Something From Nothing Violates Thermodynamics

[PureInertia]

No... you have it all wrong. I do not presume that those things that have no known causes do actually have causes. That would be an assumption. Nor do I assume that they do not have causes. We do not know. Why do you have a problem with saying that you don't know?

The first law of thermodynamics does not say that something can not come from nothing. It only says that energy can not be created or destroyed.

I did not agree that we do not have to know everything to know if God exists, but I will agree to that now. All we need to know about is God.

Are you saying that because we always see cause, something that must be causeless has to have created the universe?

I do have no problem with there being an eternity of past events. Nor do I see why you think we would have already happened if it did.

You're using inductive logic here. This is not science you can not "prove" anything with inductive logic. Inductive logic only suggests that things are true. It does not "prove" them. You have proven nothing.

I do not see why god can not have standards less than us.

Lastly, if someone's conscience tells them to do something evil, I do not consider that ugly. I consider that unfortunate and sad.

[Parture]

I understand that you think those things you don't know the cause to you consider could have a cause or might not have a cause. But that stance is what we call false humility and pretentious because it goes against the overwhelming preponderance of evidence of trillions of causes in nature, no hard evidence something comes from nothing, and violates the fist law of thermodynamics.

Now we know there cannot be an infinite regress of cause and effects, because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. And since, something can't come from nothing, for that which doesn't exist can't bring about anything, then necessarily there must be a cause that is outside of nature, outside of time and space. Pretending like you don't know after you have been shown how we know is just shutting your mind down. God says we are "without excuse" (Rom. 1.20) because nature, as I have shown you, proves God's existence.

The fist law of thermodynamics does say something can't come from nothing, since energy cannot be created or destroyed. That is to say, that which does not exist has no energy so it can't create energy and become something.

You said you didn't need to know everything but might need to know everything to know if God exists. That's just doubletalk. The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8). Therefore, you are claiming you might need to be God to know if God exists. Again, this shows how ugly your conscience is, requiring yourself to be God, but are you God? No. So you have contradicted yourself. You've exalted yourself like Satan does.

You asked me, "Are you saying that because we always see cause, something that must be causeless has to have created the universe?" Your missing some steps. I am saying that because we always see a cause, that would be an infinite regress of cause and effects, but you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Therefore, the universe could not always have existed, thus, needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. The cause must be timeless and spaceless. That which is timeless is uncreated. This is whom we call God.

It doesn't really matter to me that you have no problem in believing in an infinite regress or why you can't see we would not have existed if it was true; it's enough for me to see that you don't deal with the problem that if there was an infinite regress, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, having had an eternity to do so. Avoiding this point doesn't make it go away.

The created can never be greater than the timeless and spaceless Creator, so if the created is a moral being then so would God be with at least as high a morals. The lesser can never be greater than the greater. Instead of saying, you don't see why this is, try dealing with why it is as was said.

Observing the trillions and trillions of causes in nature is not inductive, but repeatable specific evidence over and over. That's what a person likes to see in empirical evidence. Here you are saying again you have to know all things to know if God exists because you think it is inductive, but you contradict yourself, because you will never be all knowing. Only God could be. Therefore, logically speaking, we can know if God exists without having to know everything, and therefore, your inductive argument doesn't hold.

But that is an interesting point, because I actually don't even need to identify trillions of causes when you really think about it. All I need to say is, if you want to introduce an infinite regress of cause and effects, it cannot be, because you would have had an eternity to have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. And the first law of thermodynamics would be violated because something that has energy can't come from that which does not exist (obviously, without energy).

Herein we have proved the uncreated Creator. Now find out who He is. Where has He revealed Himself?

[PureInertia]

It's not pretentious humility, it's very humble. It's admitting ignorance, which you are unable to do. Why?

A lack of causation does not violate thermodynamics. Please prove that it does.

I see no problem with infinite regress, that you think we would have happened already is ridiculous to me. Saying it, doesn't make it true.

The 1st law of thermodynamics does not say that something can not come from nothing, it says energy can not be created or destroyed, even if you were to assume the two terms were equatable, causlessness is not the concept of something coming from nothing, but only something coming from something without a cause.

I did not say you didn't need to know everything nor did I say you might need to know everything to determine if God exists. Stop putting words into my mouth. You've repeatedly accused me of these words, when I have not said them. Why do you accuse me of what I do not do?

This special cause (uncreated creator) that you speak of. Why does it need to be spaceless?

I do not see why the lesser can never be greater than the greater, you're simply saying it is so. I can not argue against a point that you say is true based on the mere fact that you said it's true. I do not see why or how the created can not be greater than the creator... Please explain what evidence there is for this.

