#### I didn't notice.
So you think this soup theory overcomes the very laws of thermodynamics?
If so, I'll have to study more soup theory so I can address that better.
##### If however...
Soup doesn't disprove the laws of thermodynamics, then it would have the same issues.
Do you believe:
1. The eternal existence of matter and energy.
2. The spontaneous combustion ( or emergence) like the big bang. (Fast or Slow)
3. The soup theory disproves the laws of thermodynamics.
1. The short answer is I don't know. (And I'm okay with that being the extent of it. I wish more people would just say "I don't know") but yeah it seems matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only change states. My suspicion is there can be exceptions to this, like an event such as the big bang itself, inside black holes, a spontaneous event like vacuum decay, or whatever might happen in very deep time when everything in the universe is cold and dark and there's only one particle per 1x10^⁹⁹⁹⁹⁹ lightyears². But this is getting well outside my area of expertise, so once again I will defer to the scientific community.
2. That seems to be most likely what happened, I don't have evidence to the contrary.
3. The phrase I used, "cosmic soup", is just an analogy for what astrophysicists call "nothing". It doesn't disprove thermodynamics, if you study the research virtual particles always appear in pairs of matter or energy and almost as quickly as they appear they annihilate each other. But again, getting outside my wheelhouse, if you have further questions I would recommend contacting someone who is well versed in quantum mechanics.
### I Don't Know
Every worldview has to punt to mystery at some point. We're human after all. I don't know, for instance if we will ever be capable of exhaustive knowledge on any topic.
**BUT** my worldview provides the necessary foundation to know things and have certainty.
Not all of them do.
Because of the positions you've taken in this conversation, I'm assuming your an atheist Is that your worldview? Perhaps a secular materialist? How would you describe your worldview?
> Every worldview has to punt to mystery at some point.
I don't think that that's necessarily true. Humans are inherently pattern seeking creatures, so our thinking in one area or another is always going to have the potential for flaws but this doesn't mean it's inherent to a particular worldview.
> my worldview provides the necessary foundation to know things and have certainty.
This is only true if your worldview values a way of thinking in line with the scientific method. You would have to value evidence above any sort of sacred text or doctrine and abandon them when confronted with incontrovertible proof that previously held beliefs are wrong.
> Not all of them do.
This is true
> How would you describe your worldview?
In terms of religion yeah you could describe me as an atheist, nontheist, anti-theist, secular humanist, any of those would fit. More accurately and agnostic atheist, because as I had said previously agnosticism is not a halfway point, it's a claim of whether or not you have knowledge not a statement of belief. But you might find it interesting that from an atheist perspective, the word atheist is something that shouldn't really be needed. It's a bit like describing yourself is a non-stamp collector. As someone famous once said, I can't remember who, "atheism is just the sounds that rational people make when confronted with unjustifiable beliefs."
# Punt to Mystery
>
>> Every worldview has to punt to mystery at some point.
>
> I don't think that that's necessarily true.
I'm not sure why you would argue with this. It's merely a reframing of what you said, "I don't know". The things we don't know are mystery to us. That's all I meant by it. I'm curious to know what you thought it meant.
> Humans are inherently pattern seeking creatures, so our thinking in one area or another is always going to have the potential for flaws but this doesn't mean it's inherent to a particular worldview.
Who is this that never punts to mystery OR knows everything? Who has this worldview?
### WORLDVIEW
>
>> my worldview provides the necessary foundation to know things and have certainty.
> This is only true if your worldview values a way of thinking in line with the scientific method.
I would say the opposite is true. Only a worldview that has a foundation of knowledge and certainty will value the Scientific Method. Which explains why do many early scientist were Christian and other theists. It was birthed in that world view.
> You would have to value evidence above any sort of sacred text or doctrine and abandon them when confronted with incontrovertible proof that previously held beliefs are wrong.
So by evidence, do you mean eye witnesses, archeology, and other external documentation.
>> Not all of them do.
>This is true
>> How would you describe your worldview?
>In terms of religion..
Not in terms of religion. How do you know things?
>yeah you could describe me as an atheist, nontheist, anti-theist, secular humanist, any of those would fit. More accurately and agnostic atheist, because as I had said previously agnosticism is not a halfway point, it's a claim of whether or not you have knowledge not a statement of belief. But you might find it interesting that from an atheist perspective, the word atheist is something that shouldn't really be needed. It's a bit like describing yourself is a non-stamp collector. As someone famous once said, I can't remember who, "atheism is just the sounds that rational people make when confronted with unjustifiable beliefs."
So you are an atheist?
#### IN CONCLUSION
So you believe that everything comes from nothing. Soup Theory.
Do you believe that all life was immaculately conceived? It's hard to overcome biogenesis. Isn't it?
I'm guessing that you don't know, and you punt to mystery.
So how do you know things?
> I'm not sure why you would argue with this...
I was differentiating around the use of the "has". Some things are a mystery because there are things we don't know, but that doesn't mean we should stop looking for answers. Oftentimes that's what religion does, asserts things that can't be proven in place of a simple 'i don't know' and remaining satisfied with the "mystery" when *better* explanations are put forward.
> Who is this that never punts to mystery OR knows everything? Who has this worldview?
Theists, at least the majority that I've met
> Only a worldview that has a foundation of knowledge and certainty will value the Scientific Method.
I would argue that the scientific method builds the foundation of knowledge and that should build the worldview.
> Which explains why do many early scientist were Christian and other theists. It was birthed in that world view.
No they would be killed as heretics or at least put in prison or house arrest, like Galileo nearly was.
> So by evidence, do you mean eye witnesses, archeology, and other external documentation.
Sure that would count. But when you say "external documentation" it sounds like you already have something in mind...what would that be?
> Not in terms of religion. How do you know things?
The same way anyone does I guess. But I see from the bio that you're a Christian, and since this is Easter, how do you _know_ Jesus rose from the dead on the third day?
> So you are an atheist?
Yes
> So you believe that everything comes from nothing.
I don't know for sure but it's more likely than a god
> Do you believe that all life was immaculately conceived? It's hard to overcome biogenesis. Isn't it?
Abiogenesis is like big bang, it might be a very unlikely thing to happen, but it only has to happen once.