ARCHIVE: Burden of Proof

[Nathon Detroit]

When I first entered this thread I specifically identified the 2nd law as what I thought you were relying on. You could have saved us all some ink had you said in your first response to me what you are saying now.

Be that as it may, I am willing to look at the 1st law. Is the 1st law what you were referencing as “unbreakable”?

I have referred to both laws. But not in relation to the creation of matter and energy.

Do you believe that matter and energy can create themselves from nothing?

 

[fool]

Yup... and as predicted you still haven't answered.

I've answered twice, sorry if it wasen't what you wanted, why don't you take what I gave you and respond from there?

 

[koban]

I have referred to both laws. But not in relation to the creation of matter and energy.

Do you believe that matter and energy can create themselves from nothing?

What is "matter", on a sub-atomic level?

What is "energy"?


What is "nothing"?

 

[ThePhy]

Do you believe that matter and energy can create themselves from nothing?

That clever phrasing that you use has become almost ubiquitous among creationists. The very phrasing implies a circularity in reasoning, since in our experience something has to exist to create something. And if the universe existed, it wouldn’t need to create itself. Makes a good sound byte.

Now, since you have once again skirted giving answer, I will ask, do you believe the Laws of thermo are “unbreakable”? Remember, you are the one that referred to "unbreakable" laws of science. Were you just spouting nonsense?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Now, since you have once again skirted giving answer, I will ask, do you believe the Laws of thermo are “unbreakable”? Remember, you are the one that referred to "unbreakable" laws of science. Were you just spouting nonsense?

If I believed the laws were breakable why would I have referred to them as "unbreakable", explain to me again who is obfuscating?

Do you believe the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are breakable?

And if so, do you believe they are breakable as they relate to creation and or the entropy of creation?

1. Do you believe matter and energy created themselves from nothing at some point in the past?

2. Or do you believe that matter and energy have always existed but the for some reason we still have usable energy?

3. Do you believe a SUPERnatural force created matter and energy at some point in the past?

Which one of those options do you believe?

Or.... do you believe there are other options, and if so could you speculate as to what those other options might be?

 

[ThePhy]

If I believed the laws were breakable why would I have referred to them as "unbreakable", explain to me again who is obfuscating?

Ok, then you do not buy into the premise that all conclusions in science are open to change?

Do you believe the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are breakable?

I don’t think so within the regions where they apply.

And if so, do you believe they are breakable as they relate to creation and or the entropy of creation?

are you familiar w/ the Laws of Thermo in QM and relativistic regions?

1. Do you believe matter and energy created themselves from nothing at some point in the past?

I don’t see any diff between this phrasing and the nonsense phrasing you used a post ago.

2. Or do you believe that matter and energy have always existed but the for some reason we still have usable energy?

nope

3. Do you believe a SUPERnatural force created matter and energy at some point in the past?

As one of your eminent Christian fathers of the sciences said, “I have no need of that hypothesis”.

Which one of those options do you believe?

Or.... do you believe there are other options, and if so could you speculate as to what those other options might be?

Yes, I speculate that several credible independent lines of evidence point towards the big bang. I speculate that time itself was a product of the big bang, and to speak of “before the big bang” is therefore gobbledygook. I speculate that there is a brief interval of time after the big bang which is inaccessible to the laws of physics as they exist now. I speculate that as the lines of research are accumulating evidence supporting the big bang, Creationists will continue stand on the sidelines ever willing to run up and put a big “God did it” stamp on each new discovery. Rather like children desperate for recognition.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I don’t see any diff between this phrasing and the nonsense phrasing you used a post ago.

I see nothing wrong with the phrasing.

Yes, I speculate that several credible independent lines of evidence point towards the big bang. I speculate that time itself was a product of the big bang, and to speak of “before the big bang” is therefore gobbledygook. I speculate that there is a brief interval of time after the big bang which is inaccessible to the laws of physics as they exist now. I speculate that as the lines of research are accumulating evidence supporting the big bang,

Due to all of this "speculation" on your part would you consider the "Big Bang" to be natural or SUPERnatural?

Creationists will continue stand on the sidelines ever willing to run up and put a big “God did it” stamp on each new discovery. Rather like children desperate for recognition.

Sidelines?

Read this thread!

