First law of thermodynamics vs God vs Big Bang

by EndofMysteries 88 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Coded Logic

  something doesn't come from nothing no matter what we think right?

  
  - sowhatnow
  

  To the contrary. Within our own universe we see something from nothing all the time. Quantum fluctuations - positive and negative energy popping in and out of existence - happen all the time. Check out the Casimir effect, it's pretty cool: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-casimir-effec/

  
  

  There have been many attempts to model truly nothing - zero energy and space/time - and it turns out "nothing" is highly unstable. From nothing you get something. It's an extremely nuanced and counter-intuitive topic. Check out this video if your interested in a full answer to your question:

  
  

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4Hsrvk_ulI
• 

  prologos

  Once you recognize that there is energy in the void, time available to have "fluctuations" prior to the big bang, energy in the void now, to feed the accelerated expansion, a pre-big-bang domain is opened up, waiting becomes possible for better questions to be asked.
• 

  cantleave

  It doesn't matter where you start - something had to come from "nothing". The god construct falls down because that would mean the "something" from "nothing" was highly complex, whereas we know complexity builds from simplicity.
• 

  abiather

  EndofMysteries

  Your question is most valid and the best I have read on this subject. First law of thermodynamics (that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another) is actually a death-dealing blow to both creationists and atheists alike.

  1) No creation is possible—means no creator.

  2) Changing from one form to another requires an Organizer (not creator) which means Scriptures like Bible are all wrong which says “In the beginning God CREATED the heavens and earth. This Organizer has not used any religious leaders to reveal about Himself, hence people have no idea—Who He is, Where He is …

  Imagine how much time and effort it took for us to extract hydrogen from water somewhat more efficiently—after trying many methods!

  http://inhabitat.com/clean-energy-breakthrough-safer-faster-method-discovered-to-extract-hydrogen-from-water/

  Hence it is not creation, nor a big-bang, but it is all about THE organizer who obviously prefers to remain undisclosed (for which He may have His own reason)!
• 

  Fisherman

  pro I follow your logic. Coded thanks for link to the awesome lecture. Had to find the beginning of it, the introduction was mostly a waste of time but if you listened carefully, some statements made by the Russian speaker in the beginning tied in with the lecture (the part about what is "nothing" and quantum mechanics fluctuations in "empty" space)

  Please correct my thinking but what is being taught (so that dummies like myself can understand) is that the universe is a/ the product of a reaction, one of the elements of the reaction is energy and the energy was neutralized in the resulting universe. In other words, the elements that caused the big bang are compounded in the resulting Universe.
  

  Anyway, getting back to the the lecture, the professor concludes that "it is "plausible" referring to a universe resulting from nothing. Without considering the dynamics of the formation of the universe, the Bible makes the remark "inexcusable" (vs plausible), referring to God's "invisible qualities" . In other words the Bible declares that it is not plausible, the ONLY conclusion is creation; The other argument is the house analogy(design).

  In the lecture,the Phd says that it is possible for ALL of the laws (or the design, or the parameters, or the path, or the nature, THE INFORMATION ) of the universe was formed as the universe formed. IN other words, the IN comes after formation according to his theory. In other words, anything and everything is possible and therefore anything and everything is true and that is why the theory is plausible. The word information speaks for itself in my opinion.

  I admit that I know that God is a reality. I do not conclude that from faith or from the Bible, or from deductive or inductive reasoning or from any logic or feelings or experiences or because of something that I read, because in those things there is the possibility of being mistaken. Without indisputable evidence that God is real, scientific theories are considerable to the mind but when a person is convinced in the existence of another reality other than the physical universe, a person's thinking is trumped by that even when physical laws or apparent facts seem to create a dilemma the mind cannot discard God's existence because the mind also has knowledge that God is fact and that fact must be considered too.

  I remember the first time I was faced with a dilemma was in trig class, 2 conflicting truths that cannot be reconciled. In my thinking now, the knowledge of God trumps.

  (My response in this topic is not about conduct it is about creation vs a universe that formed itself out of nothing.)
  
• 

  Viviane

  Without considering the dynamics of the formation of the universe, the Bible makes the remark "inexcusable" (vs plausible), referring to God's "invisible qualities" . In other words the Bible declares that it is not plausible, the ONLY conclusion is creation; The other argument is the house analogy(design).
  I admit that I know that God is a reality. I do not conclude that from faith or from the Bible, or from deductive or inductive reasoning or from any logic or feelings or experiences or because of something that I read, because in those things there is the possibility of being mistaken.
  In my thinking now, the knowledge of God trumps.

