Debating God’s Existence

Dr. Briney debated atheist philosopher Doug Krueger at the University of Arkansas and subsequently atheist Dave Matson, editor of a Free Thinker’s via email. Dr. Briney presents four arguments for the existence of God and following is the first argument based on the First Law of Thermodynamics. This presentation is followed by the email debate with Matson, which shows the rebuttals and counter-rebuttals for this argument.

For lack of intelligent arguments, Krueger, graduate of philosophy from the UA in Fayetteville, AR, and now a professor at NWACC, resorts to childish insults and name calling on his Fayetteville Freethinkers website. Ironically, his NWACC bio says that, “Dr. Krueger was born in a log cabin that he built with his own two hands” [Accessed 9-26-2015].

 

The Existence of God and the First Law of Thermodynamics

 

Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.

 

The fall semester has begun and classes are in session once again. For many of you, the debate over God’s existence is still fresh on your minds. Prior to the end of spring session, Doug Krueger and I debated the topic of God’s existence. A follow up debate ensued via numerous emails, which, thankfully involved others than myself. These communications led down many paths, so I introduce the main point of contention once again.

 

Krueger attacked my presentation for the existence of God by attempting to discredit my description of scientific laws and definition of words. Following is a justification of my claims.

 

1. The first law of thermodynamics

 

I represent the first law of thermodynamics as claiming that “energy cannot be created by natural means.” Krueger claims that this is not what the first law of thermodynamics says (recorded on video during the spring 2002 debate). He objects to the use of “natural means,” claims that the statement must conform to a “word for word” definition, and that the first law of thermodynamics does not apply to origin of energy. I offer first the meaning of “natural means” (arguments 1-3), second I deal with the complaint that there is no “word-for-word” quote that states the first law of thermodynamics the way I do (argument 4), third I show how the first law of thermodynamics applies to the origin of energy (arguments 5-7), and fourth I show why the supernatural is the rational conclusion (arguments 8-9).

 

Argument for the meaning of “natural means.”

Argument one I.

1. Science derives conclusions based on physical and chemical properties of the material world.
2. Physical and chemical properties of the material world are referred to as natural phenomena.
3. Therefore, science derives conclusions based on natural phenomena.

 

Argument two II.

1. Natural phenomena are caused by natural processes and properties of the material world.
2. Natural processes and properties of the material world are sometimes referred to as natural means¹.
3. Therefore, natural phenomena are caused by natural means.

 

¹ A correct definition of natural according to Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.: “2. Conformed to the order, laws, or actual facts, of nature; consonant to the methods of nature; according to the stated course of things, or in accordance with the laws which govern events, feelings, etc.; not exceptional or violent; legitimate; normal; regular; as, the natural consequence of crime; a natural death.”

“3. Having to do with existing system to things; dealing with, or derived from, the creation, or the world of matter and mind, as known by man; within the scope of human reason or experience; not supernatural; as, a natural law; natural science; history, theology.”

“I call that natural religion which men might know . . . by the mere principles of reason, improved by consideration and experience, without the help of revelation. –Bp. Wilkins.”

A correct definition of means according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company: “5. To have as a consequence; bring about: Friction means heat.”

 

Argument three III.

1. Scientific laws are based on recurring natural phenomena.
2. Natural phenomena are caused by natural means. (II, 3)
3. Therefore, scientific laws are based on recurring natural phenomena caused by natural means.

 

Argument for stating a generalized truth of a scientific law rather than a word-for-word quote.

Argument four IV.

1. Scientific laws are generalizations based on recurring facts or events.²
2. Generalizations based on recurring facts or events are expressed in a variety ways rather than formulated into official, single, word-for-word quotes.
3. Therefore, scientific laws are expressed in a variety ways rather than formulated into official, single, word-for-word quotes.

²According to WordNet Dictionary ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University: a law of nature is “a generalization based on recurring facts or events (in science or mathematics etc): ‘the laws of thermodynamics.’”

 

Argument for generalized claim of the first law of thermodynamics.

Argument five V.

1. The first law of thermodynamics is a scientific law.
2. Scientific laws are based on recurring phenomena caused by natural means. (III, 3)
3. The first law of thermodynamics is a scientific law based on recurring phenomena caused by natural means.

 

Argument six VI.

1. The first law of thermodynamics states, among other things, that energy cannot be created.³
2. That energy cannot be created is based on recurring phenomena caused by natural means.
3. Therefore, the first law of thermodynamics stating that energy cannot be created is based on recurring phenomena caused by natural means.

