Argument for God: Thomas' Lost "6th Way"

[Normal]

1. It is a law of our universe that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2. Energy exists.
3. Energy must of been created by a force outside of our universe.

[B. H. Manners]

Originally posted by Normal
1. It is a law of our universe that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2. Energy exists.
3. Energy must of been created by a force outside of our universe.



But why would #3 necessarily follow? Energy could be eternal.

[wordsmyth]

Originally posted by Normal
1. It is a law of our universe that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2. Energy exists.
3. Energy must of been created by a force outside of our universe.

must have been, not must of been.

Number 2 is the only one I can agree with. I would ask for a more clear definition of the words law, created, and destroyed as intended in number 1 and I would also ask for a more detailed explanation of how number 3 follows.

[HRG]

Originally posted by Normal
1. It is a law of our universe that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Not quite. What is an extremely well-established statement is:

"Every increase/decrease of the energy contained in a finite region corresponds to an inward/outward flow of energy through the boundary".

Not the same at all, if the universe - as some observations suggest - is unbounded. In this case, "total energy of the universe" is an ill-defined concept.


Regards,
HRG.

[Normal]

Originally posted by B. H. Manners
But why would #3 necessarily follow? Energy could be eternal.

Energy is incoherent without time and space. Time and space existed since 15 (+ - 5) years ago.

[Normal]

Originally posted by wordsmyth
must have been, not must of been.

Number 2 is the only one I can agree with. I would ask for a more clear definition of the words law, created, and destroyed as intended in number 1 and I would also ask for a more detailed explanation of how number 3 follows.

Law: True at any time and point of the universes existence.
Created: Came into existence.
Destroyed: Went "out of" existence (note: impossible in our world).

#3: Energy came into existence a finite period ago, therefore it was created by an outside force of the universe.

[Normal]

Originally posted by HRG
Not the same at all, if the universe - as some observations suggest - is unbounded. In this case, "total energy of the universe" is an ill-defined concept.

If the universe is unbounded, still no energy is being created.

[Howard]

The universe as we know it began at the Big Bang. What preceded it is unknown and may be unknowable by our limited minds and measuring instruments. If people want to trot out a supernatural deity as the unknown initiator of it all, that’s okay. Just so long as they keep him out of the schools and the government.

I have no great problem with a first cause, deistic god because it’s simply an explanatory concept - no different from the quantum singularity. It’s also a worthless concept in terms of advancing human knowledge.

If “Poof, you’re a universe” works for you, that’s fine. But where do you go from there?

[Peter Kirby]

This is not based on Aquinas--Aquinas had respect for Aristotle's philosophical position that the universe was eternal. Rather, it is just another way at getting to the kalam cosmological argument, most famously defended by W. L. Craig and derived from Muslim theologians.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Jobar]

Normal, as the others have said in various ways, 'outside the universe' is a null concept; empty and pointless. If you want to think that there's an Invisible Pink Unicorn, or an omnipotent rutabega, or any other nonsensical construct, 'outside the universe' who created it, you can do that too. There's no way to link it to anything we know, or (most probably) even can know.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Originally posted by Normal
1. It is a law of our universe that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2. Energy exists.
3. Energy must of been created by a force outside of our universe.

I have to repeat what you've (you have not you of) been told by Wordsmyth.

"Of" is the possessive particle. As in "the leg of the table or the wheel of the car.

"Must of" and "could of" literally do not make the slightest bit of sense.

Clearly, what you're trying to say is that energy "must have" blah blah etc.

It is a law of divinity that God cannot be created or destroyed.

God exists.

God must have been created by something outside of his divinity.

[markfiend]

Originally posted by Normal
1. It is a law of our universe that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2. Energy exists.
3. Energy must of been created by a force outside of our universe.

Let me get this straight:

Energy cannot be created (from 1) therefore energy was created (from 3). :confused:

[Mageth]

It is a law of divinity that God cannot be created or destroyed.

God exists.

God must have been created by something outside of his divinity.

Perfect. ;)

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Normal
1. It is a law of our universe that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2. Energy exists.
3. Energy must of been created by a force outside of our universe.

But that's not an argument for God. That's an argument for a "force" outside our universe that can create energy. Now you have to show why that "force" must be God rather than just an extra-universal "law" that allows energy (in the universe) to be created (or, as stated above, to have always existed).

[Mageth]

#3: Energy came into existence a finite period ago, therefore it was created by an outside force of the universe.

The first bit is an unproven assertion.

[Normal]

Howard: The universe as we know it began at the Big Bang. What preceded it is unknown and may be unknowable by our limited minds and measuring instruments. If people want to trot out a supernatural deity as the unknown initiator of it all, that’s okay. Just so long as they keep him out of the schools and the government.

Completely agree Howard. My interests in the existence of god extend only as a hobby, and in no way would I be in a position to force any of it on any part of society.

Howard: If “Poof, you’re a universe” works for you, that’s fine. But where do you go from there?

Anywhere you want to. If there exists a force outside of the universe though, materialism and naturalism are falsified, which would be an unacceptable conclusion for some people.

Jobar: There's no way to link it to anything we know, or (most probably) even can know.

We can link it to everything we observe, since it is the starting point.

Waning Moon Conrad: It is a law of divinity that God cannot be created or destroyed.

God exists.

God must have been created by something outside of his divinity.

Unless you can prove some type of divinity law, that doesn't follow. An ipse dixit divinity law doesn't count.

Also: Energy needs a starting point due to entropy, why does divinity require a starting point?

markfiend: Let me get this straight:

Energy cannot be created (from 1) therefore energy was created (from 3).

It is a law of our universe that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but clearly, there is energy.

Mageth: But that's not an argument for God. That's an argument for a "force" outside our universe that can create energy. Now you have to show why that "force" must be God rather than just an extra-universal "law" that allows energy (in the universe) to be created (or, as stated above, to have always existed).

So what do you want? What would make this force god to you?

Mageth: #3: Energy came into existence a finite period ago, therefore it was created by an outside force of the universe.

The first bit is an unproven assertion.

Entropy gives us a reasonable basis to assume energy is not eternal. Or more precisely, energy does not have an eternal past.

[Hedshaker]

1. It is a law of our universe that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2. Energy exists.
3. Energy must of been created by a force outside of our universe.



1. ok

2. ok

3. hogwash

If it's a rule of the universe that energy cannot be created or destroyed then how come god needed to create it since it already existed. Direct contidiction there.

Space time and matter have always existed. No creator neccassary.

[Normal]

Originally posted by bornyetagain
If it's a rule of the universe that energy cannot be created or destroyed then how come god needed to create it since it already existed. Direct contidiction there.

Space time and matter have always existed. No creator neccassary.

I don't see the contradiction. If energy exists now and does not have an infinite past, it must have a creator. How do you support that space time has always existed, and thus, no creator necessary?

[Mageth]

So what do you want? What would make this force god to you?

That would seem to be the question I was posing to you. What makes this force "god"?

Entropy gives us a reasonable basis to assume energy is not eternal. Or more precisely, energy does not have an eternal past.

This statement is, so to speak, bounded by this universe. You have not established by this argument that what is energy in this universe did not exist in some form prior to this universe. Nor does this statement support the necessity of a God to create energy.

[Mageth]

If energy exists now and does not have an infinite past, it must have a creator.

You have not established that energy (or energy in some preceding state) does not have an infinite past. And again, "creator=god" does not follow - you need to establish why that creator must be god and not some extra-universal natural phenomenon.

In other words, you have yet to make an argument for God.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Mageth
This statement is, so to speak, bounded by this universe.

Exactly, that is precisely it. If there exists a force outside the universe, then the universe is not all there is.

Originally posted by Mageth
You have not established that energy (or energy in some preceding state) does not have an infinite past.

Again: Entropy gives us a reasonable basis to believe energy does not have an infinite past. All we can observe is energy in some form, so if it began to exist, all we observe now is not all that is.

Originally posted by Mageth
And again, "creator=god" does not follow - you need to establish why that creator must be god and not some extra-universal natural phenomenon.

In other words, you have yet to make an argument for God.

What properties do I need to line up with this extra-universal force to give it the title god?

[Hedshaker]

don't see the contradiction. If energy exists now and does not have an infinite past, it must have a creator. How do you support that space time has always existed, and thus, no creator necessary?

Simple. If time/space mattered hasn't always existed there must have been a time when nothing existed.

Something cannot emerge from nothing, not even god.

Nothing is always nothing.

Therefore time space and matter has always existed.

No god required.

Next

[Normal]

Originally posted by bornyetagain
Simple. If time/space mattered hasn't always existed there must have been a time when nothing existed.

Who is contradicting themselves? Me or you?

"If time hasn't always existed there must of been a time when nothing existed"

[Hedshaker]

So you accept that space/time/matter have always existed in some form?

if so, your deity is redundent, yes?

[Hedshaker]

if not, please explain how god emerged form nothing

[Hedshaker]

ah, see your point my bad. Let me rephrase.

Simple. If time/space mattered hasn't always existed there must have been a nothingness prior

[Normal]

"Prior" implies a temporal relationship to events. If time does not exist, how could something be "prior".

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Normal
Exactly, that is precisely it. If there exists a force outside the universe, then the universe is not all there is.

Who's claiming that it is? (but note that, as far as we know, it's all there is).

Again: Entropy gives us a reasonable basis to believe energy does not have an infinite past.

