The idea of God always existing

[IATIA]

---

"Why not save a step and say the universe always was?"

Because our natural laws say that energy cannot always have been. No beginning = scientific contradiction. We need a causal agent that is by definition supernatural (meaning outside of the natural system) so that there is no contradiction with natural laws. God fits the bill. All natural things are caused, but a supernatural being or force would not have to be caused, because they are spiritual and do not require physical energy. The causal agent has to be eternal, and eternal means unchanging (again, all changes have causes and we can't logically have infinite causes). Our universe is always changing, and its entropy is increasing, meaning the energy is running down from one starting point. What caused that spike in energy, that it is able to run down over time?

Entropy: a measure inversely related to the energy available for work in a physical system. So imagine the line above running in a downwards slope from the beginning of time.

Or, if he "always was" would not an infinite amount of time have had to pass to reach this point?

God is changeless, so time does not exist for him. He is always in the present. He made time for our world so we could learn and make choices--so we could change.

---

Obviously your mind is made up regardless of any real information that is available. So, facts would be of no use at this point. That leaves only ...

[pocaracas]

Entropy: a measure inversely related to the energy available for work in a physical system. So imagine the line above running in a downwards slope from the beginning of time.

Isn't it wonderful when people just change the definitions of physical quantities, jut to suit their arguments?

Entropy as a measure of disorder can be shown to depend on the probability that the particles of a system are in a given state of order. The tendency for entropy to increase occurs because the number of possible states of disorder that a system can assume is greater than the number of more ordered states, making a state of disorder more probable. For example, the entropy of the ordered state of the water molecules in ice crystal is less than it is when the crystal is melted to liquid water. The entropy difference involved corresponds to the transfer of heat to the crystal in order to melt it.

If you take the Universe to be a system, the overall Entropy is always on the rise. I even once heard the case to define positive time as the direction of increasing entropy.

Anyway, the more entropy, the less the energy density of the system. If you payed attention to classes, you would know that physics tells you that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
The continuous increase in entropy in the Universe only means that as time goes by, you get less and less energy per unit volume... tends to zero, but only when you get to infinite time/entropy, so it will never get there.

When you go back in time to the big bang, or better, the singularity that spawned it, all we can say is: I don't know. Entropy was at an all time low then, perhaps zero, perhaps not quite zero.
I don't know.

---

One can speculate that perhaps the Universe's Energy was already present there in some quasi-zero entropy regime for an infinite time. If entropy was practically zero and changing nothing, then time would be standing still (following that definition of time I posted above), so "infinite time" is just the same as no time at all.

The function depicted bellow is an exponential:


This function, as you go to smaller and smaller infinities, always tends to zero, but never quite makes it.
Maybe the Universe's entropy was at this state of so close to zero you could smell it, but drifting very very slowly away from that zero.
At some threshold, the big bang occurred and that's when you see the curve going up, up, up, for ever up.
End speculation.

---

As you see, a completely naturalistic explanation is possible, even if unprovable.
So tell me again how a god is more probable than this quasi-zero entropy state of the Universe?

[Undeceived]

Entropy: a measure inversely related to the energy available for work in a physical system. So imagine the line above running in a downwards slope from the beginning of time.

Isn't it wonderful when people just change the definitions of physical quantities, jut to suit their arguments?

Isn't it wonderful when we're both right?

The second law of thermodynamics says that every time energy is transformed from one state to another, there is a loss in the amount of that form of energy, which becomes available to perform work of some kind. The loss in the amount of ‘available energy’ is known as ‘entropy’. For example, if we burn a piece of coal, even then the total amount of energy remains the same but, due to the process of burning, some part of coal is transformed into sulphur-dioxide and other gases which go out and spread into space. Now, this part of the coal which has been transformed into sulfur dioxide and exhausts cannot be reborn to get the same work out of it. This kind of loss, wastage or penalty, is called 'Entropy'. The second law of Thermodynamics explains that the total entropy in the world is constantly increasing. An entropy increase, therefore, means a decrease in ‘available energy’.

Maybe the Universe's entropy was at this state of so close to zero you could smell it, but drifting very very slowly away from that zero.

