Something From Nothing Violates Thermodynamics

[Parture]

Re: PureInertia
http://www.youtube.com/user/PureInertia

At the same time, there is no proof that something can not come from nothing. There are only causes, which proves that things can happen by causes. There are also things are spontaneous and have no known cause. You need to explain those before you make any assumptions.

Not only do the laws of thermodynamics get violated if you want to think something comes from that which does not exist, but it goes against all the evidence we do have of trillions and trillions of causes in nature, an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing. Wherever you want to arbitrarily inject something coming from nothing, you can always just compare to God who has a mind, and a mind is needed.

But you don't understand thermodynamics and you don't understand that trillions of causes and trillions of stars and trillions of hydrogen atoms is only evidence of that thing. It is not evidence of something not being able to come from nothing.

The first law expresses that energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. That which doesn't exist can't produce anything for it is without any energy. Your fantasy life is out of control. I never said anything about how many different objects there are, only that we observe trillions and trillions of causes in nature. It's like you are playing a lottery with odds against you more than a trillion to one. Surely, you will lose.

[Parture]

So, it is your position that God knows for certain what you will do, yet you are free to do other than what God knows you will do. That means that God could be wrong, and the failure of your postion is exposed.

You are not free to do other than what God knows are your available choices. God knows all your choices and knows which one you will choose. You are free to choose any one of them. Therefore, you are wrong and God is right. And the failure of your position is exposed.

[PureInertia]

I'm not saying that energy can come from no energy, nor that energy can be created or destroyed. My only point is in reference to your "causes" argument. There is no evidence that everything needs a cause. However, there is plenty of evidence that things can happen because of causes. There are furthermore things that are not known to have a cause. Until you can explain the causes for these things, you can not assume that they do have a cause. Assuming so would be hubris and unscientific. The correct approach to take is to say that they have no known cause.

Speaking of the laws of thermodynamics however, it states that energy can not be created or destroyed. Do you assume that energy was created? If so, how do you justify using a law you don't believe in to support your claims?

[Parture]

You don't need to to know all things which is the purview of God alone. It is enough that we observe trillions and trillions of causes in nature, an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing. So we know everything in nature needs a cause.

Assuming, then, that something doesn't have a cause is false humility and pretentious, for you could keep holding out for eternity in rejecting God if that was your mentality, never encountering the love of God and locking yourself in Hell for eternity from the inside.

Think how ugly your heart is that if you knew all things except for one last thing, you would still hope it could disprove God does not exist. What hubris and unscientific, since science adheres to statistical laws which you seek to try to violate. It's like you are playing a lottery with odds against you more than a trillion to one, obnoxiously thinking you could win then as you play your game again odds go to a quadrillion to one and on and on; but you are still hard pressed to find the proof God does exist. Continuing to do what you have always done and getting the same result when you want another is insanity!

As we keep discovering more and more causes and that there are only causes ever discovered, this is a trend of undeniable conclusion. Of course this takes humility to accept.

God created out of Himself, so He can distribute any amount of energy He deems fit to His glory.

[PureInertia]

My beliefs do not depend upon there being causelessness. Nor do I assume it is true. I'm only disturbed that you would assume that everything has a cause when this is not what we see.

The heart is just an organ in the human body that pumps blood around it. If you don't like hearts of think it's ugly, that's your privilege but not my concern.

If we find that everything does indeed have a cause, this will only prove that everything has a cause. We would not come close to proving that God existed. You seem to be shifting subjects here. You already admitted that the first law of thermodynamics says that energy can not be created or destroyed. If you admit that energy can not be created, then what need is there for god?

[Parture]

Indeed, this is only ever what we see is causation in nature, such an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond all reasonable doubt, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing. How silly it would be to think something could come from what does not exist. Have you heard of the One Billion Pound Gorilla?



When I talked about your heart, obviously I wasn't referring to your physical heart so why be petty? When you give your life to Christ, He will bring your good self and petty self to die with Him on the cross.

Your argument does depend on something coming from nothing, but it is impossible, so the only possibility then is since Jesus proved He is God, you are going to go to Hell.

You've contradicted yourself, because if everything has a cause you claim would be proven, then you would be teaching infinite regress. But infinite regress is impossible because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to to do.

