Probability and Creation

[KWCrazy]

A good point. But what does it have to do with what men in 1,000 BC were writing in a book?

If there is a Creator, likely He would have some interest in His creation. In the Scriptures we see interaction since the first man. Jesus performed miracles, never sinned and returned from the dead. Who else but the son of God could do that? Jesus affirmed the accuracy of the Scriptures and quoted from them. The New Testament, written only a couple of thousand years ago, references the early chapters of Genesis over 200 times. What is most remarkable about the Scriptures is how they have been preserved nearly verbatim for as long as they have. We would expect that from the word of God, but not from the musings of bronze aged shepherds.

To prove the Bible is right about Creation is impossible.

It is equally impossible to prove it wrong.

You're now arguing that billions of years ago, the Universe was created and because it's not known yet. It has to be a creator.

No, I'm saying that a few THOUSAND years ago God created a physical world by speaking it into existence. If we learn anything from science we learn that the universe could not have created itself.

 

[quatona]

We aren't discussing the supernatural here, we're discussing the physical universe. Nobody claims that God shares the same physical qualities. By definition God is eternal where nothing in the physical word is eternal. All things physical have a beginning and an end, and are thus transient.

You were the one who started making statements about the relationship between the universe and the allegedly supernatural. I addressed them. You are, of course, free to ignore the points.

On another note, we do not observe physical things having a beginning and an end. I have no idea how you managed to make that a general rule. We observe permanent change of that which is physical, that´s all.
And, of course, even less we can claim that the universe (as the system in which physical objects exist) needs to be subject to the rules observed within this system (if they were observable within the universe - which they even aren´t).
So you have a lot of work left to do in order to establish your premises as valid.

 

[quatona]

No, I'm saying that a few THOUSAND years ago God created a physical world by speaking it into existence. If we learn anything from science we learn that the universe could not have created itself.

No, we don´t. If we learn anything from science it is that physical stuff can´t be spoken into existence.
The claim that the universe created itself isn´t any more exceptional than the claim that it was spoken into existence. Both aren´t explanations. Both are unsubstantiated wild guesses.

 

[KWCrazy]

You were the one who started making statements about the relationship between the universe and the allegedly supernatural. I addressed them. You are, of course, free to ignore the points.

Please show me the laws of supernatural entities.
If science is the study of the physical world, demonstrate how it could possibly comment on the supernatural.
Since a supernatural entity doesn't have physical weight, occupy limited physical space or exist in a physical state, how could it be considered observable by science?

On another note, we do not observe physical things having a beginning and an end. I have no idea how you managed to make that a general rule.

You mean the Laws of Thermodynamics? I made them up and I DEMAND royalties every time they are mentioned.

And, of course, even less we can claim that the universe (as the system in which physical objects exist) needs to be subject to the rules observed within this system (if they were observable within the universe - which they even aren´t).

Please show for me those things in the universe which are exempt from natural law. They would have to be supernatural in origin, meaning they cannot be observed and studied by natural methods. The universe is comprised of things which exist in the physical world and as such are subject to physical laws. My premise is established.

 

[KWCrazy]

No, we don´t. If we learn anything from science it is that physical stuff can´t be spoken into existence.

Not in the natural world, but nobody is claiming the creation to be a natural event.

The claim that the universe created itself isn't any more exceptional than the claim that it was spoken into existence.

They both violate the laws of nature. The difference is only one creation; natural creation; is subject to the laws of nature. God could speak another world into existence tomorrow.

 

[paulm50]

We know that matter is not eternal because it is a constant stated of decay (increasing entropy); and yes, the universe is a closed system. We know that if the universe is not eternal that it will have an end. If it has an end, it had to have a beginning. Before the beginning it could not exist. Therefore, before the beginning of anything there was nothing.

How do we know these things. More importantly how did the men who wrote the bible as a political act, have the right answers?

This argument is getting silly. Both sides are arguing that in the beginning of the known universe (big bang) there was nothing. No one knows where the real beginning was. What we are learning more and more now is what happened after the big bang.

What we know a lot about is life on Earth in the last 100,000 years, and it's not what the bible teaches. That evolution is hit and miss, survival and adaptation of the best, nature can take many twists and turns, and Homo Sapiens are proof of that with all the failed human like species that didn't make it. Or were part of the process to get us here.