Maybe entropy stretches back into infinity? How is that an answer? According to our naturalistic laws, use of any energy requires a cause. I see no cause. Or if there is a cause, its chain of causes is infinite with no first efficient cause. That defies naturalistic explanation--we cannot explain infinity, so we can never use infinity as a conclusion. Infinity is not a natural concept--it has not been observed, and it goes against observed natural laws. Infinity is the explanation provided when scientists hit the limits of observation. That's not to say it's impossible, but such an argument would no longer appeal to anything 'natural', would it?

As you see, a completely naturalistic explanation is possible, even if unprovable.

Back up. What was the naturalistic explanation?

[John V]

That's not to say it's impossible, but such an argument would no longer appeal to anything 'natural', would it?

Yes, that's the usual problem when atheists try to get around the first cause argument. Appealing to something outside known natural laws is an appeal to the supernatural. Just because it's not an appeal to a personal entity doesn't make it less so.

[Kousbroek]

Yes, that's the usual problem when atheists try to get around the first cause argument. ...

Ever 'tried' to listen to a real physicist ?

[pocaracas]

Isn't it wonderful when people just change the definitions of physical quantities, jut to suit their arguments?

Isn't it wonderful when we're both right?

The second law of thermodynamics says that every time energy is transformed from one state to another, there is a loss in the amount of that form of energy, which becomes available to perform work of some kind. The loss in the amount of ‘available energy’ is known as ‘entropy’. For example, if we burn a piece of coal, even then the total amount of energy remains the same but, due to the process of burning, some part of coal is transformed into sulphur-dioxide and other gases which go out and spread into space. Now, this part of the coal which has been transformed into sulfur dioxide and exhausts cannot be reborn to get the same work out of it. This kind of loss, wastage or penalty, is called 'Entropy'. The second law of Thermodynamics explains that the total entropy in the world is constantly increasing. An entropy increase, therefore, means a decrease in ‘available energy’.

Aye it is, sorry about that. My memory only clicked to one definition, but I see there are multiple ways to enunciate the damn law.


But, next time, quote from someplace serious!
I mean, a site that claims:

The theory of evolution, being contradictory to this well-established law [second law of thermodynamic], is erroneous

Has got to be trolling and asking for it!
Again, the second law of thermodynamics:

The second law is a postulate of thermodynamics, but it can be understood and proven using the underlying quantum statistical mechanics. It is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential decrease in an isolated physical system, leading eventually to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

Bolding added by me to bring out the main part of the fallacy of the above argument against evolution. Do you think the Earth is an isolated system? hint: Sun.

Maybe the Universe's entropy was at this state of so close to zero you could smell it, but drifting very very slowly away from that zero.

Maybe entropy stretches back into infinity? How is that an answer?

No, I must have not explained it correctly.
Entropy stretches back to zero, as time goes to minus infinity.

According to our naturalistic laws, use of any energy requires a cause.
I see no cause. Or if there is a cause, its chain of causes is infinite with no first efficient cause.

Theists favorite question: why?
Why does it require a cause?
Every system tends naturally to a state of maximum entropy. No cause necessary.

That defies naturalistic explanation--we cannot explain infinity, so we can never use infinity as a conclusion. Infinity is not a natural concept--it has not been observed, and it goes against observed natural laws.

Infinity is not a natural concept? How so?
If you don't like infinity, then truncate it. I guess you don't like infinitesimal either... as in: entropy was infinitesimally close to zero.

Infinity is the explanation provided when scientists hit the limits of observation. That's not to say it's impossible, but such an argument would no longer appeal to anything 'natural', would it?

Why not?
After all, Dirac's Delta distribution turned out to be very physically relevant.

As you see, a completely naturalistic explanation is possible, even if unprovable.

Back up. What was the naturalistic explanation?

The Universe has always been here, but, before the big bang, the rate of increase of entropy was very small, rendering time almost still.
I know it's far fetched and complete speculation.... but it can be less far fetched than an ethereal being in some other dimension creating this Universe.... IMHO.

[genkaus]

Possibly, depending on what you call 'space'. If it has no qualities and no bounds, it is nothing, and there might be no point in arguing beginning at all. You could call such a state eternal. But that's no victory for the generation of matter, because if a vacuum has the mere potentiality for material, that material only becomes an actuality with a third-party cause (Aristotle). By that same line of logic, any kind of plane for quantum fluctuations also needs a cause.