 

Thus, it is correct to say that according to the first law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created by natural means.

 

• ³Dr. Robert H. Gowdy, Associate Professor, Chair of the Physics Department at Virginia Commonwealth University states on his web site at http://www.people.vcu.edu/~rgowdy/mod/022/imp3.htm that, “Although energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can be converted from one form into another.” [emphasis mine]
• At http://www.unlv.edu/courses/ENS100/devine/03chap/tsld014.htm, sponsored by the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Dr. Darren Devine states the 1st Law of Thermodynamics as, “In any physical or chemical reaction, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be changed from one form to another.” [emphasis mine] [Accessed September 2002]
• From Dr. Richard B. Hallick at The University of Arizona at http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/181GH/rick/energy/energy.html, he describes the first Law of Thermodynamics as, “Energy cannot be created or destroyed; different forms of energy are interconvertible.” [emphasis mine][Accessed September 2002]

 

Argument for applying the first law of thermodynamics to origin of the universe.

Argument seven VIIa

1. The first law of thermodynamics states that there is no naturally occurring gain or loss of energy in a system.
2. No naturally occurring gain or loss of energy in a system means that new energy cannot be naturally created in a system.
3. The first law of thermodynamics states that new energy cannot be naturally created in a system.

 

Argument seven VIIb

1. The natural creation of energy is a natural increase of energy in a system.
2. A natural increase of energy in a system violates the FLT.
3. Therefore, the natural creation of energy violates the FLT.

 

Argument seven VIIc

1. The universe is a system of energy.
2. All known systems of energy conform to the FLT.
3. Therefore, the universe conforms to the FLT.

 

The first law of thermodynamics describes that energy is conserved, thus detecting new forms of energy is not the result of natural creation but rather a change in form of existing energy. Because we are dealing with a physical phenomenon under physical conditions, the first law of thermodynamics is understood to apply only to natural conditions. The question posed is, “How did energy begin to exist without violating the first law of thermodynamics?”

 

Krueger responds saying that the first law of thermodynamics did not exist at singularity. This is explained by others, who rationalize that under such conditions there were probably no laws or matter as we know them today during the singularity. However, this begs the question of energy origin. At issue in this discussion is not the origin of the singularity, but the origin of the energy from which the singularity came into existence.

 

Krueger claims that something can come from nothing, hence the singularity originated from absolutely nothing. He cites his authority as Dr. Bill Harter, physics professor of the University of Arkansas. I talked with Dr. Harter, and he confirmed that he told Krueger essentially that the demonstration of something from nothing occurred in the 1930’s. However, he erroneously cited an experiment to support the claim that something can come from nothing, which in fact was a demonstration only of energy transition from radiation to particle energy in a vacuum. I asked for a relevant reference that indeed supported the claim that something can come from nothing, but none has been offered–and for good reason. There has never been a demonstration of something coming from nothing. The transition of radiation energy inside a vacuum into particle energy is something from something.

 

Krueger claims that the first law of thermodynamics does not apply to the origin of energy. He erroneously implies that energy originated from the singularity.

Citing the vacuum experiments of radiation to particle energy, it is argued that if particles can originate from radiation in a vacuum, then a singularity of massive proportion could arise from a quantum fluctuation of energy in the same way. Put into perspective, the appearance of the singularity that resulted in the formation of this present universe (estimated to be about 3 x 10⁵¹ kg), is claimed to be no different than the appearance of effervescent particles (estimated to be about 9 x 10^-31 kg) in a vacuum (Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time, 1994). Noteworthy, is that this line of reasoning shows admission on the part of physicists that (i) quantum fluctuation experiments under today’s conditions and laws are used to explain the appearance of the singularity, and (ii) that the singularity appeared from pre-singularity energy (something from something). This reasoning of (i) is only justified if the laws of energy today are assumed to be the same as those prior to the appearance of the singularity. Thus, it is consistent and appropriate to apply the same conditions and laws (such as the first law of thermodynamics) to the energy existing prior to the singularity.

 

Argument for natural to supernatural

There are three possible causes for origin of energy: 1) from nothing, 2) from something natural, and or 3) from something supernatural. The supernatural choice is the most rational. Why? First, there are no experiences or justifications for concluding that something comes from nothing. Second, something from nothing is contrary to the first law of thermodynamics of science. Such a claim contradicts the established law of thermodynamics, which, as shown above, is justifiably applied to the origin of energy. Reasonable explanations must have some rational basis for the interpretation. Credible explanations do not contradict laws of science. Claiming that something can come from nothing is a serious violation of common sense, experience, and scientific law.

