Conservation of Energy = no first mover?

[StJoseph8]

It came to my attention recently that some have argued that the conservation of energy refutes the idea of a first mover. The argument sounded odd to me at the time. Can anyone explain this idea further? Thanks

 

[Jestersage]

Oh, you mean this, right: Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

By using a simple search for the keywords, I come to one interesting sentence

Paul Davies argues that one need not appeal to God to account for the Big Bang. Its cause, he suggests, is found within the cosmic system itself. Originally a vacuum lacking space-time dimensions, the universe “found itself in an excited vacuum state”… which, subject to a cosmic repulsive force, resulted in an immense increase in energy. Subsequent explosions from this collapsing vacuum released the energy in this vacuum, reinvigorating the cosmic inflation and setting the scenario for the subsequent expansion of the universe.

That’s the concept of big bang + big crunch. Yet:

But what is the origin of this increase in energy that eventually made the Big Bang possible? Davies’s response is that the law of conservation of energy (that the total quantity of energy in the universe remains fixed despite transfer from one form to another), which now applies to our universe, did not apply to the initial expansion. Cosmic repulsion in the vacuum caused the energy to increase from zero to an enormous amount. This great explosion released energy, from which all matter emerged. (emphasis mine)

You can already see the problem. And so immediately:

Craig responds that if the vacuum has energy, the question arises concerning the origin of the vacuum and its energy. Merely pushing the question of the beginning of the universe back to some primordial quantum vacuum does not escape the question of what brought this vacuum laden with energy into existence.

Someone once say that Dante’s description of God is equivalent to a hypercube. In short, it will definitely be unphantomable to us. I can’t help to think about how light is both wave and particle at the same time. Likewise with God: perhaps we should just content at something.

 

[AlNg]

Oh, you mean this, right: Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

A lot of arguments from William Craig.

 

[Gorgias]

some have argued that the conservation of energy refutes the idea of a first mover.

Those who would make such an argument would have to explain where the “closed system”, with existing energy, came from. The law only has explicative force for systems that already exist.

(Now… they might claim that, once we have the universe, the law of conservation of energy holds something interesting - but they’d have to explain the presence of the universe, and that’s where the ‘first mover’ comes in. If they want to claim that the existence of the universe proves it has existed eternally, thank them kindly… and remind them that the Greek philosophers beat them to that self-same conjectural assertion thousands of years ago.

 

[RandomAlias]

Conservation laws tell you that the first mover in not an entity of the material universe. God created space, time, matter, and energy from nothing. This would constitute a major violation of conservation laws, except that God also created all of the conservation laws.

 

[STT]

It came to my attention recently that some have argued that the conservation of energy refutes the idea of a first mover. The argument sounded odd to me at the time. Can anyone explain this idea further? Thanks

You can have conservation of energy and still have matter. Consider two particles which have positive energy. They are also under gravitational force which that is a negative energy. These two energy can cancel each other and and therefore we have conservation of energy. That is how Hawking resolve the problem.

 

[AlNg]

You can have conservation of energy and still have matter. Consider two particles which have positive energy. They are also under gravitational force which that is a negative energy. These two energy can cancel each other and and therefore we have conservation of energy. That is how Hawking resolve the problem.

There is also a similar argument for a cyclical universe involving a consecutive Big Bang and Big Crunch ad infinitum, with the second law of thermodynamics not being violated because of gravitational energy.

 

[Gorgias]

There is also a similar argument for a cyclical universe involving a consecutive Big Bang and Big Crunch ad infinitum, with the second law of thermodynamics not being violated because of gravitational energy.

Agreed – but this argument does not describe from where that matter/energy proceeded, just that it acts in ‘cycles’.

 

[AlNg]

Agreed – but this argument does not describe from where that matter/energy proceeded, just that it acts in ‘cycles’.

Mother Nature was responsible.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Agreed – but this argument does not describe from where that matter/energy proceeded, just that it acts in ‘cycles’.

Mother Nature was responsible.

(Is that the ‘Mother Nature’ in the ‘Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer’ cartoons?)

 

[AlNg]

Is that the ‘Mother Nature’ in the ‘Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer’ cartoons?

Yes. Mother Nature has been portrayed in many different venues.