Energy in its state in this universe does not have an infinite past in this universe. That's a truism - you're saying nothing new here. That's all we can reasonably say. Entropy cannot be used to make inferences prior to this universe; it only indicates that the state of energy we observe had a beginning in this universe.

We know nothing about energy's state (other than it was apparently "contained" within a singularity) prior to this universe.

All we can observe is energy in some form, so if it began to exist, all we observe now is not all that is.

Yes, that's right; all we can observe is energy in some state. We cannot infer from that state that it began to exist; only that it "began to exist" in its current state at the black hole boundary.

What properties do I need to line up with this extra-universal force to give it the title god?

Once again, that's your assignment.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Mageth
Who's claiming that it is?

Naturalists/materialists

Originally posted by Mageth
Energy in its state in this universe does not have an infinite past in this universe. That's a truism - you're saying nothing new here. That's all we can reasonably say. Entropy cannot be used to make inferences prior to this universe; it only indicates that the state of energy we observe had a beginning in this universe.

We know nothing about energy's state (other than it was apparently "contained" within a singularity) prior to this universe

Yes, that's right; all we can observe is energy in some state. We cannot infer from that state that it began to exist; only that it "began to exist" in its current state at the black hole boundary.

But the implication is that an extra-universal force can effect the universe as we know it. We can say nothing about the state of energy prior to the big bang, because it did not exist [as we know it]. Some force brought it into being. This force is the creator of the universe, therefore, this force is god. What characteristics of this force are preventing you from calling it god?

Originally posted by Mageth
Once again, that's your assignment.

So then my job is done if god=creator is sufficient for me.

[Howard]

Originally posted by Normal
Anywhere you want to. If there exists a force outside of the universe though, materialism and naturalism are falsified, which would be an unacceptable conclusion for some people.

But your basing your “if” not on solid evidence but on what is called the argument from ignorance, which in one form says; “Since science cannot answer every question I can think of in regard to the universe, then I’ll trot out something else, something supernatural (whatever that is), as the answer." Why should the unexplained imply the supernatural, other than the need some humans have for answers?

We KNOW the natural world exists. Why look for answers in a world that you DON’T know exists?

[Normal]

Originally posted by Howard
But your basing your “if” not on solid evidence but on what is called the argument from ignorance, which in one form says; “Since science cannot answer every question I can think of in regard to the universe, then I’ll trot out something else, something supernatural (whatever that is), as the answer." Why should the unexplained imply the supernatural, other than the need some humans have for answers?

We KNOW the natural world exists. Why look for answers in a world that you DON’T know exists?

But science does answer it. Entropy says energy does not have an infinite past. Energy exists. A law of our universe says that energy cannot be created or destroyed. There is nothing unexplainable at reaching the supernatural conclusion that what created the universe was a force outside of the universe.

[Hedshaker]

Prior" implies a temporal relationship to events. If time does not exist, how could something be "prior".

Exactly. So you accept that nothing is not an option?


But to infer creation implies a begining, prior that begining, what?

Nothing is not a begining or and end. It is simply nothing and nothing can emerge from nothing. It will alway be nothing.

So, from where did god appear?

[Peter Kirby]

I think it is reasonable to say that there was no point in time when space-time did not exist. (!)

Do some study of the geometry of relativistic cosmology, even in a popular science book (like Stephen Hawking's popular one)--Newton's view of time dominates these kalam discussions.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Normal
Naturalists/materialists

A common definition of naturalism is "the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations". Naturalism doesn't by default claim that "this universe is all there is". There could, for example, be other universes without conflicting with naturalism.

A common definition of materialism is "the view that everything that actually exists is material, or physical". Materialism doesn't by default claim that "this universe is all there is". Once again, there's no conflict there with some extra-universal concepts such as other universes.

But the implication is that an extra-universal force can effect the universe as we know it.

It is? I must have missed that one.

We can say nothing about the state of energy prior to the big bang, because it did not exist [as we know it].

Now you're getting it. It did not exist as we know it.

Some force brought it into being. This force is the creator of the universe, therefore, this force is god.

An extra-universal natural principle, law or phenomenon with no sentience, purpose, or direction that "caused" the universe to come into existence hardly needs to be labeled "creator" or "god", both of which imply sentience, purpose and direction.

And some "force" brought "it" (the state of energy as we know it) into "being". This does not lead to the necessary conclusion that energy did not exist in some state prior to this universe.

What characteristics of this force are preventing you from calling it god?

"God" has obvious, and unnecessary, connotations, as can be seen in your statement above "But the implication is that an extra-universal force can effect the universe as we know it."

I'm not even sure if we can rightly label it (whatever it is) a "force".

So then my job is done if god=creator is sufficient for me.

I can only assume that when you say god, you are not referring to some natural phenomenon like vacuum fluctuations or singularities.

So if you want to dumb down "god" to include such things, so be it. It makes the title of this thread rather meaningless, however.

[Normal]

Originally posted by bornyetagain
Exactly. So you accept that nothing is not an option?


But to infer creation implies a begining, prior that begining, what?

Nothing is not a begining or and end. It is simply nothing and nothing can emerge from nothing. It will alway be nothing.

So, from where did god appear?

God is not required to "come from" anywhere because he is not constrained by entropy like energy is.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
I think it is reasonable to say that there was no point in time when space-time did not exist. (!)

Seems like a tautology. Undeniable truth. (!)

[Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Do some study of the geometry of relativistic cosmology, even in a popular science book (like Stephen Hawking's popular one)--Newton's view of time dominates these kalam discussions.

best,
Peter Kirby

I've read Hawking's book, and his relativistic time really does not answer the question. The force that created the universe still must necessarily exist outside of space-time (and thus, outside this universe).

[Mageth]

But science does answer it. Entropy says energy does not have an infinite past. Energy exists. A law of our universe says that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

As I pointed out, this argument gets you back to the beginning of the universe, and gets you no farther. You cannot reach any conclusions of what was prior to this universe from this argument.

There is nothing unexplainable at reaching the supernatural conclusion that what created the universe was a force outside of the universe.

You cannot conclude from your argument that that "force" is necessarily "supernatural", or necessarily god; it could be as natural (and ungodlike) as the laws of the universe you keep touting.

[Mageth]

God is not required to "come from" anywhere because he is not constrained by entropy like energy is.

Proving my point, "I can only assume that when you say god, you are not referring to some natural phenomenon like vacuum fluctuations or singularities."

In addition, and reiterating, entropy constrains energy in this universe.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Mageth
A common definition of naturalism is "the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations"

But there is a necessary supernatural explanation for the beginning of the universe, so naturalism by definition fails here.

Originally posted by Mageth
A common definition of materialism is "the view that everything that actually exists is material, or physical".

If the definition of existence is physical, that is a tautology.

Originally posted by Mageth
It is? I must have missed that one.

It is the cause of everything within the universe, how could you miss that? ;)

Originally posted by Mageth
An extra-universal natural principle, law or phenomenon with no sentience, purpose, or direction that "caused" the universe to come into existence hardly needs to be labeled "creator" or "god", both of which imply sentience, purpose and direction.

I don't want to get into a seperate argument from design here, so I'll just stick to the god=creator argument for now.

Originally posted by Mageth
"God" has obvious, and unnecessary, connotations, as can be seen in your statement above "But the implication is that an extra-universal force can effect the universe as we know it."

It has connotations, but I'm asking you what connotations I'd have to prove the force to have in order for you to concede that it must be called "God".

Originally posted by Mageth
I can only assume that when you say god, you are not referring to some natural phenomenon like vacuum fluctuations or singularities.

Vacuum fluctuations and singularities are only existents within our own universe, and are not "extrauniversal" concepts.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Mageth
As I pointed out, this argument gets you back to the beginning of the universe, and gets you no farther. You cannot reach any conclusions of what was prior to this universe from this argument.

Why would I need to go farther if I can conclude this force must be supernatural? By supernatural I mean outside of the universe, as in "Beyond what we can readily see".

[Hedshaker]

God is not required to "come from" anywhere because he is not constrained by entropy like energy is.

So, in other words, god came from nowhere, out of nothingness because God is not required to "come from" anywhere.

This is a joke, yes?

How about this for a more rational explination:

Time/space/energy (call it what you will) has ALWAY existed in some form or other.

NO GOD REQUIRED.

Just apply occams razor

[Normal]

Originally posted by bornyetagain
So, in other words, god came from nowhere, out of nothingness because God is not required to "come from" anywhere.

This is a joke, yes?

God did not "come out of nowhere". All I was saying is that it is more reasonable to believe god is eternal then energy, since energy is constained by entropy.

Originally posted by bornyetagain
How about this for a more rational explination:

Time/space/energy (call it what you will) has ALWAY existed in some form or other.

NO GOD REQUIRED.

Just apply occams razor

Occam's razor should not be used to cut out actual information, such as the supernatural origin of energy. If energy has a finite past, then space-time has a finite past. You can't use Occam's Razor to cut out the supernatural force just because you don't like it. There has to be a simplier explanation available.

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by Normal
Seems like a tautology. Undeniable truth. (!) That was my intention behind the exclam. It's like a powerful move in chess.

I've read Hawking's book, and his relativistic time really does not answer the question. The force that created the universe still must necessarily exist outside of space-time (and thus, outside this universe). Now you are no longer making an argument for creation of the universe. You are saying that, if this universe was created, the creator was not within the universe. I am not interested in debating that and could agree--it's not an argument for theism.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Normal]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
I am not interested in debating that and could agree--it's not an argument for theism.

