About 16billion years ago ‘something’ happened.

According to scientists, ‘something’ literarily popped out of ‘nothingness’. And that ‘something’ continued to expand, giving birth to what is now known as the Universe. This is what scientists call the ‘big bang’ theory.  http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

When asked about what existed before the big bang, some scientists try to wiggle out of the question by saying that ‘nothing’ actually existed. They elaborate on this answer by saying that ‘time’ as a concept came into existence with the ‘big bang’, so scientifically speaking, ‘nothing’ could have happened before time came into existence! Yeah right!

Okay, so ‘nothing’ existed before the ‘big bang’? Right? Well, kind of ‘nothing’.

Some say that to understand the idea of ‘nothingness’, we may need to look closely at how subatomic particles behave.

Okay, so how do subatomic particles behave? Well we now know, for instance, that at the level of particle physics, ‘virtual particles’ continuously form and disappear. In other words, at this level energy and matter are created out of ‘nothingness’! ‘Nothingness’ some concede may actually be other-dimensional space.  http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~alberto/physics/string.html . That’s progress if one where to look at it from the perspective that there was some kind of other-dimensional ‘existence’ before the ‘big bang’, even if in ‘scientific’ terms it would be called ‘nothing’. Well, not 'nothing' as in 'nothing'. But, yeah, something like 'nothing'.

So it is likely that if we were to go back 16 billion years ago, when ‘everything’ we know can be compressed into the size of, say, a pea, then scientifically speaking the primordial substance could have behaved like ‘virtual particles’ and instead of just disappearing, as it sometimes does, into nothing; it did an unusual thing and continued to expand! Well this is ‘understandable’, because at this level anything can happen. At least that’s one of the inferences one can make from the ‘uncertainty principle’, which we now ‘know virtual particles are subject to. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/

Obviously a lot of atheists start to sweat under the armpits when confronted with the implausibility of all this.

Most atheists that i know, subscribe to the ‘religion’ of scientific determinism, yet cannot see that believing that matter just popped out of ‘nothingness’ and then calling this a ‘natural’ occurrence, is almost as natural as believing that ‘magicians’ can actually pull out rabbits out of their hats!

Let’s also bear in mind that at the level of quantum mechanics-a cutting edge field of science, let’s not forget-the uncertainty in the position and velocity of virtual particles actually changes when there is an observer there to measure their movements and velocity. In other words at that level of quantum mechanics, chaos becomes more orderly and vice versa!. Quite peculiar. I’d say!

So, I am curious to see the atheists here defend their position that everything has come out of nothing, in spite of the ‘fact’ that in an ideal natural world where there is no supernatural interference, nature should tend towards chaos and not order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Noboby knows what was before the big bang, or what caused it. All that is known for definite is that the universe is expanding. There are many questions which the answers have not been found yet. The big bang theory is just a result of observations that all galaxies are moving away from each other. This is an undeniable fact.
To ask a scientist what caused it or what was before it is like asking if it is possible to build a time machine. The answer may be discovered one day the more we search for it. If it wasnt for scientists we would not have known that we are part of an immense expanding universe in the first place.

mantraa:

Noboby knows what was before the big bang, or what caused it. All that is known for definite is that the universe is expanding. There are many questions which the answers have not been found yet. The big bang theory is just a result of observations that all galaxies are moving away from each other. This is an undeniable fact.
To ask a scientist what caused it or what was before it is like asking if it is possible to build a time machine. The answer may be discovered one day the more we search for it. If it wasnt for scientists we would not have known that we are part of an immense expanding universe in the first place.

I don't have any beaf with scientists. I even call myself one, sometimes!

The purpose of the piece i started is to highlight the fact that it's arrogant of 'atheist' scientists to assume that they know enough to disparage the position of those that believe that creation happened because something-which they prefer to call God-made it happen. That's all. Those that don't want to accept this are liberty to subsribe to the position that 'something' came out of 'nothing'.

Now about the universe 'expanding'. There's a lot of talk about this isn't there.

