The Universe COULD NOT Have Been Designed

[Beleth]

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.

Exactly my point. That's why I asked what he meant by "in any form".

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.

All analogies are different from the situation being clarified by them, and good analogies are only different in unimportant ways. The way you point out is unimportant. The stuff the space shuttle was made out of was not the space shuttle, in the same way that the stuff the universe (i.e. "all existing matter") came from 14+ billion years ago of was not existing matter.

It became the space shuttle in the same way the matter in the universe could have become the universe. To declare absolutely that the universe definitely was not created (or is that "designed"? His argument says one but the thread subject says the other) is unfounded in both logic and science.

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.

The universe, so far as observation and reason can tell me, was not created from minerals. It might, however, have been made from other raw materials.

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

No, can't say that it has been. It's not something I do very often.

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

The four observed forces of nature (three of which have been unified) don't leave a lot more unexamined. Unless you're referring to the precise scattering of rocks on some far-distant planet and so on which may, in some undefined way, provide convincing evidence of something not at all well-defined but definitely spooky.

Cosmologists do make the assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. Perhaps you regard that as a wild assumption by hare-brained scientists, but the actuality is that nothing we've observed in very distant places and times suggests anything different. The universe looks very much like a product of the laws of physics. It does not in any way look like the product of anything supernatural.

 

[CapelDodger]

Here's a quote to get you started:

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)

Isn't that a beautiful result?

One thing though (and I'm sure Hawking dealt with it) : uncertainty surely means that it can't be exactly zero or we wouldn't know where or when the universe is. Oh. Come to think of it ...

 

[T'ai Chi]

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.

Not at all, no religious stuff was mentioned, only the physical properties of the universe.

So you assume that everything just existed for eternity (naturalistic turtles all the way down?) ? Where's your evidence? At least I have the Big Bang evidence to back up my beliefs of the observable universe being created.

 

[Euromutt]

Exactly my point. That's why I asked what he meant by "in any form".

All analogies are different from the situation being clarified by them, and good analogies are only different in unimportant ways. The way you point out is unimportant. The stuff the space shuttle was made out of was not the space shuttle, in the same way that the stuff the universe (i.e. "all existing matter") came from 14+ billion years ago of was not existing matter.

Suddenly, you've shifted your argument. In your previous post, you stated that "no space shuttles, of any form, existed before 1960." This is incorrect, as the molecules of aluminum, titanium, etc. which went into the construction of the shuttles did exist, as did the hydrocarbons used to power the tools with which they were mined, refined, machined and assembled. Thus, contrary to your assertion, the shuttles existed prior to 1960 in some form. MrFrankZito's point is in line with the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, which states that while matter and energy may change form, the total amount of both in a closed system (which the universe is) is fixed. In other words, you're conflating the question of whether matter is conserved with the question of how (in what form) it is conserved. This is not an unimportant distinction.

 

[Beleth]

Suddenly, you've shifted your argument.

Rather, I am clarifying it. It can be confusing, and I welcome this opportunity to make it less so.

In your previous post, you stated that "no space shuttles, of any form, existed before 1960." This is incorrect, as the molecules of aluminum, titanium, etc. which went into the construction of the shuttles did exist, as did the hydrocarbons used to power the tools with which they were mined, refined, machined and assembled.

Again, that's why I asked what he meant by "in any form". Molecules of aluminum, etc. are only a space shuttle in one form. Most of the time, molecules of aluminum are not space shuttles.

To state otherwise is to obliterate the distinction between... well, between any two objects at all! If a pile of aluminum is a form of a space shuttle, then a pile of water and carbon and other things is an elephant, and so is a snake. Thus, an elephant is a snake "in some form" according to that definition. Ludicrous.

Thus, contrary to your assertion, the shuttles existed prior to 1960 in some form.

Only for a ludicrous definition of "in some form", as I have just shown.

MrFrankZito's point is in line with the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, which states that while matter and energy may change form, the total amount of both in a closed system (which the universe is) is fixed.

His point is at odds, then, with the observation-based theory that the universe did not exist 14-odd billion years ago.

In other words, you're conflating the question of whether matter is conserved with the question of how (in what form) it is conserved.

Actually, what I'm doing is pointing out that that's what MrFrankZito is doing, and showing how it leads to a reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Euromutt]

Molecules of aluminum, etc. are only a space shuttle in one form. Most of the time, molecules of aluminum are not space shuttles.

To state otherwise is to obliterate the distinction between... well, between any two objects at all! If a pile of aluminum is a form of a space shuttle, then a pile of water and carbon and other things is an elephant, and so is a snake. Thus, an elephant is a snake "in some form" according to that definition. Ludicrous.

Bold mine. There lies the flaw in your analogy: you're talking about objects, and specifically objects that are defined to a great extent by form. The universe, by contrast, may be characterized as a collection of objects, and the form those objects take is secondary.

Here's an admittedly imperfect analogy of my own. Take a hypothetical collection of objects to which I shall refer as "the stuff in my desk drawer." The stuff in my desk drawer at the present time does not consist of the same objects which comprised the stuff in my desk drawer five years ago: the pens, Scotch tape, Post-It notes of yore got used up and were replaced, the box of floppies got replaced by a flash memory stick, old notes were thrown out only to be replaced by new ones, you name it. Nevertheless, despite the fact that "the stuff in my desk drawer" now does not consist of the same collection of objects which comprised "the stuff in my desk drawer" then does not alter the fact that both collections of objects were, at different points in time, "the stuff in my desk drawer." The operative distinction here is that the collection was not defined by the form of the objects, but by the fact that they were contained in my desk drawer.

