Scientists Deem Creation to Be the Most Rational Explanation of Universe

Woody,

woody:“ So how does the universe explain it's own existence? ”

Chris: Why is that relevant?

Because of the logical law of cause and effect.
Click to expand...

What has “the ability for self explanation” to do with causality? Your original statement stated – ..it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence. Logic requires that if something exists contingently, it must have a cause.

The issue of self explanation is a redundant insertion.

The example I gave on the cyclic universe is sufficient to answer causality – in this case it is an infinite cycle and hence causality is moot.

If the universe can not be it's own cause, then it is an effect. If it is eternal then it is its own cause.
Click to expand...

Agreed – we may simply be arguing semantics here.
 
Chris: The example I gave on the cyclic universe is sufficient to answer causality – in this case it is an infinite cycle and hence causality is moot.

Woody: What evidence is there of an eternal cyclic universe that doesn't violate the mass/energy laws?

Basically this argument boils down to two choices: Either the universe is eternal or God is eternal. The two can not co-exist as causes. So if you prove the universe is eternal you have made yor case. Now proove it is eternal, instead of giving a theory.

If you can proove your eternally cyclical universe, ie a perpetual motion machine, you have disproven the laws of physics as we know them. The laws of physics tell us that perpetual motion machines are physically impossible. The concept of perpetual motion machines were abandoned in the 1800s, because they were proven physically impossible with the matter/energy laws.
 
Last edited:
Woody: God is Logos. He exists outside of space and time. He created both. He is purely cause, and not an effect.

Internationalist: Your God as you believe him to be is not logos because he is not logical, because Logos doesn't protend to be a happy, forgiving god it cannot be your god. The idea of effects preceding its cause is the only explanation for God and for the universe of course, the idea that something exists independantly of anything else is pure nonsense, look its very simple God exists to the extent we believe in him. Look at Zeus he was a god. Basically God as Avatar suggested before is contigent on us believing in him.

Woody: So what if God doesn't meet you requirements, or mine. The logical fact is that something has to be eternal or else we do not exist. You can say it is the universe that is eternal. Fine, proove the universe is eternal and you are done. But you have one little problem along the way: you must disproove the laws of mass/energy physics.
 
Woody,

What evidence is there of an eternal cyclic universe that doesn't violate the mass/energy laws?
Click to expand...

Read Steinhardt’s paper – no matter is created or destroyed, and no laws of physics are violated.

What evidence is there that a supernatural realm has any credibility whatsoever?

Basically this argument boils down to two choices: Either the universe is eternal or God is eternal. The two can not co-exist as causes.
Click to expand...

No not really. The only thing we can conclude is that something infinite must exist otherwise nothing could have ever begun. The only evidence we have so far is that the universe exists and we have nothing to say it isn’t infinite. There is no evidence for the existence of gods of any type, or even that they are possible. You need to at least prove that a god might be possible before claiming such a baseless choice.

So if you prove the universe is eternal you have made yor case. Now proove it is eternal, instead of giving a theory.
Click to expand...

My case is not to assert that I have an answer but that you do not. By demonstrating that there are other considerations of how the universe exists is sufficient to indicate that your god concept assertion cannot stand as a final answer.

The laws of physics tell us that perpetual motion machines are physically impossible. The concept of perpetual motion machines were abandoned in the 1800s, because they were proven physically impossible with the matter/energy laws.
Click to expand...

Such machines are impossible because of the influence of external forces. The universe is a special case since there are no external forces. However, the laws of physics do state that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, yet your suggestion that the universe is created is clearly a direct violation of the laws of physics. Aren’t you being a hypocrite here?
 
woody,

God is Logos. He exists outside of space and time. He created both. He is purely cause, and not an effect.
Click to expand...

You, having demonstrated by your logic that everything must have a cause are now asserting that this earlier conclusion is false and that this principle is not true.

Please decide whether causality is a fact or that not everything must have a case. If it is the latter then we can conclude that an infinite universe is infinitely more credible than a creator since it is based on natural phenomena which we know exists whereas a supernatural creator has no precedence or evidence for support.

If it is the former then you must demonstrate how your god was created.

You cannot have it both ways otherwise you are simply being hypocritical.
 
Cris: Such machines are impossible because of the influence of external forces. The universe is a special case since there are no external forces. However, the laws of physics do state that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, yet your suggestion that the universe is created is clearly a direct violation of the laws of physics. Aren’t you being a hypocrite here?

Woody: No, I am only saying there can be two choices: either the universe has existed forever or it has not existed forever. You say the universe is a special case of a closed system. Why is it a special case of a closed system? The mass/energy laws apply directly to closed systems, there are no exceptions.

Does your cyclical universe model viloate the law of the excluded middles? If there is a time the universe does not exist then we do not exist, according to the law of excluded middles which says the universe can not be both something and nothing. The law of cause and effect says you can't get something from nothing.
 
Last edited:
Cris: You, having demonstrated by your logic that everything must have a cause are now asserting that this earlier conclusion is false and that this principle is not true.

Woody: Eternality is a cause. It does not need a cause -- it is a cause.

Do you have a link on the cyclical universe theory? Is it a variant of steady state theory which is pretty much a relic of the past?
 
Last edited:
You do realize woody that Buddhists believe in cyclical universe theory as their "creation story" that there isn't one. Seems to throw to shit your little theory, because if Adam and Eve were true I am sure EVERY religion on Earth would concurr...
 
woody,

Do you have a link on the cyclical universe theory? Is it a variant of steady state theory which is pretty much a relic of the past?
Click to expand...

The steady state theory was discarded long ago. Persoanlly I prefer the bubble theory, but here is the cyclic theory.

