A question to atheists.

[jzeidler]

If energy cannot be created nor destroyed, how did energy come into existence?

 

[Granite]

I dunno.

Cool that we're here though.

 

[Rusha]

I dunno.

No one does ...

Cool that we're here though.

:thumb:

 

[alwight]

If energy cannot be created nor destroyed, how did energy come into existence?

No idea, so it must have been a Goddidit?
How did God come into existence? :liberals:

 

[jzeidler]

A question to atheists.

No idea, so it must have been a Goddidit?

How did God come into existence? :liberals:

Why does there seem to be annoyance in your comment? All I'm asking is a question for people to think about. Whether people come to the conclusion that an eternal God created. Or that nothing made everything is none of my concern.

 

[alwight]

Why does there seem to be annoyance in your comment? All I'm asking is a question for people to think about. Whether people come to the conclusion that an eternal God created. Or that nothing made everything is none of my concern.

How specifically did you deduce annoyance?
Would atheists be expected to know where energy/matter came from?
Why shouldn't energy/matter be eternal if you think God is?

 

[jzeidler]

How specifically did you deduce annoyance?

Would atheists be expected to know where energy/matter came from?

Why shouldn't energy/matter be eternal if you think God is?

Science proves that matter is temporal and energy is unable to be created or destroyed.

 

[alwight]

Science proves that matter is temporal and energy is unable to be created or destroyed.

Science says that our universe originated from a singularity a given time ago, but it doesn't claim to ever "prove" anything, "proof" is restricted to mathematics and whiskey.
Theoretical physicists do however have a number of ideas which doesn't mean that energy itself required a beginning or that once there was absolute nothingness.
I wouldn't claim to know that energy hasn't always existed in a previous universe or part of an eternal ongoing sequence of universes. Do you claim to know better? :think:

 

[Granite]

Science proves that matter is temporal and energy is unable to be created or destroyed.

Have to understand: Questions like this don't keep me up and I don't really dwell on them. It's not a silver bullet, or anything. That's all.

 

[Hedshaker]

Why does there seem to be annoyance in your comment? All I'm asking is a question for people to think about. Whether people come to the conclusion that an eternal God created. Or that nothing made everything is none of my concern.

It's probably because we hear the same sentiments over and over and it starts to grate a little after the first 10, 000 or so times. The words used vary but the meaning is pretty much the same: where did this come from and where did that come from and how come there's all this smoke and no fire? And so on. Contrary to popular theist beliefs atheists and sceptics did not come floating down the Thames on a wee wee pot.

The implication is clear enough given a few milliseconds of thought. There must be an explanation therefore Bible-God must have done it.

So then the next question is, Ok so where did God come from, then? At this point the apologetics start to roll. We learn that the rule doesn't apply to God depending on what apologetics are being considered, but it's often along the lines of: God gets a free pass on that because God didn't begin to exist but always existed.
From here the whole thing may morph into a variation on the kalam cosmological argument. It's always favourite to change the subject if they think they're losing ground.

But it can get much worse, especially if the presuppositional apologists stick their illogical oar in. Shudder!

 

[musterion]

From here the whole thing may morph into a variation on the kalam cosmological argument. It's always favourite to change the subject if they think they're losing ground.

Refute it, then. No links, no c/p, refute it yourself.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

 

[Interplanner]

It's probably because we hear the same sentiments over and over and it starts to grate a little after the first 10, 000 or so times. The words used vary but the meaning is pretty much the same: where did this come from and where did that come from and how come there's all this smoke and no fire? And so on. Contrary to popular theist beliefs atheists and sceptics did not come floating down the Thames on a wee wee pot.

The implication is clear enough given a few milliseconds of thought. There must be an explanation therefore Bible-God must have done it.

So then the next question is, Ok so where did God come from, then? At this point the apologetics start to roll. We learn that the rule doesn't apply to God depending on what apologetics are being considered, but it's often along the lines of: God gets a free pass on that because God didn't begin to exist but always existed.
From here the whole thing may morph into a variation on the kalam cosmological argument. It's always favourite to change the subject if they think they're losing ground.

But it can get much worse, especially if the presuppositional apologists stick their illogical oar in. Shudder!

I think perhaps you haven't considered enough of the Christian presuppositions. Among those that might help you answer your questions:
mankind is quite limited in understanding;
mankind tends toward the most antagonistic and hostile views of God, given the choice;
mankind would not be in a position to evaluate the 'worth' of God's other activities, plans, actions any more than a person at the bottom of a 500 foot well in an unfamiliar country could tell much about the people at the top by scant echoes that come down. Not even the language. Now, if the people or person at the top of the well sends down a letter in the person's own ordinary language, that's another matter totally.

