Atheism and the First Law of Thermodynamics

[Shi Huangdi]

The First Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Mass Conservation state that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

I would like the atheists of TWC to explain how matter and energy could have come spontaneously into existence without supernatural Divine intervention.

If the atheists of TWC cannot explain this, I would like them to explain why, if there is a Divine Force or Higher Power, such things as miracles, demons, angels, Heaven, and Hell should be such laughable concepts.

[Chaigidel]

why would god have any cause to act through agents? it would just occur as god willed; there is no need for miralces demons and angels -- all is as God wishes it to be, and god needs none of these things to be.

[Shi Huangdi]

why would god have any cause to act through agents? it would just occur as god willed; there is no need for miralces demons and angels -- all is as God wishes it to be, and god needs none of these things to be.

If indeed there is a God, why should those things be impossible? And why should we consider them so far fetched? We can debate about whether or not God needs angels (which He doesn't; He is perfectly self-sufficient--He only created other beings for His own glory). But if indeed there is a God, we must accept that angels, demons, Heaven, and Hell are at least plausible.

This assumes that (a) matter spontaneously appeared in the Universe; and (b) the First Law of Thermodynamics is correct.

The Law of Conservation of Mass states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, except through supernatural means. Therefore, it is impossible for matter to appear spontaneously.

As far as we know, both the Law of Mass Conservation and the First Law of Thermodynamics are true. We ought, therefore, to subscribe to the theory that best fits the scientific evidence as we see it right now: that in order for the universe to exist, it must have come into being supernaturally. Now if we eventually discover that the First Law of Thermodynamics is false, then we can discount it as an argument for the existence of God. But until then, it must be considered and should not be ignored in favor of very tenuous assumptions.

[Djûn]

The Law of Conservation of Mass states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, except through supernatural means. Therefore, it is impossible for matter to appear spontaneously.

Ok then, seems a fair enough definition for now.

As far as we know, both the Law of Mass Conservation and the First Law of Thermodynamics are true. We ought, therefore, to subscribe to the theory that best fits the scientific evidence as we see it right now: that in order for the universe to exist, it must have come into being supernaturally. Now if we eventually discover that the First Law of Thermodynamics is false, then we can discount it as an argument for the existence of God. But until then, it must be considered and should not be ignored in favor of very tenuous assumptions.

Again, this assumes that matter and energy did spontaneously appeared.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

why would god have any cause to act through agents? it would just occur as god willed; there is no need for miralces demons and angels -- all is as God wishes it to be, and god needs none of these things to be.

True, but who says he can't? If God is the sovereign of the universe, he can act in whatever way he wants, can he not? So he can directly act, or delegate actions to lesser agents (angels et cetra) at his own discretion, can he not? Anything less is saying God is limited to only acting by himself, thus isn't really sovereign, as he cannot do certain things.

The amount of matter and energy in the universe has always existed and stayed constant, it changes form, but it has stayed constant. A much more likely explanation than god did it.

That still doesn't explain how a) the matter and energy got there in the first place, and b) how it changed form without any outside stimulus. Things don't just spontaneously change; something must act on it, either outwardly or inwardly (if you excuse my use of non-technical language). If you go back to the very beginning, something must have made and acted on this stuff to set off any sort of change. So you may go back infinitely and still not arrive at the solution to this dilemma.

[Djûn]

That still doesn't explain how a) the matter and energy got there in the first place, and b) how it changed form without any outside stimulus. Things don't just spontaneously change; something must act on it, either outwardly or inwardly (if you excuse my use of non-technical language). If you go back to the very beginning, something must have made and acted on this stuff to set off any sort of change. So you may go back infinitely and still not arrive at the solution to this dilemma.

Again, as Pontifex had also stated, why does the matter and energy have to have suddenly appeared? Why is it not possible that it had always existed? As far as I'm aware, nothing in the natural Universe necessarily points towards a Christian God, neither does it go to discredit him.

[Djûn]

This assumes that (a) matter spontaneously appeared in the Universe; and (b) the First Law of Thermodynamics is correct.

[Chaigidel]

I accept God as perfectly reasonable and plausible, but I cannot accept angels, demons etc in the same manner--- God has no need of Glory, men need glory, glory is not a number, god speaks in numbers.

