Did Nothing Create Everything?

[Xelasnave.1947]

How so? If we could see chemicals coming to life in a test tube, wouldn't that be evidence that supernatural intervention is not required? How would you detect the supernatural presence objectively? And how would you establish that it had anything at all to do with the creation of life?

I don't know but making a human out of mud just seems so much more plausible.
Alex

 

[Seattle]

I don't know but making a human out of mud just seems so much more plausible.
Alex

But everything complex is made by man so the Universe must be made by God.

 

[Baldeee]

So the evidence presented thus far is simply that places and events in historical record possibly relate to actual places and occurrences?
Well, that’s got me convinced!

In answer to the thread title: first prove that there was nothing, then your question becomes relevant.

 

[exchemist]

And that is why science can be, at times, so limited and can even become cult like in behavior.

I keep hearing the same old crap, where people say there is no evidence for God, when all they are really doing is disallowing all possible evidence a priori because of their own preference and bias.

It often comes down to... there is no evidence for God because I do not want there to be any, or because they have decided that there just can’t be any evidence for God!

Sadly it can come down to a willful blindness. And of course Christians can be guilty of exactly the same thing with Science.

When a Theist does this to science, the Atheist can see it like the noon day sun, but when they do the same thing in reverse, they can be completely blind to what they are doing.

We all have bias that can blind us. I do also.

There is perhaps a difference, that seems apparent to me at least. The Atheist seems more limited or confined by his world view than the Theist IMO.

The Atheist must restrict their world view to only natural process. Like a Catholic must restrict their world view to whatever the Pope teaches.

But Naturalism cannot even be proven to be true!

Please prove scientifically that the only things we can know, come from the study of nature. Prove that nothing else exists. It seems to set up a kind of circular reasoning, that just goes on forever. Like a hamster running on the same wheel for its whole life.

But the Theist who studies all things for themselves can study, embrace, and understand all natural processes plus also include supernatural processes and actions as well.

I am sure you know all this already!

A few issues with this. To take the trivial one first, Catholics don’t necessarily restrict their worldview to whatever the pope teaches. They think for themselves too, you know.

More importantly, you seem to be making a false dichotomy by confusing the methodological naturalism of science with a physicalist worldview. Plenty of scientists are religious believers. How do you think they can do that?

But there is no objective evidence, of the type required by science, for God. People believe in God for a variety of reasons: teaching and tradition, aesthetics, personal spiritual experience, etc. None of these are amenable to reproducible observation, so they are not suitable for consideration by science.

 

[exchemist]

I was thinking that entropy is constant from the Big Bang until now. And from now on into the future. On a universe scale and also in smaller subsystems of the universe.

For example, that the entire universe will eventually experience a total heat death in the future. And our Sun, as a subsystem example, will also suffer a heat death far before that.

Entropy also describes the gradual decline of order or complexity into disorder.

Do you know of even one chemical reaction where entropy does not win, given enough time, after the initial reaction has taken place?

Entropy increases with time. It is not constant. So logically, that means we expect the cosmos to start from a relatively low entropy state, and for it to increase from then on.

As for chemical reactions etc, it depends what you mean by win. There are plenty of processes in which entropy locally decreases. A simple case is the freezing of water. A more complex one is the development of an organism from egg or seed. But it is true that in all such cases the total entropy of the thermodynamic system, i.e. including the environment of the water or egg or seed, will increase.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Entropy increases with time. It is not constant. So logically, that means we expect the cosmos to start from a relatively low entropy state, and for it to increase from then on.

As for chemical reactions etc, it depends what you mean by win. There are plenty of processes in which entropy locally decreases. A simple case is the freezing of water. A more complex one is the development of an organism from egg or seed. But it is true that in all such cases the total entropy of the thermodynamic system, i.e. including the environment of the water or egg or seed, will increase.

Thanks so much for the correction!

So entropy has been increasing ever since the Big Bang. I agree, that makes more sense, and I have seen the errors of my ways.

So how did specified complex life, even a single cell come about in a Universe with entropy increasing over time?

Each human cell has about 100 trillion atoms specifically organized to function as a bio mechanical machine.

What natural series of chemical processes have been proven to create living cells? Even the simplest living cell?

And I already know about the protein and amino acid experiments. That is really outdated. And those experiments all show that intelligent design is needed, the scientists themselves.

Of course scientific progress in the field has to be decades beyond that now. Right?

Also please explain how and why so many scientific frauds have been allowed into the pretense of “legitimate” science. Especially with the pier review system up and running to prevent them? And why they were still used to persuade and knowingly deceive the public long after they were debunked?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

I don't know but making a human out of mud just seems so much more plausible.
Alex

Thank you for trying to help me Alex!

The reality of the miracles God performed on the Earth at Mt Sinai, breaks down every argument against God, in my opinion.

It is simply using reality to trump scientific imagination. It really is game over for me!
I am done arguing against God, forever!

Look through my history on this forum and you will see that I used to argue against God myself.

Now I praise His Name.

 

[exchemist]

Thanks so much for the correction!

So entropy has been increasing ever since the Big Bang. I agree, that makes more sense, and I have seen the errors of my ways.

So how did specified complex life, even a single cell come about in a Universe with entropy increasing over time?

Each human cell has about 100 trillion atoms specifically organized to function as a bio mechanical machine.

What natural series of chemical processes have been proven to create living cells? Even the simplest living cell?

And I already know about the protein and amino acid experiments. That is really outdated. And those experiments all show that intelligent design is needed, the scientists themselves.

Of course scientific progress in the field has to be decades beyond that now. Right?

Also please explain how and why so many scientific frauds have been allowed into the pretense of “legitimate” science. Especially with the pier review system up and running to prevent them? And why they were still used to persuade and knowingly deceive the public long after they were debunked?

