Absurdity of the universe without a creator

[EarthScienceguy]

How is the universe not absurd (or possible) without a creator in light of the following?

1. The universe without a creator breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

The question that needs to be answered: Where did all of the energy come from? I am using space and energy as synonymous terms because energy comes from space.

2. The universe without a creator breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

The question that needs to be answered is: Why we are individuals and not a Boltzmann brain?

3. The universe without a creator breaks all laws of probability.

The question that needs to be answered is: Why do the constants of nature have the values that they do? Or why do we have laws of nature?

There are more but we will stop at three.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes and I never quoted scripture as evidence of a scientific claim, I totally support that forum rule here.

I have not for example argued "We did not evolve because the Bible says God created Adam and Eve".

I said all along that the universe is evidence for God. I have never used scripture as the basis for a claim about the natural world, I have referred to it after the fact, I may have drawn attention to verses that I think mirror or are consistent with some scientific fact or hypothesis.

If the rule was that one cannot quote scripture then I'd be fine with that too, so far as this theme goes about explaining the presence of the universe, the Bible is largely incidental.

The Bible indicates that it is 2.

Seems to me that you're relying on the Bible there, even if you're not quoting from it directly.

Yes, I do use the Bible often for a host of purposes, it is a book, I have a great many books.

However I do not use the Bible to attempt to prove some claim about the natural world, I may sometimes point out that the Bible agrees with some claims about the natural world, but that's not using it as part of a scientific argument.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The natural cannot explain why there is a natural, this is why it is rational to infer the supernatural, it is the only rational way to frame an explanation unless you prefer that reality is inherently, ultimately inexplicable which you are free to do.

Given the limited intelligence that human beings possess it is logical to conclude that there are going to be aspects of reality that will remain ultimately inexplicable.

Yes, that seems reasonable to me.

Creating a domain called the supernatural is just a means of collecting the unknown and allowing people to invent answers to questions that have no support based in reality.

There's some truth to that but it's really not quite what you say.

Yes it is a collective term for a domain, but as for "no support based in reality" that's quite untrue, really it is, you should look into that part more.

God is just such an invented answer. When you invent a being and give it the ultimate attribute of being able to do anything, you automatically answer every imaginable question while actually explaining nothing.

God is an inference, a rational thing to infer from what we observe, that's what I and many people think.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #145]

No I'm not, that is what I've been proposing all along!, a non-material agency - Y is God.

And hence the problem. I think you are in the wrong section of the forum if this is your argument, unless you can somehow show that Y (a god) actually exists and is not just one of the thousands of such entities humans have invented over the millennia that all have the same ability to hide from our discovery.

No, I'm in precisely the part of the forum that I intended to be in. The existence of the universe does show that God exists so what are you complaining about?

I mean by "material" anything that has physical properties, measurable physical properties, this includes anything we'd deem to have mass or energy including particles, waves and fields these are all "material" things.

Is consciousness material? What about spirit, will, mind? These can't be measured with any scientific equipment, but they are also not "nothing" as you seem to be defining nothing (ie. the complete absence of virtually anything of any kind). I happen to believe that consciousness is nothing more than an emergent property of a working brain, but there are others on this forum who argue strongly against that and some I think would claim it is a material thing in and of itself.

I don't know about consciousness being material or to what extent is needs material, all I could do is speculate.

As for God's mind, God's will (aka "spirit") that is not material, it is not deterministic, it is able to create material, determinism.

But that isn't what I said. I said that you cannot explain the existence of material by reference to material, if you need to assume that something with physical properties has to exist already as part of your explanation then you cannot have an explanation.

I don't think anyone is making that assumption but you, based on your own definitions of "nothing" and "material." We don't know the mechanism of how our present universe came into existence, or if there was something before it appeared, or many things before it appeared. That is the whole point ... we don't know the answer yet and despite that fact you argue that you can claim that a god created it by defining virtually anything known to physics as a material thing whether made of matter, or not, and then arguing that it is impossible for the universe to have arisen via natural means because in your view it simply could not have happened that way. This incredulity leads you to default to a creator god as an explanation. There just isn't enough information to rule out a scientific, natural solution, and a creator god solution has far less basis.

