about the phenomenon "observed" on the event horizon of black holes. Regarding the first particle, you won't get much of an argument from me unless you claim to know where it came from. ;)

BTW, from what I've read concerning temporal causality, I can't even say there was a first particle.