Do you see how you are shifting from this evidence? Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed AND the universe can't always have existed THEREFORE the universe needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. This is whom we call God.

[PureInertia]

The point of my statement concerning the heart is that I obviously do not consider it to be anything more than a fleshing pulsating object, why would you opinion of that object affect me in any way?

Secondly we do not see only causation in nature. We see plenty of things that have no known cause. We do not know the cause for what makes photons behave like they do, nor do we know the causes for bosons or gluons. One could go on to say that we do not know the cause for what makes quarks or leptons act like they do either and thus we do not know the cause for anything, but all we can do is see them do what they do to explain and predict that. This fact makes your entire causes argument silly...

No if everything had a cause I would not be teaching infinite regress at all. Why would I teach infinite regress if everything had a cause?

[Parture]

Who cares what you think about the meaning of the word 'heart' since you missed the point? What matters is how it was used referring to the mind of your soul and conscience of your spirit. Surely you accept you have a mind and a conscience. Really, think how ugly your heart is, by somehow thinking you are righteous claiming if you knew all things except one last thing, you would still hold out it could prove God does not exist. That would be ultimate false humility.

There is no reason to think because you don't know the cause to something it might not have a cause, for that violates the laws of thermodynamics and the preponderance of evidence of causation only. It's a pipe dream!

Look at yourself in a mirror to see how obnoxious you sound, priding yourself that since we don't know the cause to everything, therefore we can't accept God exists. I see you exalting yourself above God in this fashion. That is how you appear. There will always be something we don't know, for we are not all-knowing. Only God could be. You said we know the cause for nothing? How absurd. We know the cause for lots of things. We know gravity acts on a falling apple.

You asked, why would you teach infinite regress if everything had a cause? Because you would not want to contradict yourself since causation would be going on for eternity in your world view. You would have happened already. This proves infinite regress is false. So nature nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. This is whom we call God.

[PureInertia]

You fail to understand that I can't "think how ugly" my heart is, because I don't see it as anything other than a fleshy pulsating object. The statement doesn't make sense to me. Even If you're referencing to my conscience, I can't think how ugly that is either, it simply doesn't make sense to consider a conscience ugly.

I didn't say that if I knew all things except one last thing I would hold out that it could prove that God exists, where did you get that idea?

I didn't say that if we don't know the causes to something that it might not have a cause either and even if I did, it would not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Neither did I say that if we don't know the cause to everything that we can't accept god exists. You are actually doing the converse, you're saying that because we haven't explained what the cause of everything is, we should assume that everything has a cause and that god exists. You need to look at yourself in a mirror.

I have no problem with causation going on for eternity, nor do I think we would have already happened if it did, but that is not what I believe happened. As far as I was concerned the origins of the universe have not yet been uncovered. Are you saying somehow that we should turn to what people said 2000 years ago in Palestine to get the answer?

[Parture]

You know how I am using the term about your mind and your conscience, so why be ignorant about it? You think when someone has a conscience that tells them it is acceptable to do some evil act that this is not ugly to you? How corrupted your heart is!

The implication is obvious. How long were you planning on holding out to know the cause for all things in hopes to prove God doesn't exist? Now you are just being coy.

Since according to you, you are not implying something doesn't have a cause if you didn't know the cause, then you are conceding it has a cause.

The first law of thermodynamics WOULD be violated since something can't come from nothing, so you might want to jump off that train.

Since you agree that you don't have to know everything to know if God exists we can agree that wherever the evidence takes us, we should go with that. The evidence is trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence for something from nothing. Therefore, the universe needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. This is whom we call God.

Of course we would have happened already if there was an infinite regress, since we would have had an eternity to do so. If you have no problem with the universe going on for eternity in the past, then obviously, you don't mind contradicting yourself. What a hellish way to think!

TO REPEAT: Since the universe can't always have existed nor come from nothing, then necessarily the cause for the universe must come from outside of itself, outside of time and space. This is whom we call God. Shutting your mind down to this fact doesn't change the fact of the matter.

What I am saying is since the uncreated Creator is proven, it would be wise to figure out where God revealed Himself, otherwise you will miss the boat. Since God can't have standards less than us, then He must be personal and accessible. There are only two other religions besides Christianity that are accessible: Islam and Hinduism. But only Christianity is personal for God enters into His creation to pay for the sins of the world. There is no greater love!