Problems with W.L. Craig's arguments on first law of Thermo and First Cause

Me and my father were trying to figure out why no intelligent atheist has called out any christian on The First Law of Thermodynamics arguement? The first law (according to Wikipedia, however most definitions will tell you the same) "The law expresses that energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created nor destroyed.", should not be an argument FOR a god, but against it. How can a timeless, outside of the universe god create something which by definition cannot be created? We then understood that theists would say "He is god he can do whatever he wants." But that begs the question; If god is outside of space and time, then he is timeless and unchanging because change requires time. Then this means such a being would not be able to act upon something in the physical universe because to change and create, requires time.

Then this begs the question; How can the universe be caused then? All we know is the universe has been expanding for a finite amount of time. This does not mean it wasn't there before expansion; so without space/time expanding; There would be no cause because cause and effect occur within space/time. This led us to the conclusion that because cause and effect occur within space/time and require a flowing time stream; That the universe then should not have a cause it simply is? Why has nobody used this against Mr. Craig?

We are looking for criticism so please find the flaws in our logic.

Views: 37

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

One flaw in your argument is your intended audience. They're not rational and are not required to accept evidense or bulletproof argument. So while it's fun to sit around and ponder, your argument is not a usefull weapon in the war.

Agreed, arguments of this sort are useless with people who prefer to believe in ghosts and magic, based on faith rather than evidence. I consider them willfully stupid and avoid them.

 

I heard this from someone, but if you really want to see just how much they know about the laws of thermodynamics, ask them to explain the other laws. That usually shuts them up, plus like everyone said although Atheists value rationality, empirical based arguments, a lot of people are willing to accept things at face value without doing the proper research to validate it. For example, I also heard Craig state the flawed argument that the universe was fine tuned for existence by using the "weak force" argument when a paper from Stanford states how it is possible for a universe to exists without the "weak force" and that universe would look almost identical to our own.

Here is the paper although I warn you it has a lot formula's and scientific terms.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-11795.pdf

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

Latest Activity

Grinning Cat replied to Donald R Barbera's discussion Make a Statement: Quit--Kim Woods Jailed
8 minutes ago
Grinning Cat liked Loren Miller's blog post Church, State, and Marriage Licenses
15 minutes ago
Grinning Cat liked Christopher Cosgrove's discussion Fascinating article on strange world ex BBC
16 minutes ago
Grinning Cat replied to Christopher Cosgrove's discussion Fascinating article on strange world ex BBC in the group Atheists who love Science!
16 minutes ago
Paul Tourville posted a video

NewsUndies NU1536

A look back at some of what was going on this week in 2010 To see the full MU1036 (Sep. 10, 2010) episode, go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67UwKnvSptw
22 minutes ago
Profile IconTimothy Power and Edward Smith joined Atheist Nexus
23 minutes ago
Loren Miller liked Loren Miller's blog post Church, State, and Marriage Licenses
47 minutes ago
Loren Miller posted a blog post
50 minutes ago

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service