Subject: The Folly of Denying God
It is helpful to clarify that there are only four possible explanations for how the universe came to be. The first is that the universe is an illusion. This ultimately reduces to solipsism: the theory that 'self' is the only reality, that 'I alone exist.' This view is unacceptable in an age of scientific enlightenment. (Even a full-blown solipsist looks both ways before crossing the street.) The second possibility is that the universe is eternal. This possibility flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics, which says that everything in the universe is running inexorably downhill from order to disorder, from complexity to chaos. If the universe was eternally old, it would have died a heat-loss death an eternity ago.
I would agree with Steve that solipsism is an untenable position. It may be generally true that solipsistic positions cannot be definitively and absolutely disproven; however, they are also pretty fruitless and meaningless when it comes to living a real life. There just doesn't seem to be any point to solipsism.
As to whether the universe is "eternal" or not... well, that's a more difficult question because it depends upon what one means by "eternal." It's undeniable that the universe has existed for all of time - there is no point in time at which there was no universe because "time" is itself a function of the universe. In that sense, the universe is indeed eternal.
Another possibility is an "eternal" cycle of collapsing and expanding, something which more than one physicist has suggested. This would eliminate objections raised by Steve like heat-death.
The third 'possibility' is that the universe emerged from nothing. Little needs to be said about the absurdity of this option. Reason tells us that out of nothing comes nothing. This position militates against the first law of thermodynamics, which says that energy can be neither created nor destroyed; it can only change forms. To say an effect can exist without a cause, one must deny the basis for all scientific investigation and rational thought.
Steve many think that "little needs to be said" about that option, but one might wonder whether that is simply to gloss over the fact that it is a much stronger possibility than he is willing to allow. After all, why can't a universe emerge from nothing?
Steve argues that "reason tells us that out of nothing comes nothing," but that isn't really true. There are no a priori reasons to think that nothing can come from nothing. Instead, all we have are empirical reasons to think this - and that's not a bad basis for such a belief because it is our experience that everything comes from something.
There's just one problem: those experiences all take place within the universe and in the context of natural laws (like causality). The origin of the universe, however, didn't take place in that same context. It couldn't have. The fact of the matter is that we have absolutely no experience of the origin of any universes and what experiences we do have don't seem to transfer well. It is highly questionable whether our experience of trees and birds is a sound basis to extrapolate to entire universes.
Yes, causality is the basis for all scientific investigation - in in the universe. Causality is a function of how our universe operates. To claim that, therefore, causality is a limiting condition on the origin of the universe just isn't valid. Because of that, the possibility that our universe originated without a cause is very real. It might not be true, but it also cannot be dismissed so quickly like Steve tries to do above.
The fourth (and only tenable) possibility is that the universe was created by God. Clearly, theism - the belief in a personal God who is the Creator and Ruler of the universe - is the only viable option on the question of God's existence. Once this is established, it can be pointed out that only a personal God can account for human personality, thought, and morality. Furthermore, this personal God has manifested Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, who demonstrated His deity through the undeniable fact of the Resurrection. Additionally, God has provided His written Word which can be shown to be divine rather than human in origin.
First, Steve defines "theism" much too narrow. Theism is the belief in any god or gods, regardless of what their nature is or what they happen to do with their time. Ancient Greek religion was theistic, for example, but their gods did not create and rule the entire universe.
Once we realize that, we find that Steve's only "tenable" possibility is a trick: he asserts that theism is the answer, but then focuses upon a particular type of theism. If we assert that the universe must have had a "cause," we don't actually have to accept Steve's explanation of what that "cause" really was. The cause didn't have to be personal, it didn't have to be eternal, it doesn't have to still exist, and it certainly doesn't have to be the same being that Christians just happen to worship.
In fact, even if we accept most of the qualities that Steve insists on ascribing to the cause of the universe, we still can't conclude that Christianity is true. At a bare minimum, both Judaism and Islam stand as possible answers to what sort of god exists and how we should relate to that god - neither of them, however, assert that "God has manifested Himself in the person of Jesus Christ."
