A question for athiests

[Silenus]

true enough. I think of it terms of the feurbach quote i gave you. That your primary metaphysical axiom is that existence exists, nature exists, and that it is not nessessary to go beyond this to any other metaphysical principle.

dictionary definition

The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Thanks everyone for your responses. I'm getting the impression that alot of you think that questions about why reality exists to be, well, stupid or something. I don't understand why. To me, it seems perfectly natural to wonder about it.

 

[quatona]

Thanks everyone for your responses. I'm getting the impression that alot of you think that questions about why reality exists to be, well, stupid or something. I don't understand why. To me, it seems perfectly natural to wonder about it.

I think the problem is that no matter how much we all like "why?" questions, for everyone there is a point where they simply accept that something exists because it exists. For me, whilst within the frame or reference of everything/reality/the universe/... the question for causes, origins, etc. makes perfect sense, I see no reason why to ask the same question in transcending this frame of reference in which these questions make sense.

 

[quatona]

That your primary metaphysical axiom is that existence exists,

But the more interesting question is: Does the existence of the existence of existence exist?

 

[Eudaimonist]

That your primary metaphysical axiom is that existence exists, nature exists, and that it is not nessessary to go beyond this to any other metaphysical principle.

As long as we aren't talking about reductive materialism, I think that I can go along with this.

To put the point another way, I think that physicality is more fundamental than consciousness, which is to say that physicality does not depend on consciousness for its existence, however, consciousness depends on physicality (on something physical) for its existence.

This is not to say that I necessarily view consciousness as itself physical, but rather as a power or property of entities, just as physicality is itself a power or property of entities.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Upisoft]

But the more interesting question is: Does the existence of the existence of existence exist?

It depends on the existance of its existance.

 

[Silenus]

original post

Just out of curiosity, if you don't believe that God is real, what do you believe governs reality? What's your theory? What is it that determines the rules of physics, the architecture of everything that is?

I agree with the incredulity toward the initial question. It does have the feel of the lawyer who asks the defendant at a divorce proceeding, "so how long have you been cheating on your wife?" It seems to assume that something must govern reality at all. However, I think there is a problem with materialistic approaches to reality and there is a need to go further metaphysically. I'll give two reasons why considering theism isn't that irrational.



1) One the laws of thermodynamics and the observations on perpetual motion indicate a universe winding down. If the assertions that nature exists as your foundational metaphysical principles true, this would mean that either energy or matter would have to be eternal. However, these facts indicate that nature is not eternal. That, left to its own devices, it will subside to heat death. As far as my reading of Hawkins and others are concerned, the attempt to use an oscillating universe theory has been unsuccessful.



Second, the nature exists hypothesis as primary metaphysic violates the law of Identity A=A.



Nature exists is also matter exists, unconsciousness exists, cause and effects are primary, instinct is primary. There is an enormous problem for this metaphysic because it must go from unconsciousness to consciousness, mechanism to freedom, unreason to reason, from the changing nature of sensation to the immutability of reality. In essence, it requires us to believe that a = not a. Again, I find myself in need of a new hypothesis which doesn’t cause me to violate the law of identity. Of course, none of this is a problem as long as you chuck the ability of rationality to know anything about the world or postulate that our ideas of humanity are illusions and begin bowing before Skinner. So, although I don't think initially we must assume design, I think that the problems caused by materialism do not make the consideration of theism irrational. No one here yet has said its irrational, I don't think, so don't take that statement as a accusation.

Eudaimonist said

I think that physicality is more fundamental than consciousness, which is to say that physicality does not depend on consciousness for its existence, however, consciousness depends on physicality (on something physical) for its existence.

I take it from your Ayn Rand picture that you're talking about the primacy of existence as opposed to the primacy of consciousness?

By the way, nice to see so many Libertarian icons. It is nice, from time to time, not to see so many lumbering elephants.

 

[Lucretius]

1) One the laws of thermodynamics and the observations on perpetual motion indicate a universe winding down. If the assertions that nature exists as your foundational metaphysical principles true, this would mean that either energy or matter would have to be eternal. However, these facts indicate that nature is not eternal. That, left to its own devices, it will subside to heat death. As far as my reading of Hawkins and others are concerned, the attempt to use an oscillating universe theory has been unsuccessful.

I think this would be a good time for me to chime in: we just finished our rather rigorous study of thermodynamics in my physics course, so I'll try and shed some light on this.

