Energy & God

Psalm23 · #1 by **Psalm23** » Jun 25, 2010 3:07 pm

If it is true, (and I do emphasize, "if") that energy can never be created or destroyed, then that would make energy eternal. In greater detail, it means that energy had no beginning. It never "came about", it simply always was, always is, and always will be.

Why then do certain atheists say that God's being the "uncaused cause" of the universe is so unreasonable? Couldn't energy be considered an uncaused cause also? What do you think?

Cheers,
Cody

:mrgreen:

trubble76 · #2 by **trubble76** » Jun 25, 2010 3:11 pm

If energy is the uncaused cause, why do we need to crowbar a god in there?

Thommo · #3 by **Thommo** » Jun 25, 2010 3:18 pm

Psalm23 wrote:If it is true, (and I do emphasize, "if") that energy can never be created or destroyed, then that would make energy eternal. In greater detail, it means that energy had no beginning. It never "came about", it simply always was, always is, and always will be.

Why then do certain atheists say that God's being the "uncaused cause" of the universe is so unreasonable? Couldn't energy be considered an uncaused cause also? What do you think?

Cheers,
Cody

I think you've missed the point. It's not the concept of something being eternal that the atheist objects to, it's the theist's contention that nothing can be eternal and therefore that there must have been an uncaused cause.

It's an atheistic response to then question this blatant special pleading.

gilthanass · #4 by **gilthanass** » Jun 25, 2010 3:29 pm

Yeah, that's ridiculous. It's not that nothing can have always existed (because time itself didn't always exist, so reality is crazy). It's the fact that theists go from "something may have always existed" to "An all powerful being has always existed, and he cares for me personally, and he knows everything and can do everything and loves me and sent a human to earth for me and when I die I'll join him the the clouds" that atheists usually object to. It's the same thing with ghosts. How does one jump from "my curtain moved and I don't remember leaving a window open" to "obviously there's life after death and it's probably that little girl who was murdered in this house 100 years ago because she can't move on to the other side because her murder remains unsolved".

Bud's Brain · #5 by **Bud's Brain** » Jun 25, 2010 3:29 pm

Psalm23 wrote:If it is true, (and I do emphasize, "if") that energy can never be created or destroyed, then that would make energy eternal. In greater detail, it means that energy had no beginning. It never "came about", it simply always was, always is, and always will be.

Why then do certain atheists say that God's being the "uncaused cause" of the universe is so unreasonable? Couldn't energy be considered an uncaused cause also? What do you think?

Cheers,
Cody

What's god got to do with it? It still works if you leave that part out.

dionysus · #6 by **dionysus** » Jun 25, 2010 3:34 pm

Psalm23 wrote:If it is true, (and I do emphasize, "if") that energy can never be created or destroyed, then that would make energy eternal. In greater detail, it means that energy had no beginning. It never "came about", it simply always was, always is, and always will be.

Why then do certain atheists say that God's being the "uncaused cause" of the universe is so unreasonable? Couldn't energy be considered an uncaused cause also? What do you think?

Parsimony. Say it with me: Par-si-mo-ny. We know that energy exists and we know that energy has the ability to cause change. We do not have evidence of any god/s nor is/are god/s demonstrated to be necessary and as such suggesting that god/s is/are the cause of the universe is to give a non-answer and commit special pleading.

Psalm23 · #7 by **Psalm23** » Jun 25, 2010 3:38 pm

trubble76 wrote:If energy is the uncaused cause, why do we need to crowbar a god in there?

Well I would imagine that you would have to crowbar something else in to the picture if energy is in subjection to Isaac Newton's first law of motion (hard to say whether or not it is) which states (my paraphrase) that anything which is at rest will stay at rest until force is applied.

This is the "problem" with the Big Bang from my perspective. Whatever existed before the Big Bang seemed to be at rest and then all of a sudden, one day it all goes boom? Why? What force was applied to it?

gilthanass · #8 by **gilthanass** » Jun 25, 2010 3:39 pm

Psalm23 wrote:
trubble76 wrote:If energy is the uncaused cause, why do we need to crowbar a god in there?

Well I would imagine that you would have to crowbar something else in to the picture if energy is in subjection to Isaac Newton's first law of motion (hard to say whether or not it is) which states (my paraphrase) that anything which is at rest will stay at rest until force is applied.

This is the "problem" with the Big Bang from my perspective. Whatever existed before the Big Bang seemed to be at rest and then all of a sudden, one day it all goes boom? Why? What force was applied to it?