Cyclic Universe 2002
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0204479
 
woody,

Eternality is a cause. It does not need a cause -- it is a cause.
Click to expand...

Cause requires a beginning, something infinite has no beginning and hence has no cause. You are playing with semantics here. You cannot escape your claims of universal causality and then deny it later to suit your theistic need.
 
woody,

The mass/energy laws apply directly to closed systems, there are no exceptions.
Click to expand...

The cyclic theory doesn't propose a perpetual motion machine, in the theory the universe is not perpetual, it is cyclic where entropy is reset on each cycle.
 
woody,

Does your cyclical universe model viloate the law of the excluded middles? If there is a time the universe does not exist then we do not exist, according to the law of excluded middles which says the universe can not be both something and nothing. The law of cause and effect says you can't get something from nothing.
Click to expand...

No this does not apply to the cyclic model. The universe always exists. There is no beginning, nothing is created and nothing is destroyed.
 
Shouldn't things run down? Energy get locked up into more and more unusable forms. Matter tends to convert into denser forms all the way down to iron, which is useless for fusion. There should be no stars in the sky in a cyclic universe.
 
Bang, expansion, contraction, crunch, bang, ......

That's the model - I'm not sure I understand your point.
 
Jinoda said:
I don't have a clue, nor do I have the knowledge required to either prove or disprove the existence of God.

I know both atheists and logical thinkers hate this statement: I just believe it. It may have been pounded into my head as a child, maybe not, all I know is it is my belief and and I have a right to it.

I constantly look for intelligent literature about this topic, be it for or against creationism, and there just isn't enough of it. This is something that humans cannot know without a shadow of a doubt with our current knowledge. Nearly all literature I read on this subject is biased. Christian literature is always full of crap about God's greatness or it just retells the story of the bible like no one has ever heard it. I would love to see a completely factual account of the existence of God, but I don't think one exists.

It may be a naive thing to say, but I am content in thinking that my brain just isn't powerful enough to understand certain things (such as who created the creator). I figure if it is true, then I will go to heaven and learn the truth in the end, and if it is not true, then there was no harm done. I will be nonexistent when I die, so who cares about these things by that time?
Click to expand...
Just wanted to point out that there was at least one atheist and logical thinker who did not despise any of these statements. You cannot find a "factual" account of the Creation by God because such accounts are, perforce, fictional. Conversely I also am in the camp that believes that the brain is not built to understand all mysteries - such as consciousness. The creation of the Universe falls outside the physical laws we can actually test for in the Universe we have, so that also remains unknowable.

As to the article - I'm afraid I've never understood why either science or religion should believe there need be a "scientific" proof of God. Science finds answers as far as it can go. It has gone a lot further than anybody could have possibly imagined when Newton and Galileo and Laplace showed that there was order in the Universe. Further than that it says, "We may find the answers later". It does not make pronouncements on what is not yet known and state "It must have been a supernatural being that I, the author, happen to believe in." Science does not, by definition, deal with the supernatural. If there are further areas knowledge inaccessible, it is not the job of science to say "Here we declare that the God hypothesis is the true one." The God hypothesis is not testable, and is therefore not going to be accepted by all reasonable people.
 
Cris said:

Bang, expansion, contraction, crunch, bang, ......

That's the model - I'm not sure I understand your point.
Click to expand...

OK your model disobeys the physical law of entropy. When the crunch happens the universe would become a black hole. Black holes obey the law of entropy:

Law of Entropy

Black Holes

You can read about it under Hawking radiation.

Black Holes are maximum entropy states. The effects of antimatter, positrons, etc are accounted for.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

There are four laws involved in the proof that a creator God exists:

[a] Law of exclusive Middles
Law of Cause and Effect
[c] First law of thermodynamics (a subset of )
[d] Law of entropy (a subset of )

I can proove God exists by logic. The argument boils down to this:

1) Either there is a God or there is no God. - [a] is satisfied
2) Either the universe was created or it was not created. [a] & are satisfied
3) If it was not created by a God then there is no God. is satisfied
4) If the universe was not created by God then it must be eternal. is satisfied
5) If the universe creates itself then it disobeys [c] and hence disobeys as well. It also disobeys [a]. A universe is not able to "exist" and "not exist" at the same time because of [a]. You don't get something from nothing according to and [c]. Hence this solution violates 3 laws.
6) If the universe is eternal then it disobeys the law of entropy [d] even with antimatter considered. Hence this solution violates one law that governs it. (This is where the bang and crunch theory fails, as well as other theories like it). If the universe resets its own entropy then the law of entropy is violated -- this would be a 2nd order perpetual motion machine by definition, and PMMs are impossible according to the laws of physics.
7)Therefore the universe is not eternal and it did not create itself.
8) Hence the universe was created by some exterior force, because the other two solutions are disproved using the known laws of logic and science.
9) This force would have to be eternal to satisfy law [a]
10) This force would have to put all the laws of physics in place -- this satisfies
11) This force would have to be greater then its creation -- this satisfies law
11) Hence there is a creator force, or "God" if you will.

As they say in geometry: QED

I did many. many perpetual motion machine proofs in engineering school.

The logic is flawless :D

Do you have a better explanation? You need a new law to proove it.
 
Last edited:
Jeez you're a nut woody. :D

Your logic is flawed because it cannot account for the unknown or unknowable.


Consider that perhaps the notion of creation is FAR too simplistic or over-complicated to describe the universe's origins. Can you wrap your brain around that? Do you see that you're anthropomorphising this issue by insisting that your proof is relevant to reality?

Did you perpetual motion proofs involve "jesus power"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top