Do supernatural forces exist?

[Defender of Truth]

Tired of the Nonsense and I decided to debate the above topic.

Resolved: A preternatural agent exists

I will be arguing the affirmative, Tired of the Nonsense will be arguing the negative.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

You have taken the affirmative position, so state your case. I expect to be gone most of the day, so I may not respond until tomorrow. TotN

[Defender of Truth]

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Major Premise: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Minor Premise: Matter|energy began to exist.

Your premise is flawed from the start. Energy can neither be created or destroyed, only transformed, according to the Law of Conservation of Energy, which is derived from the FIRST Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore energy did not "begin to exist." It's always existed, eternal. Infinite in duration but finite in amount. The entire rest of your argument is without merit

[Defender of Truth]

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Defender of Truth]

What I see is a pointless exercise in pretzel logic. It doesn't apply.

The burden of proof lies on you to show this. And it actually does apply. It's saying that the First Law of Thermodynamics is a property of matter|energy, so you can't appeal to it about something before matter|energy existed.

Upon what do you base your declaration that there was a "before matter|energy was in effect?

There must have been a before matter|energy because matter|energy cannot have existed forever. We know this because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If it had existed forever, we'd be experiencing "heat death".

If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then it has always "been in effect."

That's what you said last post. The First Law came with matter|energy, so you can't appeal to it before matter|energy existed.

Never a before, and never an after

Yes, there must be a before, or we would be in a state of maximum entropy right now, and we're not.

Do you challenge the possibility of eternity?

I believe in eternity, I just don't believe matter|energy existed for eternity. It's an impossibility because of the Second Law.

Anything COULD be true

I disagree. 2+2=3 cannot be true. A and non-A cannot both be true.

The First Law of Thermodynamics is based largely, though not exclusively, on work done by physicist James Clerk Maxwell in the 1860's. His work has held up remarkably well for the last 150 years, and is in fact one of the cornerstones of modern physics. All of our modern technology is based on understanding the limits imposed by the Law of Conservation of Energy. We observe that energy can neither be created or destroyed, only transformed, and we have discovered nothing to challenge that observation

You don't have to convince me! I believe in the First Law, it's just that the First Law wasn't in existence until matter|energy was in existence. You're saying "matter|energy could not have been created because of the first law", but the first law wasn't created until after matter|energy was created. Now that matter|energy is in existence, the first law is in existence, but before matter|energy was in existence (we know there was a before because we're not experiencing heat death), the first law wasn't in existence, so a preternatural being was free to create matter|energy.

In other words, you can imagine circumstances by which the observable laws of physics can be precluded. And I concur. The laws of physics only apply to the physical word, and are not constrained in your imagination.

True, they're not constrained by my imagination. Nor would they be restrained by a preternatural being. If something is not physical, it is not bound by physical laws. The First Law is a physical law, so you can't say matter|energy wasn't created because of the first law because the first law has no effect on something supernatural. Physical laws (including the first law) apply to physical beings. Physical laws (including the first law) do not apply to supernatural beings.

Why do I believe a supernatural being exists? Give me one other possible way matter|energy could have been created. It couldn't have been created by anything natural, which means (according to the law of the excluded middle) it was created by something preternatural.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

The burden of proof lies on you to show this. And it actually does apply. It's saying that the First Law of Thermodynamics is a property of matter|energy, so you can't appeal to it about something before matter|energy existed.

The Law of Conservation of Energy specifically precludes the creation of energy, so your pretzel logic example doesn't apply. But more on this is upcoming.

There must have been a before matter|energy because matter|energy cannot have existed forever. We know this because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If it had existed forever, we'd be experiencing "heat death".

This assumes that energy in the observable universe is all the energy there is, which clearly is not true. When energy disappears into a black hole, it's gone from our observable universe, leaving behind only it's gravity. It has gone "somewhere else," and yet it clearly still exists. Because of course it can't be destroyed. Energy which can go "somewhere else" also presents the possibility of energy which can come FROM "somewhere else." Coincidentally, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. To do this it must be gaining energy from "somewhere else." Think entire cosmos here, not merely the observable universe. Also, don't think of the beginning of the observable universe as a moment of creation, think of it as a birth.

I disagree. 2+2=3 cannot be true. A and non-A cannot both be true.

Only an infallible Being with infinite knowledge can make such an absolute statement to the exclusion of all possible error. Are you such a Being?

You don't have to convince me! Smile I believe in the First Law, it's just that the First Law wasn't in existence until matter|energy was in existence. You're saying "matter|energy could not have been created because of the first law", but the first law wasn't created until after matter|energy was created. Now that matter|energy is in existence, the first law is in existence, but before matter|energy was in existence (we know there was a before because we're not experiencing heat death), the first law wasn't in existence, so a preternatural being was free to create matter|energy.