What else is required for you to concede that the force must be called "God"? What properties must I show the force to have so that it becomes an argument for theism?

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Normal
But there is a necessary supernatural explanation for the beginning of the universe, so naturalism by definition fails here.

Umm, no. Why do you limit the "natural" to within our universe?

You have yet to establish that a "supernatural" explanation is necessary, BTW.

If the definition of existence is physical, that is a tautology.

Tautologies can be valid. In any case, there are better definitions of materialism, I'm sure.

In any case, my point still stands that neither naturalism nor materialism claims by default that "this universe is all there is".

It is the cause of everything within the universe, how could you miss that? ;)

Causing it is a bit different that affecting it. Your statement made it sound like the "force" is still mucking around with things. Perhaps a misunderstanding on my part.

I don't want to get into a seperate argument from design here, so I'll just stick to the god=creator argument for now.

But that's at the core of your argument, isn't it? That God created the universe?

It has connotations, but I'm asking you what connotations I'd have to prove the force to have in order for you to concede that it must be called "God".

The answer is in those connotations I referred to above. As you have yet to establish that those connotations apply to the "force", I see no reason why anything must be called "God".

Once again, the ball's in your court on this one.

Vacuum fluctuations and singularities are only existents within our own universe, and are not "extrauniversal" concepts.

And you know this, how? The Big Bang Theory posits that a singulariy existed "prior to" the universe, does it not?

[Hedshaker]

God did not "come out of nowhere". All I was saying is that it is more reasonable to believe god is eternal then energy, since energy is constained by entropy.


Not at all reasonable but I see where your going. The old "god can do anything" routine.

I've given you reasoned argument to debunk you OP. I wish you no offence but now that we're up there with the fairies I shall take my leave.

Good luck

Peace

bya

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Normal
Why would I need to go farther if I can conclude this force must be supernatural? By supernatural I mean outside of the universe, as in "Beyond what we can readily see".

I agree with Peter Kirby on this one. So what if it's outside the universe? I don't think anyone could argue strongly against that.

But my point is that your entropy argument leads to no necessary conclusions about the state of energy "outside the universe", i.e. that it did not exist in some state prior to the universe.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Mageth
Umm, no. Why do you limit the "natural" to within our universe?

If you include "supernatural" in with "natural", what is the point of having two seperate words?

Originally posted by Mageth
You have yet to establish that a "supernatural" explanation is necessary, BTW.

I have shown that a force exists outside the universe, therefore, a supernatural force. What else needs to be established?

Originally posted by Mageth
Causing it is a bit different that affecting it. Your statement made it sound like the "force" is still mucking around with things. Perhaps a misunderstanding on my part.

If the force is the creator, then it is still "mucking around" just by the fact that we still exist. The influence of that starting point continues to this time.

Originally posted by Mageth
But that's at the core of your argument, isn't it? That God created the universe?

Yes, and I'm saying God=Creator.

Originally posted by Mageth
The answer is in those connotations I referred to above. As you have yet to establish that those connotations apply to the "force", I see no reason why anything must be called "God".

Once again, the ball's in your court on this one.

But I'm asking you what connotations you would have to recognize being attached to the force in order to call it god. If I set up the definitions, then I'm just arguing to myself.

Originally posted by Mageth
And you know this, how? The Big Bang Theory posits that a singulariy existed "prior to" the universe, does it not?

Singularities are concepts that are existents in the universe (black holes).

[Normal]

Originally posted by bornyetagain
Not at all reasonable but I see where your going. The old "god can do anything" routine.

It's not "god can do anything" even. It's "god is not constrained by entropy, energy is constrained by entropy, therefore, god is more reasonable to be assumed to be eternal".

What's so irrational about that?

[wordsmyth]

Originally posted by Normal
But there is a necessary supernatural explanation for the beginning of the universe, so naturalism by definition fails here.


Unsupported assertion.

This is nothing more than the "Godidit" explanation. The last refuge of superstition are the dark corners where science has yet to shine the light of truth.

In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking, using a vacuum fluctuation model, provides a mathematical rationalization for the entire universe popping into existence at the beginning of time.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Mageth
I agree with Peter Kirby on this one. So what if it's outside the universe? I don't think anyone could argue strongly against that.

But my point is that your entropy argument leads to no necessary conclusions about the state of energy "outside the universe", i.e. that it did not exist in some state prior to the universe.

So then there are two conlcusions from this:

A) Extrauniversal forces are a reality
B) Extrauniversal forces need not be constrained by universal forces, and therefore can be said to be eternal.

Are there other connotations before you accept the force as god?

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Normal
God did not "come out of nowhere". All I was saying is that it is more reasonable to believe god is eternal then energy, since energy is constained by entropy.

Once again, entropy cannot be used to reach any conclusions about the state of energy outside this universe.

Occam's razor should not be used to cut out actual information, such as the supernatural origin of energy. If energy has a finite past, then space-time has a finite past.

Space-time in our universe has a finite past (at least in some models - Hawking's argument makes this a bit fuzzy).

But, once again, you're dealing with energy in its state in this universe. You have not established that energy (in some state) has a "finite past" outside this universe.

You can't use Occam's Razor to cut out the supernatural force just because you don't like it. There has to be a simplier explanation available.

Occam's Razor is used here to "cut out" God (with its accompanying connotations). God is not a simpler explanation - you're posing something infinite and purposeful to explain something (by your argument) finite and (IMO) purposeless.

[Normal]

Originally posted by wordsmyth
Unsupported assertion.

It's supported by the OP.

Originally posted by wordsmyth
This is nothing more than the "Godidit" explanation. The last refuge of superstition are the dark corners where science has yet to shine the light of truth.

Ok Sagan ;)

Originally posted by wordsmyth
In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking, using a vacuum fluctuation model, provides a mathematical rationalization for the entire universe popping into existence at the beginning of time.

"Vacuum models" are existents within the universe. He is relating an existent (physical) model to a supernatural (outside the universe) model, thus it's a false analogy.

I wonder why he's never won a Nobel Prize?

[Normal]

Originally posted by Mageth
Once again, entropy cannot be used to reach any conclusions about the state of energy outside this universe.

All I'm using entropy for is to say that it is reasonable to assume energy is not eternal, therefore it had a creator (ie. the supernatural force).

Originally posted by Mageth
Space-time in our universe has a finite past (at least in some models - Hawking's argument makes this a bit fuzzy).

But, once again, you're dealing with energy in its state in this universe. You have not established that energy (in some state) has a "finite past" outside this universe.

That's because it's reasonable to assume energy came into existence with this universe. They were simultanious creations, or "transformations" if you prefer. That still means there exists some supernatural force that "transformed" them.

Originally posted by Mageth
Occam's Razor is used here to "cut out" God (with its accompanying connotations). God is not a simpler explanation - you're posing something infinite and purposeful to explain something (by your argument) finite and (IMO) purposeless.

God, as a supernatural force that created the universe, is not being replaced by anything, so how does Occam's Razor apply? The purposefulness is debatable. If we are to consider one thing infinite, from what we know, it is not appropriate to label energy as infinite because of entropy. It might of existed in "some state", but that does not deal with the supernatural force that caused it to transform.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Normal
If you include "supernatural" in with "natural", what is the point of having two seperate words?

Now you get it.

"Supernatural", like "God", carries unnecessary connotations. IMO, whatever is "outside the universe" is just as natural as what is inside the universe. This does not conflict with naturalism. Naturalism does not claim that there may not be something natural outside the universe.

I have shown that a force exists outside the universe, therefore, a supernatural force. What else needs to be established?

Once again, you're limiting "natural" to within the universe. The force outside the universe, if it exists, is natural.

And, actually, I'm not sure you've even shown that a "force" exists outside the universe. And even if you have, you've not given support for any necessary conclusions about that force (i.e. that it must be "god").

If the force is the creator, then it is still "mucking around" just by the fact that we still exist. The influence of that starting point continues to this time.

I don't disagree with that, except with the unnecessary label of "creator".

Yes, and I'm saying God=Creator.

With the attendant connotations of what "God" is, of course. Obviously, you have not established that God is necessarily the creator of the universe.

But I'm asking you what connotations you would have to recognize being attached to the force in order to call it god. If I set up the definitions, then I'm just arguing to myself.

Obviously, as I alluded to, you whould have to support the connotations commonly associated with the human concept of God, which you have not. So far, you have given us no reason to conclude that God created the universe, or even that a creator created the universe.

Singularities are concepts that are existents in the universe (black holes).

Yes, but that does not lead to the conclusion that singularities don't exist outside this universe. I would assume that the singularity which led to this universe existed outside this universe?

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Normal
So then there are two conlcusions from this:

A) Extrauniversal forces are a reality
B) Extrauniversal forces need not be constrained by universal forces, and therefore can be said to be eternal.

Are there other connotations before you accept the force as god?

I don't see how you reached B). If extrauniversal forces exist, we can hardly make any strong conclusions about them such as they are necessarily "eternal".

[wordsmyth]

Originally posted by Normal
It's supported by the OP.

No, its asserted by the OP, then re-asserted continuously. Repeating an assertion is not the same as supporting an assertion.

"Vacuum models" are existents within the universe. He is relating an existent (physical) model to a supernatural (outside the universe) model, thus it's a false analogy.

