Ask an atheist—but don't expect any straight answers!

[Guest]

Scientific Proof of Supernatural Creation

Preamble:

What this proof does is to prove logically the existence of supernatural creation of the Universe.

What this proof does not do is to prove the existence of God as conceived by some religion such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. It does not prove that this creator is personal, not does it prove that there is only one creator. Nor are any of the characteristics of any creator indicated.

Premises:

The efficacy of this proof depends upon the following three premises:

1. The Universe is finite. (Note: "Universe" means the total of all matter and energy that exists.)

2. The first law of thermodynamics holds, i.e. , within a closed system, matter (and its equivalent, energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.

3. The second law of thermodynamics holds, i.e., the total energy
within a closed system is continuously decreasing in its level of
availability. (Or in layman's terms, the system is "running down").


Notes on the premises:

1. The first premise is generally accepted within the scientific community. In fact, a finite Universe is implied by the widely accepted "big bang" theory. This theory states that all matter and energy existed within a very small volume of space, smaller than a molecule of water, and since that time has been expanding, resulting in the Universe as we know it. If the "big bang" theory is true, then the total quantity of matter and energy must be finite.

2. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are considered to
be the most widely accepted generalizations known to science.

The Proof:

1. Since the Universe is finite, it is itself a closed system. Thus the first and second laws of thermodynamics apply to it.

2. Either the Universe always existed, or else it came into being (either instantaneously or over a period of time), or it is still coming into being.

3. The idea of the Universe always existing contradicts the third premise. For an infinite amount of time would have passed, plenty for the whole Universe to have "run down". Thus the Universe did not always exist, but had a beginning.

4. If the Universe (total of all matter and energy) had a beginning, then its matter and energy couldn't have come into being within itself. For this would contradict premise 2 (that within a closed sytem, matter and energy can be neither created not destoyed). The same applies if the Universe is still coming into being.

Conclusion:

Since the Universe had a beginning, and its matter and energy could not have arisen within itself, then it must have come into it from outside itself, from outside nature itself. That which is outside nature is the Supernatural. Thus the production of matter and energy within the Universe had a Supernatural Source.

[Guest]

Thank you Paidion Glow

[Guest]

The efficacy of this proof depends upon the following three premises:

1. The Universe is finite. (Note: "Universe" means the total of all matter and energy that exists.)

False premise.

2. The first law of thermodynamics holds, i.e. , within a closed system, matter (and its equivalent, energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.

It also states that the total amount of energy within a closed system remains constant.

3. The second law of thermodynamics holds, i.e., the total energy
within a closed system is continuously decreasing in its level of
availability. (Or in layman's terms, the system is "running down").

No it doesn't.

1. The first premise is generally accepted within the scientific community. In fact, a finite Universe is implied by the widely accepted "big bang" theory. This theory states that all matter and energy existed within a very small volume of space, smaller than a molecule of water, and since that time has been expanding, resulting in the Universe as we know it. If the "big bang" theory is true, then the total quantity of matter and energy must be finite.

Uh, it says nothing of the sort. The Big Bang only posits the expansion of the universe from t= 10^-43 seconds.

2. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are considered to
be the most widely accepted generalizations known to science.

And it has also been shown within a number of theoretical scientific standpoints that energy can be created and destroyed, and that the second law can be violated since it only applies to macroscopic systems.

1. Since the Universe is finite, it is itself a closed system. Thus the first and second laws of thermodynamics apply to it.

2. Either the Universe always existed, or else it came into being (either instantaneously or over a period of time), or it is still coming into being.

3. The idea of the Universe always existing contradicts the third premise. For an infinite amount of time would have passed, plenty for the whole Universe to have "run down". Thus the Universe did not always exist, but had a beginning.

4. If the Universe (total of all matter and energy) had a beginning, then its matter and energy couldn't have come into being within itself. For this would contradict premise 2 (that within a closed sytem, matter and energy can be neither created not destoyed). The same applies if the Universe is still coming into being.

