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.

[We_Are_VENOM]

If someone created matter and energy, there not having been any before, then the first law of thermodynamics is broken, but it wouldn't be broken if something simply always was.

LOL. The first law of thermodynamics only comes into effect AFTER the universe is/was created.

And the idea that "it wouldn't be broken if something simply always was" is implying that infinite regression is possible, which is isn't.

I don't believe in the second law of thermodynamics. This is going to make everyone think I'm a tinfoil hat nutcase, but I don't. I think we happen to be at a point in our universe where order is naturally destroyed and disorder created, but I think there must be some point where it turns back and starts flowing in the opposite direction. If there was perfect disorder, the slightest disturbance in it would create more order.

LOL. The process of decay is a perfect, everyday example of the second law of thermodynamics in action.

Heck, even the process of human aging is a good example.

The universe was either created

Gen 1:1

, or it (in some form) always was.

Logically impossible.

Even if you decide to believe in a creator you're not getting out of this problem. You still have to wonder whether the creator always was or whether something or someone created it.

Infinite regression is impossible. Only one of those two options can be considered the cause, without being the product of any antecedent cause.

Must be one. Can't be both.

The natural tendency is to believe things are created. That's how our world makes us think. If you want a pile of kittens, they're not going to abiogenesis themselves into being; you need a female cat to create them. If you want a house, it needs a builder. If you want a tree, you need a seed. If you want food, a chef must prepare it. Most things we interact with are effectively created, because we're a complex species that operates at very low levels of entropy; we need a lot of order to survive, we need food and houses and trees and cats, and someone has to put in energy and push back against disorder to make these things happen. I'm not opposed to a creator that does something like that, but it leaves a huge question of where the energy came from.

To ask where did an uncaused cause come from is...

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #79]

Three obvious examples are the Creation story, Noah's flood, and the many reports of human beings living for hundreds of years. These are all demonstrably untrue.

How are these demonstrably untrue?

[Purple Knight]

, or it (in some form) always was.

Logically impossible.

Even if you decide to believe in a creator you're not getting out of this problem. You still have to wonder whether the creator always was or whether something or someone created it.

Infinite regression is impossible. Only one of those two options can be considered the cause, without being the product of any antecedent cause.

You at once state that it is logically impossible for the universe to always have been, and state that God must have always been.

In your own view, something must have always been, even if that's God. That's why it's not so odd as to be logically impossible to think of the universe as always having existed in some form.

I agree with you that we can't have infinite regression... tentatively. As far as I know you're right and it's impossible. That's why something must have always been. Whether that's God or not, I don't think anyone can say for certain unless you define God that way.

[We_Are_VENOM]

You at once state that it is logically impossible for the universe to always have been, and state that God must have always been.

In your own view, something must have always been, even if that's God.

That's why it's not so odd as to be logically impossible to think of the universe as always having existed in some form.

I agree with you that we can't have infinite regression... tentatively. As far as I know you're right and it's impossible. That's why something must have always been. Whether that's God or not, I don't think anyone can say for certain unless you define God that way.

Wow. So acknowledge the fact that...

1. Something has always existed.

2. Infinite regression is impossible.

Wow. I must say, I am impressed.

Mad props to you for that

Now, let me ask you this..

If you acknowledge that infinite regression is impossible, how does a past-eternal universe escape this impossibility?

[brunumb]

If you acknowledge that infinite regression is impossible, how does a past-eternal universe escape this impossibility?

Probably the same way a god-critter does.

[Purple Knight]

If you acknowledge that infinite regression is impossible, how does a past-eternal universe escape this impossibility?

Probably the same way a god-critter does.

This is pretty much my response as well.

Either something (including potential) always existed, or at some point, something came into being from nothing. Either one is difficult to wrap one's head around, but neither one means a god, for certain.

I'll give Venom's interpretation my most logically chivalrous take, and say that there being a Creator makes slightly more sense, because if we have intelligence and a will, we could be talking about that being coming from another universe where the fundamental rules are different.

Perhaps there, things come into being from nothing all the time; no big deal. They also vanish without warning. But it's relatively easy to have a very powerful being - a god, let's say - because as soon as you've got a configuration with intelligence and a will, it can preserve itself against the chaos of this alien universe.

So this very powerful being opens the way into a universe with permanence. Since here, things don't have past-eternal existence, and things don't spring into being from nothing, this universe is empty. But permanence is a good thing if you can take matter/energy/potential from the chaos universe where chaos is liable to gobble it back up, and put it into the one with permanence.

However, this doesn't mean this creator has anything to do with morality or that we should do what it says.

And just because we can picture a very strong membrane between universes that would be incredibly unlikely to be punctured without intelligence and a will (much like it's unlikely for there to be airplanes to lift us up against gravity without a will), this doesn't mean a chaos universe can't do that at random. We could still be an ejection from a chaos universe into a universe with permanence. Or permanence could even be an illusion, a blip within a chaotic universe.

[We_Are_VENOM]

If you acknowledge that infinite regression is impossible, how does a past-eternal universe escape this impossibility?

Probably the same way a god-critter does.

So basically, they (God/universe) did the impossible, the same way?

Makes no sense.

[brunumb]

If you acknowledge that infinite regression is impossible, how does a past-eternal universe escape this impossibility?

Probably the same way a god-critter does.

So basically, they (God/universe) did the impossible, the same way?

Makes no sense.

But a super-intelligent being capable of creating a universe gets involved in haggling with mere human beings does make sense. Hmmmm.

[We_Are_VENOM]

If you acknowledge that infinite regression is impossible, how does a past-eternal universe escape this impossibility?

Probably the same way a god-critter does.

So basically, they (God/universe) did the impossible, the same way?

Makes no sense.

But a super-intelligent being capable of creating a universe gets involved in haggling with mere human beings does make sense. Hmmmm.

Yeah, pretty much.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #82]

How are these demonstrably untrue?

Read any modern science textbook on how the Earth formed, the geologic history of Earth and the complete lack of any mention of a global flood at any time since humans have existed (or even apes), and how physiological factors limit human life spans and always have. These summarize the modern scientific concensus on these subjects, which are supported by mountains of evidence and practical analyses described in many thousands of peer-reviewed science papers over several centuries now.

These concensus views are not pulled from thin air or described in holy books written long before science could properly answer the questions and simply believed on faith. The effort and diligence that went into the science is infinitely more than was expended for crafting of the fictional accounts presented in ancient holy books, but more importantly the science was (and is) constantly challenged and only when found to stand up to the scrutiny is it accepted as the current best explanation for whatever subject is being investigated.

If you're able to shoot the science down legitimately (not by simple reference to some holy book story and a claim on faith that it is true) then go ahead and try it in the open literature. Posting on internet forums doesn't count. Tell me why creationists are not able to counter the scientific concensus where it actually matters and convince the science community that they are wrong. It will never happen ... because creationism is not how it really happened.