Evidence for The Creator: Entropy

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Therm/entrop.html

It is the most basic, obvious, and indisputable principle in the universe:

Entropy

The root, From Britannica:
Entropy, the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work. Because work is obtained from ordered molecular motion, the amount of entropy is also a measure of the molecular disorder, or randomness, of a system. The concept of entropy provides deep insight into the direction of spontaneous change for many everyday phenomena. Its introduction by the German physicist Rudolf Clausius in 1850 is a highlight of 19th-century physics.

Closely related to entropy, especially in the origins debate, are the laws of thermodynamics.

The laws of thermodynamics describe the relationships between thermal energy, or heat, and other forms of energy, and how energy affects matter. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; the total quantity of energy in the universe stays the same. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of energy. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state.

https://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html

Entropy is simply the observable reality that all things tend towards randomness, unless acted upon by an intelligent, ordered force. Even things put into ordered complexity will decay into random disorder, if not maintained by an orderly force.

The sandcastle illustration is commonly used for entropy. If you build a sandcastle on the beach, then go away, it will dissolve into random clumps of sand. ALL the forces of nature attack everything, reducing them to simpler, random forms. NOTHING increases in complexity by natural forces in the universe.

The origin of the universe had to have an ordered, intelligent force to begin. In a godless universe, all matter, order, and complexity we see now would have dissipated into random equilibrium.. cold, dead, lifeless matter, expanding eternally through infinite space and darkness. All stars would have burnt out eons ago, and planets, systems, and galaxies would be drifting endlessly.. no order.. no life.. only random chaos dissipating any semblance of order. There is NOTHING to 'arrange' the universe into galactic order, in a godless universe.

Life would be impossible, in a godless universe of eternal entropy. The complexity of living things, the blueprint of their design, and the visible order of the universe providing an island of ecosystem, in a harsh, lifeless universe, flies in the face of every natural law, which would have left everything cold, dark, and dissipated. The stars, orbits, galaxies, and EVERYTHING orderly in the universe cannot be explained by natural processes. What, (or more precisely, Who), overcame the universal, dissipating force of entropy, and ordered this universe into a small dot of livable possibility? The amazing complexity of life becomes absudly impossible, without an Intelligent Designer to order these things.

Yet in spite of the overwhelming, OBVIOUS impossibility of godless naturalism, it is taught..no, INDOCTRINATED as a religious belief, into everyone in this generation. The propaganda drums pound incessantly, until brain dead indoctrinees fall helplessly in line, surrendering their reason.. abandoning science, skepticism, and common sense, until the absurd suggestion of atheistic naturalism seems plausible. Not content with believing this anti-science absurdity, they have the gall to ridicule and mock those who believe in the obvious: The Creator.

It is a lame, feeble, and transparent attempt to avoid accountability to their Creator. Pretending to be wise, they become fools, and worship the creation, rather than the Creator.

 

Creationists like to take scientific concepts that most people never heard of and don't understand and redefine them (AKA lie) in such a way that they suddenly support creationism. Entropy is a favorite lie of creationists for that very reason.

If you notice the creationist here has turned entropy into a universal law by claiming it applies to "ALL THINGS," which of course it doesn't! If entropy were universal no matter could exist and therefore no creationist could exist to lie about science!

If entropy were universal and the energy that causes the electron to orbit the nucleus were to become "WASTED" in the tinny tinniest little bit, it would not be able to maintain its orbit and would be pulled into the nucleus of the atom and split it and thus NO matter could exist. But matter DOES exist proving creationists are liars.

 

This is a lame, feeble, and transparent attempt to avoid accountability for an imagined Creator. Pretending to be wise, they become fools, and worship the imagined creator, rather than the Creation.

Fixed it for ya.

 

Where is the wisdom in worshiping the creation?

 

The stars are burning out and entropy is at work. But it takes billions of years for them to burn out and in that time, their energy can be used by life to thrive. If you think that they should have burned out quicker, then provide the evidence why you think the scientists are wrong and you are right.

