Fayetteville Freethinkers Fayetteville Freethinkers
Home
About Us
Educational Tracts
Bible Education
Our Books
Mythbuster Boards
Debates
Powerpoint Presentations
FAQ
Links
Forums

I have (to the best of my ability) arranged the following exchange in a thread-like format. (Comments are responses to the passage most immediately both above and one indentation to the left.)

For example, if "o" indicates the original statement, "c" indicates a comment on an original statement, and "r" indicates a response to a comment, a thread would be organized as:

1o
  1c
    1r
2o
  2c - part 1
    2r1
  2c - part 2
    2r2

Webmaster's note: I now realize that portions of the exchange have been duplicated on this page. Please do not email regarding this as I am aware of it. Sorting through the sections was incredibly time-consuming, and doing so again is not very appealing; therefore "fixing" this page is rather low on my list of priorities, especially with so much other site-building to do. I apologize for the inconvenience to readers and hope that Dr. Briney and Mr. Matson do not feel I have slighted either them or their arguments.


PRB
The question posed is, "How did energy begin to exist without violating the first law of thermodynamics?"

Dave
The 1st law is not absolute; it is a generalization derived from our current observation of the universe. That those conditions should hold at a singularity, if there was a singularity, is another question.

PRB
At issue in this discussion is not the origin of the singularity, but the origin of the energy from which the singularity came into existence.

Dave
As I understand it, the net energy of this universe seems to be zero or very close to it. Thus, it may well be the case that no energy was ever created in the first place! Just as zero can be written as a sum of -1 and +1, energy and negative energy (as gravity fields) can cancel out, leaving us with no net energy. In any case, quantum fluctuations in empty space, apparently inseparable from space itself, are constantly producing pseudo-particles which generally disappear as quickly as they came. Several leading theorists have tied this phenomena to the Big Bang singularity. Of course, we are just beginning to understand these things and should not be dogmatic. We have a great mystery, but it does not appear to require the non-explanation of a creator.

PRB response
Energy does exist, in many forms, which we call the universe. The idea that something comes from nothing (in any situation including origin of the universe) has been disturbing to many because it violates the FLT. Astronomer Robert Jastrow mused: “But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and energy—which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact” (1977, p. 32).
Presently, research using vacuum models to simulate a vacuum universe do not involve absolute voids from which something comes from nothing. H.E. Puthoff writes, “Modern physical theory, specifically quantum electrodynamics (QED), tells us that the vacuum can no longer be considered a void. This is due to the fact that, even in the absence of matter, the vacuum is neither truly particle nor field free, but is the seat of virtual particle-pair (e.g. electron-positron) creation and annihilation processes, as well as zero-point-fluctuation (ZPF) of such fields as the vacuum electromagnetic field….” (The Energetic Vacuum: Implications For Energy Research by H.E. Puthoff, PhD Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, 1301 Capital of Texas Highway S., Suite A-232, Austin, TX 78746, (512) 346-9947, http://www.ldolphin.org/energetic.html, accessed 8/29/02).
Theoretically and experimentally, it has been shown that there is no true vacuum of absolute void. Thomas Valone writes, “…both theory and experiment have shown that there is a non-thermal radiation in the vacuum and that it persists even if the temperature could be lowered to absolute zero. Therefore, it was simply called the "zero point" radiation. Further proof is evident, as Dr. Forward points out in his tutorial below, when physicists have cooled helium to within microdegrees of absolute zero and still it remains a liquid! Only ZPE can account for the source of energy is keeping helium from freezing.” (Understanding Zero Point Energy. © 1999 Thomas Valone, M.A., P.E. Integrity Research Institute, 1220 L Street NW, Suite 100, Washington, DC 20005, 800-295-7674. http://users.erols.com/iri/ZPENERGY.html, accessed 8/30/02).
The idea of energy coming from nothing violates laws and experience in science. The FLT stands firm to this day. Observations in vacuum experiments show only that particles appear as they change in form from energy already present.

Dave Matson, 9/7/02
I am not arguing that the present, Big-Bang universe came from absolutely nothing. (At least two Nobel-Prize winners have speculated, on the basis of known physical principles, that our universe did, indeed, come from something after all.) I support their conjecture that our universe may be a subset of a greater physical reality, that it may have been derived from that greater reality by physical laws currently unknown or not fully appreciated. Philosophically, I also suspect that there can never be such a state as "absolute nothing." If I am right, then we do not have the problem of getting something from nothing. In that case, the chief difference between us would be that you further assume, without benefit of evidence, that such a situation involves a fundamental dichotomy -- the natural and the supernatural, the supernatural having always been there. Such additional speculation, without evidence, is a clear violation of Occam's razor.