Note: This message originally appeared in the Agnosticism / Atheism forum. Read the whole thread. More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Steve doesnt know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says. It does not say what Steve thinks it says.
The 2nd law of thermo states that the SOLE function of a system cannot be the transferring of heat energy from a cold body to a hotter one. Thats all.
Steve misinterprets the 2nd law of thermo. Steve should be aware that his misiterpretation of the 2nd law of thermo directly conflicts with the 1ST law of thermo (aka law of conservation of matter/energy).
Steve cannot pick and choose which laws to invoke. Either invoke the whole thermo set, or none of it. And when Steve does invoke the thermo set, he should be careful to properly phrase the 2nd law.
Good luck trying to show that the 2nd law violates the first law buddy. The laws of thermodynamics FIRST and FOREMOST state that the totaly amount of energy and matter in the universe is constant. There is only one conclusion to arrive at from the first law of thermo: that the universe is ETERNAL.
Steve cannot invoke any law of thermo in an attempt to refute the eternal nature of the universe, for the thermo set expressely states that it is.
If Steve wants to argue AGAINST an eternal universe, he has to argue AGAINST the laws of thermodynamics, not invoke them in his argument.
Actually, Steve seems to have the 2nd law about right in this case, and heat death still seems like a probable fate for the universe. I’m also not quite sure how you think this interpretation violates the 1st law, but I presume it relates to the instant of creation itself. Your statements of the laws are correct though.
In fact, most cosmologists would agree that the universe has only existed (in any meaningful sense) for about 13 billion years or so. It is, of course, an open question in physics as to what exactly ‘happened’ at the first instant of the big bang, but it’s not at all clear that it need have violated the 1st law of thermodynamics. For starters, if the big bang was the beginning of time itself then there was no “before” for the energy of the universe to be the same as “after”, in much the same way as there is nothing north of the north pole (I notice that Austin alluded to the concept of “no before” a couple of time in the main article). Secondly, since gravitational potential energy is in fact negative, this negative energy that arises from the universe being spread out spatially may balance the energy and mass in the universe, thus giving a total energy of zero.
In case it’s not already clear, I feel I should point out that I don’t with Steve’s conclusion either, and I tend to agree with Austin that he discounted his “third possibility” too readily. The reason I’m posting this is that, sad though it may be when creationists and their ilk abuse the laws of physics (and science in general), I’d say that it’s even sadder when the opponents of those ideas do so.
i think GOD exists, as per big bang there are some explorations and all the universe was created. and according to science there are four main fourses… strong,weak,magnatic and gravitational… as per rule all are the out sided forses , so which energy came into that small atom and it created the whole universe?
the ans is that was created by a master mind … great GOD…
One point you missed, is that even if we accept that the universe must have been created by “Steve’s” arguments, all of those argument also apply to God, and they answer nothing. Why is it that God could have existed forever, or come out of nothing, but the universe can’t? What magical property is it that allows this to happen?
As per his third point, I recommend Lawrence Krauss’ explanation of how a universe could come from nothing. (Search “Krauss AAI 2009″ in Youtube). I know it’s a bit long, but it’s a really fascinating talk, and Krauss is a fantastic speaker.
Really what’s so bad about the idea of something coming from nothing? It actually sounds more credible from things coming from a supernatural being. I think electrons just pop into existence don’t they?
In fact I think most theists believe something came from nothing. For example
From God, from nothing ,to something. God just magically makes things pop out of thin air. Nothing to something. Something came from nothing. So why do most theists mock big bang comosology, with a poor understanding of it, when the the notion they’re mocking is what most actually believe? From nothing to something. There was no existence right? Then God made existence. How did God do it? He made everything from nothing. See?
Also Steve sounds like he is contradicting himself. If he points out that the the law of thermodynamics say that energy can’t be created or destroyed than why is it possible for God to create the universe? IF it’s possible for a god to create the universe then why isn’t it possible that something can’t come from nothing?
