Saturday, April 18, 2009

This one is a bit long but... Damn I'm good.

Someone presented this argument as proof of the existence of God.

(1) If there ever was a time when nothing at all existed, then there would be absolutely nothing today. It is an axiomatic truth that if nothing exists, then “nothing” will be the case -always, for nothing simply remains nothing - forever! Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. If there is absolutely nothing but nothing, there cannot ever be something. “Nothing” and “something” -applied to the same object, at the same time - are mutually exclusive terms.

(2) Since it is the case that something does now exist, one must logically conclude that something has existed always. Let us state the matter again: If nothing cannot produce something, and yet something exists, then it follows necessarily that something has existed always. The question then becomes this. What is the “something” that has been in existence always?

(3) In logic, the “law of the excluded middle” states that a thing either is, or it is not. A line either is straight, or it is not straight.

Let us apply this principle to the matter at hand. Something has existed forever. That “something” must be either material in nature, or non-material. If it can be demonstrated that the eternal “something” is not material in nature, then it must follow that the eternal “something” is non-material in nature.

Another term for the “non-material” would be “spirit.” The question now becomes — what does the available evidence reveal? Is it the case that “matter” has existed forever, or does the evidence argue that the eternal “something” is non-matter, i.e., spirit?

(4) The most reputable scientists in the world concede that “matter” is not eternal. In his book, Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977), Dr. Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and himself a professed agnostic, describes his perception of the initial creation of the universe. He speaks of that moment when “the first particles of matter appear” (21), thus, prior to that moment, matter did not exist.

Subsequently, he declares emphatically that “modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe?” (30). There is not a particle of evidence that the universe has existed forever. The very fact that scientists attempt to assign an “age” to the universe is revealing within itself.

(5) In view of the foregoing, namely that something has always existed, and yet that “something” is not of a material nature, the student of logic is irresistibly forced to the conclusion that the “something” that is eternal is non-material — which means it must be “spirit” in its essence. The Scriptures identify that spirit Being as God. “God is spirit?” (Jn. 4:24) — an uncreated, eternal Spirit Being.


I pwned this stupid premise with the following.

Your entire logical chain hinges on the assumption that something that exists eternally must be non material in nature. Therefore if a case can be made showing either that a material thing can exist eternally or that a non natural non material thing can not be shown to exist or a non material thing which is also natural can be shown to exist then your argument fails.

I will do all three.

The first. Can a material thing exist eternally.?

As any discussion of the origin if any of the universe are speculative in nature the words of any expert can not be held as authoritative in the absence of an evidence supported theory, mathematical proof, or at the very least clear consensus. None of these exist to support your premise.

While I am not criticizing the work of Dr. Robert Jastrow. I find no supporting references that indicate he is one of the most reputable scientists in the world.

There may be a case for matter being unable to have existed eternally but the same can not be applied to energy. It is plausible that energy has existed eternally and this has not been refuted.

The first law of thermodynamics states that

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.
In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same.

While there is no proof that this would apply in the conditions of a singularity there is also no evidence that it would not. There is only evidence that it might not due to the instability of thermodynamics in microscopic systems.

If the first law is correct and it has not been proven incorrect even in the proposed circumstances. Then energy must have always existed and since energy and matter can transition from one to the other matter can have come from energy.

Contrary to what has been stated by some the second law does not refute the possibility of an eternally existing universe. The laws of thermodynamics do not reference gravity, therefore even in a state of maximum entropy gravity would remain as a source of work which could as an attractor entity reverse or reset entropy. I have previously posted as an example that if the universe had reached "heat death" the energy in an entropic state would be collected by black holes when these black holes had collected all available energy there would be no barrier to them attracting and absorbing other black holes until all had been consolidated in to a universal singularity which contains all of the universes energy at a zero entropy state. When such a singularity reaches its ultimate density threshold it would release this energy back in to the universe to begin accumulating entropy again.

The second. Has a non natural non material thing been shown to exist?

This is much shorter. No non natural non material thing has been demonstrated to exist.

The last: Is there a natural non material thing which has existed eternally and has the ability to create energy and or matter?

There is a natural non material thing that has existed eternally. Space. Space is non material but it is not nothing. It has been shown to have shape and structure and to conform to certain rules. This shows that it is not "nothing" it is something and it is non material.