Observing and explaining causes is scientific, but if you use the causes to explain something that isn't those causes that's inductive. Inductive logic does not prove anything, it only suggests something.

[Parture]

There is no humility in claiming you have to be God to know if God exists. I can't think of anything more arrogant than that.

You're avoiding. To repeat, that which doesn't exist doesn't have energy so it can't cause anything. Why do you avoid this?

With an infinite regress having had an eternity, of course you would have happened already. Notice I didn't just say it, but associated your infinite regress having an 'infinite' time before now, so that is an eternity before now to have happened already. All kinds of problems exist with infinite regress. I am only giving you the first sampling, but for our purposes it is more than enough.

That which does not exist has no energy, so the 1st law of thermodynamics says that which has no energy can't create energy, so your something from nothing theory is dead in the water.

You've had to resort to doubletalk again because you said "something coming from something without a cause". The word "coming from" is a causal phrase. That's like saying, the page was turned without the turning of the page. Nonsense! Satan is the author of confusion.

Indeed, you have said you need to know everything and that you don't need to know everything, which is a contradiction. Which is it? You've conceded for now you don't need to know everything but then went right back to claiming you did need to know everything because you said you can't prove conclusively. Well think about that! You can't prove conclusively unless you know everything, according to you. I really get a sense of your eternity in Hell because at least in your mind, you give God no way to prove Himself to you since you demand you must be God to know if God exists. What an arrogant stance to take. I would not want to be in your shoes locked into your subterranean thinking.

The cause for the universe is not the universe. The cause must be that which the universe is not. The universe is space and time. Therefore, the cause must be timeless and spaceless, logically speaking. Why do you avoid this after it was already said many times?

We don't see anything where in nature the lesser can create the greater. We see likeness can produce likeness, but never does the lesser produce the greater. A bird house can never create a bird. You further the cause because you can't get abiogenesis to work.

I am glad you agree repeatable causation is scientific, but I am not saying they explain God, for we don't need an explanation of the explanation. Rather, they prove God's existence, since nature can't always have existed, so the cause must be timeless and spaceless. This is whom we call God.

Not using inductive logic. You would have to show it rather than assert it.

[PureInertia]

Nowhere have I said that anyone needs to be god in order to know if god exists.

That which does not exist by default can not cause anything because it does not exist. That is not to say that something which is causeless is caused by something that doesn't exist.

I'm not aware of any problems with infinite regress, you just keep repeating that if there was an infinite amount of regression I would have happened. How can you demonstrate this? Just saying it isn't enough, you need to demonstrate that it's true. What evidence is there for this?

Please remember that I have not said that something can come from nothing. I have only said that the argument that everything is caused is not proven.

Something coming from something without a cause has nothing to do with double talk. Often the nucleus of an atom (something) will emit ionizing particles (something coming from something) with no known cause. This is the idea of something coming from something without a cause. "Coming from" is not a causal statement.

Please show me where I said that you needed to know everything, then show me where I said you didn't again. If you can't show me this, then you are uttering falsehood.

Please prove that the universe needs a cause before you teach what the universe's cause is.

First, what makes a bird's house lesser than the bird? What makes anything lesser than another thing? And what makes you think that we can't get abiogenesis to work?

I did not say that repeatable causation is scientific.

Why can't nature have always existed? Please prove that it could not.

Inductive logic

Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, or educated guess in colloquial English, is a kind of reasoning that allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false even where all of the premises are true.[1] The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they do not ensure its truth. Induction is employed, for example, in the following argument:

All of the ice we have examined so far is cold.
Therefore, all ice is cold.

You are using the same logic

All of the things we have seen have causes
Therefore, everything is caused

Inductive logic doesn't prove anything. It only suggests it.

[PureInertia]

I can see where this discussion is going... which is nowhere.

So this is going to be my last post. The entire debate is worthless, if you're going to use inductive logic and not realise you're using it nor acknowledge that you've provided no evidence for anything throughout this entire debate. Evidences consist of empirical demonstrations proving your claim. You've made no such demonstrations.

I'm actually beginning to wonder if you're a troll and whether this website is some kind of satirical joke site that I've just not caught on to, because you're spouting claims and empty worthless dribble while at the same time the moderator here "Churchwork" seems to be giving me warnings about the way I'm debating and not you. If this is a joke, then you guys got me good, either way, this is my last post here. Nor shall I return so you may reply to this, but when you do, I will not see it.

The kind of nonsensical childish gibberish you're offering in the form of rationale debate isn't worth my time. Your lies are getting worse each post and you're completely unable to keep up with what I'm saying and only responding with repetitive bullshit and/or wild accusations that have nothing to do with the debate at all.