Your philosophy is more than 2000 years out of date. If only Aristotle knew about quantum physics and limits of causality...

No one was proposing space arranging into a being "prior to the beginning of the universe." They were, however, explaining that the first cause in the chain must have no beginning--it must be pure actuality. This could be a divine being, or an undiscovered force (no evidence). Or there could be a way for our current natural laws to be violated, eliminating the need for a cause->effect (with all evidence to the contrary). Again I ask, which is the most plausible to you? Or do you have another proposition to add to the list?

Its called a singularity - look it up.

Time starts the instant time itself comes into existence. In the timeline of time, time is at point 0. There is no "before" but we can look back and say there was a start. If you see this differently, please explain.

Wrong again. Time cannot "come into existence" and there can be no "point 0". Where there is a point 0, there would also be points -1, -2 and so on. If there is a "start" there would be a "before the start".

[Undeceived]

Why does it require a cause?
Every system tends naturally to a state of maximum entropy. No cause necessary.

You have to start with something. For molecules to become more disorderly over time, there must first be ordered molecules--one concentrated, unpolluted mass of energy. Without matter, there is nothing on which to measure entropy. To say entropy exists without time and matter is like saying momentum exists without an object--it's impossible. Entropy is a ruler drawn over the already physical universe. So how does that physical universe come to be?
Illustration:


Where do we get the bricks?

Infinity is not a natural concept? How so?

Unofficial, but good explanation:
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm
Infinity is not natural because it cannot be observed. If you focus at the farthest star, for example, how do you know there isn't another one beyond it? And if you find nothingness beyond, you know the stars have bounds and are not infinite. In a closed system, everything theoretically has limits, we just don't know what they are. But regardless, if entropy trails back into infinity on the timeline, part of it will not be in our universe--that part is supernatural.

Another potential issue is that of change into infinity. All changes require causes. If entropy increases perpetually, there is a constant chain of reactions with no apparent initial action. Infinite regress. That is why most scientists agree that for an object to be eternal, it must be unchanging. Things that change eventually break down.

[pocaracas]

Why does it require a cause?
Every system tends naturally to a state of maximum entropy. No cause necessary.

You have to start with something. For molecules to become more disorderly over time, there must first be ordered molecules--one concentrated, unpolluted mass of energy. Without matter, there is nothing on which to measure entropy. To say entropy exists without time and matter is like saying momentum exists without an object--it's impossible. Entropy is a ruler drawn over the already physical universe. So how does that physical universe come to be?
Illustration:


Where do we get the bricks?

hmmmm mass is a requirement for entropy? I thought it was energy and energy transfer...
How about super strings or something else that has energy but no mass?
And the big-bang is just the tipping point when the increase in entropy allows the formation of the Higgs boson and, thus, mass and all other known particles.

Infinity is not a natural concept? How so?

Unofficial, but good explanation:
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm
Infinity is not natural because it cannot be observed. If you focus at the farthest star, for example, how do you know there isn't another one beyond it? And if you find nothingness beyond, you know the stars have bounds and are not infinite. In a closed system, everything theoretically has limits, we just don't know what they are. But regardless, if entropy trails back into infinity on the timeline, part of it will not be in our universe--that part is supernatural.

Another potential issue is that of change into infinity. All changes require causes. If entropy increases perpetually, there is a constant chain of reactions with no apparent initial action. Infinite regress. That is why most scientists agree that for an object to be eternal, it must be unchanging. Things that change eventually break down.

I can conceive the plus infinity easily, or at least something that's close to it... just carry on with your version of the second law and, at infinity, you have zero available energy, and all energy trapped in equilibrium states of maximal entropy.

Why would the negative infinity be that much more complex?
At minus infinity, we get zero entropy and maximal energy availability.

We arbitrarily put the t=zero anywhere we choose.... The Big-Bang is a good candidate.


Do recall that all this is pure speculation. The "before the big-bang is considered a singularity" where the known laws of physics break down. My guess is as good as any... and I may come up with other different guesses.... but I don't think they can be proven, any of them. They just have the merit of avoiding the inclusion of a magical deity that theists like to impose on our gaps of knowledge.

[IATIA]

Yes, that's the usual problem when atheists try to get around the first cause argument.

What "first cause"? Can you prove causality exists?