Evidence for The Creator: Entropy

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by usfan, Mar 13, 2020.

  1. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,533
    Likes Received:
    829
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ..evidently, in this forum, entropy is a religious belief, not science. ..since the moderators felt compelled to move this from the science subforum to the religios one..

    ..very bizarre, but not inexpected.

    ..progressive indoctrinees.. :roll:
     
  2. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    2,765
    Likes Received:
    662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The universe is NOT finely tuned! Planets, moons, galaxies. etc, are smashing into each other.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2020
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  3. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    39,425
    Likes Received:
    29,851
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :roflol:

    The Sentient Puddle Fallacy!

    [​IMG]
     
    Diablo likes this.
  4. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,314
    Likes Received:
    851
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't suppose you'd like to square that its accelerating expansion.
     
  5. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    18,554
    Likes Received:
    6,933
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lol

    Good joke but this finely tuned universe is a fact that sent many scientists and philosophers scrambling to come up with another answer to suit the atheists .

    Ever hear of many universes? We just lucked out and got the tuned one out of pure chance. Lol
     
  6. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    18,554
    Likes Received:
    6,933
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pure conjecture .

    Just as the idea of intelligence creating this tuned universe .

    No one including you knows the truth. Until you can remove yourself from this universe and stand outside it to see the big picture .
     
  7. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    2,765
    Likes Received:
    662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not tuned! Never was tuned and never will be tuned. The universe is chaotic!
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  8. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    39,425
    Likes Received:
    29,851
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The definition of the term "fine tuned" cannot be applied to the universe.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fine-tune

    The universe is in a state of constant change and therefore does not meet the definition of being "finely tuned".

    So it YOUR bogus allegation about the universe being "finely tuned" that is pure conjecture on your part.
     
    edthecynic likes this.
  9. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,533
    Likes Received:
    829
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Absurd. There is only chaos in the universe? No order, or optimum conditions for life?

    ..progressive indoctrinees.. :roll:

    It's a good thing you've got propaganda, censorship, and bigotry to deflect alternate perceptions of the universe. Reason and facts do not help your beliefs, at all.
     
  10. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,533
    Likes Received:
    829
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    'Accelerating expansion', is part of the 'winding down' process, and ignores the mechanism that allegedly 'wound up' the universe to begin with.

    Indicators of expansion imply a convergence of matter, in the past. How distant is the subject of many theories and speculations.

    But in a godless universe, there is nobody and nothing to 'wind up', or 'compress' all matter into the size of a particle, then expand it instantly into a functioning cosmos, especially with the minute conditions necessary for life.

    Entropy could have only expanded the universe..all matter and energy.. into cold, lifeless, dead matter, all heat dissipated, all matter randomized into equilibrium, with nothing to order it, or 'wind it up', so it could even wind down.

    Fortunately, entropy is just a religious belief.. at least in this forum.. and has no scientific basis.
     
  11. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,533
    Likes Received:
    829
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Equivocation, ad hominem, and other fallacies do not improve the arguments for atheistic naturalism, nor do they provide a mechanism to overcome ENTROPY, to increase complexity and diversity (common ancestry), order life (abiogenesis), or 'wind up' a universe that is obviously winding down.

    You can berate me all you want, to try to distract from the impotence of the science behind your beliefs, but entropy continues its randomization, contradicting every tenet of atheistic naturalism.

    It is clear evidence of The Creator, and conflicts with the basic assumptions in the BELIEFS in abiogenesis, common ancestry, and a godless big bang. Entropy, and the obvious principle of chaos and randomness makes all of those beliefs impossible. With no mechanism to explain HOW these things overcame entropy to begin with, there is only faith.. irrational, unevidenced faith.. in a worldview that has been indoctrinated from birth.
     
  12. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    18,554
    Likes Received:
    6,933
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good grief! So many scientists have talked about this and yet you are ignorant of it .It is an argument used by the theists for years and for just as long has been negated by atheist who are scientists .They dont deny that the universe isnt finely tuned but that some god didnt do it.

    But if one small thing was different this universe as it exists now would not exist as we know it.

    So pardon me but I find these scientists to be more credible than a non scientist .

    Hard to believe you have never been exposed to this . But clearly you have not.
     
