Proof That God Didn't Create The World

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Young Philosophers Forum
  3. » Proof That God Didn't Create The World

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 06:53 am
First I shall start with the three laws of thermodynamics.
1. First law of thermodynamics mandates the conservation of energy.
2. The second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated macroscopic system never decreases, or (equivalently) that perpetual motion machines are impossible.
3. The third law of thermodynamics, which concerns the entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero temperature, and implies that it is impossible to cool a system all the way to exactly absolute zero.

So by this law, or thus proven and has not been disproven thus far, matter cannot be created. If God had created the earth from energy that had never previously been in existence, he could not have. The earth had been created billions of years ago, but as we observe daily, light and matter from distant stars that lived billions of years ago, follow the same rules of basic physics that still exist today. So, we can therefore state that any creation of the world from nothing, was physically and theoretically impossible.
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 08:37 pm
@gotmilk9991,
If you cannot prove God, you cannot proove that God went to the store..First things sometime, I say...
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 08:52 pm
@gotmilk9991,
gotmilk9991;99805 wrote:
First I shall start with the three laws of thermodynamics.
1. First law of thermodynamics mandates the conservation of energy.
2. The second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated macroscopic system never decreases, or (equivalently) that perpetual motion machines are impossible.
3. The third law of thermodynamics, which concerns the entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero temperature, and implies that it is impossible to cool a system all the way to exactly absolute zero.

So by this law, or thus proven and has not been disproven thus far.
These laws have only been validated in closed systems, not in the open universe, and there is scientific controversy about every single one of them. That said, the religious counterargument would be that God is not subject to laws of nature.
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 09:09 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;99989 wrote:
These laws have only been validated in closed systems, not in the open universe, and there is scientific controversy about every single one of them. That said, the religious counterargument would be that God is not subject to laws of nature.

Not to change the subject; but how is it that you can grasp that there is such a thing as an open and closed systems and not realize that our economy is such a thing, and that even raised to a world system is still closed...The fact is that if it is a system, it is closed... A system is an organic whole... We may presume as much of the universe for all that we know...But the word means together set...
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 09:15 pm
@gotmilk9991,
Closed versus open systems are quite easy to grasp. They're covered in middle school level earth science.

The economy is an open system. The system of economics interacts in highly complex ways with external systems, most notably natural resources and demographic systems, both of which change as a function of time. It can therefore never be entirely modeled, accounted for, or understood.

Quote:
The fact is that if it is a system, it is closed
Nonsense.

Glossary of systems theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Open system (systems theory) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Closed system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 09:24 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;99994 wrote:
Closed versus open systems are quite easy to grasp. They're covered in middle school level earth science.

The economy is an open system. The system of economics interacts in highly complex ways with external systems, most notably natural resources and demographic systems, both of which change as a function of time. It can therefore never be entirely modeled, accounted for, or understood.

Nonsense.

Glossary of systems theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Open system (systems theory) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Closed system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name three open systems and lets examine them...It is easy to say that the digestive system is open because it is open on both ends, but it is closed in most respects to the other systems...The things, systems are wholes...A solar system is a whole, and with comets and meteors zoming in it is difficult to say of what it consists exactly, and yet easy to say that what ever its parts, it goes through a cycle, conserved...
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 09:32 pm
@Fido,
Fido;99997 wrote:
It is easy to say that the digestive system is open because it is open on both ends, but it is closed in most respects to the other systems...
You're confusing "self-contained" with "closed". The digestive system is open everywhere. It's open to the remainder of the body throughout its entire length. It's regulated, but it's regulated extrinsically.

Fido;99997 wrote:
The things, systems are wholes
Just because your conceptualization is finite and delimited doesn't mean that the system is.

