[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Nah, entropy is not a problem at all. First of all, entropy, it’s purest understanding deals with isolated systems, which, if this universe is the only one that is, or ever was, is not an isolated system. Closed maybe, isolated it is not.
Then there is the question of entropy itself, since it’s not only a ‘thing that if exists, exists’ it is dependent on other things for it’s existence, like energy itself. So it’s not an uncaused object, and it’s metaphysical. It’s a law, it has no physical presence but is a commanding metaphysical force. Energy has no choice but to obey the law. [/quote]
I think you mistook me: I’m not saying that entropy poses a threat to atheism because it would have had to be “caused.”
Instead it’s the argument that closed systems move inevitably toward equal heat distribution (if you put a cube of ice in a cup of coffee and wait, the resultant mixture will be a liquid of even heat distribution barring any outside influence). The universe, as a closed system, could not have existed for a regressive eternity because that would have given the necessary tendency for heat to be distributed evenly an infinite amount of time to work it’s magic and therefore a 100% chance of success. Since heat is still distributed throughout the universe unevenly, the universe must have had a finite beginning.
I’ve read compelling objections to this argument as well. But it certainly is interesting, and in my mind it puts the infinite regress at a further disadvantage.[/quote]
When I think of it, I kind of take it up a level above that. I did understand what you meant even if I was not clear in my expression. The problem with physical existence is it runs strait into the wall of epistomological limitations. We cannot know it deductivly no matter how obvious it seems. That’s important because we are dealing with absolutes.
Because of these limitations we can only know something exists. Our perceptions about our physical universe may be 100% spot on, but we have no verification beyond the consensus of other limited beings. So what we can know is that something exists. It’s probably what we think it is, but like I said, we are lacking the absoluteness of it. We know there is existence, whether our perceptions are accurate or not, there is existence. We know that existence cannot exist as a function of itself because that is circular and therefore logically impossible. So the existence we know must be a function of something else. And that something else cannot be like the existence we are aware of because the existence we are aware of is a function of something else. That’s where the regression leads to the necessity of the Uncaused-cause. With out this solution we have two issues that are also logically impossible. Existence as a function of nothing, or infinity. The problem with ‘nothing’ is obvious, that which does not exist has no properties no existence what-so-ever. So nothingness cannot do anything because it’s nothing. The other is infinity. The infinite regress has two problems which make it logically impossible, it either begs the questions, which is circular and therefore false. The other is that if you present an argument with infinite premises a conclusion can never happen, therefore you have no argument, since a list of premises is not an argument.
We can talk about the properties of the universe until we’re blue, but what we are really dealing with is existence. We know something exists, how and why.
It’s this that allows the argument to deal with any physical scenario thrown at it. Infinite universe? Not likely and irrelevant even if true. Multiverse? Still dealing with existence. Existence is the common thread to it all. So that’s where the focus is.
[/quote]
This is probably the most elegant, understandable summary of this argument form I’ve seen you make, Pat. I’ve probably read you make the argument 250 different times in nearly as many different ways, but I really felt something snap into place this time in a way it never quite has before.
You should save this and use it in the future. Save you quite a bit of typing, too, I’d bet. (^_')
[/quote]
Thanks C! You are always a gentleman… I really ought to save a version to paste since it does come up a lot.