  13. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    18,554
    Likes Received:
    6,933
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That isnt what the scientistd were talking about. People fall off of high places and die. Yet life itself is tuned to live from second to second as hundreds of billions tiny cells work in harmony , in tune and you dont have to use your "will" at all .

    But if one thing was different an organism would not exist. Like if cells did not get replaced by new cells .

    If one natural law was different life or the formation of planets that could support life would not exist . If atoms did not act according to laws you would not recognize such a universe or it simply could not exist.
     
  14. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,314
    Likes Received:
    851
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And you figure that how, exactly?
    An observation doesn't ignore a damn thing, it's either accurate or it isn't.
    Then your issue is with that allegation, not anything I said.
     
  15. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    2,765
    Likes Received:
    662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, LIFE would be different in a different universe! And you would then falsely claim that the universe was tuned for that different form of life.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  16. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    2,765
    Likes Received:
    662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually they DO!
    http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/113/the-not-so-fine-tuning-of-the-universe
    The Not-So-Fine Tuning of the Universe
    There’s more than one way to build a universe suitable for life.
    By Fred Adams
    But in fact the fine-tuning has never been rigorously demonstrated. We do not really know what laws of physics are necessary for the development of astrophysical structures, which are in turn necessary for the development of life. Recent work on stellar evolution, nuclear astrophysics, and structure formation suggest that the case for fine-tuning is less compelling than previously thought. A wide variety of possible universes could support life. Our universe is not as special as it might seem...

    On closer examination, though, stars are remarkably robust. The strength of the electric force could vary by a factor of nearly 100 in either direction before stellar operations would be compromised. The force of gravity would have to be 100,000 times stronger. Going in the other direction, gravity could be a billion times weaker and still allow for working stars. The allowed strengths for the gravitational and electromagnetic forces depend on the nuclear reaction rate, which in turn depends on the strengths of the nuclear forces. If the reaction rate were faster, stars could function over an even wider range of strengths for gravitation and electromagnetism. Slower nuclear reactions would narrow the range.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  17. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    39,425
    Likes Received:
    29,851
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just to be clear it was YOU that made this asinine allegation about the universe being "finely tuned"!

    Let's just get the FACTS straight!

    The universe does NOT meet the definition of "finely tuned"!

    There is ZERO EVIDENCE for any outside "creative intelligent force"!

    The Laws of Physics stipulate that Matter/Energy can neither be created nor destroyed!

    Those FACTS are all KNOWN by anyone with any interest in Science and they do NOT need to be a PROFESSIONAL scientist in order to be credible when using those FACTS above.

    Your inane Appeal to Authority FALLACY does not cut it either since NOT all scientists agree with your bogus allegation as established in the link below.

    But since you INSIST upon ONLY believing what SCIENTISTS have to say here is what they DO say about "fine-tuning" of the universe.

    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

    So in the words of SCIENTISTS themselves the concept of "fine-tuning" stems from a LACK of knowledge, which is RELIGION, rather than SCIENCE which ultimately DEBUNKS the creationist drivel about a "fine tuned" universe.

    This places the ONUS entirely on YOU to prove your BOGUS allegation that the universe is "finely tuned" rather than that there just GAPS in our KNOWLEDGE as to HOW certain aspects of our universe became the way they are as observed TODAY!
     
  18. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,314
    Likes Received:
    851
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He's an idiot, obviously.
     
  19. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    2,765
    Likes Received:
    662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or YOU are, obviously!!!!!
     
  20. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,314
    Likes Received:
    851
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe I am; but as for Mr. Adams, there's no question about it, obviously.
     
  21. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    2,765
    Likes Received:
    662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No maybe about you being an idiot and no doubt Adams isn't!!!
    Fred Adams
    American physics researcher
    upload_2020-3-27_3-20-52.jpeg
    Description
    Fred C. Adams is an American astrophysicist who has made contributions to the study of physical cosmology. Fred Adams is the Ta-You Wu Collegiate Professor of Physics at the University of Michigan, where his main field of research is astrophysics theory focusing on star formation, planet formation, and dynamics. Wikipedia
    Born: February 8, 1961 (age 59 years), Redwood City, CA
    Field: Astrophysics
    Education: Iowa State University, University of California, Berkeley
    Awards: Robert J. Trumpler Award, Helen B. Warner Prize for Astronomy
     
