다음은 진화론 웹에서 퍼온, 유신론자의 질문에 대한 무신론자의 응답입니다. 참고가 됐으면 좋겠네요. 4. The 1st law of thermodynamics states that the energy in the universe is constant. The Big Bang theory states that the universe came out of nothing, so it violates this thermodynamic law. As we now know, quantum vacuum fluctuations allow for the appearance of matter from nothing without violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows particles to spontaneously appear out of nothing for a period of time inversely related to their masses, without violating the conservation of energy. A predicted effect of such vacuum fluctuations, named the Casimir-Polder force, has now been detected (Crabb, 1994, 102). The predicted effect of vacuum fluctuations upon the energy levels of atoms - an effect called Lamb shift - has likewise been detected and measured to five significant figures in hydrogen (Barrow, 1983, 65-66). The existence of vacuum fluctuations has led to speculation that the universe itself may have originated in such a fluctuation, and undergone a rapid inflationary period. It has been proposed that the positive and negative energy in the universe just balance each other such that the universe's net energy is zero (Ecker, 1990, 203). In such a case the appearance of the universe out of nothing via a quantum vacuum fluctuation would not violate conservation of energy. Consult my companion document Creation ex nihilo - Without God for more information. One might further notice that if anything contradicts the 1st law of thermodynamics, it is creationism, which states that the universe was brought into existence out of nothing by supernatural processes - "supernatural" meaning (in this case) "in violation of natural law." Creationists hold a double-standard, claiming that evolution would be invalid if it violated natural law (which it does not), while at the same time claiming that creationism would not be invalid if it violated natural law (which it does). Nor would creationism better "explain" any violations of natural law at the origin of the universe than naturalism - even if we were hypothetically to concede that the universe did come into existence through a process that violates natural law, "God did it" is no more informative an explanation than "it just happened." The creationist claim is that the universe came into existence through processes that are no longer in effect, yet were guided by an intelligent power. How is this superior to a naturalist claim that the universe came into existence through processes that are no longer in effect, yet were not guided by an intelligent power? Once one allows for processes that have nothing to do with the universe as we know it, then anything goes. To say that it is alright to have different laws "before" the origin of the universe if you are a supernaturalist, but not alright if you are a naturalist (as if the conditions at the beginning of the universe were not different than they are now), is definitely to hold a double-standard.