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.

[William]

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.

What I interpret brunumb as saying, is that there is no need to add the extra layer of "Supernatural" in relation to this universe.

Which is to say - for example - that if Ghosts turned out to be real through some scientific means of establishing that they are, and this was established through repeatability - then this would not prove that the supernatural was therefore real but rather, it would prove that Ghosts should be regarded as a natural product of this universe. It would prove that Ghosts are real in this reality.

[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.

What I interpret brunumb as saying, is that there is no need to add the extra layer of "Supernatural" in relation to this universe.

Which is to say - for example - that if Ghosts turned out to be real through some scientific means of establishing that they are, and this was established through repeatability - then this would not prove that the supernatural was therefore real but rather, it would prove that Ghosts should be regarded as a natural product of this universe. It would prove that Ghosts are real in this reality.

Yes but you mention "established through repeatability" which is precisely what laws of nature do, the supernatural is that which is not subject to laws, so we'd not be able to scientifically establish it, all science can help us with is those things which are natural, those things that are subject to laws.

I don't think that an inability to establish repeatability amounts to proving that something or some claim is not real this is something that often comes up in these discussions, it basically amounts to the claim that "the supernatural does not exist" which is just conjecture.

Science cannot answer the question "can things happen in the universe that are not subject to the laws of nature"?

[William]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #162]

Yes but you mention "established through repeatability" which is precisely what laws of nature do, the supernatural is that which is not subject to laws, so we'd not be able to scientifically establish it, all science can help us with is those things which are natural, those things that are subject to laws.

The point is that the "supernatural" is a thing claimed to exist "somewhere else", where science in this universe cannot verify as actually existing.
Those who claim that it exists, do so - knowing full well that such a claim cannot be verified.

Any claim which cannot be verified has to be taken off the table.
Has to be treated as irrelevant.

One cannot legitimately complain that one is not being believed, simply because the unbeliever has no scientific way in which to verify said claim-types.

I don't think that an inability to establish repeatability amounts to proving that something or some claim is not real this is something that often comes up in these discussions, it basically amounts to the claim that "the supernatural does not exist" which is just conjecture.

Since it is conjecture either way, both conjectures rule each other out.

The true position to adopt on the matter therefore must be something other than those two positions.

Science cannot answer the question "can things happen in the universe that are not subject to the laws of nature"?

This view is incorrect. Science CAN and DOES answer that question, and the answer is "No. All things which can happen in the universe ARE subject to the laws of nature and thus ARE natural."

Which circles back around to my Ghost analogy.

IF;
Ghosts turned out to be real through some scientific means of establishing that they are, and this was established through repeatability -
THEN;

this would not prove that the supernatural was therefore real but rather, it would prove that Ghosts should be regarded as a natural product of this universe. It would prove that Ghosts are real in this reality.

[William]

To place another perspective on it.

Sometimes I think of myself as a being from the supernatural universe you believe exists.

While there, I was able to bring anything into existence that I willed.

It was joyous and wonderful.

However, I wanted to know how I was able to do this.

The though this simple thought itself, it brought the physical universe into existence and I then proceeded to find the answer to that question - slowly and surely - with an acceptable amount of suffering and pain as an aspect of that process, here I Am Thus Far.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #162]

Yes but you mention "established through repeatability" which is precisely what laws of nature do, the supernatural is that which is not subject to laws, so we'd not be able to scientifically establish it, all science can help us with is those things which are natural, those things that are subject to laws.

The point is that the "supernatural" is a thing claimed to exist "somewhere else", where science in this universe cannot verify as actually existing.
Those who claim that it exists, do so - knowing full well that such a claim cannot be verified.

Yes, its unverifiable and unverifiable things do happen all the time, every day.

If unverifiable things do happen all the time then how can the fact that they are unverifiable be used as an argument that they don't happen?

Any claim which cannot be verified has to be taken off the table.
Has to be treated as irrelevant.

Why? are you saying that unverifiable things do not ever happen?

One cannot legitimately complain that one is not being believed, simply because the unbeliever has no scientific way in which to verify said claim-types.

Well as I said, this is reality, this does happen all the time!

I don't think that an inability to establish repeatability amounts to proving that something or some claim is not real this is something that often comes up in these discussions, it basically amounts to the claim that "the supernatural does not exist" which is just conjecture.

Since it is conjecture either way, both conjectures rule each other out.

The true position to adopt on the matter therefore must be something other than those two positions.

?

Science cannot answer the question "can things happen in the universe that are not subject to the laws of nature"?

This view is incorrect. Science CAN and DOES answer that question, and the answer is "No. All things which can happen in the universe ARE subject to the laws of nature and thus ARE natural."

No you can assert that but there's no scientific reasoning that the laws of physics can never be violated, this is why they are called "axioms", assumptions.

Try, go ahead, share such an argument.

Which circles back around to my Ghost analogy.

IF;
Ghosts turned out to be real through some scientific means of establishing that they are, and this was established through repeatability -
THEN;
this would not prove that the supernatural was therefore real but rather, it would prove that Ghosts should be regarded as a natural product of this universe. It would prove that Ghosts are real in this reality.

No it would do no such thing.

The fact that we might do some tests and every time we've done it we get X does not constitute a proof that the next time we do it we'll get X.

