The Universe COULD NOT Have Been Designed

[MrFrankZito]

P1. Mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed.

P2. The universe is composed of mass-energy.

C1. The universe's mass-energy must always have existed, in one form or another.

Scientific laws preclude creation of any kind.


__________________________

My Case Against God

 

[qayak]

P1. Mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed.

P2. The universe is composed of mass-energy.

C1. The universe's mass-energy must always have existed, in one form or another.

Scientific laws preclude creation of any kind.

No they don't. If there was a supernatural god, all the laws of science would go out the window. As soon as one violation of the law exists, the law is no longer a law.

 

[MrFrankZito]

Evidence that the supernatural exists at all?
Evidence that a supernatural entity could create a natural entity?
Evidence that the designer is supernatural?
Evidence that a supernatural entity could violate natural laws?

For me, theological assumptions are not accepted "givens." I would need supporting evidence.

 

[qayak]

Evidence that the supernatural exists at all?

I don't have any but you can't prove it doesn't. (Draw.)

Evidence that a supernatural entity could create a natural entity?

Logically speaking, a supernatural entity would be able to violate all natural laws so they would be able to create anything they desired. (1 point for me.)

Evidence that the designer is supernatural?

It has been proven that the universe operates by natural laws and that no natural entity could create the universe. Therefore, any creator would have to be supernatural. (1 point for me)

Evidence that a supernatural entity could violate natural laws?

A supernatural entity would have to be able to violate natural laws or they would be a natural entity not a supernatural one. (1 point for me)

For me, theological assumptions are not accepted "givens." I would need supporting evidence.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

That is the trouble we run into, a supernatural entity cannot be proven either way. I only take exception to you claiming disproof of a supernatural entity because of natural laws. Scientific laws do not eliminate creation of any kind. In fact, we can argue that they have furthered the cause of creationism by eliminating all other possibilities leaving only two; a natural occuring universe and creationism. Creationism has been shown to be very unlikely to have happened but it has not been completely eliminated.

Of course, Christians believe creationism is further support for their god but in truth, it has never been established exactly who's god it was that created the universe.

Supporting evidence for theological assumptions are not a requirement. The fact that there is an idea that could explain the way the universe is, is enough. There are many reasonable explanations for the lack of evidence. (1 point for me)

I personally think that creationism is completely wrong but I cannot prove that it is and the reasoning in your original post doesn't prove it either.

FOR THOSE KEEPING SCORE: 5-1 FOR ME!

 

[MrFrankZito]

I don't have any but you can't prove it doesn't. (Draw.)



Logically speaking, a supernatural entity would be able to violate all natural laws so they would be able to create anything they desired. (1 point for me.)



It has been proven that the universe operates by natural laws and that no natural entity could create the universe. Therefore, any creator would have to be supernatural. (1 point for me)



A supernatural entity would have to be able to violate natural laws or they would be a natural entity not a supernatural one. (1 point for me)



"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

That is the trouble we run into, a supernatural entity cannot be proven either way. I only take exception to you claiming disproof of a supernatural entity because of natural laws. Scientific laws do not eliminate creation of any kind. In fact, we can argue that they have furthered the cause of creationism by eliminating all other possibilities leaving only two; a natural occuring universe and creationism. Creationism has been shown to be very unlikely to have happened but it has not been completely eliminated.

Of course, Christians believe creationism is further support for their god but in truth, it has never been established exactly who's god it was that created the universe.

Supporting evidence for theological assumptions are not a requirement. The fact that there is an idea that could explain the way the universe is, is enough. There are many reasonable explanations for the lack of evidence. (1 point for me)

I personally think that creationism is completely wrong but I cannot prove that it is and the reasoning in your original post doesn't prove it either.

FOR THOSE KEEPING SCORE: 5-1 FOR ME!

I think your definitions are assymetrical.

You probably define natural as operating in the natural world.

Therefore, you should define supernatural as operating in the supernatural world.

If there's no way the natural can affect the supernatural, why should I allow that the supernatural can affect the natural?

 

[HeavyAaron]

If there's no way the natural can affect the supernatural, why should I allow that the supernatural can affect the natural?

1) Why do you assume that the natural cannot effect the supernatural?

2) Because it's uninteresting to prove that S.N.B. that cannot effect the natural world do not exist. But feel free to do so anyway.

Aaron

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: the claim "could not have been designed".

So, the person making that claim must have surveyed all of space and time to know that, since it is being presented as a fact. Making him/her god, therefore showing that there are at least 1 gods in the universe, raising the possibility that design is indeed possible.

Scientific laws preclude creation of any kind.

Those same ones which supposedly broke down at the Big Bang? The ones that might be changing over time (everything evolves, right?) and might have been different long ago?

 

[CapelDodger]

Re: the claim "could not have been designed".

So, the person making that claim must have surveyed all of space and time to know that, since it is being presented as a fact. Making him/her god, therefore showing that there are at least 1 gods in the universe, raising the possibility that design is indeed possible.

That is just so lame, and it must have pointed out to you before. "The evidence of design of the whole universe might be hidden on a microdot in some galaxy far away and apparently unremarkable". When you find yourself driven to such sad extremes you really should start questioning your precepts.