The specific law of thermodynamics you are thinking of is the Second Law. The reason no perpetual motion machine is because a system has to put some energy into a cold reservoir in order to return to it's initial state so that the work it does may be repeatable. This is your basic heat engine. You can do 100% work in a one-time machine that uses a hot reservoir: think about an expanding gas pushing up a piston. All the heat energy goes into work to push the piston up, but you're stuck from there. In order for the gas to compress, heat from the inside must flow to the outside to bring the piston back down, and more heat is then added to the hot reservoir. The overall point is that; to turn this into an actual engine instead of a one-time process, heat must flow from a hot to a cold reservoir.

I can see you're looking at things in terms of entropy, which can also be understood when looking at the heat engine I just described. A system has very low entropy when there is a great temperature difference between the two systems. This is because the system is highly ordered. The large majority of the atoms possessing a great amount of kinetic energy, and thus a system of a greater temperature, exist on one side, and those with less kinetic energy on the other. If you want a nice example you can think about the sun and the space surrounding it. Heat energy from the sun flows from itself into a cold reservoir (space.) This is true for every macroscopic system due to the statistics of high numbers. Every colder system possesses some number of high energy atoms, but these are dwarfed by the number of high energy atoms in a warmer system. Via collisions from these atoms and conservation of momentum, large systems tend to "run down" and increase in entropy so that a balance may be achieved.

If my run through of basic thermodynamics hasn't bored you to death; I'll now use what I've expounded upon to address your point:

Following the Second Law to it's logical extreme we find that in the very late stages of the universe molecular bonds (which are microscopic energy stored within a molecule) will break down and only the very simplest of chemicals will remain: namely hydrogen. While the Second Law is a very good means to observe macroscopic systems; like all things Newtonian, quantum effects still triumph when the numbers and size get small. There are certain processes that transfer energy from the background of space which are purely known through quantum mechanics. These allow for energy transfer from a vacuum which can lead to the creation of new particles. This will continue no matter how old the universe gets. It's an utterly random process. Also, due to the nature of atoms and the fact that absolute zero is unattainable (via yet another thermodynamical law), the atoms will always be in some sort of motion no matter how long the universe goes on aging. The kinetic energy involved in their motion never disappears, though you might get systems of atoms with only a few nanoKelvin as a temperature, while systems are allowed to approach absolute zero, it is impossible to attain. This would violate Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which I, for sake of some brevity, will not go into unless you wish for me to.

Basically, energy and matter never disappear. This is in tune with the First Law of Thermodynamics. Of course, if you wished to get more in depth, we could leave Thermodynamics entirely and talk about solutions to the Friedmann equations or other things that suggest a universe that will keep on aging, keep on existing, and keep on possessing energy. It may be a one-time deal; but the laws that govern the universe will keep on governing it; no matter what happens.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I take it from your Ayn Rand picture that you're talking about the primacy of existence as opposed to the primacy of consciousness?

Not precisely. I am not equating physicality (or materiality) with existence, though it would seem to me that all entities possess the property of materiality.



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Silenus]

Okay, I'm going to start by saying this to Lucretius. If you don't have time to explain things to me further, don't feel the need. You obviously can answer some questions I've always had about quantum theory from my amateur readings. If you feel it’s more appropriate to answer them over e-mail or message instead of forum that would be fine too. And if you're too busy, feel free to recommend books.

While the Second Law is a very good means to observe macroscopic systems; like all things Newtonian, quantum effects still triumph when the numbers and size get small. There are certain processes that transfer energy from the background of space which are purely known through quantum mechanics. These allow for energy transfer from a vacuum which can lead to the creation of new particles. This will continue no matter how old the universe gets. It's an utterly random process.

Can you go into some detail here? How does energy transfer from a vacuum? If it is truly a vacuum, doesn't that imply that there is nothing there, and if a transfer happens, doesn't there either need to be something to "take" the transfer, or energy to be transferred? And, if this is true, does this discount heat death? Or is that still in effect?
I understand the laws, so you don't need to explain them. Unless you think I don't understand them fully.
1) Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2) Entropy
3) We can't reach absolute zero

Also, due to the nature of atoms and the fact that absolute zero is unattainable (via yet another thermodynamical law), the atoms will always be in some sort of motion no matter how long the universe goes on aging. The kinetic energy involved in their motion never disappears, though you might get systems of atoms with only a few nanoKelvin as a temperature, while systems are allowed to approach absolute zero, it is impossible to attain. This would violate Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which I, for sake of some brevity, will not go into unless you wish for me to.

