Active Users:1969 Time:26/10/2026 03:41:15 PM
The material universe precludes a purely natural cause. Joel Send a noteboard - 18/09/2009 12:04:16 PM
It just doesn't work. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that if the universe were compressed to a singularity at some point in the past, it should've stayed that way. To put it in Newtonian terms (and I realize the dangers there) an object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force, and "the universe" by definition precludes any force from outside, because there IS no "outside. " Entropy is always increasing in a closed system, and the universe is the ultimate closed system, so the suggestion it could naturally acquire kinetic energy when it had none initially is just bad science. Rebuttals of this come in two forms:

1) Concoct a hypothetical and unverifiable scheme wherein the known universe is just part of a larger one that supplies it energy, so that entropy decreases here while increasing at a greater rate in some other mystical place we can't perceive. Call it "the Flying Spaghetti Monsters pasta bowl. "

2) Vaguely and sagely assert that "we don't know much about the early universe; generally accepted laws of science may not apply. " Then, um, why are we trying to investigate it scientifically? If fundamental principles of physics are so deeply flawed, isn't that an argument AGAINST rather than FOR current physics models of the universes origins?

Origins are, after all, the key problem, because thanks to entropy everything decays, all motion eventually ceases, and once that happens there's nothing possible to kick start it again. Not under a purely natural model, and there's the rub: The materialist view criticizes spiritual ones for not playing by the laws of physics, but supernatural theories by nature are not obligated to do so; natural ones very much are.

Beyond that logic most of my evidence is anecdotal, like the time a crackhead plunged a knife into my gut a dozen times or so and couldn't even put a hole in my shirt, about a week after my mom had a dream she was in a hospital being told I was stabbed, a dream so vivid she called to wake me up and tell me. Or the dreams she had as a teen about a relative dying, shortly before they unexpectedly did just that. Or the... thing... that showed up in my bedroom door one night as a very small child and started trying to talk to me, then promptly disappeared when my parents rushed out and hit the hall light. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. " To assume that because something can't be directly observed it doesn't exist is rather conceited, IMHO, particularly when purely natural models are so inadequate to full explanations of reality.

Ultimately, even when I wasn't a Christian, I was a Deist simply because a First Cause is inescapable, an infinite regression as impossible by physical law as by logic (though on the latter point see The Metaphysics Book II, Part 2; it's short, but does away with infinite regression nicely) and because since entropy makes an eternal unbeginning physical realm impossible, well, as Doyle says, when we have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Do you think there's some kind of spiritual substance in the universe? - 14/09/2009 02:42:22 PM 1060 Views
no, it is mostly hydrogen *NM* - 14/09/2009 02:43:47 PM 359 Views
No *NM* - 14/09/2009 03:01:32 PM 347 Views
not a chance *NM* - 14/09/2009 03:23:02 PM 346 Views
yes (in as much that we could choose to define it that way) - 14/09/2009 03:31:40 PM 908 Views
No *NM* - 14/09/2009 05:14:33 PM 351 Views
Wouldn't spiritual and substance be mutually exclusive? - 14/09/2009 05:27:09 PM 823 Views
Re: Wouldn't spiritual and substance be mutually exclusive? - 14/09/2009 06:20:45 PM 805 Views
I think there is definitely a spiritual force that underlies the unity of all things - 14/09/2009 06:11:01 PM 843 Views
That sounds very like gnosticism in many ways. - 18/09/2009 12:17:51 PM 885 Views
No. *NM* - 14/09/2009 07:06:59 PM 337 Views
define "spiritual'. - 14/09/2009 07:36:18 PM 798 Views
Rum. - 14/09/2009 08:25:46 PM 811 Views
YES! *NM* - 16/09/2009 02:10:55 PM 376 Views
How are we not married? *NM* - 19/09/2009 04:10:13 AM 341 Views
Bigamy laws. *NM* - 19/09/2009 03:49:59 PM 376 Views
My Achilles heel! *NM* - 19/09/2009 07:30:06 PM 348 Views
Timing *NM* - 21/09/2009 12:51:37 PM 342 Views
My Achilles ankle! *NM* - 21/09/2009 08:14:42 PM 358 Views
Your Face. *NM* - 21/09/2009 08:21:44 PM 350 Views
My Achilles face! - 07/10/2009 09:40:36 PM 719 Views
No *NM* - 14/09/2009 09:09:16 PM 326 Views
No *NM* - 14/09/2009 09:31:14 PM 343 Views
Yes, vodka. *NM* - 14/09/2009 10:02:19 PM 331 Views
Substance? - 14/09/2009 10:08:04 PM 796 Views
Yeah, boobs. - 15/09/2009 01:51:44 AM 779 Views
Not the way I'd put it, as jh notes, but unquestionably. - 15/09/2009 03:17:22 PM 810 Views
Look, don't put words in my mouth. - 15/09/2009 04:50:13 PM 853 Views
Sorry. - 15/09/2009 05:14:10 PM 775 Views
Re: Sorry. - 17/09/2009 09:20:58 PM 758 Views
People over-complicate this, it's a sort of animal abuse - 15/09/2009 09:03:01 PM 816 Views
Nicely put. *NM* - 17/09/2009 01:57:44 AM 364 Views
Very nicely put. *NM* - 17/09/2009 06:57:57 PM 318 Views
A sublte nuance most modern materialists miss. - 18/09/2009 12:21:33 PM 1019 Views
I think there may be platonic forms defining purpose - 16/09/2009 06:27:36 AM 732 Views
The material universe precludes a purely natural cause. - 18/09/2009 12:04:16 PM 943 Views
One little correction - 20/09/2009 12:34:13 AM 917 Views
Nay. - 20/09/2009 07:04:47 AM 752 Views
Re: Nay. - 07/10/2009 11:55:28 AM 867 Views

Reply to Message