Closed systems probably do not exist at all in nature, but for experiments and for modeling sufficiently closed systems are possible. Take a heat-proof container, fill it with 37 degree water, drop in a -37 degree ice cube of fixed dimensions, close the lid, and measure the temperature change... the system may not be 100% closed from the world, but it's sufficiently closed to learn about thermodynamics. Do a similar experiment with gas and you can actually derive PV=nRT.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 06:02 am
@Aedes,
Aedes;99998 wrote:
You're confusing "self-contained" with "closed". The digestive system is open everywhere. It's open to the remainder of the body throughout its entire length. It's regulated, but it's regulated extrinsically.

Just because your conceptualization is finite and delimited doesn't mean that the system is.

Closed systems probably do not exist at all in nature, but for experiments and for modeling sufficiently closed systems are possible. Take a heat-proof container, fill it with 37 degree water, drop in a -37 degree ice cube of fixed dimensions, close the lid, and measure the temperature change... the system may not be 100% closed from the world, but it's sufficiently closed to learn about thermodynamics. Do a similar experiment with gas and you can actually derive PV=nRT.

I checked out one of your links, and it seemed to suggest that the more energy dependent systems were open... The fact is that energy has nothing to do with the concept or the definition because they all must have a source of energy external to themselves... As the guy said: there are no perpetual motion machines...

Since the object of the digestive tract is to admit food, disolve it, give the body access to the chemical energy and excrete the remainder it would be useless if it did not... Yet, it is also closed to the rest of the body from end to end...And it is also a subsystem of a larger system working in concert with other subsystems, but they are all closed.... It is the quality of being set together that dfines a system...If it were possible to qualify it further, then that would be the concept... Concepts are all whole classification... There are not a multitude of rights, or a multitude of freedoms... If the thing is a system it is a system, and apart from other systems...They are all energy dependent to an extent so it is not possible to distinguish between them on the basis of energy need or use... It is that quality of having elements set together, and as a concept it is a manifold...Concepts all contain like, or equal elements...Systems are all comprised of unlike elements set together to create a whole...

Consider that there is a great deal of stupid talk coming out of even the highest quarters...Consider also, that the more smoke can be blown up the butts of people the more our crooked system can continue on its course of destruction...Consider a system as an infinite game, which at best is what it is; but to cover the fact that the system is being modified to serve an individual purpose it is called OPEN, when in fact, it is being made a finite game as it consumes itself..

If you look at the earth, the sunlight reaching us fixes five times the amount of energy we use every year in carbon compounds...We could not possibly use all that is formed without a great expense of energy, and cooking ourselves in a greenhouse of gases... Yet; the earth environment is ultimately a closed system in spite of energy ebb and flow...Its elements are fixed...

I went back and checked your glossary and it agreed with you that there was no such thing as a closed system... If a system is not to some extent cyclic it is not a system at all; and to point out the obvious, if there is no such thing as a closed system then there is no such thing as an open system... In fact, all systems are systems, and they all closed in their essential elements...
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 07:17 am
@Fido,
Fido;100045 wrote:
Yet, it is also closed to the rest of the body from end to end...
That is completely wrong. It is not closed. There is a selective barrier, but things from the body, like bile and IgA and pepsin go in, and things from the gut like sugars, electrolytes, water, amino acids, and bacterial toxins go out.

Fido;100045 wrote:
it is also a subsystem of a larger system working in concert with other subsystems, but they are all closed.
They are not all closed.

Fido;100045 wrote:
if there is no such thing as a closed system then there is no such thing as an open system... In fact, all systems are systems, and they all closed in their essential elements...
That is not how the terms are used. All "closed" systems have caveats, namely that they're not 100% closed. But In many cases it doesn't matter, the systems are closed for the purposes of understanding the nature of variables that are only insignificantly modified from outside. This is manifestly NOT the case with any biological system.

Fido, let's not derail this thread any further with this. You're taking an idiosyncratic view of an established scientific concept, which is fine so long as your mind is a closed system.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 08:17 am
@Aedes,
Quote:

Aedes;100070 wrote:
That is completely wrong. It is not closed. There is a selective barrier, but things from the body, like bile and IgA and pepsin go in, and things from the gut like sugars, electrolytes, water, amino acids, and bacterial toxins go out.

