The following is not a question: Can something come from nothing?
April 3, 2014 at 12:34 pm
(This post was last modified: April 3, 2014 at 12:36 pm by Rampant.A.I..)
(April 3, 2014 at 9:59 am)alpha male Wrote:(April 3, 2014 at 8:19 am)Alex K Wrote: Why did the cascade so obviously violate your sense of time, while the other parts of the creek did not? The reason is entropy: the cascade is, from the physics point of view, a very irreversible process which produces lots of entropy. The creek running its course quietly produces entropy as well because of the friction the water experiences, but much less so than the cascade.Er, water falling (so to speak) up seems to violate the laws of physics to me.
The surprising thing is this: nothing in the backwards-running movie violates the laws of physics.
Quote:Note what has happened: we use the words which have meanings in our everyday lives as well as in science, and try to apply them in a scenario so different that none of them retain any meaning. Two things spoil the question: if there is no universe full of particles doing their statistical dance, there is no notion of an arrow of time, even if we assume that time as a continuous parameter exists. However, if we let even go of this, if we feel compelled to talk about the creation of time itself, all meaning is lost, and the questions we utter merely resemble questions, but in reality only mimic them.In appealing to a time or state or what have you in which the laws of physics as we know them don't apply, you're appealing to the supernatural, like the theist.
Two things: gravity isn't a law of physics to you?
And saying "we don't know" is not the same as an appeal to the supernatural. No theist advancing an ontological argument has ever explained why the laws of physics we observe within the existing universe would apply before the universe existed.
There's no reason to assume they would.
(April 3, 2014 at 11:09 am)alpha male Wrote:(April 3, 2014 at 10:45 am)Ben Davis Wrote: If something can't come from nothing then God couldn't have created the universe with his magical powers.I think it's generally understood that there's an implied "naturally" in the argument, i.e. something can't naturally come from nothing.
That's an add in to support the special pleading of God not needing a cause, being eternal, preexisting the universe, none of which are supported by the argument.