All the rest of the universe that we examine, sadly not including said microdot but hey, give us time, anyhoo, none of the other stuff shows any sign of a designer. There's no call for it.

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

P1. Mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed.

P2. The universe is composed of mass-energy.

C1. The universe's mass-energy must always have existed, in one form or another.

Scientific laws preclude creation of any kind.

How do you know these are true?

Sure, you have 150 yearsish of evidence and observation, but that doesn't make it unbreakable law.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that you have absolutely NO proof of C1. If you do, please provide evidence of what was before the big bang.

 

[Beleth]

P1. Mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Evidence says otherwise. Evidence says that the universe did not exist 20 billion years ago. And yet, here it is today.

P2. The universe is composed of mass-energy.

C1. The universe's mass-energy must always have existed, in one form or another.

What do you mean, "in one form or another"?

What happens to your syllogism if you replace "the universe" with "the space shuttle"? Surely space shuttles are composed of mass-energy, yet no space shuttles, of any form, existed before 1960.

 

[T'ai Chi]

That is just so lame, and it must have pointed out to you before.

It must have been pointed out to you before that prefacing what otherwise might be logical arguments with "That is just so lame..." tends to make what follows it false.

All the rest of the universe that we examine, sadly not including said microdot but hey, give us time, anyhoo, none of the other stuff shows any sign of a designer.

So what you examine tells you that. What about what you didn't (or cannot) examine (which there is probably infinitely more of)?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

P1. Mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed.

P2. The universe is composed of mass-energy.

C1. The universe's mass-energy must always have existed, in one form or another.

Scientific laws preclude creation of any kind.


__________________________

My Case Against God

God's magic and he broke the laws, or he's law above the laws, or he's a big programmer in the sky who can redefine classes at will. I don't need evidence, I KNOW it's true!

In other words, this isn't news to the religious. They have an answer to that. Mind you, that answer is stupid because there's still no reason to think such a being exists, but it's all about their faith.

Reason won't penetrate such a shield.

 

[Roboramma]

P1. Mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed.

How do you know this? How do you know that it holds true in all time and space and circumstances?
Newton's theory of gravity was pretty accurate, but it breaks down in some places that at the time we didn't have the ability to measure. Now our models are a little better and a little closer to reality. How do you know, though, that this one is perfect?

P2. The universe is composed of mass-energy.

It certainly seems that way. This, though, is basically saying, "There is nothing supernatural in the universe. Therefore there is no God."
Well, of course there's no God if nothing is supernatural. But so far all you have is an assertion.

C1. The universe's mass-energy must always have existed, in one form or another.

Must it? Okay. What if God is "one form or another" of this mass-energy. God could then create the universe from itself.

Scientific laws preclude creation of any kind.

Scientific laws don't say anything about it. What they do is give us a way of explaining the things we see without supernatural explanations. That's quite enough for me, and it's rather silly to posit unnecessary entities, certianly.
But saying that conservation of energy proves that there is no God is silly too.

 

[T'ai Chi]

"Mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed"

It can't be created? Where did it come from then?

 

[Mr. Scott]

Where's it going to?

"Mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed"

It can't be created? Where did it come from then?

The same place it is going to.

 

[Godmode]

"Mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed"

It can't be created? Where did it come from then?

I think it's a mistake to assume that at one time there was "nothing" and that at some time energy/mass/something appeared. That's a religious view, not a scientific one. I used to have a problem with this one myself, and then I asked myself, "Why am I assuming there was ever 'nothing'?" I think a lot of us have that idea implanted at a very young age... First there was nothing, then (insert god here) created something.

 

[.13.]

P1. Mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed.

P2. The universe is composed of mass-energy.

C1. The universe's mass-energy must always have existed, in one form or another.

Scientific laws preclude creation of any kind.

What if the creator uses existing materials to build a universe?

 

[Euromutt]

What happens to your syllogism if you replace "the universe" with "the space shuttle"? Surely space shuttles are composed of mass-energy, yet no space shuttles, of any form, existed before 1960.

The space shuttles themselves may not have existed, but the materials from which they were constructed, and the energy used to do so, did exist. The shuttles were not created out of thin air, or more accurately, out of a vacuum.

Where your analogy fails (rather obviously so) is that the space shuttles constitute but a small amount of the matter found in the universe, whereas the universe, by definition, comprises/is composed of all existing matter. There is no place to situate the mineral deposits which provided the matter out of which the universe was constructed, or the fuel deposits used to generate the power required.

 

[HeavyAaron]

If there's no way the natural can affect the supernatural, why should I allow that the supernatural can affect the natural?

I've decided your proof is sound, if dumb. You've decided to prove that a Super Natural Being (SNB), which cannot effect the natural world did not create the natural world. Congratulations! True by definition! Now work on a proof for SNBs which CAN effect the natural world. You're already half way there!

Aaron

 

[Genesius]

P1. Mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed.

P2. The universe is composed of mass-energy.

C1. The universe's mass-energy must always have existed, in one form or another.

Scientific laws preclude creation of any kind.

Sorry, but you're behind the time on scientific thinking. Google "vacuum fluctuation."

Here's a quote to get you started:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129)