 

[Hedshaker]

Refute it, then. No links, no c/p, refute it yourself.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

1. How do you know your God didn't begin to exist? You can't even prove it even exists let alone began to exist.

2. Began to exist from what, exactly? The state of existence, pre Big Bang, is not known at this time.

3. The universe may have had a cause but that doesn't prove a Goddidit

No links, No apologetics sites. No Bible verses.

 

[jzeidler]

It's probably because we hear the same sentiments over and over and it starts to grate a little after the first 10, 000 or so times. The words used vary but the meaning is pretty much the same: where did this come from and where did that come from and how come there's all this smoke and no fire? And so on. Contrary to popular theist beliefs atheists and sceptics did not come floating down the Thames on a wee wee pot.



The implication is clear enough given a few milliseconds of thought. There must be an explanation therefore Bible-God must have done it.



So then the next question is, Ok so where did God come from, then? At this point the apologetics start to roll. We learn that the rule doesn't apply to God depending on what apologetics are being considered, but it's often along the lines of: God gets a free pass on that because God didn't begin to exist but always existed.

From here the whole thing may morph into a variation on the kalam cosmological argument. It's always favourite to change the subject if they think they're losing ground.



But it can get much worse, especially if the presuppositional apologists stick their illogical oar in. Shudder!

I stand with Aristotle:

The unmoved mover (Ancient Greek: ὃ οὐ κινούμενος κινεῖ,[1] ho ou kinoúmenos kineî, "that which moves without being moved") or prime mover (Latin: primum movens) is a monotheistic concept advanced by Aristotle, a polytheist,[2][3] as a primary cause or "mover" of all the motion in the universe.[4]

 

[Tyrathca]

Refute it, then. No links, no c/p, refute it yourself.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Quantum physics says that's not true (it true only at our macroscopic level under present conditions which we experience)

2. The universe began to exist.

It is unknown whether this is true. We could be in an infinite repetition of universes before us from which we formed. Or we could be in an infinite causal loop. Or it could be a misleading statement much like asking what is north of the north pole. Or.... I could keep positing alternatives.

The point is we don't know whether the universe began, we merely know that within our universes past was a singularity.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Or the universe itself is the first uncaused cause / prime mover / whatever you want to call it. Or there was no first cause....

I don't know and neither do you, despite how confidence you may have in your special feeling / faith / whatever.

 

[gcthomas]

If energy cannot be created nor destroyed, how did energy come into existence?

The conservation of energy law is the result of the time-translational-invariance of physical laws (see Noether's Theorem, that links symmetries such as this to the various conservation laws).

But in General Relativity space-time is dynamical, so the universe does not experience time-invariance symmetry in general. So Noether's theorem does not apply, and therefore the idea of energy conservation is not true (although it can approximately be applied in restricted, local reference frame problems.)

One obvious example is the issue of energy for cosmic redshift. This is due to the expansion of the universe, where light is stretched to longer wavelengths over time. Longer wavelengths have less energy, but the energy has not gone anywhere else - it is just that the light has continually moved from one reference frame to another so the energy conservation 'law' does not apply.

 

[Tyrathca]

One obvious example is the issue of energy for cosmic redshift. This is due to the expansion of the universe, where light is stretched to longer wavelengths over time. Longer wavelengths have less energy, but the energy has not gone anywhere else - it is just that the light has continually moved from one reference frame to another so the energy conservation 'law' does not apply.

Well how about that, I learnt something new. I've known about redshift for so long but never realised the implications. :thumb:

 

[musterion]

1. How do you know your God didn't begin to exist? You can't even prove it even exists let alone began to exist.

2. Began to exist from what, exactly? The state of existence, pre Big Bang, is not known at this time.

3. The universe may have had a cause but that doesn't prove a Goddidit

No links, No apologetics sites. No Bible verses.

Your avoidance dance is clumsy and toddlerlike.

 

[gcthomas]

Refute it, then. No links, no c/p, refute it yourself.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

What does the word 'begin' mean when applied to the universe as a four dimensional structure?

Time is a feature of the universe, so you would have to be talking about a forum of time that exists outside of the universe, for which there is not even theoretical, let alone empirical, evidence.

 

[6days]

Why shouldn't energy/matter be eternal if you think God is?

That is a good question.
If energy is eternal, is it also possible that 'eternal energy' has intelligence, omniscience?