My contention here is that, despite the fact the universe will continue, the winding down of macroscopic systems seems to indicate that they were wound up. I understand this does not prove theism, but it does make it a reasonable place to begin exploring, since the random processes on a microscopic level never reverse the nature of entropy.

Basically, energy and matter never disappear. This is in tune with the First Law of Thermodynamics. Of course, if you wished to get more in depth, we could leave Thermodynamics entirely and talk about solutions to the Friedmann equations or other things that suggest a universe that will keep on aging, keep on existing, and keep on possessing energy. It may be a one-time deal; but the laws that govern the universe will keep on governing it; no matter what happens.

You can explain anything you want in as much depth as you want. This stuff doesn't bore me.
Thanks for the beginning clarification.

 

[Lucretius]

Okay, I'm going to start by saying this to Lucretius. If you don't have time to explain things to me further, don't feel the need. You obviously can answer some questions I've always had about quantum theory from my amateur readings. If you feel it’s more appropriate to answer them over e-mail or message instead of forum that would be fine too. And if you're too busy, feel free to recommend books.

I have finals this week (just did my calc final, physics tomorrow), but I should have time enough to answer your questions.

Can you go into some detail here? How does energy transfer from a vacuum? If it is truly a vacuum, doesn't that imply that there is nothing there, and if a transfer happens, doesn't there either need to be something to "take" the transfer, or energy to be transferred? And, if this is true, does this discount heat death? Or is that still in effect?

The heat death will still inevitably occur, but I had thought, from your original post, that you believed this somehow indicated the universe would last a finite time. It now seems like I've misinterpreted what you originally said. I'll address the point below and use this section to talk a little bit more in depth about virtual particle production and annihilation. I'm a few years away from quantum mechanics courses but I've done my fair share of reading so I will do my best to explain.

To begin with; there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. The reasons for this are somewhat subtle, but I think they can best be understood in the following manner. A vacuum is a certain region of space will fewer particles than normal, and thus the pressure is much less. In order for a perfect vacuum to exist then, the pressure in such a region must be zero. What creates pressure then, will decide whether or not a perfect vacuum can exist. Pressure is a macroscopic measure of a microscopic phenomenon, namely, atoms and molecules smashing into whatever it is that you're using to measure. Each exerts a tiny force, but the sum of all these tiny forces is a measurable force over an area, and this is pressure.

In order for no pressure to exist then, the atoms must stop moving entirely. Even if they moved a little bit, they would eventually hit your sensor, resulting in a very minute, but still measurable pressure. There are two things that don't allow this to happen:

To make atoms stop moving entirely, we would need to attain absolute zero. Quantum mechanics does not allow this, for it would violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states we cannot know the position and the momentum of a particle simultaneously and accurately. If a particle stopped entirely, we would know it's position and therefore, it's momentum.

In fact, even at absolute zero (this is something I will learn in Q&M) a particle would have a residual energy. The reasons for this are unknown to me, but it comes out of some math and I'd wager a guess this is also due to the uncertainty principle.

So no perfect vacuum can exist.

What happens with the energy transfer is this: the vacuum can spontaneously give rise to particle/anti-particle pairs. This is such that energy is conserved because the particle and anti-particle annihilate one another and the sum energy lost is 0. We can observe the effects of these particles in terms of the Casimir Effect. The resonance energy (the energy a particle or vacuum has even at absolute zero) results in an inward push on, in the case of the Casimir Effect, two parallel plates standing very close together.

The main importance of this virtual particle pair production, I think, is in terms of the early history of the universe, when inflation took place. The expansion was in fact so rapid that the expansion of the universe pulled these particle pairs apart before they could even annihilate, resulting in the particles we see today. This would mean, in terms of energy conservation that gravitational energy is negative energy! A bizarre notion, and one I am currently reading about in Alan Guth's book.

When we get past simple thermodynamics, things get quite complicated quite fast. I'm no expert as you can tell I've got a lot to learn, but the basics can be understood with a bit of searching.

My contention here is that, despite the fact the universe will continue, the winding down of macroscopic systems seems to indicate that they were wound up. I understand this does not prove theism, but it does make it a reasonable place to begin exploring, since the random processes on a microscopic level never reverse the nature of entropy.

