Atrophic Entropy
The argument revolves around the one question - the one answer that would finalize all rationale. Is the matter of the universe eternal, or is there someone eternal. Those are the only two options available to us. Either evolution, through unguided process has been moving aimlessly throughout eternity, or there was a force outside of the material world that started it all.
In a closed system, science has proven to us over and over and over again that Newton's laws are, although not completely accurate, are completely reliable in their honesty. As any science student will quote to you, Newton's First law states that "An object in motion remains in motion and an object at rest remains at rest unless an outside force acts upon it." Therefore I can quite honestly put faith in my first statement that those are the only two options. For there can be no physical movement outside of time. Time is by definition the measurement of movement through space. So if there was a beginning to time, there must have been an "outside force" there to act upon it. If there had been no "outside force", we are forced to presume that there was no beginning to time, but that matter had always been moving. An infinity of time following before us and behind us. No stop to it, just aimless movement that happened to connect in a certain way to create all that we see. That somehow the cosmic box called the universe happened to shake the molecules enough that through an eternity of time we managed to just pop out. Welcome to the origin of the universe story, written by your friendly neighborhood evolutionist.
But do not blame the evolutionist, the scientist is only trying to explain something it cannot - the world through the lens of naturalism and naturalism alone.
So let me shine a light for the intrepid scientist who keeps an open mind. My ramble above has a point. There was a very good reason I brought up Newton's First Law of Motion. And now here is another scientific law. The Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that in a closed system, entropy occurs. Things tend to go from order to disorder, from complex to less complex. If there is no beginning to time, nothing outside of the natural, then the cosmos is indeed a closed system. A system not affected by any outside force. Thus it must be in a continuous state of entropy. Not even touching on how that statement depreciates the value of evolutionary thought, entropy and it's impact upon kenetic energy is what I wish to highlight here.
In the cosmos there is a finite amount of usable energy. An object may have a certain amount of potential energy (like fossil fuels), that can create kinetic energy (like the thermal energy we get when fossil fuels are burned), but once that kinetic energy is used up, it cannot be called forth again. Thus in a closed system, as the cosmos is according to the credence of the evolutionist, the usable energy in the universe will eventually be used up. It would be a massive amount, but if there is an infinite amount of time behind us (if there is no beginning to time) then a recondite is reached. A paradox that must be resolved. An ad absurdum created.
If 'E' amount of potential/kinetic energy exists in the universe, then it could be said that 'T' amount of time is needed for that amount to run out. Regardless of how big a number T is, if time truly has no beginning... T amount of time would already have been passed. By all accounts if time had no beginning, we would have no potential or kinetic energy left. But as is evident, there is still plenty to go around. Thus I believe it is safe to assume that Time must have had a beginning.
Jared Williams
In a closed system, science has proven to us over and over and over again that Newton's laws are, although not completely accurate, are completely reliable in their honesty. As any science student will quote to you, Newton's First law states that "An object in motion remains in motion and an object at rest remains at rest unless an outside force acts upon it." Therefore I can quite honestly put faith in my first statement that those are the only two options. For there can be no physical movement outside of time. Time is by definition the measurement of movement through space. So if there was a beginning to time, there must have been an "outside force" there to act upon it. If there had been no "outside force", we are forced to presume that there was no beginning to time, but that matter had always been moving. An infinity of time following before us and behind us. No stop to it, just aimless movement that happened to connect in a certain way to create all that we see. That somehow the cosmic box called the universe happened to shake the molecules enough that through an eternity of time we managed to just pop out. Welcome to the origin of the universe story, written by your friendly neighborhood evolutionist.
But do not blame the evolutionist, the scientist is only trying to explain something it cannot - the world through the lens of naturalism and naturalism alone.
So let me shine a light for the intrepid scientist who keeps an open mind. My ramble above has a point. There was a very good reason I brought up Newton's First Law of Motion. And now here is another scientific law. The Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that in a closed system, entropy occurs. Things tend to go from order to disorder, from complex to less complex. If there is no beginning to time, nothing outside of the natural, then the cosmos is indeed a closed system. A system not affected by any outside force. Thus it must be in a continuous state of entropy. Not even touching on how that statement depreciates the value of evolutionary thought, entropy and it's impact upon kenetic energy is what I wish to highlight here.
In the cosmos there is a finite amount of usable energy. An object may have a certain amount of potential energy (like fossil fuels), that can create kinetic energy (like the thermal energy we get when fossil fuels are burned), but once that kinetic energy is used up, it cannot be called forth again. Thus in a closed system, as the cosmos is according to the credence of the evolutionist, the usable energy in the universe will eventually be used up. It would be a massive amount, but if there is an infinite amount of time behind us (if there is no beginning to time) then a recondite is reached. A paradox that must be resolved. An ad absurdum created.
If 'E' amount of potential/kinetic energy exists in the universe, then it could be said that 'T' amount of time is needed for that amount to run out. Regardless of how big a number T is, if time truly has no beginning... T amount of time would already have been passed. By all accounts if time had no beginning, we would have no potential or kinetic energy left. But as is evident, there is still plenty to go around. Thus I believe it is safe to assume that Time must have had a beginning.
Jared Williams
