Starspun

This topic has probably been covered and beaten with the dead horse that was beaten...

Tell me if this is inaccurate.

The universe could not have been created. I make this claim based on:

Law of Conservation of Energy...the total energy in the universe or a system can neither be created or destroyed but it can be converted from one form to another.

The universe is the sum of all energy and mass. According to Relativity, energy and mass are exchangeable. All matter consists of energy and/or mass, which, as we just learned, can not be created.
Energy converts. The Universe converts. Everything converts. We can still see and measure it's conversion today.

Sorry theists, but as the old saying goes, 'conversion happens.'

Writer@Large

Using simple logic doesn't work because ...

Goddidit. With God, all things are possible. God is not bound by the laws of this universe; in fact, he created them.

Goddidit.

Beleive me, if it were that easy to defeat, we wouldn't still be fighting to keep basic science in the classroom!

--W@L

Kevin Dorner

I think that as this topic relates more to physics than biology and its connection with evolution isn't obvious, I'll move it to Science & Skepticism.

Starspun

I knew it was to easy Writer@Large but I'm in an Occum's Razor frame of mind. When simple logic doesn't work, I don't think anything will. Oh well, it's still alot of fun.

Speaking of simple logic...


This statement deepens the proverbial lawn sausages. If God is able to accomplish anything, then it must be omni-everything. This is a false state of existence. One easy example of why is omnibenevolence. This statement is impossible due to a variety of things, such as pain and disease.
We can see that this particular God is fiction...or at least we should. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Without this omni-everything God (which has been proved false), energy creation is impossible. Therefore, creation is impossible.

=================================================
Here is another claim on why an omni-everything god is impossible. Help me plug the holes in this if possible.

If everything in existence is energy (in one state or another) then any God would consist of energy itself. There is nothing else it could consist of. Also, it would have to use energy in it's manipulations of energy.
God can not be anything other than energy or, could not manipulate energy without energy. For energy to exist, it's 'laws' would have to be in place. It therefore could not exist without:

**drumroll**

Law of Conservation of Energy...the total energy in the universe or a system can neither be created or destroyed but it can be converted from one form to another.

Therefore, creation is impossible.

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Starspun ]

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Starspun ]</p>

Starspun

You are right Kevin. This belongs in S&S. Although not obvious, there is a connection between energy and evolution/creation. It's this connection that gives Abiogenesis such a solid foundation.
Abiogenesis is basically describing a conversion of energy. Life was converted, not created. This energy conversion, although not yet understood, is possible. Energy creation is impossible.

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Starspun ]</p>

acronos

We are already finding small violations to the law of the conservation of energy at the atomic level. Such laws only make sense in the context that they were intended. It doesn't make much sense to discuss the meaning of the conservation of energy before energy, time, and matter existed. I don't think your argument is very convincing to me, and I am an atheist.

Starspun

Sure it does.
You can't have all three (which are one) without it's rule(s) of existence.

But, if the rules don't apply on the quantum scale, then my razor has been dulled.

EDIT: Acronos, can you provide a link to your quantum info? Or recommend a particular book or video?

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Starspun ]</p>

acronos

I made a mistake. I had several facts wrong. Here is a reference to what I was not remembering correctly.

<a href="http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Briefs/SecondLaw.html" target="_blank">Law of entropy not conservation</a>

I must be being dense again because I do not see how you have to have the law of conservation of energy before you have energy. I would think that in a universe without energy there could be no law of the conservation of energy constraining it.

Another thought is if you have two universes then you can transfer energy from one to the other. Viewing only one universe at a time it would seem that the law was violated. One universe could be "created" out of another.

I still think that whatever structure energy is made from would not have to necessarily follow the laws of energy.

Liquidrage

That there is something and not nothing is evidence that at some point some law that we hold dear to was broken.
Or, more to the point, an as of yet unknown law gives way to a system with the laws we observe. This however does indicate that there was a period without these laws.

A law fits the evidence.
We don't need to fit the evidence into a law.

Starboy

Hi Starspun,

Do not get me wrong. I am an a-theist and glad of it. As such I consider religion irrelevant. I would sooner spend my time and energy arguing for or against god as I would argue for or against Santa Claus. What has prompted me to respond to your post is something that I have seen often, arguments against god using the properties and motives of god. Perhaps you could explain to me how the properties and motives of god could be known well enough by anyone to be used in any argument pertaining to the existence/non-existence of god. It seems to me that such arguments are specious.

Please do not interpret this post as an attack. I am curious about your thoughts on this matter.

Starboy