 

To battle entropy life evolves or moves toward more complexity .From self tepicating molecules to single cells to higher levels of complexity.

Guided not by chance mutations but intelligence driven adsptation via mutation.

 

Calling us liars makes you sound pretty insecure.

 

Matter didn't exist before the big bang, right ? So no electron circling thrthe nucleus of the atom. Right ? Indeed there existed no time space with matter .Right?

 

There is no wisdom involved in worship....period.

 

If the OP is (ab)using the Second Law of Thermodynamics in order to "prove" that his IMAGINARY creator exists then he MUST explain why the FIRST Law of Thermodynamics PROVES that his IMAGINARY creator can NOT exist.

How did the OP's IMAGINARY creator create matter/energy that cannot be created or destroyed?

The OP is just cherry picking OUT OF CONTEXT nonsense again.

 

Wrong!

Matter/energy DID exist in the Singularity PRIOR to the Big Bang.

 

No one "Knows" and no one says so....except perhaps YOU. There are many hypothesis and much speculation but only the religious say they know.

 

you dig a very deep intellectual hole.

 

Then I guess a God would need a creator

 

Spoken with all the authority of one who hasn't the foggiest idea what it means.

 

I see....so there is advanced thought involved in bowing to an unseen entity?

By the way, opinion is not expressing authority and worship is quite well defined.
worship

noun
Definition of worship


1 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power also : an act of expressing such reverence

2 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual

3 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem worship of the dollar

4 chiefly British : a person of importance —used as a title for various officials (such as magistrates and some mayors)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship

 

Forgetting for the moment that that is distinctly overrated...

...please, you have no idea.

Which is hardly a synonym for "understood", in case you're not aware.

 

Aside from whether or not it amounts to evidence for the creator, God, Allah, the Atman-Brahmin or whatever - the OP posits a legit, imo, proposition.

Solar energy and stochastic processes seemingly to me do not support the existence of life. Not at all. Random processes and sunlight created biological organisms is exceedingly a bit of a stretch. Thermo certainly doesn't support energy dynamics that organize inanimate material into animate material capable of reproducing itself

It is an amazingly interesting subject. I'm not sure, is it called biogenesys? We simply do not have an explanation for how life exists - and as of yet, I'm pretty sure that in spite of our ability to build the iPhone and the Saturn V, etc., we've yet to create a live organism from inanimate material.

The proposition that random interactions between dynamic inanimate atoms and molecules fueled by sunlight resulted in living organisms whereas the observed phenomenon that everything falls apart unless maintained seems surely enough to me sufficient to make anyone question the cause of the origin of life.

 

Again...Have A Nice Day

 

It's just a matter of time before we create life in the lab:
https://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html
Quote:
One of life's greatest mysteries is how it began. Scientists have pinned it down to roughly this:

Some chemical reactions occurred about 4 billion years ago — perhaps in a primordial tidal soup or maybe with help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea or between the mica sheets — to create biology.

Now scientists have created something in the lab that is tantalizingly close to what might have happened. It's not life, they stress, but it certainly gives the science community a whole new data set to chew on.

The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute, created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose. If that sounds exactly like life, read on to learn the controversial and thin distinction.

 

It has been discussed before, but it's important to point out the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" is not really a fundamental universal law, in the same sense that the other laws are.

This implies that it might not really hold true on a universal scale, there may be some as yet unknown phenomena that can reverse it.

 

Are you saying that claiming entropy is universal is being TRUTHFUL?????

 

Energy existed and e=mc squared. So matter which has mass (the m in e=mc^2) existed in a very compressed form.

 

Super God!

 

Plenty of physicists speculate on pre big bang reality. Not just Me. But most speculation happens in philosophy . For Feynman while dead still lives on in attitude.

You must not listen to the physicists who do interviews while promoting their new book?

If you did you would not be so contentious.