What you do not grasp is that all you suggest is a part of the process of the system... I am sure you would not have the intestines nicked in any fashion which would open the system to the rest of the body except through appropriate channels... A system is a grouping of elements set together for a certain object...As you look at digestion you see that it is a complex system, and yet only a subset of a larger system, the body... And it is complex... I was told recently that 8% die without cause, which means without a cause that can be determined after death...If you look at systems, they are all like links on a chain... Not all links are closed, but no chain has a half link... It may be considered sitting unused, but no chain is better than one force and one reaction....It does not matter what it does, but that at any moment its elements are fixed... Energy is not an element, but a condition...This condition does not define systems but can be used to differnciate between them... When the process is complete, if the system has been designed well, then the system will have produced more energy than it has consumed... An automobile as a system takes gas and maintainance, but after all it should help one to make enough to pay for it...The same with digestion, that it should give one the energy to go hunting for more food... Sytems can be designed to work once and fail, or be destroyed in the process...The whole process of producing a nuclear bomb created the system for making bombs; and the subsystem responsible for its detonation was destroyed by working as designed...It was like a row of dominoes...
Quote:

They are not all closed.

That is not how the terms are used. All "closed" systems have caveats, namely that they're not 100% closed. But In many cases it doesn't matter, the systems are closed for the purposes of understanding the nature of variables that are only insignificantly modified from outside. This is manifestly NOT the case with any biological system.

Fido, let's not derail this thread any further with this. You're taking an idiosyncratic view of an established scientific concept, which is fine so long as your mind is a closed system.

If there are no closed systems there are no open systems, so it is a lousy way of describing systems...The complexity, the product or the variables is a better way of distingusihing between systems... Yet, they all do tend toward a closed set of elements and a cyclical process unless it was designed otherwise....I have helped to build systems...I have seen one robot shut down a whole plant because the system was so complex... If a door originating in one end of the plant having a certain color does not meet the same color body at some point it is time to call a crew...The owners opted to put their money into new technology rather than labor, and they laid off the very people who would buy their cars...

You are right about the derail... And wrong about the concept...A system is a conceptual manifold...
 
Shlomo
 
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 02:36 am
@gotmilk9991,
gotmilk9991;99805 wrote:
So, we can therefore state that any creation of the world from nothing, was physically and theoretically impossible.


You say that creation is impossible.

gotmilk9991;99805 wrote:
The earth had been created billions of years ago


You say that earth had been created.

Obviously, only God can make the impossible.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 03:27 am
@Shlomo,
Shlomo;101692 wrote:
You say that earth had been created.

Obviously, only God can make the impossible.


Obvious how? You are assuming since the question posses a problem you can just say that god can do the impossible. I want to see your evidence of such. If you can't provide any evidence then your statement is conjecture. It is a hopeless hope.

You can't make something that exists for ever. It produces a contradiction. If if has the nature of coming into being then it MUST have in it's nature the same ability to cease being.

a god is exempt from that rule? Then by all means all characteristics of god would be nothing more than a made up fairytale.
 
Shlomo
 
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:05 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;101693 wrote:
Obvious how? You are assuming since the question posses a problem you can just say that god can do the impossible. I want to see your evidence of such. If you can't provide any evidence then your statement is conjecture. It is a hopeless hope.

You can't make something that exists for ever. It produces a contradiction. If if has the nature of coming into being then it MUST have in it's nature the same ability to cease being.

a god is exempt from that rule? Then by all means all characteristics of god would be nothing more than a made up fairytale.

Krumple,
By any philosophical definition God is a person who is not subject to time, He had never been created, He is the one who had created the universe. If you do not mean such a person when you say "god", you simply misuse the word.

