Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #131

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #124]
More? There are not even those as claims, yet they are presented as givens.


The questions posed in the OP are not from any creationist site. They are the questions that modern cosmologists are wrestling with and losing. The only answer to the questions in the OP is that a Creator created this universe that we live in.
Posing a creator accomplishes NOTHING. It is a mere claim, a label without substance.


One does not see gravity, and we have yet to observe a gravitron, yet we believe gravity exists because we can see the effects of gravity. We do not need to see a Creator to see the effects of creation.


One might as well say "A creator without a creator breaks the laws of . . . whatever.
What law would a Creator break?

No 'laws' are broken with no creator. A universe that has always been in existence is at least as plausible as a "creator" that has always been.
This is a belief that cosmology has already disproved with the discovery of Hubble's redshift.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #132

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 7:44 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #124]
We don't yet know all the digits of Pi yet we can and do prove that Pi is irrational, we can prove that no matter to how many digits you evaluate it is irrational, your argument is that if we continued to compute digits for Pi we might eventually prove that it actually is rational, that after umpteen billion decimal places the digits stop and they are always zero thereafter.
That analogy is not even remotely close to believing that science may find solutions to problems that are currently unsolved and is not my argument at all (you're making stuff up again). The fact that there are proofs that pi is irrational is enough to conclude that there is no expectation that if we keep counting digits we'll find an end and a rational number. Why you thought this was an analogy I can't imagine, especially since you then commented that the proofs that pi is irrational eliminate any need to expect it to somehow be rational via an argument I (never) made.
It is a very good analogy and you well know. It shows that hope, faith that eventually we might find an answer is in some cases fruitless because we can prove that no answer exists.
DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 7:44 pm We can take the historical track record of science solving problems and explaining things, and conclude that science has indeed done these things. So it is perfectly reasonable to expect that it might continue to do so, because of this very history of success. If you can't see the difference between that, and your ridiculous pi analogy, I can't help.
That you cannot see how comparable that is to the irrationality analogy is frankly stunning.

Yes it is reasonable unless we can prove that it is fruitless.

Since a material explanation for the presence of material is an absurdity a self contradiction, we have our proof.

"Look I have a theory of everything, of matter and energy! Let's assume we have some energy, well if that energy is...." can't you see? You must assume - in some form or other - that something physical is already present in order for whatever theoretical process can operate.
DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 7:44 pm
Do you actually know what a scientific explanation is? perhaps you can explain to us all, go ahead, explain to me what a scientific explanation is, lets see where this goes...
Here's an example of what is NOT a scientific explanation .... God did it.
Yes, that is a non-scientific explanation, I said all along that God is not a scientific explanation, I said that we cannot have a scientific explanation and that therefore we must seek a non-scientific explanation.
DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 7:44 pm The way science works is that a hypothesis is made to explain something, and this hypothesis is extensively tested in order to find out whether it is valid, or not. If it stands up to exhaustive testing and scrutiny, by many people who have the capability to test it, it may become a theory. If a hypothesis becomes a theory then it has reached a state of consensus by the scientific community and is accepted as a correct explanation until shown otherwise.
That does not explain "explanation" which is what I asked you.
DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 7:44 pm A "scientific explanation" is the theory that results from this process. It could also be something a lot simpler, for example a description of why mixing an acid and a base produces a salt plus water.
That does not explain "explanation" which is what I asked you.
DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 7:44 pm Did you not already know how this process works? What do you think a scientific explanation is? Does it also include supernatural inputs or gods?
Oh dear, I wondered how long it would take until an atheist on the ropes would start to bleat "You don't understand how science works" as if that accusation were the exclusive right of the atheist, the joker in the pack that they always end up reaching for when the pressure is on!

It is used so often in these debates, it has a rhetorical power that atheists can't resist, much like shouting "Hey! child molester" at some stranger in a bar, emotions take over and the guy is attacked by the frantic mob, well not me, not here, I understand science as well as anyone you'll find anywhere in this forum.

You completely failed to answer a question that you really should have been able to answer, unless you can be very clear on what exactly makes an explanation, a theory you're not going to ever get out of the intellectual mess you seem to be in.

ALL THEORIES IN PHYSICS BEGIN BY ASSUMING THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING WITH PHYSICAL PROPRTIES.

Therefore no theory in physics can ever explain the origin of material things when it has to assume their existence at the outset!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I consider you utterly trounced here, by all means perpetuate the pointless weak attempted rebuttals but I'm done, case closed, move on.
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #133

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Diagoras wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:12 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:51 pmThe conclusion that the universe was created by a will not a law, that laws and mechanistic processes cannot be the source of themselves - is arrived at by an entirely rational argument.
No, it's not. You need an uncaused cause in there at some point, and you seem perfectly comfortable in having one and ascribing to it all kinds of peculiar properties that break just about every known fact about how the universe works.
That's what "will" is, perhaps we can use the term "spirit" too as these two are often used interchangeably in scripture. Free will is an uncaused cause, that's typically how we understand free will.
Diagoras wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:12 pm How was this 'will' created? Did it just will itself into existence, or is it eternal (a separate class of problems, if so)? If we are to accept that an uncaused cause can exist and create itself, then why can't the universe itself be that uncaused cause?
I do not know the origin of God, but I do know that God is the origin of the material realm.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #134

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Diagoras wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:21 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:07 pm The explanation for the presence of the universe can be found in Genesis, it is there expressed as it can only be expressed.