I see where you are coming from. If the universe is heading towards greater and greater entropy, how could such a time have existed in which entropy = 0, without negative entropy proceeding it? Well, without touching on the "origin" of the fundamental forces (they are called fundamental for a reason), we can see that, assuming space and time exist ( I don't see how we could get anywhere if they didn't), the universe could have followed the process I described before. The energy for a gravitational field is negative, and a lot of negative potential energy must have been stored in the early universe when it was very tiny and dense (thus gravity would play a rather large roll). When inflation occured and this negative potential energy was released, the energy from the vacuum fluctuations (positive energy) could have been harnessed (this would imply the total energy is the universe might be zero), producing all the particles we see today. What led to inflation, you might ask? I'm no expert on inflation and in fact I'm reading Alan Guth's book for the second time now to try and wrestle with the concept. If you wish to know more, I would recommend his book, but be sure to do some research on a Higgs Field prior to your read, as things get pretty hairy after the first eight or so chapters.

Hope I answered some questions. Feel free to ask more. I've probably confused you more than helped you!

 

[Silenus]

When I said eternity, I meant without beginning or end and I also meant not bound by space/time. Not good to use two definitions at the same time. That was my bad.

In fact, even at absolute zero (this is something I will learn in Q&M) a particle would have a residual energy. The reasons for this are unknown to me, but it comes out of some math and I'd wager a guess this is also due to the uncertainty principle.

So no perfect vacuum can exist.

What happens with the energy transfer is this: the vacuum can spontaneously give rise to particle/anti-particle pairs. This is such that energy is conserved because the particle and anti-particle annihilate one another and the sum energy lost is 0. We can observe the effects of these particles in terms of the Casimir Effect. The resonance energy (the energy a particle or vacuum has even at absolute zero) results in an inward push on, in the case of the Casimir Effect, two parallel plates standing very close together.

The main importance of this virtual particle pair production, I think, is in terms of the early history of the universe, when inflation took place. The expansion was in fact so rapid that the expansion of the universe pulled these particle pairs apart before they could even annihilate, resulting in the particles we see today. This would mean, in terms of energy conservation that gravitational energy is negative energy! A bizarre notion, and one I am currently reading about in Alan Guth's book.

No perfect vaccum exists due to law number three, and what we see as a vaccum is actually particules we can't sense because we observe particles in movement and, in a vaccum, their movement is undetectable. I think I get it.

I see where you are coming from. If the universe is heading towards greater and greater entropy, how could such a time have existed in which entropy = 0, without negative entropy proceeding it? Well, without touching on the "origin" of the fundamental forces (they are called fundamental for a reason), we can see that, assuming space and time exist ( I don't see how we could get anywhere if they didn't), the universe could have followed the process I described before. The energy for a gravitational field is negative, and a lot of negative potential energy must have been stored in the early universe when it was very tiny and dense (thus gravity would play a rather large roll). When inflation occured and this negative potential energy was released, the energy from the vacuum fluctuations (positive energy) could have been harnessed (this would imply the total energy is the universe might be zero), producing all the particles we see today. What led to inflation, you might ask? I'm no expert on inflation and in fact I'm reading Alan Guth's book for the second time now to try and wrestle with the concept. If you wish to know more, I would recommend his book, but be sure to do some research on a Higgs Field prior to your read, as things get pretty hairy after the first eight or so chapters.

I read this and I think I get it, but theories like this seem to indicate to me that exploring a theistic premise isn't untenable. Yes, I agree that one must realize that any intellectual search will lead to fundamentals that seem to stand on their own, but, the winding down of the universe indicated to me something outside of nature starting the clock. Also, i have trouble conceptualizing a fundamental principle that is bound by space-time. This is not what i hang my belief in God on, there are many things that contribute to it, both rational and experiential, but I think the two things I mentioned provide some starting points for explorations into theism.

 

[Silenus]

well, i googled and got higgs boson . . . I started reading and it might take me awhile to get this, I'll keep reading.

Thanks for something to look up.

 

[Lucretius]

No perfect vaccum exists due to law number three, and what we see as a vaccum is actually particules we can't sense because we observe particles in movement and, in a vaccum, their movement is undetectable. I think I get it.

Pretty close. The thing I would recommend remembering about a vacuum is that there really can be no such thing as empty space anywhere. Between electron orbitals in atoms, or "particles", or otherwise. The Uncertainty Principle requires that some residual energy exist in all points in space. Our interpretation then, based on the Casimir Effect, leads to our conclusion that what we see as otherwise empty space, is teeming with particle/anti-particle interactions.