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you. The vacuum model is a representation of conditions prior to the universe, not a model of something that exists or existed within the universe. I know you would like to believe you are smarter than Stephen Hawking, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you prove it by refuting his mathematical rationalizations. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

I wonder why he's never won a Nobel Prize?

Simple. Because we have no way to verify his theory other than the mathematics he uses to support it. So far nobody has been able to refute his mathematical rationalization for this theory.

You might also be interested to know that Stephen Hawking theorized the existence of black holes long before any real evidence was found. He also has never won a Nobel Prize for that, yet a great deal of evidence has been found for their existence in recent years. Most likely, if a Nobel Prize is ever given for this, it will be given to an observationalist not the theoreticist.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Normal
All I'm using entropy for is to say that it is reasonable to assume energy is not eternal, therefore it had a creator (ie. the supernatural force).

And, for the umpteenth time, you can't use entropy to reach that assumption or conclusion.

That's because it's reasonable to assume energy came into existence with this universe.

Once again, in its current state. You cannot assume its state "without" this universe.

They were simultanious creations, or "transformations" if you prefer.

If transformations, then where's creation?

Energy was in a different state prior to the big bang. It's spacetime that was "created" by the big bang.

That still means there exists some supernatural force that "transformed" them.

Or natural "force"...

God, as a supernatural force that created the universe, is not being replaced by anything, so how does Occam's Razor apply?

To cut out the God with its connotations.

The purposefulness is debatable.

Obviously, I agree.

If we are to consider one thing infinite, from what we know, it is not appropriate to label energy as infinite because of entropy.

I've shown the flaw in this argument, oh, an infinite number of times.

It might of existed in "some state", but that does not deal with the supernatural force that caused it to transform.

So now you've gone from God the Creator to God the Transformer?

[Normal]

Originally posted by Mageth
"Supernatural", like "God", carries unnecessary connotations. IMO, whatever is "outside the universe" is just as natural as what is inside the universe. This does not conflict with naturalism. Naturalism does not claim that there may not be something natural outside the universe.

But then naturalism just becomes this all enveloping term of "Everything that is true", which is a tautology. I mean, who in their right mind would argue with that? But then by that vary definition of naturalism, god is not taken out of the picture, for if god exists "naturally outside of the universe" then he is a part of naturalism too.

Originally posted by Mageth
And, actually, I'm not sure you've even shown that a "force" exists outside the universe. And even if you have, you've not given support for any necessary conclusions about that force (i.e. that it must be "god").

How could a force preceding the universe not be outside of it? All I'm concluding is that there is a "supernatural creator force".

Originally posted by Mageth
I don't disagree with that, except with the unnecessary label of "creator".

What is a creator but one who creates? I put two sticks together and build a raft, am I the creator, or is the force of my hands the creator? Is it any more then a superfluous difference?

Originally posted by Mageth
Obviously, as I alluded to, you whould have to support the connotations commonly associated with the human concept of God, which you have not. So far, you have given us no reason to conclude that God created the universe, or even that a creator created the universe.

Name some connotations that I would need to apply. Obviously this force is not "human", per se, because humans are dependant on space time to exist.

Originally posted by Mageth
Yes, but that does not lead to the conclusion that singularities don't exist outside this universe. I would assume that the singularity which led to this universe existed outside this universe?

But what basis do you have for believing singularities even can exist without space time? That seems to be a bigger leap in logic then mine in the OP.

Originally posted by Mageth
I don't see how you reached B). If extrauniversal forces exist, we can hardly make any strong conclusions about them such as they are necessarily "eternal".

I'm just saying, of the two options, between energy and a supernatural force, the supernatural force is more reasonable to be assumed "eternal".

[wordsmyth]

Originally posted by Mageth
So now you've gone from God the Creator to God the Transformer?

He must be a Decepticon. :eek:

[Normal]

Originally posted by wordsmyth
The vacuum model is a representation of conditions prior to the universe, not a model of something that exists or existed within the universe. I know you would like to believe you are smarter than Stephen Hawking, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you prove it by refuting his mathematical rationalizations. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

Why do you assume Hawking's vacuum model is at all accurate?

Originally posted by wordsmyth
Simple. Because we have no way to verify his theory other than the mathematics he uses to support it. So far nobody has been able to refute his mathematical rationalization for this theory.

I've read his new book, and just because something can be mathematically rational (espcially at the quantum level) does not make it's conclusion true. See: EPR Paradox, Schordinger's Cat, etc.

Originally posted by wordsmyth
You might also be interested to know that Stephen Hawking theorized the existence of black holes long before any real evidence was found. He also has never won a Nobel Prize for that, yet a great deal of evidence has been found for their existence in recent years. Most likely, if a Nobel Prize is ever given for this, it will be given to an observationalist not the theoreticist.

Hawking was not the first to theorize black holes, they're existence was predicted almost 80 years ago.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Mageth
Originally posted by Normal
All I'm using entropy for is to say that it is reasonable to assume energy is not eternal, therefore it had a creator (ie. the supernatural force).

And, for the umpteenth time, you can't use entropy to reach that assumption or conclusion.

That's because it's reasonable to assume energy came into existence with this universe.

Once again, in its current state. You cannot assume its state "without" this universe.

They were simultanious creations, or "transformations" if you prefer.

If transformations, then where's creation?

Energy was in a different state prior to the big bang. It's spacetime that was "created" by the big bang.

That still means there exists some supernatural force that "transformed" them.

Or natural "force"...

God, as a supernatural force that created the universe, is not being replaced by anything, so how does Occam's Razor apply?

To cut out the God with its connotations.

The purposefulness is debatable.

Obviously, I agree.

If we are to consider one thing infinite, from what we know, it is not appropriate to label energy as infinite because of entropy.

I've shown the flaw in this argument, oh, an infinite number of times.

It might of existed in "some state", but that does not deal with the supernatural force that caused it to transform.

So now you've gone from God the Creator to God the Transformer?

Is the difference between transformer and creator anything but superficial? What do you create that you did not first transform?

[wordsmyth]

Originally posted by Normal
Why do you assume Hawking's vacuum model is at all accurate?

Because it makes sense and the mathematics behind it are sound.

I've read his new book, and just because something can be mathematically rational (espcially at the quantum level) does not make it's conclusion true. See: EPR Paradox, Schordinger's Cat, etc.

of course, but it does provide more explanatory power than "godidit".



Hawking was not the first to theorize black holes, they're existence was predicted almost 80 years ago.

Hawking was the first to have a working mathematical theory of black holes. No theory prior to his had the benefit of sound mathematical rationalization to support it. Do you know what the difference is between a hypothesis and a theory?

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Normal
But then naturalism just becomes this all enveloping term of "Everything that is true", which is a tautology. I mean, who in their right mind would argue with that? But then by that vary definition of naturalism, god is not taken out of the picture, for if god exists "naturally outside of the universe" then he is a part of naturalism too.

Now you get it. ;)

But note that that "god" would not be the god with the typical connotations - it could not violate nature, e.g. could not create energy from nothing (unless there was a natural principle that allowed it to).

In other words, it would not be a "god", but a high-tech tinkerer.

In any case, IMO, it's not true that naturalism necessitates that this universe is all there is.

How could a force preceding the universe not be outside of it? All I'm concluding is that there is a "supernatural creator force".

Umm, no - you're concluding that force is God. That's a big leap.

What is a creator but one who creates? I put two sticks together and build a raft, am I the creator, or is the force of my hands the creator? Is it any more then a superfluous difference?

The problem with this is "one who creates" - backing up my earlier assertion that "creator" has connotations as well as god. There's no reason to necessarily conclude that the universe came into existence via the operation of "one who creates".

Name some connotations that I would need to apply. Obviously this force is not "human", per se, because humans are dependant on space time to exist.

What are the common connotations associated with God?

But what basis do you have for believing singularities even canexist without space time? That seems to be a bigger leap in logic then mine in the OP.

Umm, space-time breaks down at a singularity. There's no space-time in a black hole. Do a little reading.

I'm just saying, of the two options, between energy and a supernatural force, the supernatural force is more reasonable to be assumed "eternal".

You've said that repeatedly, but have provided no support for it.

[Mageth]

Hawking was not the first to theorize black holes, they're existence was predicted almost 80 years ago.

Actually, by The Rev. John Michell in 1783. (http://www.astronomyedinburgh.org/publications/journals/39/blackholes.html)

[Normal]

Originally posted by wordsmyth
Because it makes sense and the mathematics behind it are sound.

But your ignoring the fact that it's not logically sound. He's postulating existents to be in an environment without a universe, the "vacuum model". See: The melted cheese model should be equally convincing.

Originally posted by wordsmyth
of course, but it does provide more explanatory power than "godidit".

Sure, and I could postulate that there existed some "cheese model" where melted cheese was the cause of the universe, and I suppose that would have a degree of explanatory power too.

Originally posted by wordsmyth
Hawking was the first to have a working mathematical theory of black holes. No theory prior to his had the benefit of sound mathematical rationalization to support it. Do you know what the difference is between a hypothesis and a theory?

This point is pretty irrelevent to the OP, so let's just agree that black holes were predicted 80 years ago without Hawking and his "mathematical rationalizations" aside.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Normal
Is the difference between transformer and creator anything but superficial? What do you create that you did not first transform?

So if God took nothing and poofed it into something, you're claiming that he "transformed" nothing into something?

You cannot "transform" nothing, as there is nothing to transform!

[Mageth]

But your ignoring the fact that it's not logically sound. He's postulating existents to be in an environment without a universe...