The only folks willing to offer plausible explanations seem to be the Creationists. All the rest (including you) appeal to the "Singularity" of the gaps theory.

 

[ThePhy]

I see nothing wrong with the phrasing.

I am sure you would like to have me say that matter and energy created itself, and then laugh yourself silly. If you don’t see the circularity in your phrasing, then I question that I can make it more obvious to you.

Due to all of this "speculation" on your part would you consider the "Big Bang" to be natural or SUPERnatural?

The immense progress that has been made so far in understanding the big bang has been done under the rules of science. How many aspects of the big bang can you show us that derive from Biblical sources?

Sidelines?

Read this thread!

I was thinking of bob b’s recently appropriating credit for big bang inflation to God, when he had been uniformly mocking it for years until some evidence showed up supporting it.

The only folks willing to offer plausible explanations seem to be the Creationists. All the rest (including you) appeal to the "Singularity" of the gaps theory.

I don’t know what you mean by the “gaps theory”. As to plausible explanations, as I already asked above, how about itemizing some of the plausible explanations from creationism? Some specific claims, so that we can see how they compare with what science has come up with.

Back on the subject of the Laws of Thermo, I guess being Chief of this site means you can do kind of like bob b, just pretend that uncomfortable questions were never asked.

Are you aware of the interpretation of the Second Law of Thermo saying that a closed system always tends towards a state of disorder? (It’s a variant of entropy generalized to handle things that are discrete, like things with finite energy levels).

 

[Vaquero45]

Knight said:

Or.... do you believe there are other options, and if so could you speculate as to what those other options might be?

Yes, I speculate that several credible independent lines of evidence point towards the big bang. I speculate that time itself was a product of the big bang, and to speak of “before the big bang” is therefore gobbledygook. I speculate that there is a brief interval of time after the big bang which is inaccessible to the laws of physics as they exist now. I speculate that as the lines of research are accumulating evidence supporting the big bang, Creationists will continue stand on the sidelines ever willing to run up and put a big “God did it” stamp on each new discovery. Rather like children desperate for recognition.

The "big bang" idea goes in the "the universe created itself" category. It isn't a "fourth" option. No matter how far you break down the elements and obfuscate the details of the big bang, my question will still be "where did that come from?", and your answer will ultimately inevitably be, "it created itself".

The only plausible answer offered so far is an uncaused supernatural cause, unless of course you can find that elusive fourth option.

 

[asilentskeptic]

The "big bang" idea goes in the "the universe created itself" category. It isn't a "fourth" option. No matter how far you break down the elements and obfuscate the details of the big bang, my question will still be "where did that come from?", and your answer will ultimately inevitably be, "it created itself".

The only plausible answer offered so far is an uncaused supernatural cause, unless of course you can find that elusive fourth option.

This could be an endless circle. *sigh*

I understand what you are saying, But can't similar statements be made of God. How different is it to claim that God has "always existed". Why can't the universe have always existed? I am not saying I believe that, but why one and not the other? If we say the universe was created by God, where did God come from? It just comes down to faith

 

[ThePhy]

The "big bang" idea goes in the "the universe created itself" category. It isn't a "fourth" option. No matter how far you break down the elements and obfuscate the details of the big bang, my question will still be "where did that come from?", and your answer will ultimately inevitably be, "it created itself".

The only plausible answer offered so far is an uncaused supernatural cause, unless of course you can find that elusive fourth option.

But implicit in your question of “where did that come from” is that there was a time before the universe existed when there was nothing. But time did not exit prior to the big bang so your question becomes meaningless; there was no “before”. This idea of time coming into existence with the 3 spatial dimensions is not just a convenient invention to avoid having to answer questions like yours, it is a fundamental conclusion based on physical principles.

And once again, I remind you that physics can handle what happened down to a blink of time after the big bang, but in that first primordial blink, all of our physics breaks down. “We don’t know” is a perfectly truthful answer for a lot of questions in science, and an understanding of the first moment after the big bang is in that category.

So if you need to posit “an uncaused supernatural cause” as the “only plausible answer” go ahead. Others prefer invisible pink elephants under their bed, and have equal proof of their correctness. Personally, I don’t find much comfort in inventing psychological placebos like “uncaused causes”.

When I take a trip to a new destination, I am content knowing that what lies ahead is unknown to me. Including the trip into the new unexplored regions of science.