Postulating some "prior universe" is fine, that may be the case for all I know but that doesn't help you, because there has to always be a prior universe in order to explain the subsequent universe, unless you claim there was an infinity of prior universes, if you don't claim that then what is the origin of the "first" universe? the one that had no prior universe? It cannot be material if there was no prior universe.

I did not define materialism, this is what it means and always has, besides I have called it out several times, I have tried to be clear and explicit.

The word in question is material, not materialism, and material usually means something made of matter.

Not the way I'm using it here, so lets use "physical" instead, everywhere I said "material" just replace it with "physical" and you'll be fine. If you agree that matter, fields, energy, waves are physical things that have a physical existence, you'll be fine.

Nobody is working on this open problem! There is no scientific solution because science cannot explain science, we can't explain using laws why laws exist at all. It is logically impossible.

Of course they are, many of them. It is a major open problem in theoretical and observational physics and has been for a very long time. It is logically impossible only via the faulty arguments you are presenting based on unusual definitions of certain words and (mainly) an ontoligical argument for god type of reasoning.

Nope, dead wrong, feel free to suggest an example to backup your case and I'll show you why you're wrong.

Yes and I never quoted scripture as evidence of a scientific claim, I totally support that forum rule here.

I didn't post the forum guideline for any reason other than in response to your comment in post 143 " ... also since I do regard it as a source of authority it is clearly wrong for you to claim "the Bible isn't considered an authority here" you can only speak for yourself." He wasn't only speaking for himself.

?

[brunumb]

Creating a domain called the supernatural is just a means of collecting the unknown and allowing people to invent answers to questions that have no support based in reality.

There's some truth to that but it's really not quite what you say.

Yes it is a collective term for a domain, but as for "no support based in reality" that's quite untrue, really it is, you should look into that part more.

Anything that exists may be regarded as natural. Using the term supernatural is just a way of putting things out of reach for scrutiny and examination. If we can't do that, then it is no better than imaginary. If you have any evidence for what you refer to as the supernatural, then please present it for evaluation.

[brunumb]

God is an inference, a rational thing to infer from what we observe, that's what I and many people think.

I have no trouble with facts, it is extrapolations claimed as facts that I have a serious problem with. Evolution as the mechanism for all life we see today is quite simply an inference, it is scientific induction, as I said before induction from facts does not a new fact make.

When is an inference not an inference, or should that be when is an inference a fact?

[JoeyKnothead]

Anything that exists may be regarded as natural. Using the term supernatural is just a way of putting things out of reach for scrutiny and examination. If we can't do that, then it is no better than imaginary. If you have any evidence for what you refer to as the supernatural, then please present it for evaluation.

It must be quite frustrating when your best explanation can't be shown to be the best'n, or really, an explanation at all.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Creating a domain called the supernatural is just a means of collecting the unknown and allowing people to invent answers to questions that have no support based in reality.

There's some truth to that but it's really not quite what you say.

Yes it is a collective term for a domain, but as for "no support based in reality" that's quite untrue, really it is, you should look into that part more.

Anything that exists may be regarded as natural. Using the term supernatural is just a way of putting things out of reach for scrutiny and examination. If we can't do that, then it is no better than imaginary. If you have any evidence for what you refer to as the supernatural, then please present it for evaluation.

That is not what "supernatural" means.

Supernatural

The supernatural encompasses supposed phenomena or entities that are not subject to the laws of nature.

[Sherlock Holmes]

God is an inference, a rational thing to infer from what we observe, that's what I and many people think.

I have no trouble with facts, it is extrapolations claimed as facts that I have a serious problem with. Evolution as the mechanism for all life we see today is quite simply an inference, it is scientific induction, as I said before induction from facts does not a new fact make.

When is an inference not an inference, or should that be when is an inference a fact?

This may help you:

Inference

Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences; etymologically, the word infer means to "carry forward". Inference is theoretically traditionally divided into deduction and induction, a distinction that in Europe dates at least to Aristotle (300s BCE).

[JoeyKnothead]

That is not what "supernatural" means.

Supernatural

The supernatural encompasses supposed phenomena or entities that are not subject to the laws of nature.

Synonyms'll synonym.

[Sherlock Holmes]

That is not what "supernatural" means.

Supernatural

The supernatural encompasses supposed phenomena or entities that are not subject to the laws of nature.

Synonyms'll synonym.

Says the dude who's under probation.

PS: This is an ad-hominem attack, which is a "technique" I know you approve of.