I read this and I think I get it, but theories like this seem to indicate to me that exploring a theistic premise isn't untenable. Yes, I agree that one must realize that any intellectual search will lead to fundamentals that seem to stand on their own, but, the winding down of the universe indicated to me something outside of nature starting the clock. Also, i have trouble conceptualizing a fundamental principle that is bound by space-time. This is not what i hang my belief in God on, there are many things that contribute to it, both rational and experiential, but I think the two things I mentioned provide some starting points for explorations into theism.

Scientifically, the problem with the notion that a God "wound up the universe" is that it is a proposition that cannot be falsified. There is no way to demonstrate that the idea is wrong. It might fit in philosophically for some; but it's an idea that we cannot really do anything with. There is no way, experimentally, we can go back as far as we truly need to see what exactly happened. Decoupling needed to occur (before this, matter and light were stuck together. After decoupling, the cosmic background radiation appeared, and matter began to coalesce into larger objects.) It's within the hands of the theoretical physicists to come up with theories about how the universe became so ordered — if there is a reason.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "Also, i have trouble conceptualizing a fundamental principle that is bound by space-time."?

Good luck understanding the Higgs Field. It's very complex and the first time I tried to tackle it I just went away more confused.

 

[Silenus]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "Also, I have trouble conceptualizing a fundamental principle that is bound by space-time."?

The foundational principle would need to be outside of space-time because of the nature of movement and the fact of entropy. If a fundamental principle is bound in space-time, it still is bound by cause and effect and we are stuck with a set of infinite causes and no explination for rationality. Couple this with the other argument I put forward, and I start looking to Theism. Now, I understand the falsified thing. But the metaphysical principles science is based on cannot be falsified either. Science is based on metaphysics outside the laboratory and, to me, it becomes a search for what corresponds to what is out there. Yes there is a problem, because how do you know what corresponds to what is out there, unless you are the one out there over everything? But, I do think there are certain things that cannot be denied, rationality being one of them.

 

[Lucretius]

The foundational principle would need to be outside of space-time because of the nature of movement and the fact of entropy. If a fundamental principle is bound in space-time, it still is bound by cause and effect and we are stuck with a set of infinite causes and no explination for rationality. Couple this with the other argument I put forward, and I start looking to Theism. Now, I understand the falsified thing. But the metaphysical principles science is based on cannot be falsified either. Science is based on metaphysics outside the laboratory and, to me, it becomes a search for what corresponds to what is out there. Yes there is a problem, because how do you know what corresponds to what is out there, unless you are the one out there over everything? But, I do think there are certain things that cannot be denied, rationality being one of them.

I would say the problem with jumping to theism by fear of an infinite causal loop is that you are being entirely arbitrary in postulating a being and putting at the start of the chain. In essence, not knowing and having the causal loop is a more rational choice than simply arbitrarily placing some supernatural force at the beginning without any justification other than "we don't currently know the answer." As for the assumptions upon which science is based; I'd say the justification for this lies in the findings of science. Science has been constructed such so that it takes evidences from the natural world and uses them to formulate theories about the natural world. The supernatural is left out because, while it may exist, there can be no evidence for it in the natural world. What problems exactly do you have with the assumptions that science makes then?

 

[Silenus]

I would say the problem with jumping to theism by fear of an infinite causal loop is that you are being entirely arbitrary in postulating a being and putting at the start of the chain. In essence, not knowing and having the causal loop is a more rational choice than simply arbitrarily placing some supernatural force at the beginning without any justification other than "we don't currently know the answer." As for the assumptions upon which science is based; I'd say the justification for this lies in the findings of science. Science has been constructed such so that it takes evidences from the natural world and uses them to formulate theories about the natural world. The supernatural is left out because, while it may exist, there can be no evidence for it in the natural world. What problems exactly do you have with the assumptions that science makes then?

I don't agree, a causal loop does not correspond to logic, but an unmoved mover who is eternal in the strict sense does. Also, the casual loop violates the other argument I made in my initial post and also leaves no room for the validity or the existence of the very reason we are using to make these deliberations.

My other point about science is induction itself is based on metaphysics outside of induction. Taken alone induction is a logical fallacy on the square of opposition. It requires I go from Some S is P to all s is p. Thus, all scientific observation is based in probability. But (and I don't think it is by accident that science proper i.e. the method of induction was developed in the western world under the Christian mindset) it works under the metaphysical principle that the universe is an ordered and rationally functioning (for lack of a better word) entity. Taking all these things together, I think it provides a good staring point for theistic exploration.