PRB
There are three possible causes for origin of energy:
1) from nothing, 2) from something natural, and or 3) from something supernatural.

Dave
This overly-neat division misses the fact that, in all probability, we have an incomplete understanding as to what is natural. Clearly, we have much to learn about our universe. Perhaps a greater understanding will show that our universe came naturally from a greater universe by way of a singularity. That greater universe, and energy itself, may not even have a beginning! Indeed, the concept of absolute nothing may be a meaningless concept; it may be that some form of physical existence is inescapable. If that is true, then questions of ultimate origins are meaningless. However, the subject is too deep to pursue here.

PRB response
We will always have an incomplete understanding of what is natural, however, the three possible causes of energy origin as presented above sum well the possibilities needing to be considered.
The proposal that our universe came from some preexisting universe of natural origin only serves to apply our arguments further back in time in another universe rather than to dismiss them.

Dave Matson, 9/7/02
Whereas a reasonable argument can be made that our Big-Bang universe must have had a beginning, you have no means at your disposal for showing that a greater physical reality (along the lines of present scientific conjecture or yet to be discovered) must also have a beginning. Note that It would not necessarily be a larger version of our universe. My point is that you have not eliminated alternative 2). Therefore, there is no need to postulate the supernatural, an "answer" to a problem that currently does not exist.

Dave (continued)
We should humbly admit that we have a mystery here and not jump to unsupportable conclusions. Furthermore, postulating an intelligent, living creator is not a proper explanation in any case. (Isn't that the unspoken point of your whole argument?) We explain the unknown by relating it to the known, not by invoking a greater unknown! There is a big difference between creating a scenario that is logically consistent with the evidence at hand and actually explaining the evidence. The former takes in mythology, among other things; the latter advances our knowledge.

PRB response
I am not proposing to create an unsupportable, mystical scenario to explain the origin of energy. To the contrary, I am presenting the case that the evidence we have today shows that a natural cause is not only insufficient to explain the origin of energy but, indeed, the laws we know of today are contrary to such an explanation.
There are two popular explanations for this contradiction: 1) Ignorance of our world is the reason for the apparent contradiction, or 2) the universe was created supernaturally.
If one appeals to a natural explanation by virtue of ignorance, then it follows that one must admit ignorance of knowing for certain that there is no supernatural cause. Appealing to ignorance of the natural world does not rule out the supernatural.
On the other hand, what makes the supernatural explanation plausible is the fact that natural explanations contradict the laws that are understood today. Thus, I am not proposing an unjustified position for supernatural origins. The choice is between a natural explanation that contradicts established laws of science justified by the claim of ignorance of our world, or a supernatural explanation justified by the fact that natural laws known today will not permit a natural origin.
I argue that natural explanations of energy origin contradicts today’s known laws and knowledge of the universe, and that the rational choice between origin explanations is the supernatural. Not only can it not be dismissed as a reasonable explanation, but the contradictions between natural explanations and known laws make it the only reasonable explanation.

Dave Matson, 9/7/02
We haven't yet determined that energy has come from absolutely nothing! Certainly, given that our state of such knowledge is in its infancy, such a conclusion is highly tentative and by no means firmly established! Our universe -- the Big Bang universe -- may be a subset of a greater physical reality that either does not (or cannot) have a beginning.
Given our present state of knowledge, your conclusion that the supernatural must be invoked is anything but reasonable! On a thin thread of ignorance you have constructed the extreme dichotomy of the natural and the supernatural. You have built on the shifting sands of what we don't know (in an area of vast ignorance) rather than on firm, positive evidence. Furthermore, as previously noted, the supernatural is not a proper explanation but rather an ad-hoc scenario. It explains everything and, therefore, nothing.
In summary, the contradiction you find in the 1st law with respect to the origin of energy is hardly grounds for introducing the extreme dichotomy of the natural and the supernatural. That is akin to introducing fairies and elves to explain an engine problem that defies a beginner's understanding. In principle, evil fairies might be responsible, but that is hardly an acceptable explanation. It invokes an unproven, greater unknown to explain an unknown. Fairies also explain everything and, therefore, nothing. Fairies (and the supernatural) constitute a scenario that is fitted to the shadows of ignorance -- not one based on positive evidence. A scientific explanation must invoke known results to explain the unknown, and it must be based on positive evidence.
We can put it even more succinctly: If there is a real conflict between a scientific law and reality, the proper conclusion is that the proposed scientific law has failed (and must be rejected or modified), NOT that there exists a fantastic reality called the supernatural, where physical laws don't apply. And, that real conflict has not yet been established as a reasonable fact.


