03 Oct 11
Originally posted by josephwIt's on topic. I wanted to know what you meant by the terms "everything that has always existed". Since you have clarified.
What's you point?
And why are you diverging from the topic?
It's just that "always existed" relates to the eternal and since "everything " is subject to decay how do you explain this apparent paradox? (I could explain it using the first law of thermodynamics, but I think you should work it out)
03 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwThe alternative is not based on an assumption and it is not the only alternative.
that the existence of everything is evidence for a creator. The fact that everything that exists cannot be proven to have always existed, is reason to conclude that everything was created.
How is it reasonable to conclude that everything was created because it cannot be proven that everything has always existed?
Because the alternative would be based o has always existed, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude everything was created.
Critique
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be destroyed, (this includes the energy contained in all things), it can only change. There is always a balance between the forces that play with matter. Nothin is ever unnaccounted for and all energy exchanges end up with the universe being exactly the same as to the amount of energy contained within it. ENERGY CANNOT BE DESTROYED, ONLY TRANSFORMED into a s different type of energy.