With the many different ways you've interpreted my simple text, it's not a surprise that there are so many different sects of your religion causing such disastrous confusion that even your god can not explain. You assign each person to hell as if it was justifiable that a person could suffer infinite torment for a finite crime, your system of morality is perplexing to such a degree that It is not even a surprise that it is Christians that have caused the most amount of death worldwide and that it was on Christian values so many innocent people have been put to death and slavery.

With nothing but books of lies to support your claims. It is also not a surprise that you yourself give false testimony endlessly and lie to no end. You can barely keep up with what I've been saying in this thread.

I'm afraid I must go now, but before I do I'll leave you this message.

Hell does not exist. Heaven does not exist. Everything you are doing with your life regarding religions is only meaningful if it brings you closer to the people around you. Otherwise it is useless. Jesus probably did not exist either, but if he did he was just another one of the many charlatans that existed in his time claiming to be the messiah. It was not uncommon.

Your entire religion is a joke in the eyes of science and reason and no matter how much you want to say otherwise. That will never change.

[Parture]

Nowhere have I said that anyone needs to be god in order to know if god exists.

That which does not exist by default can not cause anything because it does not exist. That is not to say that something which is causeless is caused by something that doesn't exist.

I'm not aware of any problems with infinite regress, you just keep repeating that if there was an infinite amount of regression I would have happened. How can you demonstrate this? Just saying it isn't enough, you need to demonstrate that it's true. What evidence is there for this?

Please remember that I have not said that something can come from nothing. I have only said that the argument that everything is caused is not proven.

Something coming from something without a cause has nothing to do with double talk. Often the nucleus of an atom (something) will emit ionizing particles (something coming from something) with no known cause. This is the idea of something coming from something without a cause. "Coming from" is not a causal statement.

Please show me where I said that you needed to know everything, then show me where I said you didn't again. If you can't show me this, then you are uttering falsehood.

Please prove that the universe needs a cause before you teach what the universe's cause is.

First, what makes a bird's house lesser than the bird? What makes anything lesser than another thing? And what makes you think that we can't get abiogenesis to work?

I did not say that repeatable causation is scientific.

Why can't nature have always existed? Please prove that it could not.

Inductive logic

Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, or educated guess in colloquial English, is a kind of reasoning that allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false even where all of the premises are true.[1] The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they do not ensure its truth. Induction is employed, for example, in the following argument:

All of the ice we have examined so far is cold.
Therefore, all ice is cold.

You are using the same logic

All of the things we have seen have causes
Therefore, everything is caused

Inductive logic doesn't prove anything. It only suggests it.

You are arrogantly saying in effect you need to be God to know if God exists because you demand that you must know everything to be sure. How do I know this? Because you said, "I have only said that the argument that everything is caused is not proven." Let's say you knew the cause to everything in the universe except for one last causal relationship you did not know. According to your false humility, you could feasibly still hold out by claiming "that everything is caused is not proven." Only God could know that one last thing, but if you were to know it also then you could claim to have omniscience also. Do you see how you exalt yourself like the Devil placing yourself next to God or even above Him? I am trying to show you how obstinate you are being.

However, in reaction, when you turn around and say, "Nowhere have I said that anyone needs to be god in order to know if god exists," then you are conceding the fact you don't have to know everything; and therefore, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence of cause and effects beyond reasonable doubt is sufficient proof to prove nature always needs a cause. An eternity of the past of cause and effects leads to infinite regress, but you would have had an eternity to have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so therefore, infinite regress is false. Since nature always has a cause and can't always have existed, it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. This is whom we call God.

This is a very dumb comment you made, when you said, "That which does not exist by default can not cause anything because it does not exist. That is not to say that something which is causeless is caused by something that doesn't exist." I don't recall making the argument that which is causeless is caused by something that doesn't exist. I am the proponent of the uncaused cause and said over and over that which is causeless can't be caused by anything. You're confusing yourself.

Why don't you accept the evidence that there would have been an eternity to have happened already if there was INFINITE regress? You don't deal with this.

This is a clear contradiction: "Something coming from something without a cause has nothing to do with double talk. Often the nucleus of an atom (something) will emit ionizing particles (something coming from something) with no known cause. This is the idea of something coming from something without a cause. Coming from is not a causal statement." Something coming from something without a cause is impossible so you are double talking. You admit it is "coming from"; so that is causation. A "no known cause" is not the same thing as being "without a cause." Why assume they are the same thing? "Coming from" is a causal statement, for what it comes from causes it.