[Old_Scratch]

I assume that you are talking about the big bang when you talk about spontaneous creation. Big bang theory only states that the universe is expanding and that it must have expanded from a single ultra dense point. Where all the matter in the universe actually came from is not yet known. And that's OK, because that's how science works. We don't need all the answers right now, and we don't believe in just making stuff up to fill in the gaps.

So, just because an area of science hasn't been fully explored yet doesn't lend any more value to the various religions of Earth. The idea of heaven and hell and gods is ridiculous because there is not a shred of evidence for any of it. Just because something can't currently be explained doesn't mean that we should embrace the absurd.

[Denny Crane!]

I assume that you are talking about the big bang when you talk about spontaneous creation. Big bang theory only states that the universe is expanding and that it must have expanded from a single ultra dense point. Where all the matter in the universe actually came from is not yet known. And that's OK, because that's how science works. We don't need all the answers right now, and we don't believe in just making stuff up to fill in the gaps.

So, just because an area of science hasn't been fully explored yet doesn't lend any more value to the various religions of Earth. The idea of heaven and hell and gods is ridiculous because there is not a shred of evidence for any of it. Just because something can't currently be explained doesn't mean that we should embrace the absurd.

Yes it is the god of the gaps arguement and is a ridiculous fallacious arguement.

Along the lines of...''we don't have an answer for this ergo God exists!''

[basics]

" I accept God as perfectly reasonable and plausible, but I cannot accept angels, demons etc in the same manner--- God has no need of Glory, men need glory, glory is not a number, god speaks in numbers."

Chaigidel,

Oh if you understand that God cannot even look on sinners never mind hearing their prayers, I think you could understand why He uses messengers, that is angels, and prophets. As for demons, well are they not the spirits of fallen angels?

[alreadyded]

Atheists simply do not believe in religion and their false gods. God was made in the image of man by man. Society is god, we wrote the bible, created heaven and hell, and told people how they should act.

As for how the immense ball of matter and energy that created the known universe came to be?... nobody knows how it was created or how it exploded because no one was around to observe it.

Do some reading.

If there really was an ideal heaven would anyone really want to go there? Almost everything humans love to do in life is considered a sin by most religions and in their various "bibles."

[Shi Huangdi]

Atheists simply do not believe in religion and their false gods. God was made in the image of man by man. Society is god, we wrote the bible, created heaven and hell, and told people how they should act.

As for how the immense ball of matter and energy that created the known universe came to be?... nobody knows how it was created or how it exploded because no one was around to observe it.

If you really do not know how the universe came into being, then how can you be so sure that it was not God Who created it?

And what about "dark" matter and energy? As far as we know, both the Law of Mass Conservation and the First Law of Thermodynamics are true, but we do not know as much as we assume.

That may be true. But why should we base our worldviews on information we haven't discovered yet? Why should we assume, in the face of overwhelming evidence for the existence of the supernatural, that we will someday discover evidence against it? Why should we not comply with the scientific theory that fits the evidence--namely, that the Supernatural (i.e., a Diety of some sort) is responsible for the existence of the universe?

I assume that you are talking about the big bang when you talk about spontaneous creation. Big bang theory only states that the universe is expanding and that it must have expanded from a single ultra dense point. Where all the matter in the universe actually came from is not yet known. And that's OK, because that's how science works. We don't need all the answers right now, and we don't believe in just making stuff up to fill in the gaps.

So, just because an area of science hasn't been fully explored yet doesn't lend any more value to the various religions of Earth. The idea of heaven and hell and gods is ridiculous because there is not a shred of evidence for any of it. Just because something can't currently be explained doesn't mean that we should embrace the absurd.

I am not necessarily talking about the Big Bang. All I am saying is that if there is matter and energy right now (which there is) then it must have come into being somehow (since the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that if it were infinitely old it would have infinite entropy). We conclude that matter and energy are not infinitely old. Therefore, they had a beginning. But since the Laws of Mass and Energy Conservation stated that no natural processes can create or destroy matter or energy, we must also conclude that they came into being supernaturally. That is the only option that agrees with established scientific law.

As to your claim that there is no evidence for the Divine. Why should there be any evidence? God is not material; that is, He is not made of matter or energy. Science deals with matter and energy. Therefore, we cannot expect science to account for the existence of a Being that is not made of matter or energy. So to say that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God is irrelevant. Of course there is no direct scientific evidence. Nobody expects there to be any.