PRB (Dr. Patrick R. Briney's) discussion of the 1st law of thermodynamics with respect to arguing for the supernatural:

PRB
I represent the first law of thermodynamics as claiming that "energy cannot be created by natural means."

Dave
One problem with your phrasing of the 1st law of thermodynamics is that your phrasing suggests that there are other means by which energy might be created. That thought is not a part of the 1st law, and any phrasing that suggests as much is misleading.

PRB response
The phrasing “natural means” was included to emphasize the context of the first law of thermodynamics (FLT) because without it, some asserted, that based on this law, energy could not be created by any means: natural or supernatural. However, because the FLT does not describe events outside of natural phenomena, I suffered the redundancy of this phrase to emphasize and to clarify for others that the FLT applies only to natural phenomena.

Dave Matson 9/6/02
You assume that there are two, separate realms, the natural and the supernatural. The 1st law makes no such allowances, and should not be phrased to suggest as much. Better to begin with a legitimate statement of the law and, then, go from there.
Doug put his finger on a point that I did not fully appreciate. If the word "natural" here is to have intelligent meaning, then it must make sense to talk about "unnatural" means. However, the very existence of unnatural means, in this context, is the point being debated. Hence, you are using a word with your conclusion built into it. Because it implies such a distinction, the word cannot have a proper and full meaning here until after your conclusion. If the word is necessary for your argument, then we have a form of circular reasoning. Therefore, it should not be used in your initial statement about the 1st law.

PRB9/11/02
Using the word "natural" simply states what is already in the meaning of the FLT, namely, that it applies only to that which is natural. There is nothing illegitimate about using a term that is already a part of the law. It is used appropriately to clarify, to those who would erroneously assume otherwise, that it applies only to the natural or physical world. To argue that the use of the word "natural" is illegitimate because it implies unnatural or supernatural would render the word illegitimate in all conversations and textbooks where it is used. Its common use shows that it is legitimate to use and does not necessarily involve a presupposition of unnatural or supernatural.

Dave Matson 9/19/02
In your context, the word "natural" is freighted or at least scented with the presupposition of the supernatural -- a position you must prove, not define into existence. Quite aside from the question of possible error, your use of "natural" is bad form and should be avoided. That the word might be used rather freely in loose speech, or loosely as an informal aid to learning in a textbook, does not justify its usage here. Quite often I speak or write informally myself, even with yourself, but I try to be more exacting when attempting a formal proof. As previously touched upon, I do not ever recall seeing "natural" used the way you have used it in any college textbook definition of the 1st law.

Dave
The second problem, as noted by Doug Krueger, is that the 1st law deals with the conservation of energy. It says nothing about how energy might or might not be created. Thus, your phrasing is misleading on a second count.

PRB response
I am not citing the FLT in order to describe how energy was created. The idea of conservation is that there can be no more and no less energy than that which you begin with. If you have nothing, you will get nothing. According to the FLT, energy can change form but new energy cannot be created. I cited references in order to emphasize that the claim that energy cannot be created according to the FLT is not unique to my presentation, but is well known and stated this way by others. Thus, my phrasing accurately represents the FLT.

Dave Matson, 9/6/02
Once again, you should begin with a standard, textbook definition and work from there. If your argument hinges on this rewording of the 1st law, then you have made a change; if it does not, then a standard, textbook definition is the logical starting place. Granted, that the conservation of energy means that energy cannot be created, but that is a deduction from the 1st law and not a proper way to state the 1st law. As noted above, the word "natural" also does not belong here. Better to use a standard, textbook definition and we shall have a proper starting point.

PRB, 9/11/02
For this very reason I cited several references stating the first law of thermodynamics and demonstrated through authoritative sources that the FLT is represented correctly. Therefore, we do have a proper starting point. Whether one is referring to it with the word "conservation" or "creation" or "natural" in the phrasing, it is clearly and unmistakably recognized as the FLT. There is no fault in the representation of the FLT.