Your argument here is logically unsound.

Why is it logically impossible for something to exist outside a universe as we define universe? Isn't that exactly what you claim for your God?

Congratulations! You've just argued that God can't logically exist!

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by Normal
What else is required for you to concede that the force must be called "God"? What properties must I show the force to have so that it becomes an argument for theism? Restored context: You wrote: "I've read Hawking's book, and his relativistic time really does not answer the question. The force that created the universe still must necessarily exist outside of space-time (and thus, outside this universe)."

I wrote: "Now you are no longer making an argument for creation of the universe. You are saying that, if this universe was created, the creator was not within the universe."

This is not an argument for the existence of God but a property of God under the assumption of Her existence. For example: "God is by definition a being that is maximally good. Therefore, being God-like is a nice way to approximate goodness." This is an argument within theism for the property that the creator of the universe is outside of the universe. It is not an argument for the creation of the universe.

I am not the one who said that a creator exists. Discussing whether a creator is "what everyone calls god" doesn't matter as much until you show that there is a creator.

A short hint on why Hawking vs. Newton matters: under Newton, if the universe had a beginning, there was some kind of void or non-universe before the time that the universe began. Therefore energy was created, and the law of the non-creation of energy is wrong. However, the law of the non-creation of energy remains valid if Hawking's view of time and "beginning" works.

To go beyond the necessary point I'm making: the law about the non-creation of energy, plus a belief in the non-infinite past of the universe (energy), suggests that Newton's view of time was flawed (under which there was a time when there was less energy), since Hawking's allows for a scientific law to remain true without exception.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Normal]

Originally posted by Mageth
But note that that "god" would not be the god with the typical connotations - it could not violate nature, e.g. could not create energy from nothing (unless there was a natural principle that allowed it to).

In other words, it would not be a "god", but a high-tech tinkerer.

In any case, IMO, it's not true that naturalism necessitates that this universe is all there is.

So in other words, if god exists, you won't call him god, you'll call him some natural process "X".

Originally posted by Mageth
The problem with this is "one who creates" - backing up my earlier assertion that "creator" has connotations as well as god. There's no reason to necessarily conclude that the universe came into existence via the operation of "one who creates".

That there are no reasons to conclude there is not one who creates is, as we agreed, debatable. So far, the connotations we've given to the supernatural force are that it exists outside of the universe, and that it may be eternal.

Originally posted by Mageth
What are the common connotations associated with God?

Outside the universe/eternal

Originally posted by Mageth
Umm, space-time breaks down at a singularity. There's no space-time in a black hole. Do a little reading.

Sure, it "breaks down". I'm not sure it can be said "there is no space-time in a black hole". Do you deny that black holes are existents within the universe though? These are not extra-universal objects.

Originally posted by Mageth
You've said that repeatedly, but have provided no support for it.

All I'm saying is that there is more reasonable to believe that the force is eternal then the energy that it created.

Originally posted by Mageth
Actually, by The Rev. John Michell in 1783.

Even earilier! Although his was probably more of a lucky guess then any sound mathematical principles.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Mageth
But your ignoring the fact that it's not logically sound. He's postulating existents to be in an environment without a universe...

Your argument here is logically unsound.

Why is it logically impossible for something to exist outside a universe as we define universe? Isn't that exactly what you claim for your God?

Congratulations! You've just argued that God can't logically exist!

Correction though: I don't define god in terms of physcial existents.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Mageth
So if God took nothing and poofed it into something, you're claiming that he "transformed" nothing into something?

You cannot "transform" nothing, as there is nothing to transform!

Whether it was "poofed" or "transformed", the extra-universal force still exists, so it is nothing but a superficial labeling of the act: Ie. "created" over "transformed".

[Mageth]

Correction though: I don't define god in terms of physcial existents.

Just to make my point:

He's postulating existents to be in an environment without a universe...

and

The force that created the universe still must necessarily exist outside of space-time (and thus, outside this universe)."

So what kind of "existence" are you postulating for God? Having properties such as "existing outside of space-time (and thus, outside the universe)" is relating God's existence to physcial things, is it not?

[Normal]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
To go beyond the necessary point I'm making: the law about the non-creation of energy, plus a belief in the non-infinite past of the universe (energy), suggests that Newton's view of time was flawed (under which there was a time when there was less energy), since Hawking's allows for a scientific law to remain true without exception.

Time has less to do with it then what existed. With entropy, energy cannot be said to have an infinite past, correct? So then even with an updated definition of what time means, there was still a point where an extra-universal force created what is now the universe.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Mageth
So what kind of "existence" are you postulating for God? Having properties such as "existing outside of space-time (and thus, outside the universe)" is relating God's existence to physcial things, is it not?

If you assume "existence" must be physical (within the universe), then there is a definite logical problem in using existents to explain the creation of the universe. I don't define god in terms of "vacuum models", all I've said so far is that he is extra-universal and possibly infinite.

[wordsmyth]

Originally posted by Normal
But your ignoring the fact that it's not logically sound. He's postulating existents to be in an environment without a universe, the "vacuum model". See: The melted cheese model should be equally convincing.

You claim to have read A Brief History of Time, but its apparent that you didn't understand it. It also appears you don't understand a great deal about big bang theory either. I suggest doing some research before you make yourself look more foolish.

Sure, and I could postulate that there existed some "cheese model" where melted cheese was the cause of the universe, and I suppose that would have a degree of explanatory power too.

Well, there is about as much evidence to support your "godidit" claim as there is for your "cheese model" claim, so I agree that they both have equal explanatory power. IOW, none.

The difference between your "cheese model" and Hawking's "vacuum fluctuation model" is that yours presupposes the existence of some "thing", while Hawking's does not. Maybe you don't understand what the term vacuum refers to. I'll give you a hint, its not a Dust Buster.

[Normal]

Originally posted by wordsmyth
Well, there is about as much evidence to support your "godidit" claim as there is for your "cheese model" claim, so I agree that they both have equal explanatory power. IOW, none.

But you see, the melted cheeze was in a microwave, and it caused the cheese to overheat and blow up into the known universe. See? My melted cheese model does have explanatory power, it just posits a bunch of ridiculous claims.

Originally posted by wordsmyth
The difference between your "cheese model" and Hawking's "vacuum fluctuation model" is that yours presupposes the existence of some "thing", while Hawking's does not. Maybe you don't understand what the term vacuum refers to. I'll give you a hint, its not a Dust Buster.

Vacuum flucutations are nothing more then virtual particles (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/VirtualParticle.html) which borrow energy via the HUP. How does postulating a vacuum model seem less ridiculous then the melted cheese model?

[Mageth]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Normal
So in other words, if god exists, you won't call him god, you'll call him some natural process "X".

Well, not exactly. I'm saying God (with its connotations) doesn't exist (at least, has not been established to exist; therefore, I lack belief in it). IMO, if there is a creator, it's natural (and thus constrained by nature, which is not an attribute of God as I understand the concept).

That there are no reasons to conclude there is not one who creates is, as we agreed, debatable.

I thought you were making the argument that there was one who creates? Unless you can support that assumption, the default position, for me anyway, is that there is not one who creates.

So far, the connotations we've given to the supernatural force are that it exists outside of the universe, and that it may be eternal.

That's what you've claimed, anyway. But even that is a long way from God, or even "one who creates".

Outside the universe/eternal

I think there's a bit more to it than that.

Sure, it "breaks down". I'm not sure it can be said "there is no space-time in a black hole".

I think that's implicit in the definition.

Do you deny that black holes are existents within the universe though? These are not extra-universal objects.

Well, duh. No, I do not deny that black holes exist in this universe and are thus not extra-universal objects.

Black holes can be, and have been, indirectly detected within this universe. But we do not know that there are no singularities outside this universe.

All I'm saying is that there is more reasonable to believe that the force is eternal then the energy that it created.

As pointed out, you haven't established that the energy was created. And I don't think it's more "reasonable to believe" one (a force) is eternal but the other (energy) is not eternal, no.

Even earilier! Although his was probably more of a lucky guess then any sound mathematical principles.

Actually, it was based on a reasonable mathematical deduction from Newtonian Physics.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Normal
If you assume "existence" must be physical (within the universe),

Why the hell would I assume that?

...then there is a definite logical problem in using existents to explain the creation of the universe.

Then, obviously, I don't have such a logical problem.

I don't define god in terms of "vacuum models", all I've said so far is that he is extra-universal and possibly infinite.

Note that in using "he" in reference to God, you are implying a hell of a lot more than that.

[Mageth]

My melted cheese model does have explanatory power, it just posits a bunch of ridiculous claims.

As does the God model. ;)

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by Normal
Time has less to do with it then what existed. With entropy, energy cannot be said to have an infinite past, correct? So then even with an updated definition of what time means, there was still a point where an extra-universal force created what is now the universe. There are many folk explanations of the second law of thermodynamics, and I am not a scientist, but here's what I gather:

It is impossible to obtain a process such that the unique effect is the subtraction of a positive heat from a reservoir and the production of a positive work. (Wikipedia)

Sounds totally irrelevant, but here's something closer to what we want:

"the total entropy of a thermally isolated system can never decrease."

Entropy is often paraphrased as "unusable energy."

What we gather from this is "time's arrow," and the idea that "usable energy is running down as work is being done."