Some might tell you that the 'universe'-if by it we mean all known creation-is not expanding. But then that's some. These days the concept of the 'universe' is becoming increasingly more blurred. Because some will ask, 'is the universe just the spacetime continuum that we see out there?',  'if that's the 'universe' then what is it expanding into?'; others who are adept at the mathematics of the stars may even tell you that something is wrong with their calculations, because evidence would suggest that by now, this  expanding universe should have long started collapsing on itself!

To get around all this 'science', we-by which i mean 'intelligent' human beings-have come up with something called Dark energy and Dark matter!

The current thinking is that everything ever observed by all our instruments and all 'normal' matter adds up to barely 5% of the 'universe'! The other 95% is made up of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'. Now the interesting thing about all this is that nobody seems to be sure what 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' are!

Did i mention that i don't have any beaf with scientists? I sure don't. It's only arrogant humans i have problems with. That's all.

I have no beef with scientists either. I just dont understand why some people expect them to have all the answers. They dont. All they can do is show what has been observed using the latest telescopes. What has been observed is that all the galaxies are moving away from each other like the aftermath of an explosion. What they are moving into is not known, and what caused it is not known. This is why they have kept building bigger and better telecopes since the time of galileo to find the answers to these questions based on the things they detect.
Do you not think that it is the religious leaders who are being arrogant by claiming to already have all the answers.

mantraa:

Do you not think that it is the religious leaders who are being arrogant by claiming to already have all the answers.

No. Arrogance does not have to be blamed as a default on 'religious leaders'. Indeed many 'scientists' have been as arrogant in some of the assertions they have made about cosmology. For example, we understand that some scientists argued assertively that the universe is all there is and all there has been and all there ever will be. In other words, they argued that the universe had been around forever and would be around forever (as Dr. Krauss notes in one of his talks - here; please note that this is not to accuse Dr. Krauss of making that mistake).

The real problem here is not 'science' per se. Rather, it is actually scientists who try to argue from a bias that is neither scientific nor rational.

@beneli, thank you. This is a fine thread - the topic is well discussed in the OP, and the title well thought out.

beneli:

So, I am curious to see the atheists here defend their position that everything has come out of nothing, in spite of the ‘fact’ that in an ideal natural world where there is no supernatural interference, nature should tend towards chaos and not order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

I've wondered about this as well when I opened the other thread, 'Can Anything Come Out Of Nothing?' (I should have added 'on its own', so that readers would have understood the question was trying to address if anything could come out of nothing on its own).

Well said Viaro.
IMO, both scientists and "religionists " have been arrogant all along in making assertions about what doesn't lie in their domain. But I think the "religionists " are more guilty of the offense.

VALIDATOR:

Well said Viaro.
IMO, both scientists and "religionists " have been arrogant all along in making assertions about what doesn't lie in their domain. But I think the "religionists " are more guilty of the offense.

True.

beneli:


So, I am curious to see the atheists here defend their position that everything has come out of nothing, in spite of the ‘fact’ that in an ideal natural world where there is no supernatural interference, nature should tend towards chaos and not order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

On what basis are you making this ridiculous assertion? You are just begging the question because you have not even began to show that there is any supernatural entity out there that is interfering on any part of the universe. You as a "scientist" should not be making this kind of off hand comments, On what objective and empirical basis did you conclude that nature tend towards chaos and only the super natural tend towards order? How did you come to the conclusion to suggest as you have that there is a super natural entity out there that interferes with the universe and that nature turns only towards chaos?

Hi VALIDATOR,

VALIDATOR:

Well said Viaro.
IMO, both scientists and "religionists " have been arrogant all along in making assertions about what doesn't lie in their domain.

While I agree with your first statement above, this one is not quite true:

But I think the "religionists " are more guilty of the offense.

No, and that was what I was trying to set straight. Religious people are not more guilty if you take a good look at the many atheists who think they know far much more to draw conclusions about the world than anyone else does. It is only when the spotlight is on them that they turn round and make disclaimers that they do not 'know'. I find it quite arrogant for an atheist to assert that the universe had been around forever and would be around forever while claiming that is 'science'; but the same 'science' now leads us to understand that such an assertion is quite dogmatic especially in the face of the fact that thinkers had leaned towards the possibility of the fact that the Universe had a beginning.