(And Knight was vigorous about his involvment in this subject before I came in. Where did he go?)

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This could be an endless circle. *sigh*

I understand what you are saying, But can't similar statements be made of God. How different is it to claim that God has "always existed". Why can't the universe have always existed? I am not saying I believe that, but why one and not the other? If we say the universe was created by God, where did God come from? It just comes down to faith

It's pretty simple really....

The universe is natural. And therefore subject to the natural laws. We can be sure (because of science) that the universe could not have existed eternally and still be functioning or not have created itself from nothing.

God by definition is SUPERnatural. The SUPERnatural by definition would not be subject to the natural laws and therefore COULD HAVE existed eternally into the past or have NOT BEEN created.

IN SUMMARY....
Natural things are subject to natural laws
SUPERnatural things are NOT subject to natural laws

 

[Nathon Detroit]

(And Knight was vigorous about his involvment in this subject before I came in. Where did he go?)

I never left.

And I have responded to every post you have made. Spare us the dramatics will ya?

The Big Bang you described in your last post is nothing more than a speculated, unscientific version of god creating the universe except you remove God's name and replace it with "Big Bang".

You have great faith that this "Big Bang" was able to accomplish the supernatural.

 

[ThePhy]

I never left.

And I have responded to every post you have made. Spare us the dramatics will ya?

I hate to leave center stage to you alone.

The Big Bang you described in your last post is nothing more than a speculated, unscientific version of god creating the universe except you remove God's name and replace it with "Big Bang".

I find it interesting that you so trivially ignore that a number of scientific lines of evidence point specifically towards a big bang. Hubble, HDF, UDF, CMB, Hubble Constant, CN temperatures, and so on – all telling the same story – a story which you label as speculative and unscientific.

I would expect that you creationists with your thousands of years head start on the scientific understanding of creation would have been the driving forces in a number of scientific investigations to validate the details of your science. But no, your forte is to stand back and ridicule real science, sort of a fundamentalist version of sour grapes.

You have great faith that this "Big Bang" was able to accomplish the supernatural.

Quite the opposite. All of our investigations have been predicated on the premise that the supernatural is exactly what we do not need to invoke. We leave that for you people to rely on, since you are scientifically barren.

And even though you have, as you say, “responded to every post”, I fail to see you even once stepping up to the plate and giving answer to my oft-posed question - Are the conclusions of science always open to challenge?

 

[noguru]

I never left.

And I have responded to every post you have made. Spare us the dramatics will ya?

The Big Bang you described in your last post is nothing more than a speculated, unscientific version of god creating the universe except you remove God's name and replace it with "Big Bang".

You have great faith that this "Big Bang" was able to accomplish the supernatural.

Can you point out where it is claimed that the "Big Bang accomplished the supernatural" (I mean in any peer reviewed scientific literature regarding the Big Bang)?

Or where in any of the peer reviewed scientific literature that the Bing Bang is claimed to be a "version of God creating the universe"? Oh that's right, they just left out mentioning God's name. Tell me, if they mentioned God's name, would it make you feel better? :noid:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Can you point out where it is claimed that the "Big Bang accomplished the supernatural" (I mean in any peer reviewed scientific literature regarding the Big Bang)?

Well.....

But implicit in your question of “where did that come from” is that there was a time before the universe existed when there was nothing. But time did not exit prior to the big bang (speculation that insinuates the SUPERnatural) so your question becomes meaningless; there was no “before” (speculation that insinuates the SUPERnatural) . This idea of time coming into existence with the 3 spatial dimensions is not just a convenient invention to avoid having to answer questions like yours, it is a fundamental conclusion based on physical principles (speculation that insinuates the SUPERnatural) .

And once again, I remind you that physics can handle what happened down to a blink of time after the big bang, but in that first primordial blink, all of our physics breaks down (speculation that insinuates the SUPERnatural) . “We don’t know” is a perfectly truthful answer for a lot of questions in science, and an understanding of the first moment after the big bang is in that category.

So if you need to posit “an uncaused supernatural cause” as the “only plausible answer” go ahead (ThePhy is also positing an "uncaused cause") . Others prefer invisible pink elephants under their bed, and have equal proof of their correctness. Personally, I don’t find much comfort in inventing psychological placebos like “uncaused causes” (except in this post ) .