 

The second possible cause for the origin of energy is just as incredible as coming from nothing. Observations demonstrate that, without exception, new energy is not naturally created. It can change form but net energy is conserved.

 

In the following arguments, I refer to the context of “confined to natural conditions” to clear up misrepresentation and to emphasize that from the field of science we are dealing with natural conditions. The laws that exist today show that energy cannot be created by natural means. Krueger erroneously equates the contradiction of law with lack of understanding. Thus, he wrongly represents me as saying that because the natural origin of energy is not known, the supernatural is a reasonable conclusion. What I actually claim is that because the laws show that a natural origin of energy cannot occur, a supernatural origin of energy is the logical conclusion.

 

Argument eight (ii) VIII. Energy cannot originate from something natural.

1. The origin of the universe requires the creation of energy.
2. The creation of energy cannot occur by natural means. (VI, 3)
3. Therefore, the origin of the universe cannot have occurred by natural means.

 

Of the possible causes for the origin of energy, the supernatural is the most credible. The explanations that the energy came from nothing or from “something by natural means” are not plausible within the confinement of scientific laws.

 

Argument nine IX. Energy is created supernaturally.

1. The creation of energy is an event that occurs contrary to natural laws.
2. Events that occur contrary to natural laws are supernatural.
3. Therefore, the creation of energy is supernatural.

 

It has been stated that the conclusion that a supernatural event was responsible for the creation of energy is based on lack of knowledge. However, this explanation wrongly equates lack of knowledge with contradiction of laws. The natural laws as they are known today are violated by natural explanations (contradiction). A supernatural cause for the origin of energy does not suffer this dilemma.

 

It has also been argued that the supernatural must be proscribed because we have no way of determining its mechanisms. This thought is seriously flawed because (i) it confuses what happened with how it happened as though they are one and the same thing, (ii) it requires that in order for something to exist, understanding its mechanism of operation is necessary, (iii) it forces the conclusion to be a natural explanation by prejudicially excluding the possibility of a supernatural cause from consideration, and (iv) it insists on a natural explanation regardless of its violation to the first law of thermodynamics.

 

In summary, the first law of thermodynamics supports the claim of a supernatural creation of energy and thus, the entire universe, and the following points are true.

1. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created by natural means.
2. The universe exists as energy.
3. Therefore the first law of thermodynamics states that the universe cannot be created by natural means.
4. If the universe was not created by natural means, then it was created supernaturally.

 

 

Rebuttal/Counter-rebuttal

 

Dave Matson: One problem with your phrasing of the 1st law of thermodynamics is
that your phrasing suggests that there are other means by which energy might be created.  That thought is not a part of the 1st law, and any phrasing that suggests as much is misleading.

PRB response: The phrasing natural means was included to emphasize the
context of the first law of thermodynamics (FLT) because without it, some
asserted, that based on this law, energy could not be created by any means:
natural or supernatural. However, because the FLT does not describe events
outside of natural phenomena, I suffered the redundancy of this phrase to
emphasize and to clarify for others that the FLT applies only to natural
phenomena.<

Dave Matson: 9/6/02
You assume that there are two, separate realms, the natural and the
supernatural.  The 1st law makes no such allowances, and should not be
phrased to suggest as much.  Better to begin with a legitimate statement
of the law and, then, go from there.

Doug Krueger put his finger on a point that I did not fully appreciate.  If the
word “natural” here is to have intelligent meaning, then it must make sense
to talk about “unnatural” means.  However, the very existence of unnatural
means, in this context, is the point being debated.  Hence, you are using
a word with your conclusion built into it.  Because it implies such a
distinction, the word cannot have a proper and full meaning here until
after your conclusion.  If the word is necessary for your argument, then we have a
form of circular reasoning.  Therefore, it should not be used in your initial
statement about the 1st law.

PRB9/11/02: Using the word “natural” simply states what is already in the meaning of the FLT, namely, that it applies only to that which is natural. There is nothing illegitimate about using a term that is already a part of the law. It is used appropriately to clarify, to those who would erroneously assume otherwise, that it applies only to the natural or physical world. To argue that the use of the word “natural” is illegitimate because it implies unnatural or supernatural would render the word illegitimate in all conversations and textbooks where it is used. Its common use shows that it is legitimate to use and does not necessarily involve a presupposition of unnatural or supernatural.
——————————————-
Dave: The second problem, as noted by Doug Krueger, is that the 1st law
deals with the conservation of energy.  It says nothing about how energy
might or might not be created.  Thus, your phrasing is misleading on a
second count.