Dave Matson, 9/19/02
Recognizing the 1st law and stating it completely and correctly are two different things. In the first place, you gave us a kind of corollary rather than the 1st law, and the sources you quoted did not use the word "natural" in the sense that you did. (See my previous answer in the next section.)

Dave
Your statement of the 1st law is a subset consistent with the 1st law, but it also implies things that are not in the first law -- as well as not covering other things that are in the 1st law. Therefore, it is an inadequate representation of the 1st law.

PRB response
Thank you for acknowledging my statement as consistent with the FLT. Because the presentation is about the supernatural origin of energy and not about the principles of the First Law of Thermodynamics, my description addresses the aspect of the FLT that appropriately applies to the issue of energy origin. The description I use is frequently used by others, and it is adequate for the given discussion. [The examples cited in the earlier email are as follows...]

* 3Dr. Robert H. Gowdy, Associate Professor, Chair of the Physics Department at Virginia Commonwealth University states on his web site at http://www.people.vcu.edu/~rgowdy/mod/022/imp3.htm that, "Although energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can be converted from one form into another." [emphasis mine]

* At http://www.unlv.edu/courses/ENS100/devine/03chap/tsld014.htm, sponsored by the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Dr. Darren Devine states the 1st Law of Thermodynamics as, "In any physical or chemical reaction, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be changed from one form to another." [emphasis mine]

* From Dr. Richard B. Hallick at The University of Arizona at http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/181GH/rick/energy/energy.html, he describes the first Law of Thermodynamics as, "Energy cannot be created or destroyed; different forms of energy are interconvertible." [emphasis mine]

My statement of the FLT implies no more than the statements made by others such as those just cited.

Dave Matson, 9/6/02
None of the sources you quoted carry the implication that your formulation does! Not only did you omit the statement that energy cannot be destroyed, but you did not mention that it was conserved. (At first glance, the latter may seem to follow from the statement that energy is neither created nor destroyed, but, in fact, the case of matter simply being lost to a system (but not destroyed) is not covered.) Therefore, your statement of the 1st law is wholly inadequate and not in accord with the examples you gave. The chief problem, as noted above, is in your use of the word "natural." That holds true whether you intended to rephrase the 1st law or just note one of its consequences.
The 1st law does not envision a separate realm, the supernatural, where energy might be created. Therefore, to use that law as part of your argument for such a realm is wrongheaded. Rather, you must argue that the 1st law is wrong (incomplete). The actual 1st law does not support your contention in any way, shape or form.

PRB9/11/02
As I pointed out above, the use of the word "natural" is perfectly legitimate because it is a part of what science is: experimenting with the natural world. So, this is not an issue as far as the meaning and usage of the word is concerned. Second, I pointed out that the presentation is not about the FLT but about the origin of energy. Therefore, it is appropriate to refer to that aspect of the FLT that applies to energy origin (its "creation," not my terminology alone but that found in authoritative references). It is not appropriate to discuss its destruction in this context because it has no relevance to the discussion. The conservation of energy is understood in the phrase FLT, therefore, it is not necessary to state or elaborate on in the initial presentation. The attempt to discredit my representation of the FLT is wrongheaded. The law is well established and well known in many different, legitimate descriptions. As I explained above and cited authoritative sources in support of, I represent the FLT no differently than anyone else and without any additional implications than anyone else uses. I simply begin with the fact of the FLT and, from this common and well-known point of reference, develop a logical progression that leads to the conclusion of supernatural origin.

Dave Matson, 9/19/02
It seems we are going in circles here, and I have nothing more to add on this point except to give you an analogy. Take the game of chess. The rules specify how a knight moves. We might also conclude from those rules that a knight cannot fly to another chess board. That is certainly true, but it introduces a topic that has no place in the rules of chess. It is not a proper statement of the chess rules to add that a knight cannot fly to another board, even though that is implied. The subject of knight flight is not defined by chess. Similarly, the subject of energy creation is not defined by the 1st law.

PRB
Argument nine IX.
Energy is created supernaturally.
1. The creation of energy is an event that occurs contrary to natural laws.
2. Events that occur contrary to natural laws are supernatural.
3. Therefore, the creation of energy is supernatural.