If space is defined as something and there is an absence of anything material quantum vacuum friction could result. Quantum mechanics demonstrates that quantum vacuum friction can spontaneously create particles. Therefore Space itself is a natural non material thing which has existed eternally and has the potential to create matter or energy.

Therefore your argument fails all three proofs of its accuracy.

12 comments:

Ryk said...

When I first posted this on Ray Comforts Blog in response to a Raytard named Courtney I thought it was her argument. Which surprised me a lot because stupid though it may be, it is a whole lot of thinking for one of Rays disciples.

It turned out that she had cut and pasted it from the work of some creationist mouthpiece named Wayne Jackson. This rocks because not only did I slap down Courtney, I pwned one of her creationist roll models.

At this time my post hasn't gone up on Atheist Central yet so I don't know if it will get censored or not. If it does go up I will update if she has a decent response.

Ryk said...

Holy Crap. I just looked up this Wayne Jackson character. He is a nasty piece of work. The very first thing I read from him is a piece where he said that it was just and good for the Israelites to murder the children of the Canaanites because they had to suffer for their parents immorality. No joke, Check this shit out

Anna Sethe said...

If there ever was a time when nothing at all existed...not even time...

this argument is so retarded. At AC I've asked them several times to define 'nothing' but they ignored it. Maybe I should ask them to define 'time'

They don't even know what they are talking about and believe they can prove god's (oh, no: God's) existence logically

rhiggs said...

Good job Ryk,

I never understand why people use the 'something couldn't have come from nothing' argument. Does anyone ever claim that there was once nothing? It doesn't make sense to me. Some people may think that a state of nothingness is somehow more natural and that for matter/energy to exist is a highly improbable outcome. But why? Somethingness is all we know and all we have ever experienced, so why assume that nothingness has ever actually existed (if you know what I mean!)? To assume that all was once a state of nothingness is to imagine something that is highly improbable according to our experiences.

Ryk said...

@Riggs
Exactly. I have always defended that by saying that energy must have always existed and showing that they can't refute that. When you add the fact that space is "something" there whole premise falls apart.

Ryk said...

@Anna

I would like to hear Ray or his disciples define anything scientifically. It would be great. Even "creation scientists" are laughable and they at least have technical terms to hide behind. Rays followers would just be naked and shivering if they has to define things.

ImtheRabbit said...

LOL you really have a way with words Ryk, you're very intelligent. :) I really enjoy reading your posts over there; I keep mine fairly simple since I don't have a whole lot of facts roaming around in my head.

The Great Bunny thinks I'm just waiting my time but since it's so funny, he doesn't mind :) I'm there to poke holes at Ray's followers not really Ray himself, I know that's useless. The Great Bunny tells me he has a special place for Ray when he dies. (I’ll give you hint: someone has to clean up after all those bunnies)

Ryk said...

I am Glad to know Ray will get a fitting reward. He who lives by shoveling crap shall do so in the afterlife.

I like Rays Blog because I get a chance to be smart. It is fun to have an excuse to research science and assemble arguments. It has also at various times had me studying history, philosophy, mythology, and logic. I may not be able to help any of the Raytards but they are sure helping me.

ImtheRabbit said...

Did you catch the guy with the 5 senses comment? Oh boy did I laugh at that one!

The Great Bunny has told me he's retarded.

Ryk said...

@Iamthe Rabbit
The bunny is most wise.

Yes I responded to that guy. A lot of Rays disciples would be well served by going back for their GED.

Do they do the GED thing in Canada? It is a High School diploma that adults who dropped out of school can go back and study for. It is pretty easy to get and gets little respect, but still it is probably a step up for most Raytards.

ImtheRabbit said...

Oh yes we do have that

the problem is most of those people were probably home schooled, and they teach what they want to teach :(

I'm having way to much fun at Ray's, I tried to explain how the first Cell formed, I'm not sure if I got it right or not, but we'll see what people say ;)

Ryk said...

@IamtheRabbit

I will have to find that one. I do physics better than I do biology. I am always interested in seeing good biological explanations.

I enjoy science a lot but it does bug me that Atheists are expected to be able to scientifically explain everything about the universe simply because we don't say "God did it."

If something is not done about that misconception Atheists will always be the minority because we will never convert the stupid people. We need some commonly understood saying that stupid or unscientific Atheists can say, that Christians can't pounce on like they do "I don't know". I love "I don't Know" it is a great and useful phrase, but you just can't say it to a Christian or you will never live it down.