Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You've got the gist of it. If the universe was caused by something other than a personal being choosing to created it, it would have happened the moment the necessary conditions existed for it to pop, or spring, or whatever you want to call it, into existence. It needed a trigger to set it off. But if that happened, then it would have been dones the moment those things existed and the universe would be eternally old and it would have been run down to nothingness by now by virtue of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. But we know that didn't happen, because entropy has not taken its full effect on the universe.
That's a pretty shaky argument, to say the least.
An impersonal entity like an alarm clock can be set to perform it's primary function after a certain amount of time has passed. An alarm clock could "wait until the right time to create the universe" just like a personal creator could.
And one could always ask why a personal creator would "wait until the right time" to create the universe. What are the conditions that a personal creator would be waiting for? If the personal creator is eternal, why didn't he/she create the universe an infinite time ago? A finite universe could be used to argue against a creator existing for all eternity, for that reason.
Ok, now my head is spinning.
All of this discussion seems to assume that the universe was created IN TIME in some pre-existing universe. I suppose anything is possible, but I thought the universe, by definition, included all space and all time. Isn't it a mistake to treat the universe like an ordinary object sitting on a dresser, passing through space and time?
An impersonal entity like an alarm clock can be set to perform it's primary function after a certain amount of time has passed. An alarm clock could "wait until the right time to create the universe" just like a personal creator could.
So you think it was based on time. OK.....if the past is eternal....the time would have passed an eternal amount of time ago.
Quote:
And one could always ask why a personal creator would "wait until the right time" to create the universe. What are the conditions that a personal creator would be waiting for? If the personal creator is eternal, why didn't he/she create the universe an infinite time ago? A finite universe could be used to argue against a creator existing for all eternity, for that reason.
He obviously did wait until the time for his choosing.
Quote:
Ok, now my head is spinning.
All of this discussion seems to assume that the universe was created IN TIME in some pre-existing universe. I suppose anything is possible, but I thought the universe, by definition, included all space and all time. Isn't it a mistake to treat the universe like an ordinary object sitting on a dresser, passing through space and time?
Time and space are believed to be connected. The point is that if the universe existed eternally, so did time, and it has been carrying on for eternity. If that is the case, it's not just a long time--but it was FOREVER in the past. You can't pass an eternal amount of time. By definition it's impossible.
So you think it was based on time. OK.....if the past is eternal....the time would have passed an eternal amount of time ago.
He obviously did wait until the time for his choosing.
Time and space are believed to be connected. The point is that if the universe existed eternally, so did time, and it has been carrying on for eternity. If that is the case, it's not just a long time--but it was FOREVER in the past. You can't pass an eternal amount of time. By definition it's impossible.
Why by definition is it impossible? Why can't you pass an eternal amount of time?
BTW you may have missed my post just before Freaks, where I think I addressed some of your points.
However, clearly natural processes are not always tending to towards a more disordered state. Think about most living processes. Think about crystals growing or planets forming. In these cases the entropy is decreasing. I had a chat about this same thing with Mystic recently.
This is incorrect.
It's a misunderstanding of entropy and how it applies to a closed system.
Quote:
Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.
A living process is NOT a closed system, and considering the system involves the earth, the sun and space; biomass makes up a very small portion of the system. Here's a quote from this paper Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Quote:
Now, the mass of all the living organisms on earth, known as the biomass, is considerably less than the mass of the oceans (by a very generous estimate, about 1016 kilograms. If we perform a similar calculation using the earth's biomass, instead of the mass of the oceans, we find that the second law of thermodynamics will only be violated if the entire biomass is somehow converted from a highly disorganized state (say, a gas at 10,000 K) to a highly organized state (say, absolute zero) in about a month or less.
Evolutionary processes take place over millions of years; clearly they cannot cause a violation of the second law.
#2 Crystals:
Again, a crystal is not a closed system. As the crystal forms there can be LOCAL entropy decrease, but this is not in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Matter and energy is exchanged with the surroundings as a crystal is formed.
#3 Planets forming:
As gravity pulls matter together it heats up immensely and radiates. There IS an increase in entropy before and after a planet is formed.
