Is this intended to be a hilarious parody of a misrepresentation of your own position, or are you bloody serious?
ARCHIVE: Best evidence for young earth supernatural creation.
- Thread starter noguru
- Start date
Is this intended to be a hilarious parody of a misrepresentation of your own position, or are you bloody serious?
Turbo said:
The laws of logic are laws of nature, and both most mutually conform to one another.
Turbo said:
It has always existed (you merely take yet another step by insisting that the universe as we know it has only only existed 6,000 years or so and that God has always existed, so such a concept of eternity should not be very difficult for you to grasp).
The night grows old, and so for now I must bid my adieu to you all until morning shows her fair face.
I'm serious. You can elaborate on why you find it hilarious if you want, but please also address the argument I first made in post #266.
Which part do you find fault with?
Is it this part?
Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of matter/energy), we can rule out the possibility that the matter/energy that makes up the natural universe came into existence through natural means.
Or this part?
Because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (net entropy increases during any process), we can rule out the possibility that the universe has always existed. (The universe is continuously undergoing irreversible processes, increasing entropy. For it to have always existed, it would have to be a perpetual motion machine, which would violate the Second Law.)
Or this part?
Since the universe cannot have always existed, and it cannot have come into existence naturally, then it must have come into existence through supernatural means. That is the only conceivable option left.
Edit: Nevermind. You find fault with the second part.
By laws of nature, I am referring to physical laws. Laws of logic (the Law of Identity, the Law of Non-Contradiction, etc.) are not physical laws. They are philosophical, and they apply equally to that which is natural and that which is supernatural.
Okay then. How do you then reconcile the fact that the universe is not cold and dead, having exhausted all useful energy, conclude this in light of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Do you think the stars have been burning for eternity past? Is the universe effectively a perpetual-motion machine? Do you reject the validity of the Second Law?
But God, being supernatural, is not bound by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (I warned you not to make this error a few posts back, but you did it anyway. :doh: )
JustinFoldsFive
New member
The problem with the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics is that they represent observation/experimentation done in one little, tiny corner of the universe. The truth is, we are making a HUGE ASSUMPTION to assert that these two "laws" are applicable in all areas of the universe, throughout all periods of time. We simply do not know.
Again you display your ignorance. The Law of Entropy applies only to isolated systems, as any physicist would gladly inform you. Our solar system and our galaxy are not isolated systems. It is not I who rejects the second law, but you who thoroughly fails to understand its simplest premise.
And while I utterly reject the need for a supernatural "first cause," even were I to believe in such a necessity I would have no valid reason to believe in the monstrous god of the Bible. What you have presented is a prime example of a false dilemma, a nonexistent choice, as it were. Even supposing I should be found wrong, I would have no more reason to accept your god than I would to accept the teachings of, say, Hinduism.
:rotfl: Nice try! I'm not talking about our solar system or our galaxy, but the ENTIRE physical universe. That is a closed system.
All you've done is push the problem outside of our galaxy.
Well, you have to start somewhere. I never claimed that this argument proves that the supernatural creator is the God of the Bible; I only claimed that it proved there is a supernatural creator, that the universe must have a supernatural origin.
Damian
New member
Just curious. Where do you stand on the issue?
It is not an assumption. It is an acceptance of scientific fact. They are not laws of our tiny corner of the physical universe. They are laws of nature. There is no reason to assume that in a different region of the physical universe, matter spontaneously comes into existence, and fires can burn forever without consuming fuel, and that this is perfectly natural. There is no evidence whatsoever that such is the case.
That is, unless you consider the mere existence of the universe to be that evidence. But that would be begging the question.
It is through blind faith and grasping at straws that you suggest that perhaps the laws of thermodynamics are not universal. You only do so to maintain your unscientific atheistic/materialistic worldview. Your bias is showing.
And you accused me of rejecting science. That's rich! :ha:
Speak for yourself. Maybe you should change your profile to "agnostic." As for me, I'll continue to embrace the fundamentals of science.
The universe is very largely considered infinite (or at least a subset of an infinite number of multiverses), and can therefore not be considered a closed system.
Turbo said:
It is absolutely impossible to offer a scientific defense of the supernatural, since by definition it is not bound by nature. As such I find no reason within nature to demand the existence of the supernatural.
Again, the "first cause" argument is little more than the last vestige of a "God of the Gaps" approach to reality. Far removed from a time when virtually every natural phenomenon was explained in supernatural terms, we have developed fully satisfactory scientific explanations for virtually every aspect of reality. As this has occurred, the role of a god, or the spiritual, in the universe has grown infinitesimally smaller at a startlingly rapid rate, shrinking to the point that virtually the only naturalistic argument remaining for a god is the "First Cause" argument - which assumes the unnecessary premise that the universe need have a first cause.
In other words, your god has but one gap in which he remains a remotely plausible explanation, and there is overwhelming dispute as to whether that gap need even exist in the first place.
Tell me - will you at long last abandon your pretensions of a "rational" faith once that final remaining gap has been inevitably filled by science?
mighty_duck
New member
Even if we were to grant that the universe is a closed system, or that extrapolating time beyond the big bang made any sense...
The only way your argument works is if we replace the word "supernatural" with "unknown".
So the universe, as we know it, had an unknown cause. It may be natural, as all other causes that in the past were unknown and dubbed "supernatural", it may be anything. You have done nothing for any concept of god that would be helpful to your case.
JustinFoldsFive
New member
Turbo said:
:chuckle:
Turbo said:
No, I suggest that the laws may not be universal because we have very little evidence that they are. You are merely assuming that they are. Truly, we know very little about the universe we live in.
The more we learn about our universe, the crazier it seems. Solid objects able to completely pass through other solid objects?! It's possible (quantum tunneling). Energy being mysteriously "created" outside the event horizon of a black hole?! It's possible. And Turbo thinks he understands the universe. :chuckle: