Law of Conservation of Energy and God.

[Turenne]

This is going to sound confused and rather simplistic, as I am paraphrasing someone elses argument and physics has never been my strongest subject.I would like people to point how accurate or fallacious the following argument is:

1. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one formto another.

2. Science believes in something that cannot be created or destroyed(energy), just like Christians believe in someone that was not created or cannot be destroyed(God).

3. Hence the Athiest belief that there can not be a God because we can not answer the question 'Who created the creator?' goes against modern science because it contradicts the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Now the above strikes me as a rather simplistic and incomplete argument, but since the field of Physics is not my strong suit, I'll refer the argument to the enlighthened members of Whistlestopper.

[Ethos]

Atheists do not believe "there can not be a God", so the argument is rather pointless to make.

Ethos

[Turenne]

They don't?So what do Atheists believe?

My question about the Law and God still stands though.

[Ethos]

They don't?So what do Atheists believe?

My question about the Law and God still stands though.

Atheists believe in what can be shown to exist. God cannot be shown to exist, therefore we do not believe he does. This is not the same as claiming he can't exist, however.

Your question relies on the assumption that an atheist is making the claim that "God cannot exist because 'who created the creator?' cannot be answered". Since the assumption is false, the question is equally invalid.

Ethos

[Turenne]

Atheists believe in what can be shown to exist. God cannot be shown to exist, therefore we do not believe he does. This is not the same as claiming he can't exist, however.

Yes I understand and agree, although I seemed to have missed this important point whilst forming the question. :shrug:

Your question relies on the assumption that an atheist is making the claim that "God cannot exist because 'who created the creator?' cannot be answered". Since the assumption is false, the question is equally invalid.

I'll rephrase then:

If energy cannot be created and destroyed then why does God have to have been created to exist? Doesn't the Law of Conservation of Energy show that God need not have been created in the first place?

[Ethos]

If energy cannot be created and destroyed then why does God have to have been created to exist? Doesn't the Law of Conservation of Energy show that God need not have been created in the first place?

One popular conceptualization of god is as a being outside space and time. As such he is not subject to the conservation of energy principle.

In addition, your premise assumes god is formed of "energy" as we understand it.

Assuming for the sake of argument god does exist, I expect the most "logical" conclusion is he always existed. As a Christian, I once believed as much.

Ethos

[Turenne]

One popular conceptualization of god is as a being outside space and time. As such he is not subject to the conservation of energy principle.

In addition, your premise assumes god is formed of "energy" as we understand it.

Actually, the person I am re-phrasing this argument from stated that he didn't believe God is energy, or that energy is God just that science seems to contradict itself by stating that God must have been created by some other entity whereas energy need not be created at all. :shrug:

[Ethos]

Actually, the person I am re-phrasing this argument from stated that he didn't believe God is energy, or that energy is God just that science seems to contradict itself by stating that God must have been created by some other entity whereas energy need not be created at all. :shrug:

Perhaps this would be easier if you could post the original argument in full? None of it seems to make much sense. I highly doubt science would be stating that "god must have been created by some other entity" since the supernatural is necessarily outside the scope of science in the first place.

Attempting to disprove an atheistic proposition (that does not exist in the first place) by envoking a scientific law in favor of the existence of a supernatural entity is itself a contradiction.

Ethos

[burntgorilla]

Basically, God is considered to be outside any possible rule or law of science, otherwise he couldn't exist. The more scientific discoveries we make, the more abstract the concept of god becomes. For example, in the Old Testament there's bits about God intervening to help armies (like every other god around then, oddly enough), or testing Abraham and things like that. Even in the Middle Ages God was still quite a definite anthropomorphism. Heaven and Hell were described by people such as Dante. Obviously, Dante was a writer and none of it had much of a Biblical basis, but it's indicative of the attitudes of the time. Now, with our much more advanced science, God has had to become more abstract in order to fit in with reality. There's quite a few who reject reality (eg. creationists), but most Christians these days seem to take quite a... metaphysical approach to God. Some on here (possibly Atticus) believe that all the different gods that people believe in are different expressions of the same god, so worshipping one is as good as any other. I think this is quite a mature and enlightened approach, similar to the Bahá'i, but I don't know how much of a scriptural basis it has. However, compare this vision of God to that of the God of the Old Testament, or medieval Catholicism. There's quite a difference. If God still did the things that he did in the Old Testament, we would probably be able to detect him. So the definition of god has to adapt. In effect, the very idea of a god is quite vague and slippery, so it can be manipulated as need be.

[Turenne]

Perhaps this would be easier if you could post the original argument in full? None of it seems to make much sense. I highly doubt science would be stating that "god must have been created by some other entity" since the supernatural is necessarily outside the scope of science in the first place.

Attempting to disprove an atheistic proposition (that does not exist in the first place) by envoking a scientific law in favor of the existence of a supernatural entity is itself a contradiction.

Ethos

I'm constructing a reply to a letter.The paragraph that I tried to re-phrase...

One thing I fail to understand is to the atheist and Dawkin's position that there could not be a God - because we cannot answer the question 'Who created the creator?'

They therefore conclude that if something is not created, it could not exist. This point of view is contradictory to modern science.

As an engineer, I can tell you that the law of conservation of energy states cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed from one form to another.

Now, I do not claim that God is energy nor, indeed, that energy is God, but science professes in something that cannot be created or destroyed - energy - and Christians believe in someone that was not created or cannot be destroyed - God.

[Ethos]

I'm constructing a reply to a letter.The paragraph that I tried to re-phrase...


One thing I fail to understand is to the atheist and Dawkin's position that there could not be a God - because we cannot answer the question 'Who created the creator?'

They therefore conclude that if something is not created, it could not exist.


I think I've found the issue in this argument. I have not read Dawkins's book (sooner or later I hope to get a copy), however I suspect his position in this case is actually based on the theist's argument of "first cause". (In the mean time, I would certainly hope Dawkins isn't foolish enough to claim there "can't be a god" and that the interpretation is an error by your friend).

According to modern constructions of the intelligent design supposition, all things have a beginning and thus a "first cause", therefore the universe itself must have had a beginning. God is held up as the catalyst of "first cause". The atheist will then use this argument against the theist - pointing out that if everything has a first cause, then god must also have been created by a creator.

Of course, the standard (convenient) response is that god exists outside the necessity for a beginning or an end - ie he is infinite. Personally I find the entire debate rather circular.

Ethos

[Groucho]

Ethos is correct -- we atheists believe there is no proof of God, just like there is no proof of leprechauns. It doesn't mean that there can be no leprechauns, it just means no one has given us any evidence of them.

If energy cannot be created and destroyed then why does God have to have been created to exist? Doesn't the Law of Conservation of Energy show that God need not have been created in the first place?

Sure, of course, just like energy need not have been created in the first place.

Basically the "Well then, who created God?" argument is meant to disarm believers. No real atheist has convinced themselves of the nonexistence of God based on that premise.
:angel:

[Turenne]

I think I've found the issue in this argument. I have not read Dawkins's book (sooner or later I hope to get a copy), however I suspect his position in this case is actually based on the theist's argument of "first cause". (In the mean time, I would certainly hope Dawkins isn't foolish enough to claim there "can't be a god" and that the interpretation is an error by your friend).

According to modern constructions of the intelligent design supposition, all things have a beginning and thus a "first cause", therefore the universe itself must have had a beginning. God is held up as the catalyst of "first cause". The atheist will then use this argument against the theist - pointing out that if everything has a first cause, then god must also have been created by a creator.

Of course, the standard (convenient) response is that god exists outside the necessity for a beginning or an end - ie he is infinite. Personally I find the entire debate rather circular.

Ethos

I have read Dawkins book and understand the argument of first cause and the infinate regress caused by this argument.

I'm asking specifically about how this relates to the Law of the Conservation of Energy and the idea that belief in that Law contradicts the belief that God must have been created.

[USViking]

This is going to sound confused and rather simplistic, as I am paraphrasing someone elses argument and physics has never been my strongest subject.I would like people to point how accurate or fallacious the following argument is:


1. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one formto another.

2. Science believes in something that cannot be created or destroyed(energy), just like Christians believe in someone that was not created or cannot be destroyed(God).

3. Hence the Athiest belief that there can not be a God because we can not answer the question 'Who created the creator?' goes against modern science because it contradicts the Law of Conservation of Energy.



I speak as an interested layman and not
a scientist. Our member "Nuke the Oil" has
an advanced degree in physics and is this
board's best authority in the field. I am subject
to correction in every thing I say below by
him or other authority.


Conservation of energy is thought by many
to be violated by the Quantum Mechanic
phenomenon of "virtual particles", which pop
in and out of exisitence continuously and in
vast numbers.

This interpretation is not universally accepted.

This link says VP do not violate CE:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html
(from the link):
"...all this talk of virtual states is just an approximation to quantum mechanics, in which energy is conserved at all times."

This link says VP do violate CE:

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?chanID=sa005&articleID=0004D0F8-772A-1526-B72A83414B7F0000&topicID=13
(from the link):
"Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy..."

Assuming, however, that CE is violated by VP,
then the door may be considered as left open
for other presently unknown violations including
even the creation of entire universe.

If CE proves NOT to be violated by VP, or or VP
are found to be a specious construct, then there
remains the possibility that the universe itself
was NOT created, but has exisited in some form
forever.

I think Big Bang cosmology says only that the universe
approached infinite density at the time it exploded.
It does not really say anything about other conditions
prior to the explosion.

Finally, anticipating those who object to the idea of
a temporally infinite universe, I do not think that idea
is intrisically any more astonishing than that of a
temporally infinite God.

[Ethos]

I have read Dawkins book and understand the argument of first cause and the infinate regress caused by this argument.

I'm asking specifically about how this relates to the Law of the Conservation of Energy and the idea that belief in that Law contradicts the belief that God must have been created.

There is no relationship. Not a scientific one anyway.

Ethos

[Ethos]

I think Big Bang cosmology says only that the universe
approached infinite density at the time it exploded.
It does not really say anything about other conditions
prior to the explosion.

Finally, anticipating those who object to the idea of
a temporally infinite universe, I do not think that idea
is intrisically any more astonishing than that of a
temporally infinite God.

I have no objection to an actual infinite (rather than hypothetical infinites), however I don't think a temporally infinite universe works as a theory unless we use the repeating contraction/expansion model. Since the universe has recently been shown to actually be accelerating in its expansion (contrary to that particular model), the infinite universe scenario doesn't seem to work.

Ethos

[Turenne]

Would someone explain to me if the argument contained within the extract I posted from the letter is complete bull**** or not, and if it is BS explain why.

In simple language because my mind isn't really working too well today.Apologises if I am coming acorss as narky or a bit of a dunce.

[USViking]

I have no objection to an actual infinite (rather than hypothetical infinites), however I don't think a temporally infinite universe works as a theory unless we use the repeating contraction/expansion model. Since the universe has recently been shown to actually be accelerating in its expansion (contrary to that particular model), the infinite universe scenario doesn't seem to work.

Ethos
Perhaps, but I am not sure why the Universe
should be forbidden to evolve from a state of
temporally infinite density into a state of
temporally infinite diffuseness via the transition
of the Big Bang event.

Alternately, the entire Universe may be "virtual",
with an unknown but very large lifetime.

We could all disappear without warning at any moment!

[USViking]

Would someone explain to me if the argument contained within the extract I posted from the letter is complete bull**** or not, and if it is BS explain why.

In simple language because my mind isn't really working too well today.Apologises if I am coming acorss as narky or a bit of a dunce.
I do not think the argument is complete BS,
although professional physicists might.

If you want rigorous detail you are going to have
to wait for an answer from one of them.

[Dangerrmouse]

This looks very similar to your letter..

http://www.web-books.com/GoodPost/Articles/OriginOfGod.htm

[Ethos]

Perhaps, but I am not sure why the Universe
should be forbidden to evolve from a state of
temporally infinite density into a state of
temporally infinite diffuseness via the transition
of the Big Bang event.

Alternately, the entire Universe may be "virtual",
with an unknown but very large lifetime.

We could all disappear without warning at any moment!

It wouldn't be logically consistent to have a universe which moves from one infinite state to another. By definition it would be unable to transition from density to diffuseness if either status were temporally infinite.

Ethos

[Ethos]

Would someone explain to me if the argument contained within the extract I posted from the letter is complete bull**** or not, and if it is BS explain why.

In simple language because my mind isn't really working too well today.Apologises if I am coming acorss as narky or a bit of a dunce.

I'm not really sure what else it is you're looking for. I've already explained that the entire premise (atheists believe god can't exist) is false. Beyond that I've noted that one can't scientifically measure a supernatural being - so again the argument comparing a scientific law to god is flawed.

Someone is trying too hard.

Ethos

[burntgorilla]

There is no relationship. Not a scientific one anyway.

Ethos

I don't think he means a relationship, but a comparison. I think it comes down to whether energy ever was created to begin with, which isn't really known, and as USViking pointed out, quantum physics confuses things.

[Turenne]

So the theory that energy cannot be created or destroyed can be doubted?

[burntgorilla]

So the theory that energy cannot be created or destroyed can be doubted?

I'm no expert, but I don't think anyone really knows what happened at the moment of the Big Bang. Judging by the quotes from USViking, scientists are divided on whether quantum physics breaks the law. I always thought the law was part of classical physics, so it makes sense that quantum physics would break that law since it seems to have broken most of the others. I seem to remember someone telling me that the particles appearing are not coming from nowhere, but are instead energy changing into matter (E=mc^2 and all that). Time to hit Wikipedia, perhaps.

Edit: I found this -

Virtual particles exhibit some of the phenomena that real particles do, such as obedience to the conservation laws. If a single particle is detected, then the consequences of its existence are prolonged to such a degree that it cannot be virtual. Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles. Examples of these are static force fields, such as a simple electric or magnetic fields, or any field that exists without excitations that result in its carrying information from place to place.

I didn't understand most of that, but the first sentence is pretty clear.

I don't know about this, I'm way out of my depth.

[USViking]

It wouldn't be logically consistent to have a universe which moves from one infinite state to another. By definition it would be unable to transition from density to diffuseness if either status were temporally infinite.

Ethos
I do not have the knowledge to comment authoritatively,
but I think the universe could do just that without contradicting
any of the properties of the infinite.

By analogy there are infinitely many numbers more than zero
and infinitely many numbers less than zero. They are both part
of the "larger" infinite set of all numbers. Yet they are bounded
in the middle by the "singularity" of zero.

[USViking]

So the theory that energy cannot be created or destroyed can be doubted?
I doubt many would go that far.

Conservation of energy is the First Law of Thermodynamics,
and everyone who has ever tried to get around thermodynamics
has shot himself in the foot.

Even the link I posted about CE violation pointed out that
the violations are all "temporary".

One solution I am banking on is this: fine- energy has ALWAYS
existed. Therefore there is no need for its creator

[lawman]

I'm constructing a reply to a letter.The paragraph that I tried to re-phrase...One thing I fail to understand is to the atheist and Dawkin's position that there could not be a God - because we cannot answer the question 'Who created the creator?'

They therefore conclude that if something is not created, it could not exist. This point of view is contradictory to modern science.

As an engineer, I can tell you that the law of conservation of energy states cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed from one form to another.

Now, I do not claim that God is energy nor, indeed, that energy is God, but science professes in something that cannot be created or destroyed - energy - and Christians believe in someone that was not created or cannot be destroyed - God.
Okay, let's take on the original version:

First, the best way to understand Dawkins' position is to read his book. It certainly doesn't rely on the claim stated here. Dawkins in fact mounts several independent arguments demonstrating why there's no persuasive evidence of the existence of a God as traditionally conceived, and goes on to discuss the negative social consequences of such irrational belief.

Second, insofar as the argument is sometimes made that God is no explanation for the "ultimate cause" of things because he himself would require a cause, that simply doesn't boil down to "if something is not created, it can't exist." Obviously, the whole concept of natural evolution indicates otherwise. However, it's fair to say that any complex organism (which would certainly include an intelligent God) cannot come into being without some rational natural process to explain it, and thus claiming that God "just is" isn't a particularly satisfying explanation.

Finally: energy, of course, is a pretty basic component of nature, essentially the stuff that everything else is made up of. As such, it's very different from any particular complex entity, and shouldn't be analogized to one.

Thus, unless believers want to stipulate that "God" is merely an inanimate force of nature that can be quantified and measured, like energy, your friend's conclusion really doesn't make any sense.

How's that?

[Lumpen Prole]

I have never personally heard an atheist argue that something which cannot be created cannot exist. Rather, often hear the following question posed: if God didn't need to be created, then why did the universe? If there is no good reason then why suppose the existence of God at all?

[USViking]

I'm no expert, but I don't think anyone really knows what happened at the moment of the Big Bang. Judging by the quotes from USViking, scientists are divided on whether quantum physics breaks the law. I always thought the law was part of classical physics, so it makes sense that quantum physics would break that law since it seems to have broken most of the others. I seem to remember someone telling me that the particles appearing are not coming from nowhere, but are instead energy changing into matter (E=mc^2 and all that). Time to hit Wikipedia, perhaps.

Edit: I found this -

Virtual particles exhibit some of the phenomena that real particles do, such as obedience to the conservation laws... (emphasis added)

I also hit wiki, and that is where I came up with
the Scientific American link which says:

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy.

The article went on to say this:

...forces between metal plates in empty space are modified by the presence of virtual particles.

Thus virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring. Their properties and consequences are well established and well understood consequences of quantum mechanics.

So there is a difference of opinion.