At any given moment A before moment B, entropy (unusable energy) did not decrease (probably went up) from A to B, within the closed system of the universe. So entropy is increasing over time in the close system where energy is being used, such as in our universe.

However, entropy doesn't create the unusable energy but rather converts it from the usable energy stores. Under the first law of thermodynamics, there was never a time in the universe when there was a different amount of energy (going along with "the universe is a closed system"). Under the second law of thermodynamics, at every point of time, entropy was increasing at a positive rate. If the past is an series of energy states similar to an infinite line of time, by now all the usable energy is used up (and, somewhat paradoxically, this applies to any point in time in the universe).

But there is usable energy. So, since we assume that the universe is a closed system, we deduce that the universe does not have an infinite past.

So either the universe is not a closed system, or the universe has a finite past, or both.

Now explain your conclusion that "there was still a point where an extra-universal force created what is now the universe" (even with an updated view of time).

best,
Peter Kirby

[wordsmyth]

Originally posted by Normal
But you see, the melted cheeze was in a microwave, and it caused the cheese to overheat and blow up into the known universe. See? My melted cheese model does have explanatory power, it just posits a bunch of ridiculous claims.

Again, your are substituting assertions with actual arguments and/or evidence. Your "cheese model" has no explanatory power because there is no rationale behind it nor evidence to support it that can be verified by observation. The ridiculous claims it posits are just as unsupported as the ridiculous claims of your "godidit" assertion.

Vacuum flucutations are nothing more then virtual particles (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/VirtualParticle.html) which borrow energy via the HUP. How does postulating a vacuum model seem less ridiculous then the melted cheese model?

Bzzzz! Sorry, thanks for playing, but not even close.

"Zero Point Energy (ZPE), or vacuum fluctuation energy are terms used to describe the random electromagnetic oscillations that are left in a vacuum after all other energy has been removed. If you remove all the energy from a space, take out all the matter, all the heat, all the light... everything -- you will find that there is still some energy left. One way to explain this is from the uncertainty principle from quantum physics that implies that it is impossible to have an absolutely zero energy condition. "

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/possible.htm

"...there may be something that has less energy than nothing--charges or masses at close proximities can realize these conditions... quantum mechanical fluctuations have a lifetime that increases with diminishing energy... If [the universe's] total energy equals or approximates zero, it may have originated as a spontaneous vacuum fluctuation. We might imagine that there is an approximate cancellation between the negative potential energies of all the masses that attract each other in the universe and the motion (or kinetic) and mass energies of these configurations, keeping Einstein's E=mc2 in mind."

http://www.2think.org/nothingness.shtml

Again I will urge you to do some research before you make yourself look more foolish.

[Mageth]

Note that Normal's energy/entropy argument is nothing more than a rather weak, and by no means new, rehashing of the Cosmological Argument (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/cosmological.html).

That's a link to the SecWeb library, and I'd suggest to Normal that he spend a little time reading up on it.

[wordsmyth]

I find it humorous that Normal seems to think he is the first one to come up with it.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Mageth
Well, not exactly. I'm saying God (with its connotations) doesn't exist (at least, has not been established to exist; therefore, I lack belief in it). IMO, if there is a creator, it's natural (and thus constrained by nature, which is not an attribute of God as I understand the concept).

So you don't believe in god with connotations X, Y, Z, etc. but stripped of those connotations, you believe in some (not god) natural process of creation? So really what your saying is that you believe in god without the X, Y, Z, etc., connotations.

Originally posted by Mageth
I thought you were making the argument that there was one who creates? Unless you can support that assumption, the default position, for me anyway, is that there is not one who creates.

"One" as in a "possibly eternal supernatual force".

Originally posted by Mageth
That's what you've claimed, anyway. But even that is a long way from God, or even "one who creates".

But even then, this argument is not meant to address all connotations attributed to god, just the creator/eternal connotations.

Originally posted by Mageth
Black holes can be, and have been, indirectly detected within this universe. But we do not know that there are no singularities outside this universe.

We also do not know that there are giant microwaves with cheese in them existing outside the universe.

Originally posted by Mageth
As pointed out, you haven't established that the energy was created.

In every meaningful sense of the word "created" it was.

Originally posted by Mageth
And I don't think it's more "reasonable to believe" one (a force) is eternal but the other (energy) is not eternal, no.

The things we posit to be existing previous to the universe are the same, it is mere semantics. A possibly infinite, supernatural force. You claim it's energy in some form.

Originally posted by Mageth
Actually, it was based on a reasonable mathematical deduction from Newtonian Physics.

Smart man, then.

Originally posted by Mageth
My melted cheese model does have explanatory power, it just posits a bunch of ridiculous claims.

As does the God model.

Maybe not so unreasonable.

[Normal]

Originally posted by wordsmyth
Again, your are substituting assertions with actual arguments and/or evidence. Your "cheese model" has no explanatory power because there is no rationale behind it nor evidence to support it that can be verified by observation. The ridiculous claims it posits are just as unsupported as the ridiculous claims of your "godidit" assertion.

Bzzzzzzz! There's not evidence to support "vacuum models" either! The rationale is the same! Take something observable within the universe and posit that it exists outside of it.

Originally posted by wordsmyth
Bzzzz! Sorry, thanks for playing, but not even close.

"Zero Point Energy (ZPE), or vacuum fluctuation energy are terms used to describe the random electromagnetic oscillations that are left in a vacuum after all other energy has been removed. If you remove all the energy from a space, take out all the matter, all the heat, all the light... everything -- you will find that there is still some energy left. One way to explain this is from the uncertainty principle from quantum physics that implies that it is impossible to have an absolutely zero energy condition. "

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/possible.htm

"...there may be something that has less energy than nothing--charges or masses at close proximities can realize these conditions... quantum mechanical fluctuations have a lifetime that increases with diminishing energy... If [the universe's] total energy equals or approximates zero, it may have originated as a spontaneous vacuum fluctuation. We might imagine that there is an approximate cancellation between the negative potential energies of all the masses that attract each other in the universe and the motion (or kinetic) and mass energies of these configurations, keeping Einstein's E=mc2 in mind."

http://www.2think.org/nothingness.shtml

Again I will urge you to do some research before you make yourself look more foolish.

Thanks for repeating what I said in a lot more words.


IE: Virtual particles borrowing energy from the uncertainty principle. Did you even read my post?

[Normal]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
So either the universe is not a closed system, or the universe has a finite past, or both.

Now explain your conclusion that "there was still a point where an extra-universal force created what is now the universe" (even with an updated view of time).

best,
Peter Kirby

I'm not too clear on why you explained entropy, but the finite past is what I'm refering to. The point in the past when entropy was at it's lowest. The extrauniversal force is the force that preceded the beginning of entropy.

[Normal]

For the record, I don't think I'm the first one to come up with this, and I'll read those articles Mageth posted later.

I didn't think it was frowned upon to have a skeptical view of past "unquestionable conclusions".

Anyway, I've got to get some work done today. That's a week's worth of slacking off. ;)

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by Normal
I'm not too clear on why you explained entropy, To explain why I am reasonable enough to grant that (a) the universe is not a closed system, (b) the universe has a finite past, or (c) the universe is not a closed system and the universe has a finite past. Originally posted by Normal but the finite past is what I'm refering to. The point in the past when entropy was at it's lowest. The extrauniversal force is the force that preceded the beginning of entropy. Explain why a finite past implies an extrauniversal force.

Also, explain why you think that there was a point in time that preceded the beginning of entropy. Did the second law of thermodynamics not apply at that time?

best,
Peter Kirby

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Normal
So you don't believe in god with connotations X, Y, Z, etc. but stripped of those connotations, you believe in some (not god) natural process of creation? So really what your saying is that you believe in god without the X, Y, Z, etc., connotations.

No; you got it right when you said "not god". Stripped of the connotations, it's not god.

"One" as in a "possibly eternal supernatual force".

One which is God, which is "he"?

You've been playing awful freely with definitions on this thread, shifting them around to try to support your argument, BTW.

But even then, this argument is not meant to address all connotations attributed to god, just the creator/eternal connotations.

In titling this thread "Argument for God", you introduced those connotations whether you wanted to or not.

This argument has not successfully addressed the existence of god at all, nor has it successfully addressed the "creator" or "eternal" aspects of God's definition. You've asserted these aspects, but have done nothing to support them.

We also do not know that there are giant microwaves with cheese in them existing outside the universe.

So your argument has devolved from "energy/entropy proves a creator outside the universe" to "Well, maybe there are giant cheese-filled microwaves outside the universe"?

So do you concede your claim "These are not extra-universal objects", as in singularities cannot exist outside the universe (which is what I understand you to mean)?

In every meaningful sense of the word "created" it was.

You haven't established that anything was necessarily created in any sense of the word.

The things we posit to be existing previous to the universe are the same, it is mere semantics.

Umm, no they're not. Again, you're playing awful freely with definitions.

A possibly infinite, supernatural force. You claim it's energy in some form.

I don't recall claiming that energy was "a possibly infinite, supernatural force" that created the universe.

[Mageth]

Bzzzzzzz! There's not evidence to support "vacuum models" either! The rationale is the same! Take something observable within the universe and posit that it exists outside of it.

And this is more unreasonable than taking something that is not observable within the universe (i.e. God) and positing that it exists outside of it, how?

Bzzzzz!

[wordsmyth]

Originally posted by Normal
Bzzzzzzz! There's not evidence to support "vacuum models" either! The rationale is the same! Take something observable within the universe and posit that it exists outside of it.