Self-consciousness is a higher function than simply atoms acting and reacting, for while self-consciousness also utilizes atoms, mere atoms alone are unable to have self-consciousness. Here is where we see your morality drop a notch for you ask, why is a birdhouse any less than a bird? Are you so frivolous with life that you would kill a bird so easily as you would use a bird house for firewood?

Why don't you believe empirical evidence can use repeatable "observation"?

This is inductive logic to say we observe trillions and trillions of causes in nature beyond a reasonable doubt, but you take it to the extreme ridiculous level to reject God, because you will always hold out for eternity that maybe something could come from nothing. You even say that all the while you admit something can't come from nothing: "That which does not exist by default can not cause anything because it does not exist." You can't see how double minded you are being can you?

[Parture]

I can see where this discussion is going... which is nowhere.

So this is going to be my last post. The entire debate is worthless, if you're going to use inductive logic and not realise you're using it nor acknowledge that you've provided no evidence for anything throughout this entire debate. Evidences consist of empirical demonstrations proving your claim. You've made no such demonstrations.

We can use inductive logic. That is how science is done, by observing repeating phenomena. We can also use deductive logic. If there was an infinite regress you would have had an eternity to have happened already, thus proving infinite regress is false. Since you admit something can't come from nothing, this proves there is a cause for nature outside of itself, outside of time and space. This is whom we call God.

With the many different ways you've interpreted my simple text, it's not a surprise that there are so many different sects of your religion causing such disastrous confusion that even your god can not explain. You assign each person to hell as if it was justifiable that a person could suffer infinite torment for a finite crime, your system of morality is perplexing to such a degree that It is not even a surprise that it is Christians that have caused the most amount of death worldwide and that it was on Christian values so many innocent people have been put to death and slavery.

God explains the differences due to man's sin nature. He also allows for diversity in His unity. You don't need conformity to have unity. The Bible even warns about those who try to look like saved wheat but are not and calls the Roman Church the great harlot that makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (Rev. 14.8). You ascribe deaths in the past to Christians but you never ask if they are Christians, for would Jesus do that? You assume you have committed a finite sin. If you continue to reject God for eternity, how is that finite? Moreover, since you don't want forgiveness from God for your past sins, you prevent Him from reconciling you back to Himself. Nothing much you say makes any sense at all.

With nothing but books of lies to support your claims. It is also not a surprise that you yourself give false testimony endlessly and lie to no end. You can barely keep up with what I've been saying in this thread.

You couldn't show any lies in God's word. Since the eyewitness are so well multiply attested in the 27 books of the New Testament, we can be confident they truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead. Now this doesn't mean they saw Him just because they said they did. We have 11 sources that say they were martyred for this testimony, and people don't willingly die for what they know to be a lie, so they truly must have believed it. Since you can find no naturalistic explanation to account for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, this is a historical and scientific proof, because you can't find anything in nature to help you overturn this evidence.

Hell does not exist. Heaven does not exist. Everything you are doing with your life regarding religions is only meaningful if it brings you closer to the people around you. Otherwise it is useless. Jesus probably did not exist either, but if he did he was just another one of the many charlatans that existed in his time claiming to be the messiah. It was not uncommon.

Your entire religion is a joke in the eyes of science and reason and no matter how much you want to say otherwise. That will never change.

Hell is needed because you can't cease to exist and you can't be with the saved. A loving God would never allow you to do harm to His people or even be in our presense, just like we have to lock up people in prison for life. You actually lock Hell from the inside.

"If you want to be my follower you must love me more than your own father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, more than your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14.26).

What the Holy Spirit is showing me here is you are using those around you as an idol to reject God, but God proved Himself. Jesus proved He is God by His resurrection. He said the only way to the Father is through the Son and unless you confess Him before others, He will deny you before the Father and not be saved.

Jesus had 45 sources written about him within 150 years of his death. Tiberius who died 4 years after Jesus only had 9. Nobody even comes close to Jesus, so if you are going to throw Him out, you have to throw all persons of antiquity out. I don't know any historians who are as belligerent as you, so you are on the fringe.

If Jesus was a lunatic, that doesn't explain the disciples' testimony they had seen Him alive from the dead in various group settings. Since group hallucinations are impossible according to modern psychology and the other theories don't fit that data even most skeptical scholars concede, then what do you got except your delusion on the road to perdition? The difference between Jesus is that Jesus actually proved it and that is why you are stuck because you can't find a naturalistic explanation.

[Finestwheat]

I thought that was funny when PureInertia said he doesn't believe something can come from nothing and doesn't think there is enough evidence to prove the universe always has a cause. So what is he waiting for...evidence to prove he is wrong about thinking something can't come from nothing to violate the first law of thermodynamics?

The universe can't always have existed like was said, we would have had an eternity before now to have happened already.