Even today where cosmology is discussed in the corridors of science, people who know what they are talking about try as much as possible to do their science without colouring it with any type of worldview - whether theistic or atheistic. It is quite unfortunate, however, that many atheists in these fields can hardly talk science without interpolating their own atheism into their type of 'science'. It is just that these type of behaviour, laughable as it is, has gone on for too long that we're all now used to it and laugh it off for the emptiness they portray.

Howdy tonyeb,

toneyb:

beneli: So, I am curious to see the atheists here defend their position that everything has come out of nothing, in spite of the ‘fact’ that in an ideal natural world where there is no supernatural interference, nature should tend towards chaos and not order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

On what basis are you making this ridiculous assertion? You are just begging the question because you have not even began to show that there is any supernatural entity out there that is interfering on any part of the universe.

Lol. I don't think it sounds like he was trying to "show" that there is a supernatural entity who was interferring on any part of the Universe. If it seems that way, I won't argue endlessly on that.

On the other hand, it would seem that the statement is quite simple - 'in an ideal natural world where there is no supernatural interference', one would expect that 'nature should tend towards chaos and not order'. At least, this is what atheist scientists have been singing all along! An example is in the other thread where Dr. Krauss tries to jump to that conclusion in his cosmological talk. How does the atheist explain the idea that nature on its own just popped into existence and resulted in an ordered or orderly universe? Hardly do they show how this is demonstrated; rather, they make the statement, pretend to sound like 'science' leads to that idea; and then take huge leaps to arrive at their conclusions - everyone applauds happily and the meeting is over. What is achieved scientifically when 'scientists' try to gull the public in such a manner?

You as a "scientist" should not be making this kind of off hand comments, On what objective and empirical basis did you conclude that nature tend towards chaos and only the super natural tend towards order?

A good question. This is one possible way to think about it: do you, tonyeb, know of nature just popping into existence on its own and coming into an ordered and orderly universe? What science has empirically confirmed this accurately? No, I have not jumped to any conclusions about the 'supernatural', as I do not mix them up - my posts can testify to the fact that I do not mix worldviews and science together. But what science gives us a cosmology of the natural world popping into existence on its own to produce the ordered universe?

The real problem many people fail to see is that endless arguments spring from people arguing worldviews into science. This is what usually happens, and at the end of the day answers are never forthcoming. Just think carefully about it.

viaro:

Hi VALIDATOR,

While I agree with your first statement above, this one is not quite true:

No, and that was what I was trying to set straight. Religious people are not more guilty if you take a good look at the many atheists who think they know far much more to draw conclusions about the world than anyone else does. It is only when the spotlight is on them that they turn round and make disclaimers that they do not 'know'. I find it quite arrogant for an atheist to assert that the universe had been around forever and would be around forever while claiming that is 'science'; but the same 'science' now leads us to understand that such an assertion is quite dogmatic especially in the face of the fact that thinkers had leaned towards the possibility of the fact that the Universe had a beginning.

Even today where cosmology is discussed in the corridors of science, people who know what they are talking about try as much as possible to do their science without colouring it with any type of worldview - whether theistic or atheistic. It is quite unfortunate, however, that many atheists in these fields can hardly talk science without interpolating their own atheism into their type of 'science'. It is just that these type of behaviour, laughable as it is, has gone on for too long that we're all now used to it and laugh it off for the emptiness they portray.