PRB response: I am not citing the FLT in order to describe how energy was
created. The idea of conservation is that there can be no more and no less
energy than that which you begin with. If you have nothing, you will get
nothing. According to the FLT, energy can change form but new energy cannot
be created. I cited references in order to emphasize that the claim that
energy cannot be created according to the FLT is not unique to my
presentation, but is well known and stated this way by others. Thus, my
phrasing accurately represents the FLT.

Dave Matson: 9/6/02
Once again, you should begin with a standard, textbook definition and
work from there.  If your argument hinges on this rewording of the 1st law,
then you have made a change; if it does not, then a standard, textbook
definition is the logical starting place.  Granted, that the conservation
of
energy means that energy cannot be created, but that is a deduction
from the 1st law and not a proper way to state the 1st law.  As noted
above, the word “natural” also does not belong here.  Better to use a
standard, textbook definition and we shall have a proper starting point.

PRB9/11/02: For this very reason I cited several references stating the first law of thermodynamics and demonstrated through authoritative sources that the FLT is represented correctly. Therefore, we do have a proper starting point. Whether one is referring to it with the word “conservation” or “creation” or “natural” in the phrasing, it is clearly and unmistakably recognized as the FLT. There is no fault in the representation of the FLT.
———————————————
Dave: Your statement of the 1st law is a subset consistent with the 1st
law, but it also implies things that are not in the first law — as well as not
covering other things that are in the 1st law.  Therefore, it is an
inadequate representation of the 1st law.

PRB response: Thank you for acknowledging my statement as consistent with
the FLT. Because the presentation is about the supernatural origin of
energy and not about the principles of the First Law of Thermodynamics, my
description addresses the aspect of the FLT that appropriately applies to
the issue of energy origin. The description I use is frequently used by
others, and it is adequate for the given discussion. [The examples cited in
the earlier email are as follows… [deleted]
My statement of the FLT implies no more than the statements made by others
such as those just cited.

Dave Matson: 9/6/02
None of the sources you quoted carry the implication that your formulation
does!  Not only did you omit the statement that energy cannot be destroyed,
but you did not mention that it was conserved.  (At first glance, the latter
may seem to follow from the statement that energy is neither created nor destroyed,
but, in fact, the case of matter simply being lost to a system (but not destroyed)
is not covered.)  Therefore, your statement of the 1st law is wholly
inadequate and not in accord with the examples you gave.  The chief problem, as noted
above,  is in your use of the word “natural.”  That holds true whether you
intended to rephrase the 1st law or just note one of its consequences.

The 1st law does not envision a separate realm, the supernatural, where
energy might be created.  Therefore, to use that law as part of your
argument for such a realm is wrongheaded.  Rather, you must argue that the 1st law
is wrong (incomplete).  The actual 1st law does not support your contention in any way, shape or form.

PRB9/11/02: As I pointed out above, the use of the word “natural” is perfectly legitimate because it is a part of what science is: experimenting with the natural world. So, this is not an issue as far as the meaning and usage of the word is concerned. Second, I pointed out that the presentation is not about the FLT but about the origin of energy. Therefore, it is appropriate to refer to that aspect of the FLT that applies to energy origin (its “creation,” not my terminology alone but that found in authoritative references). It is not appropriate to discuss its destruction in this context because it has no relevance to the discussion. The conservation of energy is understood in the phrase FLT, therefore, it is not necessary to state or elaborate on in the initial presentation. The attempt to discredit my representation of the FLT is wrongheaded. The law is well established and well known in many different, legitimate descriptions. As I explained above and cited authoritative sources in support of, I represent the FLT no differently than anyone else and without any additional implications than anyone else uses. I simply begin with the fact of the FLT and, from this common and well-known  point of reference, develop a logical progression that leads to the conclusion of supernatural origin.

————————–
Argument nine IX. Energy is created supernaturally.
1. The creation of energy is an event that occurs contrary to natural laws.
2. Events that occur contrary to natural laws are supernatural.
3. Therefore, the creation of energy is supernatural.
— Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.

Dave: To reiterate, we do not know if energy has ever been created.  Our universe may have zero total energy; if it does not then its energy may have been transferred naturally from a greater universe or physical reality that has no beginning.