> The third ‘possibility’ is that the universe emerged from nothing. Little needs to be said about the absurdity of this option. Reason tells us that out of nothing comes nothing
Aye, and there’s the rub. “Reason” isn’t always compatible with physics, as Heisenberg more than demonstrated. What seems as though it “should be” may _not_ be. Physics is often counterintuitive. For example, I probably never would have dreamed that a feather and an anvil would fall at the same rate in a vacuum? And in the case of “something from nothing,” we have to deal with virtual particles—which seem to pop in and out of existence. What are we looking at there? Is that something from nothing?
Additionally, even my point above can be soundly criticized, since Hawking has indicated that the laws of physics as known and observed in this universe “break down” at the singularity. And that, due to this, nothing can be said regarding the events preceding this universe. In other words, using the physical laws of the current universe to try and expound on what happened prior is not only irrational, but also not possible. We can’t discount any idea simply because it conflicts with currently understood physical laws. (As Austin hit on. But for more explanation of this, Hawking’s “Beginning of Time” public lecture available at his site is a good read.)
> The fourth (and only tenable) possibility
Wait, wait, wait. Why did he leave out Big Bang? The theory about the universe arising from a singularity?
> Clearly, theism – the belief in a personal God who is the Creator and Ruler of the universe
Uh, this isn’t “theism”—it’s only one possible theism. There are many gods people have believed in on this planet that did not produce the universe or even people.
Additionally, “I don’t know how it happened” is a possibility he forgot. And he’s making the error of positing a cause that now needs to be established. To assert “god” as the cause of anything first requires a god be demonstrated to exist—since things that do not exist cannot be the cause of other things. He may think a god did it. But his burden before asserting it, is to demonstrate there are such things as gods. If he can’t do that, then his claim is no better than saying “X” created the universe—as we have no god to examine to help us define this “cause.” With no “god” to examine, how do we make claims about this god? We can’t compare any ideas we may have to reality to verify them—so all claims about god are nothing more than unsupported assertions.
> Once this is established, it can be pointed out that only a personal God can account for human personality, thought, and morality.
And I can point out that drinking loads of grape juice as a child is responsible for me being a brunette. But pointing it out doesn’t establish it as any kind of reality. Claims that defy reality (reality being no god has yet ever been demonstrated to exist, and cannot, until that time, be put forward as a believable cause), not verified, are not yet worthy of belief. Nice idea, I’ll believe it once you’ve demonstrated it. Come back when you have more than just an idea that appeals to you. Even if you were able to convince EVERY other human on the planet this makes sense—it would still not be a claim we could say we know is an accurate reflection of reality, until we’d demonstrated that REALITY aligns with our “reasonable” assumption—which, as anyone knows, it sometimes does not.
This is why science is superior to religion. Science does not just assert. It verifies. As this guy demonstrates, however, religion doesn’t feel it needs to actually verify it’s correct. It’s sufficient to just believe you’re right, never attempt to confirm, and call it truth, whether it is or not. Big Bang uses a great deal of actual, physical evidence to support its claims. This guy uses absolutely none to support creationism.
> Furthermore, this personal God has manifested Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, who demonstrated His deity through the undeniable fact of the Resurrection.
OK, now that’s just a freakin’ leap out of nowhere…? How did we get to “I don’t believe Big Bang (that I just strawmangled), to “god manifested as a human being, and I know who it was, and I can tell you all about what god wants for people and what you need to do to make god happy…”? I mean, that’s quite a big step from “I don’t get how BB works?”
> undeniable fact of the Resurrection
Wow. I can’t understand BB, therefore 2,000 years ago a guy came back from the dead…?
> Additionally, God has provided His written Word which can be shown to be divine rather than human in origin.
And a god exists and wrote a book for us?
This is just someone divorced from how to draw reasonable conclusions in the real world…?
tracieh, my apologies, but I WILL have to steal the term ’strawmangled’.
Dean: No problem. I posted it to FB with a (TM). So, it’s branded as mine original now. Use at will!!!