What does that have to do with how much entropy universes tend to have at their origins?

That is only 'the perfect order' because you like it the most. But we do not assume the deck of cards was intelligently spaded simply because we like it.

As for the likelihood of the entropic state of the preuniverse, are you ever going to present this compelling reason or are you just going to continue to assert it?

Butcho here is a lecture by Robert Penrose which explains the reasoning why entropy is predicted to be greater in the past.

Compare an egg to an omelette. The omelette has more entropy than the egg or is less ordered than the egg because there are more ways the molecues of the omelette can be arranged and still be an omelette than the ways the molecues of the egg can be arranged and still be an egg.

You can't say for certain but the models we do have suggest high entropy.

How can we say anything about the entropic state of the preuniverse if all we have are guesses as to what that even means, let alone a concept of what there was?

I'm making an assumption that mathmatical concepts like 2+2=4 apply on the otherside of the bigbang.

Why should the formula we use to predict entropy fail on the otherside of the bigbang?

Yes, I might assume that when I press the ON button on my television remote the TV will turn on.

So your argument then in turn, is that because I make such an assumption, or many similar assumptions throughout my bland daily life, that therefore it wouldn't be any different to assume:

A) there is something other than the universe
B) that something could or should be called "god"
C) that "god" loves us, cares about us, created us and the universe, has any number of other attributes that you or Stu might like to assign to him
D) that this "god" itself requires no larger, ultimate explanation because...well, just because

Really? Assuming that my engine will turn over when I put my car key in the ignition and turn is the exact same thing as assuming your desperate wishes above?

Really?

This is why RGT is a joke.

It should not necessarily fail, but making conjectures about what conditions were like then is wild speculation, because:

You are putting the horse ahead of the cart here. Let us first determine what the conditions of the preuniverse were before we start to draw conclusions about its implications.

Setting aside the fact that this is nothing more than a prediction, my main point is that no matter what we find out about the origin of the universe you will always assume it points towards intelligent design. It's pointless to debate it with you because you refuse to take the intelligent design lenses off. We have no other universes to compare this one to. This is rather pointless.

Because entropy is a concept which only exists when time, space and energy exists.

If you're predicting the temperature of water from the ocean floor upwards it doesnt make sense to use the model to predict the temperature of water 100m up in the air.

Isn't this exactly what an atheist does by assuming the origin of the universe is naturalistic?

No this is incorrect. I do not assume intelligent design. It seems that way because I come on here and argue that atheism is silly for assuming the origin of the universe can be anything but intelligent design.

Look at the title of this thread. It's not "Entropy proves God" for a reason. I'm not trying to convince you of my beliefs, I'm trying to get you to question yours.

Its wrong to say nothing existed before the big bang. The big bang just happens to be the point where our understanding ends.

Is this more than a definitions issue? If "natural" is defined as increasing entropy, then you are right, the origin is not natural. But if "natural" means observable, measurable, quantifiable, by science, then we can easily imagine the big bang to be natural -- once we figure it out. If it were determined that the big bang is always followed by a big crunch, in an endless cycle, then we have established the natural origins of our world.

Good post and I was wondering when this would come up. I honestly thought I would see it in the first 10 responses. I agree this is a definitions issues but then again most things are.

Slippery slope: You just slid down it.

I like how you assume that I (basically) said all assumptions are the same.

Question my belief of "i dont have a ****ing clue how the universe came about"....by arguing such and such shows intelligent design.

Questioning your belief that God is not plausible or likely cause of the universe.

nah.. only theists excommunicate atheists for that.

I'm not saying "nothing existed before the big bang" - referring to 'before the big bang' is nonsensical.

EDIT: And if our understanding ends at the big bang, we probably should avoid saying things like:

"The origin of the universe on the other hand appears to have moved from high entropy to low."

Not necessarily. If this universe was created by someone in another universe or dimension then there could be a before. At least from their perspective.

It appears time began with the big bang. Extrapolating back into pre-big bang is an error.

You can speculate there's some kind of meta-time or time-analog in this alternate dimension, but it isn't 'before the big bang' because before means occurring earlier in time (which didnt exist).

If i had a really big brain and had the ability to created a universe right now, from my perspective there would be a time before the universe i created.

Yes. You exist in time. If the universe you made had time, there would be no moment before it's existence within it's time.

The big bang (as far as we can see) created time as well. Although it has been speculated there may not have been a first instant, there is nonetheless no moment/event/anything else that happened 50 billion years ago - including big brains floating around 'somewhere' ready to make a universe.

There may be alternate dimensions, other universes, multiverses, whatever... but they don't have time they have something else (possibly with very similar or even identical properties). Stu Pidasso can't extrapolate back from our time, get to the big bang, then jump into some other hypothetical 'proto-time' and expect his argument of ever decreasing entropy to have much of an impact.