Dave
To reiterate, we do not know if energy has ever been created. Our universe may have zero total energy; if it does not then its energy may have been transferred naturally from a greater universe or physical reality that has no beginning.

PRB response
Energy exists, and the known laws governing the natural universe show us that it is impossible for it to have originated naturally. The idea of a net-zero-energy universe is a highly speculative attempt to explain how energy exists without violating the FLT. But two things suggest this idea is wrong: 1) the conservation of nothing is nothing, and 2) supposed vacuum experiments are not absolute voids and therefore do not show something coming from nothing. And to reiterate, the suggestion that another, greater universe exists only serves to apply our arguments back in time in another universe rather than to dismiss them.

Dave (continued)
... Our understanding of natural law is based solely on observations made of this universe, in its present form. What modifications might be required if, in fact, our universe is a subset of a greater physical reality is anyone's guess. We are just beginning to explore these issues, and much will certainly be learned. Such a reality may even be consistent with the known laws, given that scientific speculation of such is based on natural law. Thus, your conclusion is unwarranted. There is no need to invoke a supernatural explanation of the universe.

PRB response
Granted, science is a continual process of learning and discovery. However, explanations that contradict known laws of science are unwarranted. At present, a supernatural explanation is the most rational explanation for the existence of energy. It is warranted because it does not involve contradicting well established laws of the universe. As stated above, the choice is between a natural explanation that contradicts established laws of science justified by the claim of ignorance of our world, or a supernatural explanation justified by the fact that natural laws known today will not permit a natural origin.
At what point of contradiction to known laws do atheists propose to acknowledge the possibility of the supernatural?

Dave Matson, 9/7/02
I am not arguing that the present, Big-Bang universe came from absolutely nothing. (At least two Nobel-Prize winners have speculated, on the basis of known physical principles, that our universe did, indeed, come from something after all.) I support their conjecture that our universe may be a subset of a greater physical reality, that it may have been derived from that greater reality by physical laws currently unknown or not fully appreciated. Philosophically, I also suspect that there can never be such a state as "absolute nothing." If I am right, then we do not have the problem of getting something from nothing. In that case, the chief difference between us would be that you further assume, without benefit of evidence, that such a situation involves a fundamental dichotomy -- the natural and the supernatural, the supernatural having always been there. Such additional speculation, without evidence, is a clear violation of Occam's razor.

PRB9/11/02
This statement says to me you are proposing that "nothing" is really "something." Thus, the word "nothing" does not mean "no thing" but really means there is "some thing" present? This places us back to the problem atheism has with the FLT. Where did that "something" come from to give us the natural universe we experience today? The choice of the eternal natural or the eternal supernatural is resolved by the next set of arguments based on the second law of thermodynamics, SLT (I have purposefully not introduced this set of arguments up to this time in order to exhaust the FLT arguments, to avoid confusing the dialogue with two sets of arguments, and to demonstrate that this is the question to which the FLT debate will take us). There is no violation of Occam's razor here but instead a continuance of the argument directed to the eternal existence of energy. Your own words can be applied to your unknown universe that you, "assume, without benefit of evidence, ... the [natural] having always been there."

Dave Matson, 9/19/02
No, I am not saying that nothing is something, only that a state of absolute nothing MAY be a meaningless concept. At any rate, we both seem to agree that something could not have come from absolutely nothing. Since something exists today, that implies there never was a state of absolutely nothing. By attaching a further claim, without benefit of evidence, you have indeed violated Occam's razor. Your additional claim is: That which has always existed is a supernatural realm.
May I point out that the burden of proof is on your shoulders; you are the one advancing a formal proof for the supernatural. It is your duty to rule out any reasonable alternatives, and a greater unknown universe consistent with known laws has been advance by no less than two Nobel Prize winners. Until the matter is settled, your proof has a leak in it! It is not airtight. In our present state of near ignorance, we should extrapolate on what we already have -- what you call the natural world -- and not conjure up an entirely new and different realm. That is where Occam's razor is violated.

PRB
There are three possible causes for origin of energy:
1) from nothing, 2) from something natural, and or 3) from something supernatural.

Dave
This overly-neat division misses the fact that, in all probability, we have an incomplete understanding as to what is natural. Clearly, we have much to learn about our universe. Perhaps a greater understanding will show that our universe came naturally from a greater universe by way of a singularity.