Here's an article from John Baez in which he explains this much better than I could:
Quote:
So, you're wondering why gravity doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, even though the entropy of a gas cloud decreases as it shrinks under its own gravitational pull? The answer is simple, but I'll just give you a hint. We've already seen that as it shrinks, it loses energy. The energy has to go somewhere. Where does it go? If you figure that out, you'll see that the total entropy is not actually decreasing - it's just leaving the gas cloud and going somehere else!
Why by definition is it impossible? Why can't you pass an eternal amount of time?
Because there is always "more" time? It carries on forever without end. By definition.
Quote:
BTW you may have missed my post just before Freaks, where I think I addressed some of your points.
Thanks.
I'd still appreciate an answer.
I did. Here you go, I'll add it on here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
Okay, I see what you are saying. But please don't get entropy and the second law of thermodynamics confused. They are linked but they are distinct from one another.
Entropy is measurement of change or state of order or disorder in a system.
You are correct in that entropy, when put together with the second law of thermodynamics - we are dealing with increased entropy and the irreversability of natural processes. So yes I see what you are saying in that, if the universe was eternal (ie much longer that 13 billion years old, wouldn't we now be in a state of total disorder?)
Yes. if not just much older, but an eternality older.
Quote:
However, clearly natural processes are not always tending towards a more disordered state. Think about most living processes. Think about crystals growing or planets forming. In these cases the entropy is decreasing. I had a chat about this same thing with Mystic recently.
In time, they will break down.
Quote:
As I said to Mystic, an overall increase of entropy is not something I necessarily hold to.
One of the reasons for that is because the First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it is merely transformed from one form to another; the total quantity of energy in the universe stays the same.
It will disperse.
Quote:
Also bear in mind that the theory of the Big Bang is only the current prevailing theory. In the cyclic cosmology model I gave you, this does not preclude the idea that the universe was once much smaller in the past, only that the universe iterates through cycles.
Even in a cyclic model, one must question how it all started. How did it get that way? Maybe it's just the way my brain is programmed, but I cannot fathom the idea that it has always existed.
Quote:
My own view is that we don't enough information yet to have a definitive answer. I think Penroses idea is a better one though it also probably still isn't the definitive one.
We don't. I recognize that. But I do believe the Cosmological argument is the BEST explanation--that the universe exists because a personal creator caused it to exist.
A living process is NOT a closed system, and considering the system involves the earth, the sun and space; biomass makes up a very small portion of the system. Here's a quote from this paper Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics
#2 Crystals:
Again, a crystal is not a closed system. As the crystal forms there can be LOCAL entropy decrease, but this is not in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Matter and energy is exchanged with the surroundings as a crystal is formed.
#3 Planets forming:
As gravity pulls matter together it heats up immensely and radiates. There IS an increase in entropy before and after a planet is formed.
Here's an article from John Baez in which he explains this much better than I could:
You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. If you read my post again, you will note that I specifically included this:
Quote:
...in thermodynamic systems that are not closed, entropy can decrease with time: some systems reduce local entropy, but at the expense of an larger environmental increase. ie, From a universe wide perspective, there is always an overall resulting net increase in entropy.
You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. If you read my post again, you will note that I specifically included this:
I went back and checked your post and you pretty clearly say what I responded to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
However, clearly natural processes are not always tending towards a more disordered state. Think about most living processes. Think about crystals growing or planets forming. In these cases the entropy is decreasing. I had a chat about this same thing with Mystic recently.
As I said to Mystic, an overall increase of entropy is not something I necessarily hold to.
Because there is always "more" time? It carries on forever without end. By definition.
I did. Here you go, I'll add it on here:
Yes. if not just much older, but an eternality older.
In time, they will break down.
It will disperse.
Even in a cyclic model, one must question how it all started. How did it get that way? Maybe it's just the way my brain is programmed, but I cannot fathom the idea that it has always existed.
Fair enough. I find it hard to fathom that it hasn't always existed.
Quote:
We don't. I recognize that. But I do believe the Cosmological argument is the BEST explanation--that the universe exists because a personal creator caused it to exist.
Vizio, you didn't answer this: Specifically, how old do you think the universe is?
I went back and checked your post and you pretty clearly say what I responded to:
What is it you have an issue with?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