PRB response: Energy exists, and the known laws governing the natural universe show us that it is impossible for it to have originated naturally. The idea of a net-zero-energy universe is a highly speculative attempt to explain how energy exists without violating the FLT. But two things suggest this idea is wrong: 1) the conservation of nothing is nothing, and 2) supposed vacuum experiments are not absolute voids and therefore do not show something coming from nothing. And to reiterate, the suggestion that another, greater universe exists only serves to apply our arguments back in time in another universe rather than to dismiss them.

Dave Matson:  9/7/02
I am not arguing that the present, Big-Bang universe came from absolutely
nothing.  (At least two Nobel-Prize winners have speculated, on the basis
of known physical principles, that our universe did, indeed, come from something
after all.)  I support their conjecture that our universe may be a subset of a
greater physical reality, that it may have been derived from that greater reality
by physical laws currently unknown or not fully appreciated.  Philosophically,
I also suspect that there can never be such a state as “absolute nothing.”  If I
am right, then we do not have the problem of getting something from nothing.
In that case, the chief difference between us would be that you further
assume, without benefit of evidence, that such a situation involves a fundamental
dichotomy — the natural and the supernatural, the supernatural having
always been there.  Such additional speculation, without evidence, is a
clear violation of Occam’s razor.

PRB9/11/02: This statement says to me you are proposing that “nothing” is really “something.” Thus, the word “nothing” does not mean “no thing” but really means there is “some thing” present? This places us back to the problem atheism has with the FLT. Where did that “something” come from to give us the natural universe we experience today? The choice of the eternal natural or the eternal supernatural is resolved by the next set of arguments based on the second law of thermodynamics, SLT (I have purposefully not introduced this set of arguments up to this time in order to exhaust the FLT arguments, to avoid confusing the dialogue with two sets of arguments, and to demonstrate that this is the question to which the FLT debate will take us). There is no violation of Occam’s razor here but instead a continuance of the argument directed to the eternal existence of energy. Your own words can be applied to your unknown universe that you, “assume, without benefit of evidence, … the [natural] having always been there.”

———————————————–
There are three possible causes for origin of energy: 1) from nothing, 2)
from something natural, and or 3) from something supernatural.
— Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.

Dave: This overly-neat division misses the fact that, in all probability,
we have an incomplete understanding as to what is natural.  Clearly, we have
much to learn about our universe.  Perhaps a greater understanding will
show that our universe came naturally from a greater universe by way of a
singularity.

PRB response: The proposal that our universe came from some preexisting
universe of natural origin only serves to apply our arguments further back
in time in another universe rather than to dismiss them.

Dave Matson:  9/7/02
Whereas a reasonable argument can be made that our Big-Bang universe must
have had a beginning, you have no means at your disposal for showing that a
greater physical reality (along the lines of present scientific conjecture or yet
to be discovered) must also have a beginning.  Note that It would not necessarily be a larger
version of our universe.  My point is that you have not eliminated alternative 2).
Therefore, there is no need to postulate the supernatural, an “answer” to a problem
that currently does not exist.

PRB9/11/02: I am glad to see that we both agree on the reasonableness of the argument for the universe having a beginning. Your proposal of the existence of a previous, greater-unknown universe that spawned the origin of our own universe is interesting indeed. Though I do not share your perspective of the supernatural, would you not concede, from your perspective, that another previous universe of unknown origin and unknown properties, etc. falls into the same category as your perspective of the supernatural? What criteria do you propose would make your unknown universe valid or invalid, and not in violation of Occam’s Razor? What means do you have at your disposal to show that an unknown universe did not have a beginning or even existed at all? A supernatural origin is more reasonable than an unknown natural universe because evidence from our natural world shows that the origin of energy cannot be natural; that such proposals contradict the FLT and are, therefore, untenable.
———————————————-
Dave:  …
We explain the unknown by relating it to the known, not by invoking a
greater unknown!  There is a big difference between
creating a scenario that is logically consistent with the evidence at hand
and actually explaining the evidence.  The former takes in mythology, among
other things; the latter advances our knowledge.