 

[quatona]

Please show me the laws of supernatural entities.
If science is the study of the physical world, demonstrate how it could possibly comment on the supernatural.
Since a supernatural entity doesn't have physical weight, occupy limited physical space or exist in a physical state, how could it be considered observable by science?

You have to make up your mind, Sir. Either you are positing that the coming into existence of a universe follows physical laws, or you don´t. Currently, you are switching between both claims as it suits your idea.

Please show for me those things in the universe which are exempt from natural law. They would have to be supernatural in origin, meaning they cannot be observed and studied by natural methods. The universe is comprised of things which exist in the physical world and as such are subject to physical laws. My premise is established.

I didn´t say that there were thing in the universe which are exempt from natural laws. I said that a system (here: the universe) doesn´t necessarily follow the laws observed within the system.
Since your idea is based on the idea that the universe is excempt from the pnysical laws observed within it (i.e. our physical laws demand a physical cause for physical events, not a supernatural "breath"), you are sitting in a glass house when trying to discredit another idea of the origin of the universe with reference to physical laws.

 

[quatona]

Not in the natural world, but nobody is claiming the creation to be a natural event.

Cool. So if the universe doesn´t need a natural cause, there´s nothing absurd about the idea that it created itself.

They both violate the laws of nature. The difference is only one creation; natural creation; is subject to the laws of nature.

Mind producing matter isn´t natural creation and - as you correctly emphasize when it suits you - not covered by the laws of nature.

 

[Eudaimonist]

See earlier post. All non-eternal things have a beginning and an end. Before the beginning of anything in our physical world, there was nothing.

That is not what science says, and it is not a logical requirement of reasoning about time.

Third Law of Thermodynamics. The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system at absolute zero is a well-defined constant. This is because a system at zero temperature exists in its ground state, so that its entropy is determined only by the degeneracy of the ground state.

Your quote does not support your claim.

Intelligent people know better.
Subatomic particles too small for a constant gravitational attraction bond and unbond at the quantum level, making them alternatively detectable and undetectable. That doesn't mean they pop in and out of existence. They are always there, just undetectable.

That is not what I have read. It is certainly possible that I have missed an article somewhere. What is your source?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KWCrazy]

How do we know these things. More importantly how did the men who wrote the bible as a political act, have the right answers?

Please validate the assertion bolded. In fact, the early Christians were often tortured and murdered rather than recant any of their testimony. As for Moses writing the Torah, we saw that the reaction of the Israelites was less than popular. I've NEVER seen ANYONE call it a political act before.

This argument is getting silly. Both sides are arguing that in the beginning of the known universe (big bang) there was nothing. No one knows where the real beginning was.

The nature of physical objects is well known to us. Because we understand that nature we get to the paradox of origination; there is no natural origination possible without violating the immutable laws of science, and yet we exist. The source had to come from an external source not constrained by the physical laws of the universe.

What we know a lot about is life on Earth in the last 100,000 years, and it's not what the bible teaches.

Most date civilization to 10,000 years. The further back you go, the more you have to rely on speculation. The age of the earth is not provable because the process of its origination is not provable. The same holds true for the origination of life.

 

[KWCrazy]

You have to make up your mind, Sir. Either you are positing that the coming into existence of a universe follows physical laws, or you don´t. Currently, you are switching between both claims as it suits your idea.

Incorrect. I've always said that origination was impossible. The difference is that God can do the impossible by definition, and without some supernatural interference the impossible could never happen.

I didn´t say that there were thing in the universe which are exempt from natural laws. I said that a system (here: the universe) doesn´t necessarily follow the laws observed within the system.

Evidence, please?
Natural laws aren't speed limits to be obeyed or ignored, they are part of the characteristics of physical things. That which does not conform to natural law does not exist in the natural world. Angels and demons do not exist in the natural world. Their existence is supernatural. The difference is that in our universe the supernatural is as much a part as the natural, but it can't be readily observed and falsified.

Since your idea is based on the idea that the universe is excempt from the pnysical laws observed within it

No, quite the opposite. The physical universe is 100% bound by physical laws. The creation of the universe was simply not a natural event. It followed no natural laws because it was supernatural in origin.

Energy can be converted into matter and vice versa, right? God's energy could easily create the universe out of nothing. God, being eternal, need have no source of energy. Thus you have a supernatural creation which supersedes natural law and establishes natural law at the same time.

