Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It means that SOMETHING caused it to exist because it couldn't have gotten here by natural means. I've repeatedly told you and others here that the Cosmological argument does not make a case for the Biblical God. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the "Kalaam Cosmological Argument" was developed by a Muslim.
It's still wrong.
It's not an argument. It's an assumption based on an assumption.
It means that SOMETHING caused it to exist because it couldn't have gotten here by natural means. I've repeatedly told you and others here that the Cosmological argument does not make a case for the Biblical God. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the "Kalaam Cosmological Argument" was developed by a Muslim.
IF there needs to be SOMETHING (and that's a big if), why couldn't that "something" be natural? Why would that "something" have to be supernatural? I don't understand. There's no reason to infer conscious agency.
IF there needs to be SOMETHING (and that's a big if), why couldn't that "something" be natural? Why would that "something" have to be supernatural? I don't understand. There's no reason to infer conscious agency.
You really ought to learn the entire argument. Have you heard of something called necessary and sufficient cause?
I encourage you to put aside your anti-carm bias for the 2 minutes it takes to read this explanation. The logic is sound on it. If you can explain how it is wrong, I'm willing to listen.
Yet, you're perfectly willing to believe in the magic of random chance.
You don't know how it got here, but you're completely UNWILLING to consider the possibility that there is a Creator.
Nice try, Pastor.
I'm not unwilling to accept that possibility. In fact, until recently, I was leaning in that direction. I just don't see any convincing evidence that it was so.
And it's a no-brainer to cross off the bible god from any such consideration. It is entirely too petty and stupid to be the architect of such breathtaking grandeur.
You really ought to learn the entire argument. Have you heard of something called necessary and sufficient cause?
I encourage you to put aside your anti-carm bias for the 2 minutes it takes to read this explanation. The logic is sound on it. If you can explain how it is wrong, I'm willing to listen.
I'm not completely sure what he is trying to argue. It sounds like he is saying that a universe of finite age could not have been caused by an impersonal creator...because an impersonal creator would have been "necessary and sufficient" to create the universe an infinite amount of time ago.
I'm not completely sure what he is trying to argue. It sounds like he is saying that a universe of finite age could not have been caused by an impersonal creator...because an impersonal creator would have been "necessary and sufficient" to create the universe an infinite amount of time ago.
You've got the gist of it. If the universe was caused by something other than a personal being choosing to created it, it would have happened the moment the necessary conditions existed for it to pop, or spring, or whatever you want to call it, into existence. It needed a trigger to set it off. But if that happened, then it would have been dones the moment those things existed and the universe would be eternally old and it would have been run down to nothingness by now by virtue of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. But we know that didn't happen, because entropy has not taken its full effect on the universe.
But if that happened, then it would have been dones the moment those things existed and the universe would be eternally old and it would have been run down to nothingness by now by virtue of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. But we know that didn't happen, because entropy has not taken its full effect on the universe.
This is not correct. I remember hearing Sean Carroll explain this. Essentially, there is plenty of working models for an infinite universe and in Sean Carroll's model, there's a lowest point of entropy at some point in time and entropy increases in both directions from there.
Like this:
I'm not a physicist, so you'll have to do your own research.
This is not correct. I remember hearing Sean Carroll explain this. Essentially, there is plenty of working models for an infinite universe and in Sean Carroll's model, there's a lowest point of entropy at some point in time and entropy increases in both directions from there.
Like this:
I'm not a physicist, so you'll have to do your own research.
I honestly am not familiar with that argument. I am open-minded enough that I will not outright reject it, but I will admit to being skeptical. It sounds like an attempt to explain it because the author didn't want to accept the other argument.
Ok...so there are different theories of how the universe began and when it began. Yay...doesn't change the fact that from what I've seen it's almost universal that it had a beginning.
No. Not the same way. "Eternal" means that it is not just a big number...but that it can't be measured and is impossible to cross.
According to this link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...thermodynamics , it suggests that entropy in regards to the universe would mean that the usable energy in the universe would simply disperse given enough time. If that was the case, the order in the universe that we see now would have been gone--as it has had an eternity to do so.
Okay, I see what you are saying. But please don't get entropy and the second law of thermodynamics confused. They are linked but they are distinct from one another.
Entropy is measurement of change or state of order or disorder in a system.
You are correct in that entropy, when put together with the second law of thermodynamics - we are dealing with increased entropy and the irreversability of natural processes. So yes I see what you are saying in that, if the universe was eternal (ie much longer that 13 billion years old, wouldn't we now be in a state of total disorder?)
However, clearly natural processes are not always tending towards a more disordered state. Think about most living processes. Think about crystals growing or planets forming. In these cases the entropy is decreasing. I had a chat about this same thing with Mystic recently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
I'm not sure what you mean by 'the original chaos of the Big Bang' in this instance.
Entropy, together with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that early universe was highly ordered. It was filled with a nearly uniform hot gas.
According to the Big Bang theory, at the point of initial expansion, all the energy in the universe was concentrated in a state of very low entropy — an almost completely ordered state.
The overall entropy of the universe since then has always been increasing (moving from an ordered to increasingly disordered state).
The confusion here I think, - is how is it that the entropy of some systems appear to decrease with time - evolution for example or the formation of planets?
Well, this is not a contradiction because in thermodynamic systems that are not closed, entropy can decrease with time: some systems reduce local entropy, but at the expense of an larger environmental increase. ie, From a universe wide perspective, there is always an overall resulting net increase in entropy.
That's the theory anyway. I'm not saying it's a theory I necessarily hold to.
Your perspective on whether you see order or disorder in the universe depends on whether you are looking at it as an open or closed system.
In answer to your question about 'what intervened' and produced order (I assume you are talking about formations of planets etc) - the answer is gravity.
As I said to Mystic, an overall increase of entropy is not something I necessarily hold to.
One of the reasons for that is because the First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it is merely transformed from one form to another; the total quantity of energy in the universe stays the same.
Also bear in mind that the theory of the Big Bang is only the current prevailing theory. In the cyclic cosmology model I gave you, this does not preclude the idea that the universe was once much smaller in the past, only that the universe iterates through cycles.
My own view is that we don't enough information yet to have a definitive answer. I think Penroses idea is a better one though it also probably still isn't the definitive one.
Now Vizio, I'd appreciate if you would answer my question... how old do you think the universe is?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