All what you have said can be applied to theist no?We have theist scientist trying to tell us that science agrees with what ever assumption is written in their various religious text. We have the so called theist scientist telling us how evolution is a lie because their religious assumptions does not agree with it, We also have theist scientist trying to tell us that the universe is young or that scientific finding about the cosmos agree with their YEC views. The atheist that believes in science and the scientific process know very well I don't know is part of science and the scientific process, The theist on the other hand lays claims to the supernatural and claims that this supernatural knows all and everything and then point to his/her religious book claiming it has answers to everything about the universe. When asked for scientific answers or to justify his claims scientifically he/she begins to invoke the supernatural that has never explained and will never explain anything scientifically. Personally (and I know you will disagree with me here) But I believe that the theist are more guilty here.

toneyb:

All what you have said can be applied to theist no?We have theist scientist trying to tell us that science agrees with what ever assumption is written in their various religious text. We have the so called theist scientist telling us how evolution is a lie because their religious assumptions does not agree with it, We also have theist scientist trying to tell us that the universe is young or that scientific finding about the cosmos agree with their YEC views.

This is nonsensical, sorry. Did you read me disagreeing with VALIDATOR's first statement that BOTH religious people and 'scientists' are guilty of that very thing? How many atheists have not been as empty in their drivel? The problem here is that many people like to point fingers at religious people as if atheists are any less guilty of that very same thing!

The atheist that believes in science and the scientific process know very well I don't know is part of science and the scientific process, The theist on the other hand lays claims to the supernatural and claims that this supernatural knows all and everything and then point to his/her religious book claiming it has answers to everything about the universe.

This is your first mistake. Science is not based on any worldview - whether theistic or atheistic. So the idea that 'the atheist who believes in science' is plain empty talk, in so far as there are many theists who also believe in science without trying to be heady and arrogant in their enterprise. These scientists who are theists are not as arrogant to assert that they know all and everything - and as many of such who make those kinds of statements, there are as many atheists who make unscientific drivels about what they "know" about everything in the world.

When asked for scientific answers or to justify his claims scientifically he/she begins to invoke the supernatural that has never explained and will never explain anything scientifically.

Science and worldviews are not to be mistaken for the same things - and we know that 'science' does not answer everything about the world. For those who invoke the supernatural, that is not a default position that many theists today adopt in looking at the natural world.

Personally (and I know you will disagree with me here) But I believe that the theist are more guilty here.

Yes, I disagree with you. Basically because you are sounding off very simplistic as if we don't know of atheists who make very unscientific assertions and we all laugh at them as if they are kneejerk party jokes.

viaro:

Howdy tonyeb,

Good.

On what basis are you making this ridiculous assertion? You are just begging the question because you have not even began to show that there is any supernatural entity out there that is interfering on any part of the universe.

Lol. I don't think it sounds like he was trying to "show" that there is a supernatural entity who was interferring on any part of the Universe. If it seems that way, I won't argue endlessly on that.

I think he did just that.

On the other hand, it would seem that the statement is quite simple - 'in an ideal natural world where there is no supernatural interference', one would expect that 'nature should tend towards chaos and not order'.

Again I ask on what conclusive basis did he come up with this line of thought?

At least, this is what atheist scientists have been singing all along! An example is in the other thread where Dr. Krauss tries to jump to that conclusion in his cosmological talk. How does the atheist explain the idea that nature on its own just popped into existence and resulted in an ordered or orderly universe? Hardly do they show how this is demonstrated; rather, they make the statement, pretend to sound like 'science' leads to that idea; and then take huge leaps to arrive at their conclusions - everyone applauds happily and the meeting is over. What is achieved scientifically when 'scientists' try to gull the public in such a manner?

This is not about what the atheist thinks, I just wanted to know why he made that conclusion. If he made it based on what atheist like Dr. Krauss have said then I will like to believe he does not really know what he is talkking about because I was not at all impressed with Dr Krauss lecture because it was full of suppositions and personal appeal.

A good question. This is one possible way to think about it: do you, tonyeb, know of nature just popping into existence on its own and coming into an ordered and orderly universe? What science has empirically confirmed this accurately? No, I have not jumped to any conclusions about the 'supernatural', as I do not mix them up - my posts can testify to the fact that I do not mix worldviews and science together. But what science gives us a cosmology of the natural world popping into existence on its own to produce the ordered universe?

This question should be directed to beneli, because he came up with that conclusion which indicates that nature without the supernatural will always end up in chaos.

The real problem many people fail to see is that endless arguments spring from people arguing worldviews into science. This is what usually happens, and at the end of the day answers are never forthcoming. Just think carefully about it.

