Me and my father were trying to figure out why no intelligent atheist has called out any christian on The First Law of Thermodynamics arguement? The first law (according to Wikipedia, however most definitions will tell you the same) "The law expresses that energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created nor destroyed.", should not be an argument FOR a god, but against it. How can a timeless, outside of the universe god create something which by definition cannot be created? We then understood that theists would say "He is god he can do whatever he wants." But that begs the question; If god is outside of space and time, then he is timeless and unchanging because change requires time. Then this means such a being would not be able to act upon something in the physical universe because to change and create, requires time.

Then this begs the question; How can the universe be caused then? All we know is the universe has been expanding for a finite amount of time. This does not mean it wasn't there before expansion; so without space/time expanding; There would be no cause because cause and effect occur within space/time. This led us to the conclusion that because cause and effect occur within space/time and require a flowing time stream; That the universe then should not have a cause it simply is? Why has nobody used this against Mr. Craig?

We are looking for criticism so please find the flaws in our logic.

Views: 194

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Please understand that no disrespect is intended with this reply but I personally feel this argument is somewhat pointless. What you are discussing is a subject understood by so very few there is little impact of the whole of society. While it is obvious Mr. Craig is doing his very best to employ volumes of pseudoscience, the bulk of the populace (myself included) understand so little of the subject as to afford it little response not to mention thermodynamics is still (unless I am mistaken) a work in progress, that is to say the understanding of it from the perspective of even the scientific community is somewhat limited in comparison to, say gravity for instance. Challenging the god topic to is rather pointless from the perspective of one's desire to make the world a better place since disproving a negative is not possible, we would better serve our fellow man, I think challenging the doctrine. But congratulations to you if you understand thermodynamics, that subject is beyond my capacity.

On a side note, I once asked a priest if he really believed the ceremonial wafers actually became the body of christ to which he replied "yes of course" I then asked him if jesus came in any other flavors such as flaming hot of barbeque. The silence was spectacular.

Were this discussion to take place in front of an audience of faithful, how many would now be asleep?
True many do show up but not for the purpose, I think, of which you speak. Frankly I think they show up for a number of reasons  that are likely narrowed to that of being in the presence of a religious champion. It may be flawed science and questionable metaphysics and maybe I give the faithful too little credit but I don't see them actually following his discussion rather, they listen but fail to grasp it. There are many from the scientific community who can challenge him of course but I think his impact is greatly diminished in comparison to say Joel Osteen and the like.
Forcefulness of the arguments are not what affords someone like Osteen the capacity to hold sway over such numbers. Nor would those with a capacity to understand the arguments of Craig be as likely to blow up an abortion clinic. Maybe I'm wrong.
Thank you.

"The law expresses that energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created nor destroyed."

I find this one to quite often be expoused by agnostics/apologetics (they read more books that Xians). This is how I it always seem to continue for me:

Agnostic: Thermodynamics and all other laws of nature only applies inside our universe. We have no empirical proof to state the same outside of it. One can argue that God exists outside of this universe.

Response: "One can argue" is not a statement of fact. But on the other side, inside this universe, there is no empirical evidence for divine intervention either.

Then, if they want to hide it outside and non-impacting on our universe, you remind them that only things that can actually exist in this universe are worth believing in because they will not leave it when they die via implications of the law they started with. Then you offer them a God without impact and no afterlife.

Using science to prove God tends to skip quite a few beats.


Thanks for being only person to actually answer my question, sorta --__-- But the discussion above is still a good one. I was looking for a critique of my own reasoning no so much as the theist argument. Im curious if there is any flaw in my argument.

Well, to be perfectly honest I understand your arguments and agree with them. :)

Theist logic is to point to the philosophical weak spots of science. However, in the process they forget that science requires evidence. The evidence is then proven by mathematics. The only thing theists need to do is to collect the physical evidence of a God and create an equation that makes P(God)>0.5, that no other exlanatory variable explains more of the empirical evidence at once.

I'm heading off for vacation, but perhaps I'll see if I can take an evening off to see if I can find any flaws. :)

The First Law of Thermodynamics has been brought up countless times to Dr Craig. Here is his most recent response in a radio show hosted by Kevin Harris, a Christian apologist and Craig cronie who pops up on T/A every now and again to borrow our brains in order to refine his philosophical wordplay.


I had forgotten just how physically unattractive this poor fellow is.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service