Yes God is not under the rules, He is setting the rules, including laws of thermodynamics etc. If you do not accept the definition, then at least please kindly explain what is your concept of god and what in your view is the difference between god and man?

Please note that I speak about your concept of god, not about your believing in his existence.

Shlomo
 
Bhaktajan
 
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 10:13 am
@gotmilk9991,
Yes, but ABSOLUTE ZERO EXISTS wheater or not a scientist can isolate it in the labortory.

The very concept of ABSOLUTE ZERO speaks of a field of existance that is Omnipresent ---in the same regard as the Hindu Script speaks of 'Brahman'.

If it appears that ABSOLUTE ZERO is unachievable in the lab ---yet intellectually graspable ---then we have stumbled upon the missing link in the Title of this thread.

Long before one reaches ABSOLUTE ZERO we must travel through layer upon layer of infininitely 'Finite' sub-divisions of space/time ---whereas lore speaks of a Transcendent realm out side the influence of TIME. For example, 'The soul is eternal'.
 
William
 
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 01:54 pm
@gotmilk9991,
Hey Paul, in regards to your new avatar. I thought you to be older. Ha! :a-ok:That's a beautiful child. You have a lot to be thankful for.

William
 
Krumple
 
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:38 pm
@Shlomo,
Shlomo;101696 wrote:
Krumple,
By any philosophical definition God is a person who is not subject to time,


You can't have a timeless motion. It make no sense. Time is movement. Time is change. If you have no time, you have no change, thus you can't do anything. You can't think, You can't make anything, you cant do anything at all peroid. I don't buy the argument that god is not subject to time. If god is in some timeless realm then god does nothing at all.

Shlomo;101696 wrote:

He had never been created, He is the one who had created the universe.


Once again, how do you know this? Sounds like conjecture to me. Making it up because it suits how you want things to be, but where is the evidence for this theory?

Shlomo;101696 wrote:

Yes God is not under the rules, He is setting the rules, including laws of thermodynamics etc. If you do not accept the definition, then at least please kindly explain what is your concept of god and what in your view is the difference between god and man?


god is a figment of human imagination.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 08:06 pm
@gotmilk9991,
God is a Fig Neuton of our fears...

---------- Post added 11-04-2009 at 10:17 PM ----------

Bhaktajan;101773 wrote:
Yes, but ABSOLUTE ZERO EXISTS wheater or not a scientist can isolate it in the labortory.

The very concept of ABSOLUTE ZERO speaks of a field of existance that is Omnipresent ---in the same regard as the Hindu Script speaks of 'Brahman'.

If it appears that ABSOLUTE ZERO is unachievable in the lab ---yet intellectually graspable ---then we have stumbled upon the missing link in the Title of this thread.

Long before one reaches ABSOLUTE ZERO we must travel through layer upon layer of infininitely 'Finite' sub-divisions of space/time ---whereas lore speaks of a Transcendent realm out side the influence of TIME. For example, 'The soul is eternal'.

Just because reality can be conceived of does not mean all we conceive of is real...Do we really have a concept of God??? No, because God is an infinite, and since concepts are knowledge we can have no true knowledge of God... Is absolute zero a concept... Temperature is a concept, but all absolutes are infinites...
 
prothero
 
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 10:40 pm
@gotmilk9991,
Well my understanding is that "god" imposed "order" on the formless void.
That "creation ex nihilo" is a fundamentally mistaken notion.
That god and the world are co-creative. but
Such notions are not scientific and not subject to proof they are just part of the metaphysical assumptions that we all make in trying to construct a meaningful world view that coincides with our inate predispositions and intuitions. Materialism, mechanism and determinism are metaphysical assumptions too. Your notion of the divine should not deny reason, science and experience but it does not need to be limited to them either.
 
Bhaktajan
 
Reply Thu 5 Nov, 2009 10:08 am
@Fido,
Fido;101918 wrote:

Just because reality can be conceived of does not mean all we conceive of is real...


This statement is semantics for poetry's sake.