Here is your problem, "Before the big bang". Ask yourself this question, what is north of the north pole? It's a nonsensical question, just as before the big bang since, as far as I understand physics to believe right now, time itself started with the big bang.

trubble76 · #9 by **trubble76** » Jun 25, 2010 3:48 pm

Psalm23 wrote:
trubble76 wrote:If energy is the uncaused cause, why do we need to crowbar a god in there?

Well I would imagine that you would have to crowbar something else in to the picture if energy is in subjection to Isaac Newton's first law of motion (hard to say whether or not it is) which states (my paraphrase) that anything which is at rest will stay at rest until force is applied.

This is the "problem" with the Big Bang from my perspective. Whatever existed before the Big Bang seemed to be at rest and then all of a sudden, one day it all goes boom? Why? What force was applied to it?

You're asking what the first cause was, the uncaused cause. The OP said if energy is an uncaused cause, why can't god be one too. I simply replied by pointing out that 2 uncaused causes seems unnecessary.
But take heart, many scientists also wonder about the process which began our universe. They are working on it as we speak, but i suspect it may take some time.

Shrunk · **#10** by **Shrunk** » Jun 25, 2010 3:49 pm

Psalm23 wrote:
trubble76 wrote:If energy is the uncaused cause, why do we need to crowbar a god in there?

Well I would imagine that you would have to crowbar something else in to the picture if energy is in subjection to Isaac Newton's first law of motion (hard to say whether or not it is) which states (my paraphrase) that anything which is at rest will stay at rest until force is applied.

This is the "problem" with the Big Bang from my perspective. Whatever existed before the Big Bang seemed to be at rest and then all of a sudden, one day it all goes boom? Why? What force was applied to it?

Your "problem" with the Big Bang seems to be you don't understand it. I don't really, either, which is why I don't go about trying to build theological theories on it.

Nautilidae · **#11** by **Nautilidae** » Jun 25, 2010 3:53 pm

Psalm23 wrote:
trubble76 wrote:If energy is the uncaused cause, why do we need to crowbar a god in there?

Well I would imagine that you would have to crowbar something else in to the picture if energy is in subjection to Isaac Newton's first law of motion (hard to say whether or not it is) which states (my paraphrase) that anything which is at rest will stay at rest until force is applied.

This is the "problem" with the Big Bang from my perspective. Whatever existed before the Big Bang seemed to be at rest and then all of a sudden, one day it all goes boom? Why? What force was applied to it?

You don't seem to have a lot of knowledge of physics. Quantum mechanics allows particles and perhaps even universes to come into existence through vacuum fluctuations. In physics, vacuum fluctuations alone can give rise to force. The Casimir effect is a perfect example of this.

CJ · **#12** by CJ » Jun 25, 2010 4:00 pm

Shrunk wrote:

Your "problem" with the Big Bang seems to be you don't understand it. I don't really, either, which is why I don't go about trying to build theological theories on it.

And that is the crux of the argument for the existance of institutionalised superstition (religion), that IF a deity kicked off existance what evidence is there that they continued to fiddle with it? None absolutly none whatsoever. IF God exists why the Fuck did this omnipotent, omniscient all powerful entity use a bunch of ignorant rag heads to spread His words? It's a ludicrous proposition, absolutly fucking ludicrous! :nono:

iamthereforeithink · **#13** by **iamthereforeithink** » Jun 25, 2010 4:01 pm

Psalm23 wrote:If it is true, (and I do emphasize, "if") that energy can never be created or destroyed, then that would make energy eternal. In greater detail, it means that energy had no beginning. It never "came about", it simply always was, always is, and always will be.

Why then do certain atheists say that God's being the "uncaused cause" of the universe is so unreasonable? Couldn't energy be considered an uncaused cause also? What do you think?

Cheers,
Cody

But here's the thing:

The net energy of the universe is equal to zero.

http://psroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw/cjp/v39/393.pdf

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercur ... thing.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy#Implications

So "energy cannot be created or destroyed" is actually an imprecise statement. Energy can come out of absolutely Nothing.

HughMcB · **#14** by **HughMcB** » Jun 25, 2010 4:08 pm

Nautilidae wrote:You don't seem to have a lot of knowledge of physics. Quantum mechanics allows particles and perhaps even universes to come into existence through vacuum fluctuations. In physics, vacuum fluctuations alone can give rise to force. The Casimir effect is a perfect example of this.

UnderConstruction · **#15** by **UnderConstruction** » Jun 25, 2010 4:18 pm

Psalm23 wrote:
Why then do certain atheists say that God's being the "uncaused cause" of the universe is so unreasonable? Couldn't energy be considered an uncaused cause also? What do you think?