Oh dear, you are an ‘intelligent design’ creationist, I see. I had a feeling you might be.

I’ve just explained that nothing prevents local decrease in entropy. Why did you overlook that?

 

[Baldeee]

And I already know about the protein and amino acid experiments. That is really outdated. And those experiments all show that intelligent design is needed, the scientists themselves.

They do?
How so?

Of course scientific progress in the field has to be decades beyond that now. Right?

I’m sure it has made progress, yes.
But it is mostly a theoretical discipline, given that experiments might take a few million years to play out, and even then not be successful.

Also please explain how and why so many scientific frauds have been allowed into the pretense of “legitimate” science. Especially with the pier review system up and running to prevent them? And why they were still used to persuade and knowingly deceive the public long after they were debunked?

You mean like ID?
Or would you care to offer up another example?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Oh dear, you are an ‘intelligent design’ creationist, I see. I had a feeling you might be.

I’ve just explained that nothing prevents local decrease in entropy. Why did you overlook that?

What local decreasing entropy process can create a living cell? And how long would it take? What local process can do both? And do both over the length of time that would be required to create a cell?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

They do?
How so?
I’m sure it has made progress, yes.
But it is mostly a theoretical discipline, given that experiments might take a few million years to play out, and even then not be successful.
You mean like ID?
Or would you care to offer up another example?

Sure, I offer the Ernst Haeckel embryology drawings that have appeared in biology textbooks deceiving children for decades. Or at least they have been mentioned in many of these textbooks if not shown.

Or the Piltdown Man Hoax?

There are others...

 

[exchemist]

What local decreasing entropy process can create a living cell? And how long would it take? What local process can do both? And do both over the length of time that would be required to create a cell?

One thing at a time. First, do you now understand that local decreases in entropy happen all the time in nature?

 

[exchemist]

Sure, I offer the Ernst Haeckel embryology drawings that have appeared in biology textbooks deceiving children for decades. Or at least they have been mentioned in many of these textbooks if not shown.

Or the Piltdown Man Hoax?

There are others...

Sure there is bad science, and there are even hoaxes and frauds, from time to time in science. Science is a human enterprise and not immune from them. But science is usually quite fast at finding these cases out and eliminating them. That’s the beauty of demanding reproducible evidence. If people can’t reproduce the results, the findings get discarded after a while.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

One thing at a time. First, do you now understand that local decreases in entropy happen all the time in nature?

Yes, I also understand that local decreases in entropy are always temporary and never last forever. Entropy will always eventually increase over time even locally. Because the entropy of the universe as a whole is always increasing.

Our Sun will run out of hydrogen in about 5 billion years, or is predicted to so, anyway.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Sure there is bad science, and there are even hoaxes and frauds, from time to time in science. Science is a human enterprise and not immune from them. But science is usually quite fast at finding these cases out and eliminating them. That’s the beauty of demanding reproducible evidence. If people can’t reproduce the results, the findings get discarded after a while.

Seems like a lot of theories are only “hopeful theories” and can bump along for decades without solid evidence.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

I don't know but making a human out of mud just seems so much more plausible.
Alex

That is a fun comment, I like it a lot!!!

 

[exchemist]

Yes, I also understand that local decreases in entropy are always temporary and never last forever. Entropy will always eventually increase over time even locally. Because the entropy of the universe as a whole is always increasing.

Our Sun will run out of hydrogen in about 5 billion years, or is predicted to so, anyway.

The decreases may not last for ever, but they can last for a few billion years. And some may last forever. For instance the entropy of solid quartz , or any rock mineral, is lower than it would be if the rock were vaporised. There is no prediction that at the heat death of the universe all the rock will vaporise!

However this is beside the point. The point is that thermodynamics is quite happy with processes that produce local order. Such as living things.

When an organism grows, it takes in nutrients and coverts them into a more highly ordered arrangement, as part of its body tissue. That is thermodynamically fine, because the processes involved reject heat and high entropy waste products to the environment.

 

[exchemist]

Seems like a lot of theories are only “hopeful theories” and can bump along for decades without solid evidence.

Name six.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

The decreases may not last for ever, but they can last for a few billion years. And some may last forever. For instance the entropy of solid quartz , or any rock mineral, is lower than it would be if the rock were vaporised. There is no prediction that at the heat death of the universe all the rock will vaporise!

However this is beside the point. The point is that thermodynamics is quite happy with processes that produce local order. Such as living things.

When an organism grows, it takes in nutrients and coverts them into a more highly ordered arrangement, as part of its body tissue. That is thermodynamically fine, because the processes involved reject heat and high entropy waste products to the environment.

Yes, I agree.

Intelligently Designed systems of life can absolutely do that. That is one of the things that very clearly distinguishes them from all known random processes. Everything you just described, regarding life, requires the intelligent manipulation of elements to pull off and to maintain their continuing function and existence. It requires system, on top of system, on top of system, on top of system, on top of system, and on and on it goes, and where it ends nobody knows. These systems are interdependent and have to all work together, with no goal in mind at all. And they have to be constructed in the correct order every single time a cell is made. Or the interdependencies fail and the cell dies.

Why would a cell care if it lives or dies? Why would it even want to survive, it has no mind, or goals to win the Lottery or anything else? Just a stupid question.

So how exactly is any of this making your case stronger?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Name six.

I either don’t know six, or I don’t want to chase that rabbit trail right now, or both.

We have been talking about one of them... that life can arise by purely natural processes. That is a “hopeful theory” with no strong empirical evidence.

Why is that theory so pervasive in the scientific community when there is so little evidence to support it, and when the math is so against it?

Isn’t it only because it supports the religion of Naturalism? It “has” to be true to keep the religion alive! To keep Atheism alive!