This is very true  

Hehe, toneyb. .  if I were to cast my last minute vote for a fav atheist poster, you and KAG would be tops on my list. I can't understand how calm and collected you guys remain throughout a passionate subject most often when you discuss.

Anyways, sorry for my initial tone.

toneyb:

I think he did just that.

Aiight - I'll let beneli himself speak and not risk putting words in his mouth.

This is not about what the atheist thinks, I just wanted to know why he made that conclusion. If he made it based on what atheist like Dr. Krauss have said then I will like to believe he does not really know what he is talkking about because I was not at all impressed with Dr Krauss lecture because it was full of suppositions and personal appeal.

Okay then.

@tonyb,

I didn't come up with the whole entropy thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

In case you missed it, it was the law of entropy i was on about there. The entropy thing is articulated in the second law of thermodynamics, which says something along the lines that in a 'closed system' (for example the 'universe') chaos increases! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics. Another way of putting it, is that in a closed system, things go from a state of higher organisation to a state of lowest organisation. I am too lazy to google. It's all there at the click of your mouse!

Seriously though, the understanding-from a scientific point of view-is that the universe, as a 'closed system', should be answerable to the laws of thermodynamics but from the very beginning something interfered with the 'natural' processes of entropy!

Unless of course, as some suggest, the 'universe' is no longer a closed system, which would be giving creationists like myself more guns for our arsenal!

@Viaro,
You've answered for me, a lot better than i would have done myself. Thanks!

beneli:

@Viaro,
You've answered for me, a lot better than i would have done myself. Thanks!

Well, I didn't want to risk putting words in your mouth. . . but when I saw this from you as quoted below, I pinched myself and wondered if you were reading my mind:

beneli:

Unless of course, as some suggest, the 'universe' is no longer a closed system, which would be giving creationists like myself more guns for our arsenal!

Oh lawd!! I should've guessed that's where you were going! That was just too clever! The only thing was that at first glance it may not be apparent to the reader (which happened to me, and I guess also happened in toneyb's first reading). I may be wrong though. . I tend to often misread people until later.

viaro:


Oh lawd!! I should've guessed that's where you were going! That was just too clever! The only thing was that at first glance it may not be apparent to the reader (which happened to me, and I guess also happened in toneyb's first reading). I may be wrong though. . I tend to often misread people until later.

I wasn't trying to be clever though! I had actually given the link for the whole entropy thing in the initial post! Thanks again.

Seriously though, the understanding-from a scientific point of view-is that the universe, as a 'closed system', should be answerable to the laws of thermodynamics

We dont know if the universe is a closed system at all. There are many hypothesis. It could be that when billion and billions of tons of matter fall into a black hole and is crushed to the size of a pinhead, a critical point is reached where it breaches the fabric of this dimension and re-emerges in a new dimension as a massive exposion of material from a single point (big bang). It has been observed that at the centre of every galaxy is a supermassive black hole. We dont know, but they could act like huge plug holes leading to explosions of matter in different universes.

I think it is better to start by admitting we do not know the answer and use our intelligence to observe the evidence around us to the minutest possible level. We have scientists using particle accellerators, infra- red space telescopes, gravity wave detectors, and hundreds of other advanced instruments trying to find the answers that will increase our understanding of how we all got here.

As a theist do you believe that you already know how we all got here, and would you agree that this universe is billions of years old or do you think that it was created about 6000 thousand years ago?

mantraa:

As a theist do you believe that you already know how we all got here?

Of course i don't know HOW we got here!

As someone who believes in God i accept that God PUT us here. In the book of beginnings (Genesis) the process by which he put man on the earth is described as Him 'moulding us from the dust of the ground'. It doesn't matter if we are spawned from celestial dust. What matters is that God made it so.

He created man from 'dust' and breathed into us an essence that is not 'dust'. And man became a 'living soul'. When the part of man which is 'dust' decays, the part of him which is essentially in God's image, lives on. I accept this by faith and i am happy with it!