You assume creation of energy which cannot be observed to have occurred. Energy CAN be observed, and it tells us that it is immutable. .

True, they're not constrained by my imagination. Nor would they be restrained by a preternatural being. If something is not physical, it is not bound by physical laws. The First Law is a physical law, so you can't say matter|energy wasn't created because of the first law because the first law has no effect on something supernatural. Physical laws (including the first law) apply to physical beings. Physical laws (including the first law) do not apply to supernatural beings.

The first law is only an observation of a condition, not a cause in and of itself. If something is not physical, than it doesn't exist outside of the realm of the imagination. It's only an idea, a thought. The physical universe is made up of energetic quantum bits which we refer to collectively as radiation. Some of these energetic bits, up and down quarks, have positive(+)charges (up quarks) and some have negative(-)charges (down quarks). Up quarks and down quarks and are powerfully attracted to each other and clump together to form protons (+-+), with a net positive charge, or neutrons (-+-), with a net neutral charge. These two particles, along with the negatively charged electron form atoms, the basis of matter. Oppositely charged particles are attracted to each other, while particles with like charges are repelled by each other. This attraction/repulsion phenomenon is the little engine that drives the universe and is responsible for EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS. Not an imaginary "preternatural being," but a simple binary system based on positive and negative charges. Sorry.

[Defender of Truth]

The Law of Conservation of Energy specifically precludes the creation of energy

When I make long posts some things get lost as far as importance is concerned, so I will respond to everything you said in post 8 but I will respond one at a time. The purpose is so I can see exactly where we disagree. Instead of listing 7 statements and fighting all of them in each post, I'll state one at a time so we can discuss it in an orderly fashion.

The Law of Conservation of Energy is a Law of Nature.

Laws of Nature apply only to Nature.

Therefore, one cannot apply the Law of Conservation of Energy to a supernatural being.

Therefore one cannot say "The Law of Conservation of Energy specifically precludes the creation of energy", because the creation of energy could have been done by something supernatural, to whom the Law of Conservation of Energy has no effect.

Furthermore, it would not be a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy to initially create energy, because the Law of Conservation of Energy was not in effect until energy was in effect. One would have to appeal to something that was not in existence yet.

That is, supposing Nature had a beginning


I know you disagree that Nature had a beginning, and I'll deal with that as soon as this matter is cleared up. But do you agree with the statements in bold, that if Nature had a beginning, it would not be violating the Laws of Nature for something supernatural to create it.

I know you want to ask "even if it is possible, how do you know it happened", which I will reply to, but right now, do you agree with the statements in bold.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

The Law of Conservation of Energy is a Law of Nature.

The conservation of energy is a condition observed by humans and described in the Law of Conservation of Energy. It represents, to all observation, a physical limit with exists within our physical universe.
Our experience indicates that it can not be overcome, which is why it is called a law.

Laws of Nature apply only to Nature.

The Laws of Physics apply to all things within our physical universe.

Therefore, one cannot apply the Law of Conservation of Energy to a supernatural being.

The Laws of Physics do not apply to what you might imagine in your brain. Your brain itself DOES operate within the Laws of Physics however. It works on the principal of positive and negative charges, as does everything else in the physical observable universe.

Therefore one cannot say "The Law of Conservation of Energy specifically precludes the creation of energy", because the creation of energy could have been done by something supernatural, to whom the Law of Conservation of Energy has no effect.

One MUST say that "The Law of Conservation of Energy specifically precludes the creation of energy", or else it wouldn't be a law, it would be a "sometimes." The Law of Conservation of Energy is not subject to the whims of your imagination.

Furthermore, it would not be a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy to initially create energy, because the Law of Conservation of Energy was not in effect until energy was in effect. One would have to appeal to something that was not in existence yet.

The Law of Conservation of Energy SPECIFICALLY states that energy may not be created or destroyed. It does not offer any exceptions, nor are any observed.

That is, supposing Nature had a beginning.

That is, IMAGINING that nature had a beginning. You also imagine flying reanimated corpses to be real and valid, do you not?

I know you disagree that Nature had a beginning, and I'll deal with that as soon as this matter is cleared up. But do you agree with the statements in bold, that if Nature had a beginning, it would not be violating the Laws of Nature for something supernatural to create it.

I have already stipulated that humans are fallible and therefore not giving to know things to an absolute state of certainty, so anything COULD be true. I also pointed out that contradictions seem to negate themselves and therefore it seems probable that not everything IS true. You seemed to agree. Did "nature have a beginning?" Well it's possible, in the sense that anything could be true. Such a beginning is contradicted by observation however.