 

[Lucretius]

No one is positing a causal loop here though. We simply don't have the answers as to the earlier causes. It may be the case that under the extreme conditions present during the early seconds of our universe, that the Second Law is dwarfed by another process that acts to counteract what the Second Law achieves. The point is; our knowledge about this era of our universe is still in it's infancy. Coming to any sort of conclusions &#8212; especially ones positing the supernatural &#8212; are presumptuous.

Next you present the inductive fallacy. It is true that strictly speaking, one can never go from induction to deduction &#8212; and therefore all universal statements are never absolutely justified. However, if we are to throw out induction; what then do we have left? Induction has proven itself (I say that in a non-logically rigorous way!) to be very accurate in the world. I base that claim on the fact that right now I am using a computer built from understanding electricity. I live in a dorm powered by electricity, that has heating. I have a fridge, etc. All of this has been achieved through science. Notice how none of these require explanation through divine intervention. It is only because we do not know what went on during the earliest period of our universe that you seek to place God there.

The point is, despite the fact that we have certain physical laws that seem to prevent certain things from occuring at the early stages of our universe; the fact is that things get rather strange during this era. Hell, we don't even know how general relativity works during this time because quantum mechanics is suddenly on an equal footing &#8212; what makes you think we can come to any conclusion about entropy flow during such a time?

 

[Sojourner<><]

No one is positing a causal loop here though. We simply don't have the answers as to the earlier causes. It may be the case that under the extreme conditions present during the early seconds of our universe, that the Second Law is dwarfed by another process that acts to counteract what the Second Law achieves. The point is; our knowledge about this era of our universe is still in it's infancy. Coming to any sort of conclusions — especially ones positing the supernatural — are presumptuous.

Next you present the inductive fallacy. It is true that strictly speaking, one can never go from induction to deduction — and therefore all universal statements are never absolutely justified. However, if we are to throw out induction; what then do we have left? Induction has proven itself (I say that in a non-logically rigorous way!) to be very accurate in the world. I base that claim on the fact that right now I am using a computer built from understanding electricity. I live in a dorm powered by electricity, that has heating. I have a fridge, etc. All of this has been achieved through science. Notice how none of these require explanation through divine intervention. It is only because we do not know what went on during the earliest period of our universe that you seek to place God there.

The point is, despite the fact that we have certain physical laws that seem to prevent certain things from occuring at the early stages of our universe; the fact is that things get rather strange during this era. Hell, we don't even know how general relativity works during this time because quantum mechanics is suddenly on an equal footing — what makes you think we can come to any conclusion about entropy flow during such a time?

Nobody is asking for any sort of conclusion. If we don't have the answers, in order to find them don't we have to come up with some idea of what might be the answer? This is what the entire thread is about. What are your ideas?

 

[Silenus]

I'd put one of those smiley faced things here, but, to be honest with you, I hate them.

No one is positing a causal loop here though. We simply don't have the answers as to the earlier causes. It may be the case that under the extreme conditions present during the early seconds of our universe, that the Second Law is dwarfed by another process that acts to counteract what the Second Law achieves. The point is; our knowledge about this era of our universe is still in its infancy. Coming to any sort of conclusions — especially ones positing the supernatural — are presumptuous.

But, this is part of my point. Why is it okay to posit another force acting against an established law and multiply hypothesis that way, but not hypothesis supernaturally, especially considering my second argument and the fact that nature itself cannot account for the rationality we are using in this discussion. When I was considering these questions I found this only to be the tip of the ice berg. It seems supernatural hypothesis are superior to simply positing another force. In the end, you will end up posit forces ad nausium. So if we are going to hypothesis, why not consider all the hypothesis out there and not just ones that correspond to a closed system universe?

Next you present the inductive fallacy. It is true that strictly speaking, one can never go from induction to deduction — and therefore all universal statements are never absolutely justified. However, if we are to throw out induction; what then do we have left? Induction has proven itself (I say that in a non-logically rigorous way!) to be very accurate in the world. I base that claim on the fact that right now I am using a computer built from understanding electricity. I live in a dorm powered by electricity, that has heating. I have a fridge, etc. All of this has been achieved through science. Notice how none of these require explanation through divine intervention. It is only because we do not know what went on during the earliest period of our universe that you seek to place God there.

I completely agree with your statement here, but I don't agree with your conclusion. The things we have discovered don't need God to explain them, but if science works, then it is more than slightly probable that the metaphysical hypothesis science is based upon, the metaphysical principle that the universe is an ordered and rationally functioning (for lack of a better word) entity, is also true. Modern science was the invention of a Christian society operating under the above metaphysical premise.