I've already said there is no observable evidence for Hawking's theory. However, he does provide a very elegant mathematical rationale that supports the theory, which has yet to be refuted by you or anyone else. Find a flaw in his math, then take it up with him. Until then, I suggest you try providing at least as much in comparison to support your assertion.

IE: Virtual particles borrowing energy from the uncertainty principle. Did you even read my post?

A vacuum fluctuation causes virtual particles to appear and disappear at random. Gravity causes a smaller mass to be attracted to a greater mass, such as a rock falling to the ground. The rock is not gravity. You claimed that a vacuum fluctuation was a virtual particle.

Vacuum flucutations are nothing more then virtual particles which borrow energy via the HUP.

Ring a bell? Again I must chalk this up to your lack of understanding what a vacuum is and the difference between a vacuum and a particle.

[Howard]

Normal,
I was going to respond to your last post directed at me (about 40 or 50 posts ago) but it looks like you have more heathens on your plate than you can say grace over. So I’ll bow out.

But I must ask…don’t you need some direct evidence to believe in a supernatural being? All you’ve got is, “There’s gotta be something that started all this.”

[SRB]

Originally posted by Normal
1. It is a law of our universe that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2. Energy exists.
3. Energy must of been created by a force outside of our universe.

One criticism is that (3) does not follow from (1) and (2). If energy is eternal then (1) and (2) could be true and (3) false.

It might be claimed that energy is not eternal. But it is still true that (3) does not follow from (1) and (2)! An extra assumption is needed (that energy is not eternal), and that should be given as a premise in the argument.

Another objection is that (1) is false. Maybe the "law" only holds within our universe in certain restricted circumstances. Scientists sometimes talk of the laws of nature breaking down in the early universe. It would have to be shown that the given law held even in extreme circumstances radically different to the ones we experience. I do not see how this can be shown, so I do not see how it can be shown that (1) is true.

A final point worth making is that any cause of the energy in the universe would not necessarily have to be anything that is a person or is conscious. So even if the argument is sound it apparently has little bearing on the topic of this board.

SRB

[Jobar]

This is one of those threads which would fit just as well here, in Philosophy, or in Science & Skepticism. Given the title, it belongs here- but the content does not jibe at all well with the title. Normal, it's your title, and your thread- but if I were you, I'd go to S&S and start a thread there, and get more input on the concepts involved.

I too think that Normal does not understand precisely what he is groping for- but please do recall that we are dealing with extremely high-level abstractions here, and refrain from belittling anyone else's lack of understanding (whether actual or perceived.) After all, the finest minds of our race struggle to answer closely related questions.

Normal, let me introduce you to the concept of 'mu'. It means 'not yes, not no'. It's the correct answer to imprecise questions, or questions which are at present unanswerable due to a lack of data.

Some of the questions you are attempting to formulate which would be answered with 'god' should instead be answered 'mu'.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Explain why a finite past implies an extrauniversal force.

What we know about energy:

1. It cannot be created or destroyed within the universe.
2. It has a finite past.
3. It exists.

So I am reasonable to assume an extra-universal force that created the energy and started the system of entropy from about 15 billion years ago to it's current state.

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Also, explain why you think that there was a point in time that preceded the beginning of entropy. Did the second law of thermodynamics not apply at that time?

The second law of thermodynamics only applies with respect to our system.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Mageth
And this is more unreasonable than taking something that is not observable within the universe (i.e. God) and positing that it exists outside of it, how?

From the OP:

1. It is a law of our universe that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2. Energy exists.
3. Energy was created by an extra-universal force.

That is a reasonable grounds for positing an extrauniversal force, meaning some force that exists outside of the universe. And it's not that it isn't observable within the universe, we have direct evidence of it's existence simply by existing.

Originally posted by Mageth
No; you got it right when you said "not god". Stripped of the connotations, it's not god.

Extrauniversal and possibly infinite are two connotations commonly associated to god and not much else.

Originally posted by Mageth
You've been playing awful freely with definitions on this thread, shifting them around to try to support your argument, BTW.

What definitions have I changed? I haven't defined god as anything other then extrauniversal and possibly infinite. The use of "he" and "one" are just common semantics to refer to god.

Originally posted by Mageth
In titling this thread "Argument for God", you introduced those connotations whether you wanted to or not.

You are the one applying the connotations, not me. If I posit "God-force", and define it as an infinite force that exists outside our universe, the evidence I've presented here should be enough for you to believe in God-force just like you believe in "Thunder-force", the force that causes loud noises during rain storms.

Originally posted by Mageth
This argument has not successfully addressed the existence of god at all, nor has it successfully addressed the "creator" or "eternal" aspects of God's definition. You've asserted these aspects, but have done nothing to support them.

Creator: A force of transformation of one object to another.
Support for eternal: Not constrained by the laws of entropy like our universe is.

Originally posted by Mageth
So your argument has devolved from "energy/entropy proves a creator outside the universe" to "Well, maybe there are giant cheese-filled microwaves outside the universe"?

So do you concede your claim "These are not extra-universal objects", as in singularities cannot exist outside the universe (which is what I understand you to mean)?

No, I'm parodying the claim "There are singularities outside our universe".

Originally posted by Mageth
You haven't established that anything was necessarily created in any sense of the word.

Again, the difference between the force required to build a raft and the force required to create the universe is what?

Originally posted by Mageth
Umm, no they're not. Again, you're playing awful freely with definitions.

Again: What definitions?

Originally posted by Mageth
I don't recall claiming that energy was "a possibly infinite, supernatural force" that created the universe.

But you claimed it was energy in some form. It is necessarily extra-universal. And it's transformation was the creation of the universe.

[Normal]

Originally posted by wordsmyth
I've already said there is no observable evidence for Hawking's theory. However, he does provide a very elegant mathematical rationale that supports the theory, which has yet to be refuted by you or anyone else. Find a flaw in his math, then take it up with him. Until then, I suggest you try providing at least as much in comparison to support your assertion.

I could provide an elegant mathematical model for my melted cheese example too. Mathematically sound does not imply logically sound.

Originally posted by wordsmyth
A vacuum fluctuation causes virtual particles to appear and disappear at random. Gravity causes a smaller mass to be attracted to a greater mass, such as a rock falling to the ground. The rock is not gravity. You claimed that a vacuum fluctuation was a virtual particle.

That is an extremely nitpicky argument. The different between a vacuum fluctuation and a virtual particle is the vacuum fluctuation causes the virtual particle? I can see why the gravity example would fail, because gravity causes more then just rocks to fall, but vacuum fluctuations don't cause anything more then virtual particles. The terms can be used interchangably.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Howard
Normal,
I was going to respond to your last post directed at me (about 40 or 50 posts ago) but it looks like you have more heathens on your plate than you can say grace over. So I’ll bow out.

I really don't mind all the questions. What good is an idea if it can't be critically examined by the masses to determine it's worth?

[i]Originally posted by Howard
But I must ask…don’t you need some direct evidence to believe in a supernatural being? All you’ve got is, “There’s gotta be something that started all this.”

As for "direct evidence", I think existence alone constitutes enough for me. That the event took place about 15 billion years ago and we continue to feel the effects of the event is direct evidence.

[Normal]

Originally posted by SRB
One criticism is that (3) does not follow from (1) and (2). If energy is eternal then (1) and (2) could be true and (3) false.

Energy cannot be eternal due to entropy. It must have a finite past.

Originally posted by SRB
Another objection is that (1) is false. Maybe the "law" only holds within our universe in certain restricted circumstances. Scientists sometimes talk of the laws of nature breaking down in the early universe. It would have to be shown that the given law held even in extreme circumstances radically different to the ones we experience. I do not see how this can be shown, so I do not see how it can be shown that (1) is true.

If all the laws of our universe break down, then it would be fairly pointless to talk of the event at all. I get the impression even with the "laws breaking down" it is still not possible for energy to be created within the universe.

Originally posted by SRB
A final point worth making is that any cause of the energy in the universe would not necessarily have to be anything that is a person or is conscious. So even if the argument is sound it apparently has little bearing on the topic of this board.

An extra-universal force that is possibly eternal is definately pointing in the "god" direction, whether it has our conception of "consciousness" or not is probably too limiting a question.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Jobar
This is one of those threads which would fit just as well here, in Philosophy, or in Science & Skepticism. Given the title, it belongs here- but the content does not jibe at all well with the title. Normal, it's your title, and your thread- but if I were you, I'd go to S&S and start a thread there, and get more input on the concepts involved.

I agree the content of this thread has swerved off into S&S territory at parts. I suppose it was my fault for hinging the argument on the nature of energy.

Originally posted by Jobar
Normal, let me introduce you to the concept of 'mu'. It means 'not yes, not no'. It's the correct answer to imprecise questions, or questions which are at present unanswerable due to a lack of data.

I thought "mu" was more for questions like "Have you stopped beating your wife today?", when both yes and no has false implications.

[Howard]

Originally posted by Normal
As for "direct evidence", I think existence alone constitutes enough for me. That the event took place about 15 billion years ago and we continue to feel the effects of the event is direct evidence.

I guess we all have our personal criteria for believability. It just seems like a pretty big leap from “I can’t explain how all this came into being” to “There’s a supernatural entity our there who, for some unknown reason, and by some unknown means, poofed this all into existence.”

All you’ve done is replace a bunch of unanswerable natural questions with a bunch of unanswerable supernatural questions. And what has your deity been doing for the last 15 billion years anyway?