What is unreasonable is asserting this as fact. What is unreasonable is expecting others to give credence to such unsupported assersions. Although I have a personal preference for us to not let fairy tales dictate how we run our lives, it is essentially your right to believe whatever crackpot ideas you choose. I would simply request that you keep them to yourself.

This is the "problem" with the Big Bang from my perspective. Whatever existed before the Big Bang seemed to be at rest and then all of a sudden, one day it all goes boom? Why? What force was applied to it?

I don't know. I very much doubt you know either. Since when was knowledge advanced by making shit up? In the absense of knowledge, how is it rational to fill in the gaps with whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

Psalm23 · **#16** by **Psalm23** » Jun 25, 2010 5:25 pm

Well, you've answered my question. Your belief (as atheists) that God doesn't exist isn't based upon the notion that He can't exist but rather is derived from a perceived lack of evidence for His existence altogether. Yes?

In other words, you have no problem whatsoever with the idea of an eternal and infinite force or cause, known as God which always has been and always will be [EDIT: yet still find Him unnecessary and unattested]?

Cheers,
Cody

Shrunk · **#17** by **Shrunk** » Jun 25, 2010 5:29 pm

Psalm23 wrote:Well, you've answered my question. Your belief (as atheists) that God doesn't exist isn't based upon the notion that He can't exist but rather is derived from a perceived lack of evidence for His existence altogether. Yes?

In other words, you have no problem whatsoever with the idea of an eternal and infinite force or cause, known as God which always has been and always will be [EDIT: yet still find Him unnecessary and unattested]?

Sure I have a problem with that. Well not so much with the idea, as with the fact that people choose to believe it for no good reason.

To put it into perspective, how would you feel if the majority of people in your country believed a person was only suitable to be elected head of state if he believed in unicorns?

Teuton · **#18** by **Teuton** » Jun 25, 2010 5:37 pm

Psalm23 wrote:
Why then do certain atheists say that God's being the "uncaused cause" of the universe is so unreasonable? Couldn't energy be considered an uncaused cause also? What do you think?

The physical universe may be eternal, but if it's not, no external energetic event could have brought it into existence, since all energy is part of the physical universe. (What is more, it doesn't make sense to speak of nonspatiotemporal events, since the concept of an atemporal event is illogical.)

dionysus · **#19** by **dionysus** » Jun 25, 2010 5:42 pm

Psalm23 wrote:Well, you've answered my question. Your belief (as atheists) that God doesn't exist isn't based upon the notion that He can't exist but rather is derived from a perceived lack of evidence for His existence altogether. Yes?

In other words, you have no problem whatsoever with the idea of an eternal and infinite force or cause, known as God which always has been and always will be [EDIT: yet still find Him unnecessary and unattested]?

Cheers,
Cody

I'll put it this way: show me evidence that this god thing exists and that it has this special property of being uncaused and I'll believe that this god exists.

Psalm23 · **#20** by **Psalm23** » Jun 25, 2010 6:08 pm

Sure I have a problem with that. Well not so much with the idea, as with the fact that people choose to believe it for no good reason.

To put it into perspective, how would you feel if the majority of people in your country believed a person was only suitable to be elected head of state if he believed in unicorns?

The phrase "good reason" is really subjective. What may be a good reason to you may seem like no reason at all to someone else.

There is evidence for God, whether or not it is the kind that you like, honor or deem compelling.

The strongest evidence for God is Jesus' resurrection from the dead as recorded in the New Testament. C.S. Lewis postulated that Christ must be either a Lunatic, a Liar or Lord. The position that Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all is so outrageous and unfounded that Lewis does not even begin to address it.

For brevity sake you can look these up if you have any interest in the matter:
- 2 Peter 1:16-18 "we were eyewitnesses"
- 1 John 1:1-3 "what we have seen, heard and touched we proclaim"
- John 19:35 "the one who saw this testifies"
- John 20:30-31 "these things are written so that you may believe"
- 1 Corinthians 15:1-20 "if Christ has not been raised then our preaching is vain"
- Luke 1:1-4 "having investigated everything carefully"

This is evidence, whether it is the sort you like or not. As with all history, Jesus' resurrection from the dead is not repeatable and therefore cannot be validated by any sort of testable means. That doesn't mean it never happened.

People deny that we landed on the moon, they deny that the Holocaust ever happened. We have pictures of the piles of shoes, wedding rings and corpses from the Holocaust for crying out loud! Yet, there are people who do not believe that it ever happened. The same is true of the apollo missions to the moon.

Everyone must examine the evidence and come to their own conclusions on these matters. This is very different from saying, "there is no evidence at all."

Cheers,
Cody

:mrgreen:

Energy & God

Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Re: Energy & God

Who is online