  Any pretense you initially made about wanting to know more was swiftly proven false. You're just preaching and trying to somehow show the Bible and science reconcile.

  They do not.
• 

  budbayview

  So, these laws of physics that are used to prescribe logic to either intelligent creation or not, are qualified to preceding order. If we view them not as the bases for argument but the precipitating formulas and that they were defined before all else than it demonstrates intelligent creation. It is analogous to defining how the computer program will simulate logic. First the operational logic and language, then the program can be written to carry out instruction.

  Therefore, time, space, mathematics, and all the laws of physics were defined or created, a physical construct or frame work for the universe and how all will behave with in. Then the instruction is given to set off the fusion of the big bag and it follows the principles of physics that God created to it expands.

  There are no incongruities with science and religion once it is understood that there was no science before God put it in place, there was no physics before he defined it, there was no time before he set it in motion and there was no space before he formed it. It was nothing, a concept man has difficulty grasping. To illustrate this point, why don’t we know how big the universe is or what is beyond our vision of the universe? It is because our knowledge is acquired through the exploratory curiosity of mankind and not through original thought or a priori. There is nothing that can be done that has not already been placed before us in some manner or form. We (mankind) cannot conceive from nothing.

  E=MC2 is just the formula, not the foundation.
• 

  Coded Logic

  Please correct my thinking but what is being taught (so that dummies like myself can understand) is that the universe is a/ the product of a reaction, one of the elements of the reaction is energy and the energy was neutralized in the resulting universe.
  - Fisherman

  I have absolutely no idea where you're getting that idea from. The big bang is the furthest back we can see. We don't know if there was a "before the big bang" because all the evidence seems to indicate that time started WITH the big bang. And, as causality is necessarily temporal - it makes no sense to have prior "causes".

  If this is hard to follow let me give you some basic cognitive tools. Things which "exist" are embedded in spacetime and are, in principle, measurable. Things that don't exist, are not. Something that "exists" for zero seconds - or that is fundamentally undetectable - are identical to things that don't exist.

  We can't claim that God exists and then turn around and say, "He's undetectable and exists outside of space/time." That is, by its very definition, non-existence. And, when you talk about "invisible qualities", that's EXACTLY what you're doing. You are putting him in the same category as leprechauns and fairies. If you have no way of detecting something there is no way to know it is real.

  One other point, the "dynamics of the formation of the universe" (i.e. physics) are descriptive. Not proscriptive. They are mathematical tools that describe how energy and space/time interact. They are abstractions we use to quantify our universe. But they don't exist as an intrinsic part of the universe.

  A lot of people have a hard time understanding this so I'll give a simple analogy. The laws of the universe are like the top speed of your car. It is a property of the physical limitations of your engine and gearing system. We could describe this speed as a law - the Law of Fisherman's Top Car Speed.

  Whereas the speed limit - how fast you should go - is a prescriptive law. It is determined by a body of individuals about how fast you should go. Not how fast you can go.

  The laws individuals prescribe can be broken. Even so called "God's Laws" can be broken - because they too are prescriptive. However, physical laws CANNOT be broken. Because they are not prescribed.
• 

  Fisherman

  You're just preaching and trying to somehow show the Bible and science reconcile.

  You are wrong. In court, an attorney can use any statement or written information and use it to show what he represents it to mean or what he concludes it means as it favors his theory but an analytical reader is impartial and his objective is to understand the author.

  Regarding YOUR conclusion that the Bible and Science do not reconcile is a very B ROAD statement. It is quite a burden to prove what you have stated.. But my post is not about that nor is any desire that I have shown to learn more about theories or to examine scientific evidence relating to HOW (to quote the PHD) the universe was formed, a concession that God does not exist. I refer you to re-read the theme of this thread as it relates to my post. Also, I am only expressing how I think. I am not trying to persuade you to see things my way.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Coded I understand what you are saying. I do not however want to get into a discussion about the existence of God under this topic and when I referred to the Bible's remark about "God's invisible qualities" it was not done so to persuade anyone to believe in God but only to contrast what was said in the lecture that it is "plausible" that the universe was formed without God. Also, everyone on this Forum I assume already has been taught and knows what the Bible seems to say. This post is not about rehashing all that stuff. I am sure by my comments you see how much I enjoyed the lecture.