The imperfection in my analogy is, of course, that my desk drawer is not a closed system: Post-It notes and bits of Scotch tape get taken out, new pads and rolls are inserted to replace the old ones as they run out, etc. The universe, by contrast, is, as far as we can ascertain at present, a closed system. The matter and energy within may change form, but the amount of both is (again, as far we can tell at present) constant.

To posit an analogy of your analogy, you're claiming that the amount of H2O inside a sealed balloon has somehow changed because it was originally in the form of vapor, but has since condensated on the walls, run down and formed a pool of liquid.

ETA that I'm not sure I can argue that MrFrankZito's claim is valid, only that I'm pretty certain that your criticism of it is not.

 

[CaptainManacles]

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.

If you are an entity that can violate the laws of nature, all laws of nature go out the window.

No kidding, that doesn't change the fact that a designer violates all known laws of the universe.

"This bridge will hold up as long as it violates the laws of physics, otherwise it will crumble"

"I'm certain your bridge will crumble."

"Nuh uh! It might violate the laws of physics"

*eyeroll*

sorry, no designer, period.

 

[T'ai Chi]

If you are an entity that can violate the laws of nature, all laws of nature go out the window.

Which is not really a problem if that entity created the laws of nature, he/she/it/they can do whatever they want with them, much like humans create (legal) laws and can change them when they want to.

No kidding, that doesn't change the fact that a designer violates all known laws of the universe.

Did the laws of physics apply at the time of the big bang?

 

[CFLarsen]

Which is not really a problem if that entity created the laws of nature, he/she/it/they can do whatever they want with them, much like humans create (legal) laws and can change them when they want to.

Another Creationist argument.

Yes, it is a problem, especially if that entity created the laws of nature. That's the "God Created Fossils To Fool People" argument: Totally unfalsifiable, of course.

Mind you, that's a Young Earth Creationist argument. Not only are you a Creationist, you are a Young Earth Creationist.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Which is not really a problem if that entity created the laws of nature, he/she/it/they can do whatever they want with them, much like humans create (legal) laws and can change them when they want to.

Did the laws of physics apply at the time of the big bang?

Mather and Smoot's recent Nobel work don't go quite that far back, and they appear to have been the best so far at describing the state of the universe at times very close to the big bang, but after it. Time(Zero) state is still under investigation and a whole lot of theoretical work.

To answer you question, no one knows for sure. What is understood, and to another extent known, is that at some time T(1), and for times T beyond that, the "laws of physics" as we now understand them seem to hold together pretty well.

Whether or not that was a design by a sentience that triggered The Big Bang at T(0) isn't something yet known, or knowable. (The whole "ultimate causation" and "divine agency" discussion that founders for lack of a workable, bounded model.)

Given the space-time we are in, the problem of describing and forumulating what was going on at T(negative values) gets to the same problem of "what's on the other side of a black hole?"

We9collectively) are in the dark.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

The universe, by contrast, is, as far as we can ascertain at present, a closed system. The matter and energy within may change form, but the amount of both is (again, as far we can tell at present) constant.

The idea that black holes are a leak in the closed system, or a gateway to the outside of the closed system is an intriguing one, but I don't know how much theoretical work has strengthened or weakened it.

The OP ignores the unknown state of T(0) and the catalyst to the initiating event. Sentient or not, a god or not, God or not, something happened, and the general idea (perhaps flawed) is that things happen due to a cause.

DR

 

[snooziums]

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.

However, if mass-energy always existed, where was it before the Big Bang?

Note: I am not disagreeing with the claim that "God" did not create the universe, since I do not believe in God. However, I was curious when you posted those points.

 

[I less than three logic]

However, if mass-energy always existed, where was it before the Big Bang?

Note: I am not disagreeing with the claim that "God" did not create the universe, since I do not believe in God. However, I was curious when you posted those points.

Questions like these start to get confusing and can be misleading. The Big Bang theory does not describe an explosion of mass-energy into the universe, but the expansion of space and time themselves. So there was no where nor before the Big Bang. I suppose you could say that the mass-energy has always existed as long as it had something to exist in.

 

[T'ai Chi]

P1. Mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed.
P2. The universe is composed of mass-energy.

How do you believe it get "composed" in the first place? Saying "always existed" is not a science explanation; it is faith.

 

[I less than three logic]

How do you believe it get "composed" in the first place? Saying "always existed" is not a science explanation; it is faith.

Yeah! And science is not an adjective; it is a noun.

 

[Beleth]

Bold mine. There lies the flaw in your analogy: you're talking about objects, and specifically objects that are defined to a great extent by form. The universe, by contrast, may be characterized as a collection of objects, and the form those objects take is secondary.

I think we are in violent agreement...

MFZ is taking the laws of the objects within the universe, and trying to apply them to the universe itself. My analogy is pointing out how ludicrous that is.

To posit an analogy of your analogy, you're claiming that the amount of H2O inside a sealed balloon has somehow changed because it was originally in the form of vapor, but has since condensated on the walls, run down and formed a pool of liquid.

(emphasis mine)

Not at all. I am not saying anything about the amount changing; I am only talking about the properties of that amount. 500 kg of snakes is in no way "a different form of" 500 kg of elephants, even though it might consist of the exact same masses of water, carbon, calcium, etc.

To take this to its extreme, we can break everything down into the constituent subatomic particles, and then say 500 kg of anything is just "a different form of" 500 kg of anything else; I have several million gallons of "a different form of" light sweet crude oil to sell anyone who believes that, for only $20 a barrel...

ETA that I'm not sure I can argue that MrFrankZito's claim is valid, only that I'm pretty certain that your criticism of it is not.

Since I believe that we actually agree with each other about the generalities if not the specifics, I'm not sure how to take that.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Did the laws of physics apply at the time of the big bang?

Yes