All scientific evidence for God's existence is indirect. We do not observe God; but as we observe the universe, and as we discover such scientific facts as Entropy the Conservation of Matter and Energy, we conclude that all matter and energy had a beginning, and that beginning cannot have been the result of natural processes. Therefore, it is at least plausible that God created matter and energy.

The amount of matter and energy in the universe has always existed and stayed constant, it changes form, but it has stayed constant. A much more likely explanation than god did it.

The amount of matter and energy always stayed the same

You are aware that the bits highlighted are a contradiction, if it can't be created or destroyed then it almost certainly always existed.

That violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the universe tends towards disorder (or that its entropy increases). So if matter and energy have always been here (i.e., are infinitely old) they would have infinite entropy, which they don't.

but the law of conservation is a very interesting topic--- do you think it also applies to information?

conservation of information would be FAR more critical to a supreme being I think.---- or critical to its existence or nonexistence

This is a very interesting question. I don't know the answer; but I do know that only intelligence is capable of generating information. Information is immaterial; it cannot, therefore, have arisen from the material.

[GuineaPig]

That may be true. But why should we base our worldviews on information we haven't discovered yet? Why should we assume, in the face of overwhelming evidence for the existence of the supernatural, that we will someday discover evidence against it? Why should we not comply with the scientific theory that fits the evidence--namely, that the Supernatural (i.e., a Diety of some sort) is responsible for the existence of the universe?

I laughed at you using the label "scientific theory" for the idea that God is responsible for the existence of the universe.


And remind me again, what "overwhelming evidence" is there for God? Because in the same post you say god is "at least plausible" and any evidence we have of one is "indirect".

[Old_Scratch]

Why should we assume, in the face of overwhelming evidence for the existence of the supernatural...

As to your claim that there is no evidence for the Divine. Why should there be any evidence?

Poach already answered the other parts of your post.

[Chlodwig I.]

If you really do not know how the universe came into being, then how can you be so sure that it was not God Who created it?

If you really do not know how the universe came into being, then how can you be so sure that it was God who created it?

That may be true. But why should we base our worldviews on information we haven't discovered yet?
Why should we assume, in the face of overwhelming evidence for the existence of the supernatural, that we will someday discover evidence against it? Why should we not comply with the scientific theory that fits the evidence--namely, that the Supernatural (i.e., a Diety of some sort) is responsible for the existence of the universe?

But why should we base our worldviews on information written by men into some books thousands of years ago?
Why shouold we assume, in the face of overwhelming evidence for the truth of the scietific theories, that we will someday discover evidence that proofs that all was done by a god?.
Why should we not comply with the noumerous scientific theories that all fits the evidence that a god was not necessary to create the Universe?

I am not necessarily talking about the Big Bang. All I am saying is that if there is matter and energy right now (which there is) then it must have come into being somehow (since the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that if it were infinitely old it would have infinite entropy). We conclude that matter and energy are not infinitely old. Therefore, they had a beginning. But since the Laws of Mass and Energy Conservation stated that no natural processes can create or destroy matter or energy, we must also conclude that they came into being supernaturally. That is the only option that agrees with established scientific law.

I am not necessarily talking about a specific religion, All I am saying is that if there are diffrent religons right now (which there are) Then they must have come into being somehow. We conclude that religions are not infinitely old, Therefore, they had a beginning. But since only God can create Religons we must also conclude that they came into being supernaturally.
Thats the only option that agrees with this theory

As to your claim that there is no evidence for the Divine. Why should there be any evidence? God is not material; that is, He is not made of matter or energy. Science deals with matter and energy. Therefore, we cannot expect science to account for the existence of a Being that is not made of matter or energy. So to say that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God is irrelevant. Of course there is no direct scientific evidence. Nobody expects there to be any.

As to your claim that there is evidence for the Scientific Theories. Why should there be no evidence?
God created it,; that is. He Created it out of Matter or Energy . Natural Science deals with matter and energy. Thats why God created the proof for the natural laws out of Energy and Matter, so that people will find scientific evidence for the scientific theories. So that there is no need for devine evidence for the existence of natural science. Of course there is no direct scientific evidence for my claim. But who dares question the ways of God?