Reality is not all about "Conceive-ablity". Reality is taught and learned via a chain-of-command. That is commonly called, the 'Educational System'.

If you apply for a job with resume in hand to one of countless Businesses listed in the Telephone Books' pages . . . "Personal Conceptions of Reality" will not be enough to get the job [except maybe in graphic novels ---yet the initiative to do such work does require mastery of self-marketing to an agree-able clientele for a cost that reflects the continent's acceptablly respected, regarded, and universally recognised, albeit fluxuating cash price] to pay the landlord the going rate. That's reality by any other name.

Quote:
...Do we really have a concept of God???

Yes. You have the same as I and the same as any common person anywhere!
Omniscient, all-powerfull, eternal, the first-person, creator of the cosmos, the primeval spirit source of all the aggregate elements of matter and energy, the supreme soul and source of all avatara(s), the richest, the most famous, strongest, most beautiful, the most intelligent and the most renounced, . . . but, what OUR Knowledge may not be privy to, abd this may cause much personal consternation for the mundanely engaged instant-sense-gratifier types who live a life without much reason to surrender to haplessness, is . . . God, by definition [weather we have direct or indirect or very bad or very aboriginal teachers], is, with His own name, fame, form, personality, paraphenalia, entourage and pastimes in His own abode which we are seperate from while living in a "world of forms" ---a world that reflects a state where "Forms are all in their primeval relation to the FIRST FORM, God".

We just DO NOT claim to agree on why He ignores us so much. Especially when we want something we saw in a shop window.


Quote:
. . . since "concepts" = "knowledge" ~we have no true knowledge . . .


This is bogus. Reality is Real. Real things must pass with time, during which transition, a person along with other persons make use of 'The Ten-Thousand Things' for a purpose that rises to the level of "refined-Culture".
The Gladiators lot in life was a benefit for the running of civil life for the labor classes.

Working systems are always greased with nasty lard-like sub-systems . . . get used to it and rise to your level and assume the position and perform your part self-lessly for the good of the whole and for the cultivation of future positions in civic life weather in the material world, heavenly world, or the transcendant abodes or even if, at best, for the future camaraderie of the sub-human/sub-terranian/sub-mariner's schools of fish.

Quote:
Is absolute zero a concept... Temperature is a concept, but all absolutes are infinites


"Absolute Zero" indicates/defines/verbalises/points to/is an onomatopoeic term/numerical standard of measurement/bench-mark/a zero sum quanity . . . of NOTHING-NESS.

NOTHING-NESS is Absolute. The world is constructed of Absolutes. The construct of the Cosmos are predicated upon absolutes. The plumbing in your Bathroom is predicated upon absolute principles. Chemical reactions are predicated upon absolute responses.

Inter-personal Affairs are predicated upon absolutes ---that one MAY OR MAY NOT be privy to thus one MAY OR MAY NOT garner the same fruits of enjoyment as an other person may be entitiled to as a reward for services rendered.
 
Shlomo
 
Reply Thu 5 Nov, 2009 12:51 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;101897 wrote:
You can't have a timeless motion. It make no sense. Time is movement. Time is change. If you have no time, you have no change, thus you can't do anything. You can't think, You can't make anything, you cant do anything at all peroid.

What do you think of Einstein's assertion that for somebody who moves with the speed of light time stops?

Krumple;101897 wrote:

Once again, how do you know this? Sounds like conjecture to me. Making it up because it suits how you want things to be, but where is the evidence for this theory?


As you rightly point out, everything happens in time in this world. That means everything has age. The universe has age (otherwise it would be out of time) . How did it start? If some other source gave start to it, then the question is how this source had come into being itself and so on. Therefore, there must be a source which is not subject to time.

Krumple;101897 wrote:
god is a figment of human imagination.

Could you please specify the content of this figment?

Thank you
Shlomo
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Young Philosophers Forum
  3. » Proof That God Didn't Create The World
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/29/2014 at 12:48:59