Does science require creation?

Question

1.) The First Law of Thermodynamics the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is constant.
2.) The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that entropy moves from a lower state to a higher state. (Things don't get more complex, they get simpler.) Entropy can decrease temporarily, but universally is decreasing
3.) Matter still exists.
4.) If the universe always existed then matter would not exist because it would have decayed into heat energy an eternity ago.
5.) If matter still exists, then the universe has not always existed.
6.) If the universe has not always existed, then it has an origin.
7.) Matter and energy didn't create the universe because matter and energy cannot create matter and energy.
8.) Matter and energy didn't come from nothing. Matter and energy are constant.
8.) Therefore, the universe was created by something external to the universe.

rorgg, does that not defy the evidence gathered at Bell Labs, that suggests the universe is expanding, and that gravity is not pulling the universe together, but accelerating its expansion?

rt66lt, I've read a number of varying position on quantum mechanics, and a lot of it requires something theoretical (i.e. negative mass, dark matter, dark energy and the like). I don't deny thier existence, but I certainly can't prove them. So for now, I'm can't conclude based on that. This is purely empirical, rather than theoretical.

trouthhunter, how am I using the 2nd Law wrong? Isn't that what "heat death" is all about according to Steven Hawkings? That eventually the universe will decay into uniform heat?

Cave Man, I agree. I admittedly am making an ontological jump here. But I am following empirical observations to thier logical conclusions, as many scientist do.

This has nothing to do with a "creator" per se, but the "created". "Creator" could be anything, but "Nothingness" is an option.

Sorry...typo...Nothingness ISN'T an option

Answer 1

Nice try, but no. The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy increases *in the absence of other forces*. There are valid theories for a solid-state universe.

Answer 2

Of course science requires Creation. Science cannot offer a rational explanation for the appearance of the universe out of nothing, because such an explanation is impossible. The fact that the universe came into existence means that someone or something brought it into existence. That entity was the Creator of the universe. If that event had not occurred, there would be nothing for science to study. But then again there wouldn't be any scientists either.

Answer 3

Actually, step 8 (your first step eight) is in error. Quantum Mechanics requires matter (and presumeably energy) to come from nothing. There is no such thing as a vacuum at the quantum level, matter is "borrowed" from space-time itself. In the present state of the universe, this matter then annihalates itself (both a particle and an anti-particle are created), but when the four basic forces of nature were united, annihalation probably didn't happen.
Personally, I believe an external force created the universe (whom I call the "Unmoved Mover" or "God"); but it is possible that nothing created the universe.

Answer 4

Your entire premise is wrong. Eventually you don't have any real background in physics. My background by the way is in nuclear and reactor physics.
Creationist always try and use the 2nd law in there argument but they don't understand what they are talking about.
As for an expanding universe, I think that most would agree that yes the universe is expanding, and that yes it did start somewhere. Before that its any ones guess. If you want to believe it was god, then have at it, just don't confuse that with what has taken place in the last 15 billion years or so.

Answer 5

Science requires observations and intelligent interpretations. Science doesn't require a goal. Science tries to answer questions that arise, but never claims the final truth. They don't fill in a creator for what they don't know. This would stop all questions. If you want to find answers, you can't have doctrines to work in that have boundaries that you can never escape. When scientists find answers, there will always be more questions ahead.

Answer 6

My answer would be just a theory, you shouldn't believe it, unless it would be proven to you in future:

Yes, universe is not enough, we need anti universe to create universe.

Soon it will be proven that one day every thing would come back to the beginning.

it is a kind of circle from nothing to existence and then reverse.

Here is the key to the answer:

Nothing is meaningful unless with measurement of time.

Try to understand TIME DIMENSION, it is your answer.

Regards

Bobby

PS. you will find better asnwers, if you study about recent physic researchs about Black holes

Answer 7

Yes

and at the beginnign was the word, and the word was light

big bang in biblo speak if you ask me ....

no offense to everybody, but Darwin become a faithful and strong christian after realising all the natural wonders and not having enough science to explain them all.....

the alternative to God seems to be the believe in coincidences -
we cannot really explain everything so we need probability theories and non linear evolution and "accidental" genetic development ....

it is so much nicer and eternally more fun and purposeful to accept God, hey -
at least you can learn and understand it all without having to be a "supergenius" connocting all kinds of phantastic pseudo science to explain the unexplainable


God bless you

Answer 8

Amen brother

Answer 9

i think of God has to respire the breath of life into the thermonuclear reaction, yet i'm no longer fairly effective if the oxygen interior the carbon dioxide of his breath might count extensive type or no longer.

Answer 10

No, but there was a precursor to creation.