Science, and the existing of God

[Patrick_Joshua]

I was watching “catholiccom” on youtube, I watched the Catholics and Science video;
youtube.com/watch?v=VHPo5VKleLk

He claimed, there was “no energy” in part of his video.

Is it possible, since the 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, that this energy has always existed? Is our perception of time as having a beginning distorted? Does time have to have a beginning?

 

[Anselm33]

I was watching “catholiccom” on youtube, I watched the Catholics and Science video;
youtube.com/watch?v=VHPo5VKleLk

He claimed, there was “no energy” in part of his video.

Is it possible, since the 3rd law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, that this energy has always existed? Is our perception of time as having a beginning distorted? Does time have to have a beginning?

I haven’t watched the video, but I’m not sure I altogether understand your question. The Third Law of Thermodynamics says the entropy of any crystal approaches 0 as the absolute temperature approaches 0. The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy is conserved in all its forms. As this applies to the Creation of the universe, the mass and radiation energy (positive) are balance out by gravitational energy (negative), so the idea is the sum of the positive and negative parts add up to 0…so there was no net energy to begin with…hope this is helpful.

 

[Patrick_Joshua]

I did not mean 3rd law, I mean the law that states; the law of conservation of energy, cannot be created nor destroyed. I think it’s the 1st law, not the 3rd.

 

[Luke_K]

Well, since God created energy together with time itself in the same act, then that means there is no time when energy did not exist. So in a sense, energy has always existed, but it’s not the same as saying it is infinitely old.

 

[Patrick_Joshua]

Well, since God created energy together with time itself in the same act, then that means there is no time when energy did not exist. So in a sense, energy has always existed, but it’s not the same as saying it is infinitely old.

You watched the video?

Wouldn’t mind a opinion of it.

 

[Luke_K]

You watched the video?

Wouldn’t mind a opinion of it.

I hadn’t watched the video, but now that I did it’s funny that he and I think quite similarly. He said that there was once nothing, but I don’t see how that followed from his logic. All that I could conclude from his logic is that time, space, matter, and energy are all interdependent on each other, so they can’t be the cause for being the way that they are. This may prove a transcendental designer, but maybe not a transcendental creator.

Concerning the first law, if it’s an inherent property of energy that it cannot be created, then what’s stopping it from being created? Before it’s created, it’s not energy- it’s nothing. Therefore, there’s nothing for the first law (a property of energy) to be applied to, unless you think that the law applies to the Creator.

It’s important to make the distinction that the first law is not a philosophical law. It’s a scientific, empirical one. In practice, all it really means is that when you’re observing a system of interacting “stuff,” all the matter and energy that you start with has to be accounted for in the end using concepts like heat vs. work, potential vs. kinetic energy, conservation of momentum; not willy-nilly creation or annihilation.

 

[Rocinante]

I think the fact that the universe has a beginning suggests that there is some higher power, but how does he derive the properties of God at the end? I know the video was edited. Does anyone undertand his argument why something coming from nothing requires an infinitely powerful being?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Try this version of what he is talking about, as it is much clearer and gives as much credit to George LeMaitre as it does to Einstein.

Scroll down to the second page.