All scientific evidence for God's existence is indirect. We do not observe God; but as we observe the universe, and as we discover such scientific facts as Entropy the Conservation of Matter and Energy, we conclude that all matter and energy had a beginning, and that beginning cannot have been the result of natural processes. Therefore, it is at least plausible that God created matter and energy.

All scientife evidence for natural science is direct. We do observe them; but as we observe the universe, and as we discover sceintific facts that we can't understand yet, so we include a devine beeing to answer these questions. But isn't it at least possible that there is a scientific answer?

That violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the universe tends towards disorder (or that its entropy increases). So if matter and energy have always been here (i.e., are infinitely old) they would have infinite entropy, which they don't.

That violate the believes of millions of people, who state that the universe was created by the muslim/christian/jewish god, egyptian/greek/roman/germanic/norse/gallic/hindu gods etc. This/These god(s) have always been here, some of them are infinite others not.

This is a very interesting question. I don't know the answer; but I do know that only intelligence is capable of generating information. Information is immaterial; it cannot, therefore, have arisen from the material.

This is a very intersting question. I maybe know a answer; but I didn't know that only intelligence is capable of generating information. Information is material, it can therefore be computed by e.g. light/heat sensitve cells.

[alreadyded]

And what about "dark" matter and energy? As far as we know, both the Law of Mass Conservation and the First Law of Thermodynamics are true, but we do not know as much as we assume.

[GuineaPig]

The First Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Mass Conservation state that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

I would like the atheists of TWC to explain how matter and energy could have come spontaneously into existence without supernatural Divine intervention.

If the atheists of TWC cannot explain this, I would like them to explain why, if there is a Divine Force or Higher Power, such things as miracles, demons, angels, Heaven, and Hell should be such laughable concepts.

Why do you assume that there had to be nothing before the universe? The study of the origins of our own universe are still in its infancy; but we're getting closer to replicating what we think happened in the Big Bang.

Some physicists have the opinion that the total energy of the universe is zero; forms of "positive" energy such as thermal energy, chemical potential energy, etc. are all balanced by the "negative" energy of gravity. http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mer...2/nothing.html

Either way, scientists are humble enough to say that we don't know all the answers, but we won't resort to making them up. Society has never progressed by looking at a mystery, saying "God did it" and leaving it at that. My question to you Beren, is why do you think a god has to be involved in the creation of the universe if we don't know the answer to this query? If you think it's a leap of faith on atheist's part by denying a god's involvement on the basis of not knowing the precise origin of matter and energy in the universe, how does that mean there are demons, angels, heaven, and hell like you suggest?

[Phier]

The First Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Mass Conservation state that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

I would like the atheists of TWC to explain how matter and energy could have come spontaneously into existence without supernatural Divine intervention.

You know, every time we don't know the answer to a question, saying 'god did it!' isn't really an answer. Its an excuse, and its being intellectually lazy. So we don't have a scientific explanation for what started the universe. Big deal, you didn't find a 'gottcha' you found a question. A question that is even more foolish to answer with god since that requires an even more improbable event. We don't know what started the big bang, but if your answer is something ultimately powerful and complex as a god, then where did that come from?

If the atheists of TWC cannot explain this, I would like them to explain why, if there is a Divine Force or Higher Power, such things as miracles, demons, angels, Heaven, and Hell should be such laughable concepts.

Because it would mean god was a twit. Lets pretend there is a god, and this god created the entire known universe we see, and man and all that fun stuff. Now this all powerful being decides to toy with us? Put us in a place of suffering forever because of where we stick our penises based on the traits he gave us in the first place, doubly so if someone is gay? Does he allow creatures to torment us, just for the sake of doing it? Fill our best and brighest with the understanding to see why there need not be a god just so they can be condemned to eternal pain?

Just think what an amazing twit that would make god out to be.

[Fiyenyaa]

Because it would mean god was a twit. Lets pretend there is a god, and this god created the entire known universe we see, and man and all that fun stuff. Now this all powerful being decides to toy with us? Put us in a place of suffering forever because of where we stick our penises based on the traits he gave us in the first place, doubly so if someone is gay? Does he allow creatures to torment us, just for the sake of doing it? Fill our best and brighest with the understanding to see why there need not be a god just so they can be condemned to eternal pain?

Just think what an amazing twit that would make god out to be.

Sums it up really.

It is an incredible arrogance to think that a being of infinite power (as far as one can tell) would care in the slightest about humans in any way.