My problem is when 'atheists' attack me for my faith and claim that 'reason' and 'science' demands that God does not exist. My response is a post like this to show to them that they absolutely do not know that God does NOT exist. Who told them that he does not exist?! It's not science; it's not philosophy; it's not even archeology!

Those of us who believe in God, do so because we want to. Anybody claiming that God does not exist does so, not because of science, but because they have chosen not to believe in God. Their evidence is as fragile as ours, so it all boils down to making choices either on a whim for some, and on faith for others!

That's my point really!

'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy'.
                                                    -WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE / Hamlet Act 1. Scene V abt. 1601

I see that you've just added the part about the age of the universe and whether i believe it is 6 thousand years old.

There is nowhere in the bible that it says that the universe is 6000 years old! Between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 is a long time. We don't know how long.  The question about the legitimacy of the Christian bible, which is probably at the back of your mind when you sprang that question is for another topic. This one is about the evidence for or against the existence of God in current scientific discourse. And the verdict, as i summarised above, is that there is none!

But in case you are wondering, i do believe that through the bible, God has clearly communicated to man, in words and in symbols, that we can understand. His revealed word is both simple and complex. And yet it communicates to us all-the barely literate peasant; the world-weary businessman; the scientist; the philosopher; the priest. We all are able to come to the well-spring of His revealed word. Those of us who believe, have our thirsts quenched by the revelations that we recieve there through faith. That is what i believe. I am happy with this.

There is no need to get defensive. i am not attacking you for your faith and i understand that your belief in a God means a lot to you and you take great comfort from it. However, you say "Of course i don't know HOW we got here!" but the in the very next sentence you say that "God PUT us here".

Are you 100% sure of this? and why have you chosen to believe that the creation story from the bible is the correct one, considering that there are hundreds of other creation stories based on other Gods that other religious people are 100% sure of? 

Open minded scientific investigation is a good thing and can only bring us closer to the real truth.

beneli:

@tonyb,

I didn't come up with the whole entropy thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

In case you missed it, it was the law of entropy i was on about there. The entropy thing is articulated in the second law of thermodynamics, which says something along the lines that in a 'closed system' (for example the 'universe') chaos increases!

We don't even know what the universe is and you are here labeling it a closed system? Since the second law of TD is applyable to finite systems only, we can not state that immediately. Some argue then that the universe had a beginning, but such can not be conceived of IMO. A universe can not pop into existence from nothing, and this would also break the first law correct me if I am wrong. The way I believe we could conceive of the universe as a closed thermodynamic system is to start with a known finite and closed TD system, and add to that a surrounding part, which still match a closed TD system, and repeat that untill we cover all of the universe.But since the universe is probably infinite, we could never conceive of it as a closed TD system IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics. Another way of putting it, is that in a closed system, things go from a state of higher organisation to a state of lowest organisation. I am too lazy to google. It's all there at the click of your mouse!

I want you to provide respectable sources that say " in a closed system, things go from a state of higher organisation to a state of lowest organisation". . . It is my understanding that entropy in a closed system is constant.

Seriously though, the understanding-from a scientific point of view-is that the universe, as a 'closed system', should be answerable to the laws of thermodynamics but from the very beginning something interfered with the 'natural' processes of entropy!

The universe is a closed system in the sense that it is self contained, but it is expanding so that more and more states are made available to the particles in it, so it definitely isn't closed in the thermodynamic sense.

Unless of course, as some suggest, the 'universe' is no longer a closed system, which would be giving creationists like myself more guns for our arsenal!

If the Universe is infinite in all dimensions including time, can it be accurately described as a closed system? Even Big Bang model does not predict a finite universe. . . . .

I said religionists have been more guilty of claiming to know things that they don't because the christian religion for example lay claim to having a personal relationship with a certain omniscient Holy Spirit. While i can not directly dispute the existence of a HS, I can not pretend to be unaware that on the same issue, there are usually various brands of the said HS message. each claiming to be the only authentic one.

i don't see any scientist detonating a bomb on himself just to drive home his point.
Religion has more tendency for extremism than science.