[Normal]

Originally posted by Howard
All you’ve done is replace a bunch of unanswerable natural questions with a bunch of unanswerable supernatural questions. And what has your deity been doing for the last 15 billion years anyway?

But I've shown that they must be supernatural questions and not just natural ones. If I can apply the common connotations of god to the force that created us, what is stopping you from calling it god?

[Howard]

Originally posted by Normal
But I've shown that they must be supernatural questions and not just natural ones. No, you have not. The problem is you are over-extending the application of scientific explanations. Our science and our universe began with the Big Bang. That doesn’t mean some other reality with some other set of physical laws and some other science did not pre-exist it. To call it supernatural is unjustified. It’s just unexplained.


If I can apply the common connotations of god to the force that created us, what is stopping you from calling it god?
If God to you is just a catch-all answer for the unexplained, that’s fine. But as soon as you start ascribing specific characteristics and powers to God, you’ll get shot down like a clay pigeon.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Normal
What we know about energy:

1. It cannot be created or destroyed within the universe.
2. It has a finite past.
3. It exists.

2) has not been established, Normal.

[HRG]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
[B]There are many folk explanations of the second law of thermodynamics, and I am not a scientist, but here's what I gather:

It is impossible to obtain a process such that the unique effect is the subtraction of a positive heat from a reservoir and the production of a positive work. (Wikipedia)

Sounds totally irrelevant, but here's something closer to what we want:

"the total entropy of a thermally isolated system can never decrease."

Entropy is often paraphrased as "unusable energy."

What we gather from this is "time's arrow," and the idea that "usable energy is running down as work is being done."

At any given moment A before moment B, entropy (unusable energy) did not decrease (probably went up) from A to B, within the closed system of the universe. So entropy is increasing over time in the close system where energy is being used, such as in our universe.

However, entropy doesn't create the unusable energy but rather converts it from the usable energy stores. Under the first law of thermodynamics, there was never a time in the universe when there was a different amount of energy (going along with "the universe is a closed system"). Under the second law of thermodynamics, at every point of time, entropy was increasing at a positive rate. If the past is an series of energy states similar to an infinite line of time, by now all the usable energy is used up (and, somewhat paradoxically, this applies to any point in time in the universe).

But there is usable energy. So, since we assume that the universe is a closed system, we deduce that the universe does not have an infinite past.


Sorry, this is a non-sequitur. Some functions are strictly increasing (equivalent to your expression "at a positive rate") over an unbounded interval, yet the total increase is finite.

Example : exp(t), which increases by 1 as t goes over the whole negative time axis. Its rate of increase is everywhere positive.

I have seen this fallacy quite often in theistic arguments.

Regards,
HRG.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Normal:

Energy cannot be eternal due to entropy. It must have a finite past.

I think it's been pointed out to you several times that entropy deals with the transferral of energy from one (higher) state to another (lower) state. Entropy is a measure of disorder in a system.

Entropy cannot be used to show that energy cannot be eternal - only that, at some point in the past, the energy in the universe was in a "higher" state, i.e. entropy was at a lower level.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Normal
From the OP:

1. It is a law of our universe that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2. Energy exists.
3. Energy was created by an extra-universal force.

That is a reasonable grounds for positing an extrauniversal force, meaning some force that exists outside of the universe.

The problems with the reasonableness of this argument have been well-demonstrated in this thread. I won't repeat them here.

And it's not that it isn't observable within the universe, we have direct evidence of it's existence simply by existing.

That would be indirect evidence.

Extrauniversal and possibly infinite are two connotations commonly associated to god and not much else.

Something has to be a lot more than just extrauniversal and (possibly) infinite to qualify as "God".

What definitions have I changed? I haven't defined god as anything other then extrauniversal and possibly infinite. The use of "he" and "one" are just common semantics to refer to god.

You've repeatedly diddled with definitions to suit the particular argument you're responding to. Let's see; IIRC, so far you've diddled with the definitions of energy, entropy, creating, transforming, supernatural, god, one...possibly more.

You are the one applying the connotations, not me.

Sorry; the title of this thread, and your references herein to God, One and He introduce the connotations.

If I posit "God-force", and define it as an infinite force that exists outside our universe, the evidence I've presented here should be enough for you to believe in God-force just like you believe in "Thunder-force", the force that causes loud noises during rain storms.

Another example of you diddling with a definition. WTF is up now with this"God-force"? And the evidence you've presented has not been sufficient to convince me of the existence of "an infinite force that exists outside our universe", whatever you want to call it, and even if it exists, you've not presented a convincing argument as to why it should be called "God" or "god-force." Note: in making this argument, you are again bringing in the connotations of the term "god" to the force in question.

Creator: A force of transformation of one object to another.

Another example of diddling with definitions. You modified this definition halfway through the thread in response to one of my arguments, IIRC; earlier on, by "creation" you meant nothing-to-something, as in nothing-to-energy.

Support for eternal: Not constrained by the laws of entropy like our universe is.

OK, you've come up with a possible definition for "eternal". I assume you're asserting this applies to God, One, He, God-force, or whatever it is you're calling it now. So far, it's merely an assertion. Why must we assume this God-force or whatever is eternal, even if it exists and is external to this universe?

I'll repeat, your argument has not successfully addressed the "eternal" (or creator) aspects of God's definition. You've asserted these aspects, but have done nothing to support them.

You've tried to establish that there is a creator force that is external and eternal. Your arguments have not successfully established that. And you also claim that this force, if it exists, because it has two aspects of a common human conception of God, should therefore be called God.

This argument is hogwash. I can say that because it has at least two aspects of a common human definition of "hogwash".

No, I'm parodying the claim "There are singularities outside our universe".

A bit of a strawman, that. The claim is actually "it is possible that there are singularities outside our universe." Your parody, of course, is useless as a counter-argument to that claim, and you've made no argument that refutes that claim.

Note also that I mentioned that the theory goes that this universe originated from a singularity; it would seem that that singularity would be considered "outside" this universe.

Again, the difference between the force required to build a raft and the force required to create the universe is what?

I'm sorry, but that's a dumb question. Take no offense.

Again: What definitions?

Well, let's see. You said:

The things we posit to be existing previous to the universe are the same, it is mere semantics.

Here you are equating, what is it, God, One, God-force or something, I'm not sure which, with what I claimed possibly existed "previous" to the universe (energy in some form).

That's a hell of a lot different than "mere semantics". So apparently you're diddling with the definitions of "the same" and "semantics" as well.

But you claimed it was energy in some form. It is necessarily extra-universal. And it's transformation was the creation of the universe.

Then that proves that I didn't claim that energy was "a possibly infinite, supernatural force" that created the universe. Thanks.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Mageth
The problems with the reasonableness of this argument have been well-demonstrated in this thread. I won't repeat them here.

The only problem you have is that entropy is not enough to assume energy does not have an infinite past. Peter Kirby gave a pretty good explaination of why we assume energy (and our universe) does in fact have a finite past.

Originally posted by Mageth
That would be indirect evidence.

No, indirect evidence is circumstancial. If you see a broken window and a baseball bat on the front lawn, you have circumstancial evidence. If you are actually an observer of the ball going through the window, you have direct evidence. We have direct evidence of existence.

Originally posted by Mageth
Something has to be a lot more than just extrauniversal and (possibly) infinite to qualify as "God".

To you but I never implied anything else. Adding those connotations is straw maning god into something you can reject.

Originally posted by Mageth
You've repeatedly diddled with definitions to suit the particular argument you're responding to. Let's see; IIRC, so far you've diddled with the definitions of energy, entropy, creating, transforming, supernatural, god, one...possibly more.

How have I changed the definition of energy?!?
Entropy? How have I varied my use of this term?
As for creating and transforming, you have given me no reason why one is different from another.
Supernatural I have used interchangably with "existing outside the universe".
God/one/he etc. I have already explained, the only connotations you should infer are the ones I'm professing: Infinite/Supernatural

Originally posted by Mageth
Sorry; the title of this thread, and your references herein to God, One and He introduce the connotations.

That's because we don't really have appropriate language when talking about the supernatural. Well, besides "god" that is.

Originally posted by Mageth
Another example of you diddling with a definition. WTF is up now with this"God-force"? And the evidence you've presented has not been sufficient to convince me of the existence of "an infinite force that exists outside our universe", whatever you want to call it, and even if it exists, you've not presented a convincing argument as to why it should be called "God" or "god-force." Note: in making this argument, you are again bringing in the connotations of the term "god" to the force in question.

It should be called god-force because it does exist outside the universe, it's quite possibly infinite (we have no reason to think it's not), and it is the creator of our whole universe.

Any connotations you apply beyond that are simply straw mans.

Originally posted by Mageth
Another example of diddling with definitions. You modified this definition halfway through the thread in response to one of my arguments, IIRC; earlier on, by "creation" you meant nothing-to-something, as in nothing-to-energy.

I skimmed the whole thread and nowhere did I say creation meant nothing to something.

Originally posted by Mageth
Why must we assume this God-force or whatever is eternal, even if it exists and is external to this universe?

Because there is no reason to think it's not! It's not constrained by entropy, or any other natural laws that would constain it's existence to a finite period of time. Here's another reason: If it exists outside of our universe it exists outside of time and therefore calling it 'finite' is incoherent.

That is my support for calling god infinite/eternal. So you can stop saying I haven't supported the claim.<