 

[KWCrazy]

That is not what science says, and it is not a logical requirement of reasoning about time.

It isn't? You mean science proposes the eternity of matter? Please share with me the madman who asserts this so his superiors can be informed. REAL science contents that the entropy of the universe will continue until the totality of it is one more or less uniform broth of useless energy. All the stars will burn out and all the planets will decay. Everything will have an end, and thus everything had a beginning.

Your quote does not support your claim.

It sure do. If entropy is a determined by degeneration to the ground state and absolute zero is at the ground state, then nothing happens. There can be no heat transfer if there is no heat. There can be no heat if there is nothing to generate heat. Where no energy exists no energy will arise.

By the way. Absolute zero; the total absence of everything; requires a perfect void such as only existed in our universe when it was defined by the Creator.

That is not what I have read. It is certainly possible that I have missed an article somewhere. What is your source?

That actually goes back to a long running debate I had regarding quantum physics. There were multiple sources involved; dozens in fact. The long and the short of it is this. Subatomic particles are so small they can only be seen via an electron microscope. Imagine if you will water vapor. Until it collects with other molecules and forms a raindrop you can't see it. The particles are much the same; coupling and uncoupling; appearing one second and gone the next because they are too small to be affected by gravity. All of this is interesting, but not really relevant. Quantum physics pretends that such behavior could have happened to the universe; that it could have popped into existence by a pooling of energy particles that gathered gravitational attraction as they pooled and thus created the singularity which would become the big bang. The problem is that atoms and molecules don't bond and unbond like subatomic particles because they ARE subject to gravitational attraction. So quantum mechanics as a causation for the origination of the universe falls short.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It isn't? You mean science proposes the eternity of matter?

I don't see how you are getting that out of what I had written.

REAL science contents that the entropy of the universe will continue until the totality of it is one more or less uniform broth of useless energy.

Actually, REAL science hasn't settled on one precise future prediction.

If entropy is a determined by degeneration to the ground state and absolute zero is at the ground state, then nothing happens.

False. There might not be the motion associated with temperature, but that doesn't mean that nothing will happen.

By the way. Absolute zero; the total absence of everything

Absolute zero isn't defined at the total absence of everything. It is a temperature. If you can't even get that right, your credibility in this discussion is in peril.

There were multiple sources involved; dozens in fact.

Great! Give at least one so I can tell if you are giving me crackpot physics or established physics. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take your word for this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KWCrazy]

Give at least one so I can tell if you are giving me crackpot physics or established physics.

They never disappear... they may change into other particle or particles, but they don't disappear. Energy and momentum needs to be conserved at every point in space-time (along with electric charge, angular momentum and color).

Many times that particles disappear is because we can't detect them. For instance, here is a classic bubble chamber picture of an antiproton annihilating with a proton producing a Lambda and anti-Lambda pair of baryons. The Lambda baryons are neutron and can't be seen in the bubble chamber and "disappear"

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

 

[KWCrazy]

Absolute zero isn't defined at the total absence of everything. It is a temperature. If you can't even get that right, your credibility in this discussion is in peril.

Correct, it is a temperature that than only be achieved in the absence of anything capable of retaining or producing heat. In the context of the universe, that would mean no stars or planets because planets have a molten core. Could you achieve absolute zero with a "dead" rock or moon? Possible, but what would be the origin? How would you bleed off all stored heat? In our context, absolute zero would be the absence of anything or it could not exist.

 

[Eudaimonist]

disappear

Did you read the comments section? This is not a mainstream idea in physics. I'm pretty sure the following is the more widely accepted idea.

http://www.louisdelmonte.com/virtual-particles-something-from-nothing-part-23/

However, I'm not stressing this point too much. This deals with virtual particles appearing in a vacuum, not in a "philosophical nothingness".

Correct, it is a temperature that than only be achieved in the absence of anything capable of retaining or producing heat.

And in the presence of something that doesn't retain or produce any heat.

In the context of the universe, that would mean no stars or planets because planets have a molten core.

I'm not certain that it is possible for any entity that can have a positive temperature (in Kelvin) to reach an exact absolute zero. However, if this is impossible, it is meaningless to describe "nothing" as having a temperature of absolute zero.

In our context, absolute zero would be the absence of anything or it could not exist.