PRB response
The proposal that our universe came from some preexisting universe of natural origin only serves to apply our arguments further back in time in another universe rather than to dismiss them.

Dave Matson, 9/7/02
Whereas a reasonable argument can be made that our Big-Bang universe must have had a beginning, you have no means at your disposal for showing that a greater physical reality (along the lines of present scientific conjecture or yet to be discovered) must also have a beginning. Note that It would not necessarily be a larger version of our universe. My point is that you have not eliminated alternative 2). Therefore, there is no need to postulate the supernatural, an "answer" to a problem that currently does not exist.

PRB9/11/02
I am glad to see that we both agree on the reasonableness of the argument for the universe having a beginning. Your proposal of the existence of a previous, greater-unknown universe that spawned the origin of our own universe is interesting indeed. Though I do not share your perspective of the supernatural, would you not concede, from your perspective, that another previous universe of unknown origin and unknown properties, etc. falls into the same category as your perspective of the supernatural? What criteria do you propose would make your unknown universe valid or invalid, and not in violation of Occam's Razor? What means do you have at your disposal to show that an unknown universe did not have a beginning or even existed at all? A supernatural origin is more reasonable than an unknown natural universe because evidence from our natural world shows that the origin of energy cannot be natural; that such proposals contradict the FLT and are, therefore, untenable.

Dave Matson, 9/19/02
Again, you are the one advancing a formal argument for the supernatural. Therefore, it is your duty to rule out reasonable speculation. Serious models proposed by Nobel Prize winners are, I think, "reasonable speculation." Since these models are based on natural laws, they are hardly supernatural models under another name. As for Occam's razor, see my current reply to the previous point. Finally, you have not demonstrated that energy has been created; It may have been transferred from a greater universe, where it had always existed in some form or other.

Dave
... We explain the unknown by relating it to the known, not by invoking a greater unknown! There is a big difference between creating a scenario that is logically consistent with the evidence at hand and actually explaining the evidence. The former takes in mythology, among other things; the latter advances our knowledge.

PRB response
I am not proposing to create an unsupportable, mystical scenario to explain the origin of energy. To the contrary, I am presenting the case that the evidence we have today shows that a natural cause is not only insufficient to explain the origin of energy but, indeed, the laws we know of today are contrary to such an explanation.
... On the other hand, what makes the supernatural explanation plausible is the fact that natural explanations contradict the laws that are understood today. Thus, I am not proposing an unjustified position for supernatural origins. The choice is between a natural explanation that contradicts established laws of science justified by the claim of ignorance of our world, or a supernatural explanation justified by the fact that natural laws known today will not permit a natural origin. I argue that natural explanations of energy origin contradicts todays known laws and knowledge of the universe, and that the rational choice between origin explanations is the supernatural. Not only can it not be dismissed as a reasonable explanation, but the contradictions between natural explanations and known laws make it the only reasonable explanation.

Dave Matson, 9/7/02
We haven't yet determined that energy has come from absolutely nothing! Certainly, given that our state of such knowledge is in its infancy, such a conclusion is highly tentative and by no means firmly established! Our universe -- the Big Bang universe -- may be a subset of a greater physical reality that either does not (or cannot) have a beginning.
Given our present state of knowledge, your conclusion that the supernatural must be invoked is anything but reasonable! On a thin thread of ignorance you have constructed the extreme dichotomy of the natural and the supernatural. You have built on the shifting sands of what we don't know (in an area of vast ignorance) rather than on firm, positive evidence. Furthermore, as previously noted, the supernatural is not a proper explanation but rather an ad-hoc scenario. It explains everything and, therefore, nothing.

PRB9/11/02
You have stated my point about natural explanations for origins very well, namely, that it is based on "vast ignorance." But ignorance is not an explanation or a justification for an explanation.

Dave Matson, 9/19/02
When faced with a lack of knowledge, it is best to extrapolate on what we know rather than to invent a whole, new ball game! We must build on what we know; we ought not throw away an established foundation without good cause.

PRB9/11/02
First, the atheist position for energy originating from nothing is untenable because it contradicts a well-known and established law of science.

Dave Matson, 9/19/02
I wasn't aware that this is an "atheist" position. Once again, you have not established that energy has come from nothing.

