The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Finite Universe

http://www.reasonablefaith.org - William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, and John Warwick Montgomery speak on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the finite universe.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Second
• Law
• Thermodynamics
• Finite
• Universe
• Entropy
• God
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• JP
• Moreland
• John
• Warwick
• Montgomery
• beginning
• kalam
• cosmological
• argument
• infinite
• eternal
• heat
• death
• energy
• matter
• equilibrium

[dramlee01]

The speakers in the video have stated that atheists think that the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time. Most atheists if they expound on this will probably state what is thought in modern cosmology: the universe has been around for some 13 billion years, i.e. a finite amount of time. This appears to be a straw man argument.

Yes you can argue for the existence of a god on metaphysical grounds, but that is the point - you can't argue on physical grounds.

[drcraigvideos]

@dramlee01 Well, there are atheists who believe the universe is infinite and eternal so there's no strawman. And furthermore, you cannot put God into a test tube because he's not a physical being. The laws of logic are not physial so would you say that they don't exist at all?

[mralanv]

So if the universe is going to run out of gas and there won't be any light anymore. So, what's the point in colonizing other planets and making sure our race doesn't end when the sun blows up? unless there are other universes, even if there are, we won't be able to visit them any time soon. That's so depressing.

[motherfather2009]

@dramlee01 modern cosmology uses time as a dimension similiar to space, which under extreme conditions gets dilated (squeezed). since the big bang theory uses infinite massdensity (a singularity) you end up with an infinite length of time going back to the big bang. therefore one can say, the physical universe is infinite old, only the timelike tangent of todays timeflow would take 13billion years to reach back to the big bang. read books.

[dramlee01]

@drcraigvideos Evidentiary support in science does not fall into an infinite regress, because we accept that certainty is beyond the realm of human knowledge. Scientists work in the realm of an acceptable level of uncertainty.

[dramlee01]

The infinite regress can equally be put at the existence of a creator to the universe. The fact that metaphysical arguments cannot persuasively argue for or against the existence of a god does not affect the way the vast majority of people (atheists included) conduct their lives. I would argue though that reliance on verificationism and evidentialism is absolutely necessary in how we conduct our lives despite your insistence that they don't work.

[drcraigvideos]

@dramlee01 Well, evidence cannot answer everything. If so then you're in for an infinite regress. Think about it. If everything must have evidence prior to acceptance then you must evidence for that evidence and then evidence for that evidence of the evidence... ad infinitum. If this is how most atheists think then they're in deep trouble. At least for the Christian our faith has reason with it, because we already know that verificationism and evidentialism does NOT work.

[dramlee01]

@drcraigvideos Believing in an infinite universe is not inconsistent with modern cosmology. We have a horizon to our universe that is defined by the fact that the universe began some 13 billion years ago and the speed of light is finite, but can say nothing about what is beyond the horizon or indeed if there is anything beyond the horizon. Atheists with a passing knowledge of science accept the Big Bang theory and so accept that the universe has been around for a finite period of time.