Conclusion:

Since the Universe had a beginning, and its matter and energy could not have arisen within itself, then it must have come into it from outside itself, from outside nature itself. That which is outside nature is the Supernatural. Thus the production of matter and energy within the Universe had a Supernatural Source.

[/quote]

You contradicted yourself. If there is a supernatural source for the universe that is supplying it with energy then it isn't a closed system. If it is a closed system, then a supernatural energy cannot be supplied.

[Guest]

Hey, you guys, I just made a new and fantastic discovery. Asimov is a god - he is not The God - but he is so darn close it is scary.

[Guest]

Asimov,

Hmmm, how about the universe does not have a cause and began to exist?

Can you provide any proof for that view?

I was thinking, can you prove that you or I even exist?

Would you agree that life has no meaning?

Regarding your answer to an earlier post of mine, please elaborate on why not?

-me [2]Likewise, if I believe there is no God, but people say that they have met Him, might I be missing something?

-you said 2. Uh, no, why would you think that?

Tx
Les

[Guest]

Hi Les,

Can you provide any proof for that view?

Nope.

I was thinking, can you prove that you or I even exist?

100%? Nope. I can provide reasons for justifying my belief that you exist and that I exist.[/quote]

Would you agree that life has no meaning?

No.

Regarding your answer to an earlier post of mine, please elaborate on why not?

-me [2]Likewise, if I believe there is no God, but people say that they have met Him, might I be missing something?

-you said 2. Uh, no, why would you think that?

Because they are unable to show him or present him in any fashion.

[Guest]

Hey, you guys, I just made a new and fantastic discovery. Asimov is a god - he is not The God - but he is so darn close it is scary.

[Guest]

Asimov,

You said:

I don't actively "seek" anything but the verification of claims, and therefore the truth. Since your belief has not been objectively verified, I cannot accept what you say.

So you only believe that which has been "objectively verified". How? Do you believe based on testimony? Things you have read written by people you find credible, that say that which fits your paradigm? Or do you believe only what you have personally verified to be true?

I base my faith on testimony, testimony of those I find credible. Much of your life is based on "testimony" of others, whether you admit it or not. Example: would you drink anti-freeze? Why not? They say it tastes good. Have you verified whether it tastes good or is poisonous, or do you believe the "testimony" of others? You say "why would I taste it?". What about your pets if you have any? Would you leave some where they could get to it? We all, obviously, believe many things we are told through numerous means that have not been objectively proven to us.

You believe what you choose to believe. You do not believe in God because you don't want to, its that simple. You can not objectively prove God does or does not exist, that's why it is called "faith", and much of your life is based on faith, admitted or not.

[Guest]

So you only believe that which has been "objectively verified". How? Do you believe based on testimony? Things you have read written by people you find credible, that say that which fits your paradigm? Or do you believe only what you have personally verified to be true?

I find it annoying that you largely interchange religious testimony with other forms of testimony.

If you're going to use a term, define it explicitly.

You believe what you choose to believe. You do not believe in God because you don't want to, its that simple. You can not objectively prove God does or does not exist, that's why it is called "faith", and much of your life is based on faith, admitted or not.

No, it really isn't. I also find it annoying that you tell me exactly how I live my life and make gross assumptions on what I choose to believe and why.

[Guest]

Asimov,

You said:

If you're going to use a term, define it explicitly

Can we expect you will define all your terms explicitly?

Testimony: a firsthand authentication of a fact. Fact: that which has been done. Facts are always true but all truth is not a fact.

You said:

I find it annoying that you largely interchange religious testimony with other forms of testimony.

Why so? Facts are facts; testimony is testimony. Do you think scientific testimony is any more reliable? Surely you are aware of much of the fabricated evidence for evolution. Have you read the book "Icons of Evolution"?

I have a couple questions which, if you would answer, would enlighten us:

1. Do you have any fear of death?

2. What do you hope to accomplish by posting here?