PRB response: I am not proposing to create an unsupportable, mystical
scenario to explain the origin of energy. To the contrary, I am presenting
the case that the evidence we have today shows that a natural cause is not
only insufficient to explain the origin of energy but, indeed, the laws we
know of today are contrary to such an explanation.  …
On the other hand, what makes the supernatural explanation plausible is the
fact that natural explanations contradict the laws that are understood
today. Thus, I am not proposing an unjustified position for supernatural
origins. The choice is between a natural explanation that contradicts
established laws of science justified by the claim of ignorance of our
world, or a supernatural explanation justified by the fact that natural
laws known today will not permit a natural origin.
I argue that natural explanations of energy origin contradicts today’s known
laws and knowledge of the universe, and that the rational choice between
origin explanations is the supernatural. Not only can it not be dismissed
as a reasonable explanation, but the contradictions between natural
explanations and known laws make it the only reasonable explanation.

Dave Matson: 9/7/02
We haven’t yet determined that energy has come from absolutely nothing!
Certainly, given that our state of such knowledge is in its infancy, such a
conclusion is highly tentative and by no means firmly established!
Our universe — the Big Bang universe — may be a subset of a greater
physical reality that either does not (or cannot) have a beginning.

Given our present state of knowledge, your conclusion that the
supernatural must be invoked is anything but reasonable!  On
a thin  thread of ignorance you have constructed the extreme
dichotomy of the natural and the supernatural.  You have built on
the shifting sands of what we don’t know (in an area of vast ignorance)
rather than on firm, positive evidence.  Furthermore, as previously
noted, the supernatural is not a proper explanation but rather
an ad-hoc scenario.  It explains everything and, therefore, nothing.

PRB9/11/02: You have stated my point about natural explanations for origins very well, namely, that it is based on “vast ignorance.” But ignorance is not an explanation or a justification for an explanation. First, the atheist position for energy originating from nothing is untenable because it contradicts a well-known and established law of science. Second, the atheist position for energy originating from a greater, unknown, eternal, physical universe has no evidence for its existence and contradicts the FLT. To suggest that it is physical is to subject it to the natural laws we know today, which means it must have a beginning (FLT). To suggest that it is not physical is to admit that it must be non-physical or supernatural.
The contradiction between natural origin explanations and the well-known (the FLT) make them untenable. Justifiable models are based on 1) what we know today not on what we hope will be discovered, and 2) do not contradict what we know today. An explanation is not justified by saying, “We haven’t yet determined that energy has come from absolutely nothing!” as though you will. In fact, an explanation is illegitimate if it contradicts that which is already known. This is the problem with natural explanations of energy origin. They contradict known laws and are therefore illegitimate and irrational.
As for your concern about ad hoc scenarios, the proposal of a greater, unknown, eternal, physical universe should be considered illegitimate because it is a convenient way of explaining everything and thus nothing. Further, such a proposal shows the dilemma atheism is challenged with in the issue of energy origin: it suffers contradicting the physical (FLT) or it suffers admitting the supernatural. Because contradiction is irrational, the supernatural is the preferred and justifiable choice.
—————————————————

Dave 9/7/02: In summary, the contradiction you find in the 1st law with respect
to the origin of energy is hardly grounds for introducing the extreme
dichotomy of the natural and the supernatural.  That is akin to
introducing fairies and elves to explain an engine problem
that defies a beginner’s understanding.  In principle, evil fairies
might be responsible, but that is hardly an acceptable explanation.
It invokes an unproven, greater unknown to explain an unknown.  Fairies
also explain everything and, therefore, nothing.  Fairies (and the
supernatural) constitute a scenario that is fitted to the shadows of
ignorance — not one based on positive evidence.  A scientific explanation
must invoke known results to explain the unknown, and it must be based
on positive evidence.

We can put it even more succinctly:  If there is a real conflict between
a scientific law and reality, the proper conclusion is that the proposed
scientific law has failed (and must be rejected or modified), NOT that
there exists a fantastic reality called the supernatural, where physical
laws don’t apply.  And, that real conflict has not yet been established
as a reasonable fact.

PRB9/11/02: Laws are rejected or modified because of verified evidence that demonstrates it to be wrong. Laws are not rejected because they do not support someone’s conjecture. In the case of the conjecture that energy can come from nothing, there is no evidence to suggest that it can. And unlike this conjecture, the FLT is well established on thousands of experiments, which show no exception, and all attempts, without exception, to show that it is wrong have only added to its truth. There is absolutely no justification to suggest the scrapping of the FLT. The only reasonable choice between conjecture and the FLT, is the FLT.  In the case of the conjecture that a greater, unknown, eternal, physical universe spawned the present universe, such a proposal not only suffers from no evidence for such an unknown, but, more seriously, proposes a contradiction to laws that are known. The evidence of the physical world and sound reasoning discounts explanations for its natural origin and justifies its supernatural origin of energy.