VALIDATOR:

i don't see any scientist detonating a bomb on himself just to drive home his point.
Religion has more tendency for extremism than science.

This is where you get all wired up and very, very confused. Religious worldviews (and there are many of them, including atheist religions) are not to be confused for science. Both theists and atheists are involved in science, and that enterprise does not belong exclusively to anyone. There are very many theists who are scientists - and they have not blown up themselves just to drive home any point in either science or religion. To make simplistic statements like yours is very laughable indeed and borders on the extreme.

______
Added:

VALIDATOR:

I said religionists have been more guilty of claiming to know things that they don't because the christian religion for example lay claim to having a personal relationship with a certain omniscient Holy Spirit.

How does a relationship with the Holy Spirit translate into claiming to know things that we as Christians don't? Please just sort out that for me.

While i can not directly dispute the existence of a HS, I can not pretend to be unaware that on the same issue, there are usually various brands of the said HS message. each claiming to be the only authentic one.

That is no surprise; but your inferences are beginning to border on arrogance of a queer sort.

mazaje:

We don't even know what the universe is and you are here labeling it a closed system?

Lol, the idea that the Universe appears to be a closed system is not predicated on what beneli says in this thread - that is a given in general cosmology. However, the question of either a closed or open system applicable to the Universe is relative and depends on the context of the cosmologist or other geoscientist who postulates the view in question. While some argue for a Universe as an open infinite system, others are persuaded to argue for one as a closed infinite system (yet others argue close to the same thing except that the Universe is 'finite'). Therefore, I don't think it is fair to say that beneli is the one labelling the Universe as a closed system.

Perhaps the one thing that anyone could say as descriptive on current cosmological thinking is that nothing is 'final' as concrete evidence and proof of the nature of the Universe: cosmologists and geoscientists are only speculating in this regard according to certain approaches and scientific theories and laws.

The way I believe we could conceive of the universe as a closed thermodynamic system is to start with a known finite and closed TD system, and add to that a surrounding part, which still match a closed TD system, and repeat that untill we cover all of the universe.But since the universe is probably infinite, we could never conceive of it as a closed TD system IMO.

This would present problems too many for you to solve on the basic level - Mathematically. The first thing you have done is taken out all mathematical constants from the equation, and one of the most enigmatic of this is what has been described as the ME - 'mathematical embarrassments'.

In the conviction that planetary bodies as spherical entities are also dependent on the behaviour of the Universe, it is germane to make postulations that do not neglect the constants that govern these planetary and cosmological entities. If I were to think of just one (the earth) within the Universe, the first thing that comes to mind is the volume of that spherical body, calculated as 4/3 ∏r³. But here is where the transcedental number comes in, the '∏', which is approximated as:

                     ∏= 3.14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 50288 41971 69399 37510
                     58209 74944 59230 78164 06286 20899 86280 34825 34211 70679
                     82148 08651 32823 06647 09384 46095 50582 23172 53594 08128
                     48111 74502 84102 70193 85211 05559 64462 29489 54930 38196
                     44288 10975 66593 34461 28475 64823 37867 83165 27120 19091
                     45648 56692 34603 48610 45432 66482 13393 60726 02491 41273
                     72458 70066 0631,   (on and on and on)

But this is only the beginning, and it is very important to understand something about the behaviour of the cosmological bodies before suggesting that we add anything to "that a surrounding part, which still match a closed TD system". Bro, you're asking for an explosion - not a cosmological expansion!  _{forget me - I'm no mathematician but can hardly resist playing with numbers!}

Besides the above, the question that logically comes next is: from where (from what external environment outside the Universe) do you derive anything to "add" to the Universe - whether considered as a closed or open infinite TD system? When you think carefully about that, then you would have to proceed to think of the basics: proffer a simple mathematical model upon which you build the physics of your suggested cosmology. Let's see yours, mazaje.

The universe is a closed system in the sense that it is self contained, but it is expanding so that more and more states are made available to the particles in it, so it definitely isn't closed in the thermodynamic sense.

Like I noted, the persuasion for the nature of the Universe falls on the context of the cosmologist or geoscientist.