The only way to show that we'll get X is to do the test, science cannot claim as facts the results of experiments not yet performed if we could then why even bother doing the test at all?

[William]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #165]

Yes, its unverifiable and unverifiable things do happen all the time, every day.

If unverifiable things do happen all the time then how can the fact that they are unverifiable be used as an argument that they don't happen?

I myself do not argue that they don't happen.

One such example of an unverifiable thing which happened to me is in the OP of a thread I recently created hereabouts.

I'm Not Saying It Was Aliens...
Post #1

Science cannot answer the question "can things happen in the universe that are not subject to the laws of nature"?

This view is incorrect. Science CAN and DOES answer that question, and the answer is "No. All things which can happen in the universe ARE subject to the laws of nature and thus ARE natural."

No you can assert that but there's no scientific reasoning that the laws of physics can never be violated, this is why they are called "axioms", assumptions.

The thing is, I don't assert that.
What I assert is that - re the example of unverifiable things do happen I gave in the above link, it was verified by me through my subjective experience of it.
I do not claim from that experience, that the UFO did not come from a supernatural source.
I can only say, that in order for me to experience it, it was seen by me as light.

Therefore, since light is a verifiable thing in this universe, I can only remark on the incident as being 'natural' not 'supernatural'.

IF;
Ghosts turned out to be real through some scientific means of establishing that they are, and this was established through repeatability -
THEN;
this would not prove that the supernatural was therefore real but rather, it would prove that Ghosts should be regarded as a natural product of this universe. It would prove that Ghosts are real in this reality.

No it would do no such thing.

The fact that we might do some tests and every time we've done it we get X does not constitute a proof that the next time we do it we'll get X.

Nor is that the scientific method.
What is reasonable to accept is that - doing a reasonable amount of tests which produce the same results, also gives an acceptable measure of expectancy that if one continued to do the tests, the results will continue to be the same.

The only way to show that we'll get X is to do the test, science cannot claim as facts the results of experiments not yet performed if we could then why even bother doing the test at all?

Eventually one can cease doing the tests and accept the results.

The results can then be categorized as "Incontrovertible Evidence"

as I remarked re "Supernatural" and materialist and theistic beliefs;

Since it is conjecture either way, both conjectures rule each other out.

The true position to adopt on the matter therefore must be something other than those two positions.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #165]

Yes, its unverifiable and unverifiable things do happen all the time, every day.

If unverifiable things do happen all the time then how can the fact that they are unverifiable be used as an argument that they don't happen?

I myself do not argue that they don't happen.

One such example of an unverifiable thing which happened to me is in the OP of a thread I recently created hereabouts.

I'm Not Saying It Was Aliens...
Post #1

Science cannot answer the question "can things happen in the universe that are not subject to the laws of nature"?

This view is incorrect. Science CAN and DOES answer that question, and the answer is "No. All things which can happen in the universe ARE subject to the laws of nature and thus ARE natural."

No you can assert that but there's no scientific reasoning that the laws of physics can never be violated, this is why they are called "axioms", assumptions.

The thing is, I don't assert that.
What I assert is that - re the example of unverifiable things do happen I gave in the above link, it was verified by me through my subjective experience of it.
I do not claim from that experience, that the UFO did not come from a supernatural source.
I can only say, that in order for me to experience it, it was seen by me as light.

Therefore, since light is a verifiable thing in this universe, I can only remark on the incident as being 'natural' not 'supernatural'.

IF;
Ghosts turned out to be real through some scientific means of establishing that they are, and this was established through repeatability -
THEN;
this would not prove that the supernatural was therefore real but rather, it would prove that Ghosts should be regarded as a natural product of this universe. It would prove that Ghosts are real in this reality.

No it would do no such thing.

The fact that we might do some tests and every time we've done it we get X does not constitute a proof that the next time we do it we'll get X.

Nor is that the scientific method.
What is reasonable to accept is that - doing a reasonable amount of tests which produce the same results, also gives an acceptable measure of expectancy that if one continued to do the tests, the results will continue to be the same.

The only way to show that we'll get X is to do the test, science cannot claim as facts the results of experiments not yet performed if we could then why even bother doing the test at all?

Eventually one can cease doing the tests and accept the results.

The results can then be categorized as "Incontrovertible Evidence"

as I remarked re "Supernatural" and materialist and theistic beliefs;

Since it is conjecture either way, both conjectures rule each other out.

The true position to adopt on the matter therefore must be something other than those two positions.

Very well, a supernatural God exists as I can verify through my personal subjective experience of God.

[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.

Says the dude who's under probation.

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

"Probation" ain't it a common synonym for "supernatural", nor "magic", but hey, you do you.

[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?

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).

So you have no trouble declaring that God is an inference and the theory of evolution is also an inference, but one is true and the other is false. Putting it simply, evolution is inferred from mountains of evidence while God is inferred from warm fuzzy feelings and ancient superstition. To quote someone else using faulty logic, you do you.

[JoeyKnothead]

Very well, a supernatural God exists as I can verify through my personal subjective experience of God.

As I can verify, objectively, by your own subjective declarations, you can't no more objectively show there's a god than you can show your subjective 'experiences' means there's objectively it one of em.

I can believe I'm ugly, but all them folks telling me I look like Brad Pitt's dog says otherwise.