<snip>

There is no other way to put this, that God created everything we see and hear and feel, cannot be "explained" it can only be asserted, ...
<bolding mine>

If I've got this form of argument correct, you're saying that the Bible asserts that God created the universe, but cannot offer an explanation. Have I got that right? Because if so, then I agree.
That is the explanation - this is where so many empiricists lose the plot.

You want a particular kind of explanation, a scientific one, a reductionist one, but why? why do you insist that the only viable explanations are reductionist?

This is the key to understanding - you, your mind - is preventing you from understanding.

"God created..." Is the only way to express the explanation, our minds find that difficult particularly when our education is swamped in materialism, where philosophy is regarded as a mere curiosity for the mentally weak, where empiricism is the only route to "knowledge".

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #135

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #132]
It is a very good analogy and you well know.
No it isn't ... not even close. The track record of science in solving new problems speaks for itself. The pi analogy is just silly.
That you cannot see how comparable that is to the irrationality analogy is frankly stunning.
Sorry you're stunned, but there is no analogy. Are you denying the track record of science in solving previously unknown problems?
Since a material explanation for the presence of material is an absurdity a self contradiction, we have our proof.
You evidently do not understand what the word "proof" means in science or mathematics.
I consider you utterly trounced here, by all means perpetuate the pointless weak attempted rebuttals but I'm done, case closed, move on.
All the bold, red fonts, exclamation points, and obsfucation do not make your case any stronger. As far as I can see you've yet to present any evidence for any of your claims, or to convince anyone here that you're not just preaching against materialism without any substance to back up anything you are saying. Mostly handwaving arguments against science. I certainly don't feel "trounced" by any stretch ... maybe you should try your arguments in another section of the forum besides Science and Religion. They might be received more favorably with less pushback on the custom definitions you've made up to suit your needs.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #136

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:45 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #120]
There is no other way to put this, that God created everything we see and hear and feel, cannot be "explained" it can only be asserted, it can only be stated, the familiar ideas and concepts that we insist must comprise the explanation cannot be used because they are the things that were created.
Then what is the point of attempting to debate evolution, possible mechanisms for origin of the universe, or virtually any other aspect of actual science? That is all utterly pointless if you're going to simply assert a god creation explanation to start with and fall back on that as the ultimate response.
It was by discussing the presumed "mechanisms" for origin that we arrived at the conclusion God is the reason there's a universe.

That this does not fit your worldview is not my concern.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #137

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:50 am [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #132]
It is a very good analogy and you well know.
No it isn't ... not even close. The track record of science in solving new problems speaks for itself. The pi analogy is just silly.
That you cannot see how comparable that is to the irrationality analogy is frankly stunning.
Sorry you're stunned, but there is no analogy. Are you denying the track record of science in solving previously unknown problems?
Since a material explanation for the presence of material is an absurdity a self contradiction, we have our proof.
You evidently do not understand what the word "proof" means in science or mathematics.
I consider you utterly trounced here, by all means perpetuate the pointless weak attempted rebuttals but I'm done, case closed, move on.
All the bold, red fonts, exclamation points, and obsfucation do not make your case any stronger. As far as I can see you've yet to present any evidence for any of your claims, or to convince anyone here that you're not just preaching against materialism without any substance to back up anything you are saying. Mostly handwaving arguments against science. I certainly don't feel "trounced" by any stretch ... maybe you should try your arguments in another section of the forum besides Science and Religion. They might be received more favorably with less pushback on the custom definitions you've made up to suit your needs.
I asked you yesterday to explain what an explanation is you, you did not know and so I tried a different angle and again you deny, misrepresent.

I see you say nothing about what it was that I bolded! It being bold is all you saw, it seems you did not read the words, here they are again for perhaps the 20th time:

ALL THEORIES IN PHYSICS BEGIN BY ASSUMING THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING WITH PHYSICAL PROPERTIES - do you agree or disagree with that assertion? (will you even attempt to honestly answer this simple question?)

Please also share with us what you regard as my "arguments against science" that is a fabrication, I have not argued "against science" I have argued against you and your apparent lack of understanding, and you seem to be intentionally mischaracterizing things for the purpose of rhetoric, perhaps that's all you have left?

I've been attacking your arguments, attacking your reasoning, attacking you claims, you are not science, attacking your arguments is not attacking science, you want to imply that of course because you are all out of steam, on the ropes.