Not in my context. In my context, absolute zero is either impossible, in which case no entities are at a temperature of absolute zero, or it is possible, and some entities may exist at a temperature of absolute zero.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see people keep making the same mistake of claiming that the universe creating itself from nothing violates the laws of nature. This is not true. Scientists have measured the total energy of the universe and as close as they can measure it the total energy of the universe is zero.

This includes all positive energy such as matter, dark matter, and dark energy, and all negative energy, specifically gravitational potential energy. It violated no laws of physics if our universe popped into existence from nothing. Freaky, but true.

 

[paulm50]

If there is a Creator, likely He would have some interest in His creation. In the Scriptures we see interaction since the first man. Jesus performed miracles, never sinned and returned from the dead. Who else but the son of God could do that? Jesus affirmed the accuracy of the Scriptures and quoted from them. The New Testament, written only a couple of thousand years ago, references the early chapters of Genesis over 200 times. What is most remarkable about the Scriptures is how they have been preserved nearly verbatim for as long as they have. We would expect that from the word of God, but not from the musings of bronze aged shepherds.

They weren't musings, they were political documents t control people. Then some passed into law. As for the bible being passed down word for word. Not true as some of the interpretations are being corrected. some of the writings have been altered and many gospels left out.

Jesus never affirmed anything. People who wrote about Jesus said he did.

It is equally impossible to prove it wrong.

The Old Testament is constantly being proved to be wrong.

Jesus has been proved to be wrong.

Jesus’ Own Words PROVE Bible Is Wrong

Or as Christians claim was it the writer making it up?

No, I'm saying that a few THOUSAND years ago God created a physical world by speaking it into existence. If we learn anything from science we learn that the universe could not have created itself.

The Big Bang created the Universe. The evidence the Earth is billions of years ls so immense that to say otherwise is futile. To claim that any thing with intelligence created the Earth and species as you claim is insanity. The evidence proves evolution is very hit and miss, that creatures evolved, lived millions of years, longer than Man, died out and other animals took the opportunity and developed.

The Tree of life proves the bible is wrong, science has proved some bible stories to be the muses of Bronze Age and Stone Age Man. Trying to explain nature as an act of god.

Warehouses of extinct animal remains prove evolution. The writings of 1,000 BC, are not scientific eveidence.

 

[KWCrazy]

The Old Testament is constantly being proved to be wrong.
Jesus has been proved to be wrong.
Jesus’ Own Words PROVE Bible Is Wrong

Or maybe it's just you. Your OPINIONS seem to be routed in some strange concept that the physical world is all that is and that somehow everything that exists created itself. So let's examine the REAL core of your argument.
1. Do you believe angels exist?
2. Do you believe demons exist?
3. Would you believe either exist if you saw them?
4. Why do you think the early writers of the Gospel chose to be tortured and killed rather than to recant what they were teaching? What did it profit them?
5. Since nearly every major culture references an involved deity, what makes you so sure that you're right and most of the world is wrong?

 

[paulm50]

Or maybe it's just you. Your OPINIONS seem to be routed in some strange concept that the physical world is all that is and that somehow everything that exists created itself. So let's examine the REAL core of your argument.
1. Do you believe angels exist?
2. Do you believe demons exist?
3. Would you believe either exist if you saw them?
4. Why do you think the early writers of the Gospel chose to be tortured and killed rather than to recant what they were teaching? What did it profit them?
5. Since nearly every major culture references an involved deity, what makes you so sure that you're right and most of the world is wrong?

1. No
2. No
3. Yes.
4. Because they believed in an after life. Like the Branch Davidians who believed David Koresh and the Heavens Gate followers who believed Applewhite, and the members of IS who are at this moment are killing fellow Muslims.

5. The overwhelming evidence that a powerful speaker can convince some people.

So what makes you so sure you're interpretation of the bible and your sect of Christianity is right and the rest are wrong?

My references to Jesus's quotes in the Bible being wrong, aren't my opinion. There from the bible, something you claim to be the word of god and I claim to be a book written by men.

There was no great flood in the time , Adam and Eve is fiction,

1. Cain and Abel were married, where did the wives come from?
2. Abel met other people on his travels so when Did god create them?
3. Why is there so much evidence Man is the only success story after the Human/Ape family?
4. Were the others, the failures, god experimenting?