@viaro,
You usually quote a little statement out of a whole write up, you dwell on that and try to give it a meaning that doesn't convey the idea of the whole write up.
There are both theist and atheist scientists, bla bla bla. When people blow themselves up on airplanes do they do it on scientific or on religious grounds Do you hear any scientific group claiming responsibility for suicide attacks.

I stand by my word on the HS issue. _{If you didn't understand my initial post it's up to you.}

VALIDATOR:

@viaro,
You usually quote a little statement out of a whole write up, you dwell on that and try to give it a meaning that doesn't convey the idea of the whole write up.

What meaning have I given yours in quoting and replying earlier? I don't think it is fair to just make such accusations just because of your own misunderstanding.

There are both theist and atheist scientists, bla bla bla. When people blow themselves up on airplanes do they do it on scientific or on religious grounds Do you hear any scientific group claiming responsibility for suicide attacks.

And your point is. . .? Do all religious people blow themselves up to prove that religion is superior to science? What you're arguing is the same dense extremism that is as confused as ever. I know some doctors who have murdered patients without claiming to do so on any religious grounds. Does that make the medical profession murderous? Just because you find nuts who go about with dementia does not mean therefore you should apply broad strokes to religion as a whole and pit it against science.

I stand by my word on the HS issue. _{If you didn't understand my initial post it's up to you.}

Standing or falling by your post does not pass across any sense until you make yourself clear.

beneli:

@tonyb,

I didn't come up with the whole entropy thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

In case you missed it, it was the law of entropy i was on about there. The entropy thing is articulated in the second law of thermodynamics, which says something along the lines that in a 'closed system' (for example the 'universe') chaos increases! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics. Another way of putting it, is that in a closed system, things go from a state of higher organisation to a state of lowest organisation. I am too lazy to google. It's all there at the click of your mouse!

Seriously though, the understanding-from a scientific point of view-is that the universe, as a 'closed system', should be answerable to the laws of thermodynamics but from the very beginning something interfered with the 'natural' processes of entropy!

Unless of course, as some suggest, the 'universe' is no longer a closed system, which would be giving creationists like myself more guns for our arsenal!

Mazaje has explained why I believe your blanket statement that the universe is a closed system is not completely correct since closed systems apply only to finite systems of which going by the big bang model the universe is not finite. But your arguments still holds water in the sense that the universe as a whole is increasing in entropy. The state the universe was in before the Inflationary Epoch was much lower in entropy than now according to scientist. The universe as a whole is headed towards what they call a Heat Death, unless the Big Rip gets us first, in perfect accordance with thermodynamics according to scientist.

But if you are talking about the Earth, then it is very clear that the Earth is NOT a closed system. There's a source of energy that feeds in to the Earth system. Just take a look around (during the day, preferably) and the source of that energy should be obvious. And, no, it isn't supernatural.

beneli:

My problem is when 'atheists' attack me for my faith and claim that 'reason' and 'science' demands that God does not exist. My response is a post like this to show to them that they absolutely do not know that God does NOT exist. Who told them that he does not exist?! It's not science; it's not philosophy; it's not even archeology!

The same can be said of theist who call atheist fools for not accepting their non evidential assumptions and hypothesis. Science does not even deal or try to address the god question in any way. Science only shows that the "god did it "hypothesis is epistemically unnecessary and it is not required to explain anything. Science has had to prove it self so why should the god did it hypothesis not prove itself too? Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them. Science has shown, however, that the phenomena can be explained without invoking supernatural entities. By demonstrating that these supernatural entities are not needed to explain anything, science then makes them unnecessary and show that they are not needed to explain anything.

The God hypothesis is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of a God. By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no reason to believe in the existence of God it does not disprove the existence of any God or Gods but just show that it is not necessary to believe in the God hypothesis. Scientists prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones, not because of any metaphysical bias on their part, but because natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones. As Plato realized, to say that "God did it" is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation.

Scientists contrive formulas to describe the laws we see. The laws of nature as we see them may be a necessary consequence of a universe. They need not be created in my opinion.