I have stated and argued my case, your misunderstandings and confused assessment of it is your concern, further debate on this between us will likely be fruitless until you reach a point of admitting error.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #138

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #137]
I have stated and argued my case, your misunderstandings and confused assessment of it is your concern, further debate on this between us will likely be fruitless until you reach a point of admitting error.
So that's you criteria for a debate ... anyone who does not fall into line and accept your way of thinking is in error and must admit it, or you'll take your ball and go home? Let me try again with your pi analogy since you don't seem to see the glaring hole in it.

ME: It is reasonable to expect science may explain current unsolved problems (eg. mechanism for origin of the universe) because of its demonstrated track record of doing exactly this in the past.

YOU: This is equivalent to me expecting that pi could turn out to be a rational number if we simply keep counting, despite the fact that pi has been mathematically proven to be irrational.

Do you not see the giant, gaping hole in that analogy? It would only be a valid analogy if you had proven that the universe was, in fact, created by a god being. You've simply declared that to be the case (analogous to pi being proven to be irrational), then ruled that any attempts at scientific explanation are therefore futile (like counting more digits of pi to see if it is rational).

The fatal flaw is that you have not proven that the universe has a creator and did not arise via some natural means that had no involvement by god beings (who've yet to ever be shown to exist despite humans inventing literally thousands of them). Prove that god beings exist somehow, then you have a basis for your arguments. Until then, you don't.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #139

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:35 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #137]
I have stated and argued my case, your misunderstandings and confused assessment of it is your concern, further debate on this between us will likely be fruitless until you reach a point of admitting error.
So that's you criteria for a debate ... anyone who does not fall into line and accept your way of thinking is in error and must admit it, or you'll take your ball and go home? Let me try again with your pi analogy since you don't seem to see the glaring hole in it.

ME: It is reasonable to expect science may explain current unsolved problems (eg. mechanism for origin of the universe) because of its demonstrated track record of doing exactly this in the past.

YOU: This is equivalent to me expecting that pi could turn out to be a rational number if we simply keep counting, despite the fact that pi has been mathematically proven to be irrational.

Do you not see the giant, gaping hole in that analogy? It would only be a valid analogy if you had proven that the universe was, in fact, created by a god being.
But that is not actually what I said. I proved to you that there cannot be a scientific explanation (inferring God is a later step) there cannot be a material explanation for the presence of material, because it leads to self contradiction it must be false, it is a proof.
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:35 pm You've simply declared that to be the case (analogous to pi being proven to be irrational), then ruled that any attempts at scientific explanation are therefore futile (like counting more digits of pi to see if it is rational).
Searching for a material explanation for the presence of material is clearly futile, one needs to invoke the very thing that one is striving to explain the origin of - it is incredible if you are unable to grasp this point.
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:35 pm The fatal flaw is that you have not proven that the universe has a creator and did not arise via some natural means that had no involvement by god beings (who've yet to ever be shown to exist despite humans inventing literally thousands of them). Prove that god beings exist somehow, then you have a basis for your arguments. Until then, you don't.
I have proven that it did not arise through natural means. A thing cannot be the explanation for itself, an explanation cannot be self referential, matter/energy/fields cannot ever be part of the explanation for the existence of matter/energy/fields, one must postulate something else.

This does not prove God it disproves materialism as a possible explanation for materialism.

God is inferred - by me and many others - but need not be, one could say "it has always existed in some form or other" that's the only other possible way we can go, but IMHO that leads to an admission that ultimately nothing can be explained which is to abandon the scientific method altogether, if the scientific method can be used to show that the scientific method leads nowhere then where does that leave us?

Now if God actually did create the universe and did so via his will, desire, intent then "God created the universe" is - like it or not - an explanation, not materialistic, not scientific, but still is an explanation, telling us something about reality, it contains knowledge, information.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #140

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #139]
Searching for a material explanation for the presence of material is clearly futile, one needs to invoke the very thing that one is striving to explain the origin of - it is incredible if you are unable to grasp this point.
I grasp the point you're trying to make ... I just don't buy it. You keep repeating it as if it is an unrefutable fact and I expect that is the crux of your problem in not understanding why eveyone just doesn't accept it as well. For all we know the entire universe could have consisted of some sort of vacuum quantum field with no material matter of any kind, but with some small anisotropy that led to an event similar to the Big Bang. I just made that up, but it is just as valid as imagining a god being doing something similar. What is god made of?
Now if God actually did create the universe and did so via his will, desire, intent then "God created the universe" is - like it or not - an explanation, not materialistic, not scientific, but still is an explanation, telling us something about reality, it contains knowledge, information.
But it is meaningless without some evidence that a god being of any type can exist in the first place. You used "his will" as if this being were a male. How can you possibly know the sex of this being? If it has a sex then it must be made of matter, and you're back to the problem of what created the matter that god is made of. It doesn't work as an explanation, and certainly no better than the idea that science may someday figure this all out and find a purely natural explanation that does not involve gods or the supernatural.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Post Reply