PRB9/11/02
Second, the atheist position for energy originating from a greater, unknown, eternal, physical universe has no evidence for its existence and contradicts the FLT. To suggest that it is physical is to subject it to the natural laws we know today, which means it must have a beginning (FLT). To suggest that it is not physical is to admit that it must be non-physical or supernatural.

Dave Matson, 9/19/02
This position is not an "atheist" position in that many religious individuals may hold it as well. Again, it is your job to rule out this possibility since you have the burden of proof. You are the one claiming to have proof of the supernatural. You should also explain how eternal energy violates the 1st law, which only deals with the conservation of energy and not with its origin, if any. As far as I know, natural laws are entirely compatible with infinite existence.

PRB9/11/02
... As for your concern about ad hoc scenarios, the proposal of a greater, unknown, eternal, physical universe should be considered illegitimate because it is a convenient way of explaining everything and thus nothing....

Dave Matson, 9/19/02
If such models are developed on the basis of known laws, then in principle they can be falsified. It is not a way of explaining everything and thus nothing! In the next couple of decades we may see the elimination -- or strengthening -- of these various speculative models. New models, totally undreamt of but entirely consistent with known laws (or their reasonable refinement) may appear as well. I predict that no advances whatsoever will be made in testing your supernatural "model."

Dave
In summary, the contradiction you find in the 1st law with respect to the origin of energy is hardly grounds for introducing the extreme dichotomy of the natural and the supernatural. That is akin to introducing fairies and elves to explain an engine problem that defies a beginner's understanding. In principle, evil fairies might be responsible, but that is hardly an acceptable explanation. It invokes an unproven, greater unknown to explain an unknown. Fairies also explain everything and, therefore, nothing. Fairies (and the supernatural) constitute a scenario that is fitted to the shadows of ignorance -- not one based on positive evidence. A scientific explanation must invoke known results to explain the unknown, and it must be based on positive evidence.
We can put it even more succinctly: If there is a real conflict between a scientific law and reality, the proper conclusion is that the proposed scientific law has failed (and must be rejected or modified), NOT that there exists a fantastic reality called the supernatural, where physical laws don't apply. And, that real conflict has not yet been established as a reasonable fact.

PRB9/11/02
Laws are rejected or modified because of verified evidence that demonstrates it to be wrong. Laws are not rejected because they do not support someone's conjecture. In the case of the conjecture that energy can come from nothing, there is no evidence to suggest that it can. And unlike this conjecture, the FLT is well established on thousands of experiments, which show no exception, and all attempts, without exception, to show that it is wrong have only added to its truth. There is absolutely no justification to suggest the scrapping of the FLT. The only reasonable choice between conjecture and the FLT, is the FLT. In the case of the conjecture that a greater, unknown, eternal, physical universe spawned the present universe, such a proposal not only suffers from no evidence for such an unknown, but, more seriously, proposes a contradiction to laws that are known. The evidence of the physical world and sound reasoning discounts explanations for its natural origin and justifies its supernatural origin of energy.

Dave Matson, 9/19/02
On one hand you say that the 1st law of thermodynamics is completely valid; on the other hand, you say that it cannot account for the energy in our universe. In the first place, the 1st law deals with the conservation of energy and cannot be invalidated by the case for eternal energy; again, let me remind you that you have not proven that our energy was truly created from nothing. Secondly, a conflict between a scientific law and some observation is evidence that the l aw has failed. It may have to be totally scrapped, limited to certain ranges, or refined.
You seem to be saying that the 1st law IS valid even if it appears to be in conflict with some observation. (If there is no conflict, then you have no reason to reach for the supernatural.) Therefore, the contradiction must be removed by seeking a supernatural realm, as the law cannot be wrong and only a supernatural realm can save it. But this is backwards!
The validity of any scientific principle must be deduced and not assumed. A conflict with an observation shows that the law is either wrong, that the observation is in error, or that the law has been applied improperly. Those are the valid conclusions, not that there exists an exotic realm that you call the supernatural, a realm where scientific principles need not hold.
If, in fact, the origin of energy is in conflict with a scientific law, and if God did create energy, then you could argue that the law is indeed valid but improperly applied. I.e., the energy did not come about by natural means, leaving the law intact. Unfortunately, that assumes the very thing you seek to prove.


PRB9/11/02
Thank you for the focused and patient discussion on the FLT. I will be sending the argument for the SLT next week.

Dave Matson, 9/20/02
And, I thank you for your patient and interesting discussion.