ThePhy is appealing to events that do not fit into what we would call "natural" i.e., a time before time, things coming from nothing etc.

The only difference between a theist and ThePhy is that ThePhy calls his SUPERnatual "natural". :chuckle:

 

[ThePhy]

Well.....ThePhy is appealing to events that do not fit into what we would call "natural" i.e., a time before time, things coming from nothing etc.

The only difference between a theist and ThePhy is that ThePhy calls his SUPERnatual "natural". :chuckle:

I freely admit that what I am proposing does not fit well with intuition. Such has been the course of science for most of the past century. The revolution in physics that is often termed “Modern Physics” is largely comprised of concepts that even physics students find grating on first encounter. I don’t know of a scientist who wouldn’t like to return physics to fit neatly within our preconceptions. But science didn’t take up the quest into Quantum Mechanics or Relativity to satisfy some internal longings for meaning like religion does, it went where the evidence pointed. And even then not always willingly. The counter-intuitive ideas arising from Modern Physics have been subjected to a long history of more and more severe tests. The result has not been to discredit the ideas, but to show that the laws of nature do not bend to man’s whims. Laugh at them, such has often been the refuge of small minds. But don’t open up your PC, lest you find things like tunnel diodes therein, which relies on the fundamental correctness of counter-intuitive ideas.

But it would be nice if the creationists would grow up enough to seriously think about why they are scientifically barren. Why does science do more to advance technology in every generation than religionists with their conduit to the source of all truth were able to do in the 2 millennia since Christ?

Ridicule no time before time. Ridicule the big bang. That is the sum of Creationists gift to technological progress – ridicule.

Are the conclusions of science always open to challenge? Why are you so afraid of this question?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I freely admit that what I am proposing does not fit well with intuition. Such has been the course of science for most of the past century. The revolution in physics that is often termed “Modern Physics” is largely comprised of concepts that even physics students find grating on first encounter. I don’t know of a scientist who wouldn’t like to return physics to fit neatly within our preconceptions. But science didn’t take up the quest into Quantum Mechanics or Relativity to satisfy some internal longings for meaning like religion does, it went where the evidence pointed. And even then not always willingly. The counter-intuitive ideas arising from Modern Physics have been subjected to a long history of more and more severe tests. The result has not been to discredit the ideas, but to show that the laws of nature do not bend to man’s whims. Laugh at them, such has often been the refuge of small minds. But don’t open up your PC, lest you find things like tunnel diodes therein, which relies on the fundamental correctness of counter-intuitive ideas.

Fair enough.

But it would be nice if the creationists would grow up enough to seriously think about why they are scientifically barren.

Science closes gaps. God loves science. :cloud9:

Why does science do more to advance technology in every generation than religionists with their conduit to the source of all truth were able to do in the 2 millennia since Christ?

Many of the founders of the modern sciences were not only theists but fundamentalist Christians. You know that.

Are the conclusions of science always open to challenge? Why are you so afraid of this question?

As I already stated... you can challenge the laws of science all you like! I have no problem with that! In fact, the more science discovers the more gaps that will close and the less wiggle room the lost will have.

 

[ThePhy]

Science closes gaps. God loves science.

Does he equally dislike those who mock science without really understanding it – like Enyart?

Many of the founders of the modern sciences were not only theists but fundamentalist Christians. You know that.

Indeed I do, and I am glad you do too. So, can you tell us all how old that particularly eminent Christian scientist called Lord Kelvin said the earth was?

As I already stated... you can challenge the laws of science all you like! I have no problem with that! In fact, the more science discovers the more gaps that will close and the less wiggle room the lost will have.

Is this a tacit admission that even the “unbreakable” laws of science that you alluded to might be subject to challenge?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Is this a tacit admission that even the “unbreakable” laws of science that you alluded to might be subject to challenge?

Challenge anything you want!

Knock yourself out! :thumb:

2+2 might equal 5, create a four sided triangle, determine the length of time it took before time came into existence. Knock yourself out! Everybody's got to have a hobby.

ThePhy.... to maintain your world-view you need to have faith that the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics might be breakable. I realize that. And you have your own will. You are free to think whatever you want to think I am not going to try to force you to believe in the conclusions of science.