  22. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,533
    Likes Received:
    829
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Observations of our universe:

    1. The conditions for life are rare. As far as we know, only earth has the necessary conditions for life. There is no evidence of life anywhere else, so it is a rare and unusual thing, in the universe we live in.
    2. Deflections about the vagaries of definitions.. 'finely tuned!', for example, do not change the fact of the very unusual and highly complex, interrelated conditions necessary for the existence of life.
    3. Entropy, as a dominant force in the natural world, prohibits any ordering or 'fine tuning' of these conditions, and would have dissipated all energy and complexity into random, lifeless, cold, disorder, EONS ago, EVEN IF YOU ASSUME 'something' ordered it in the beginning.
    4. Origins assume an orderly, complex beginning, whether you posit intelligence as the First Cause, or atheistic naturalism.
    5. Atheistic naturalism has no mechanism for order.. only chaos and randomness. Dissipation is all it offers, and the conditions for life are impossible, in a godless universe. There is nothing to 'wind up!', the universe, so it could even 'wind down,' as we now observe.

    Entropy makes the BELIEFS of abiogenesis, common ancestry, and the big bang, an impossibility, in a godless universe. The faith needed to suspend science and reason there exceeds or equals any other religious opinion of origins.
     
  23. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,314
    Likes Received:
    851
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's a rule 2 violation, in case you didn't know.
    Of course he is.
    No doubt you're every bit as impressed with his cv as 12 year olds are with your PhD in High School Chemistry.
     
  24. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    58,503
    Likes Received:
    6,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    all of this is a bald assertion fallacy. you have not (because you can not) provided a single shred of evidence of any kind to support a single assertion you made. You also have not (because you can not) find a single scientist anywhere that agrees with any of the bald assertions you made.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  25. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,243
    Likes Received:
    635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That seems fair. We don't know that much of life in other places, but I'm willing to believe that I wouldn't call it common. Indeed, a secular world view does not suggest that everything that is possible has to be common. By the anthropic principle, an observer will always be able to observe its own existence, no matter how rare they are.

    Not all questions about definitions are deflections. By having you explain the definitions, there are often little assumptions and arguments that come to light. That's not even to say that those assumptions are wrong, it would just be dishonest to not declare them. Often, it is a way to make you elaborate on what kind of axioms you start from, so that one can make arguments that are relevant to you.

    Why eons ago? A common secular view of the world is that it will indeed end with the heat death of the universe. The time scale for that is estimated at ~10^100 years. Of course, there are a huge number of assumptions behind that number, and I wouldn't trust it as a number, but as a best estimate, it certainly doesn't suggest that it should already have happened.

    True, that's where the big bang comes in. Without saying anything about the origins of the big bang, the entropy during the big bang was very small compared to today's universe. This is mostly due to there not being a huge amount of space for stuff to exist in, but for the purposes of entropy calculations, it checks out.

    According to the big bang theory, the beginning of the universe started "wound up". There is no particular reason to believe that the universe started in a chaotic state. Indeed, according to the observations behind the big bang theory, that would simply be incorrect.

    Entropy have more parts to it than you seem to acknowledge. As someone else suggested, energy can counteract entropy in an open system. In a closed system, this is of course impossible, but energy is simply one way for us to transfer entropy from one point to another within a closed system.

    By this process, the entropy of life can be sustained, only by including the sun in our closed system, and for any entropy that is averted on earth, it is caused by a process that generates even more entropy in the sun. Luckily, the sun can generate quite a lot of entropy. Another example is your fridge. As you know, cold and heat normally mix and become lukewarm, but if you provide energy to your freezer, you can go in the opposite direction. Again, this is not because entropy actually decreases, but the local decrease of entropy in your fridge is matched by the increase of entropy wherever you got the energy to run your fridge from.

    Entropy is a decent argument against abiogenesis, although entropy is a statistical measure, and we need only one event to happen that on average is statistically unlikely for it to happen, so it's certainly not a done deal. The transfers of entropy (or Gibb's free energy on places like earth), mostly from the sun, allow life and evolution to happen just fine. The big bang is very compatible with entropy, in many ways, entropy arguments is among the reasons the Big Bang theory is so strong. All in all, there are still dark areas of knowledge, but nothing to seriously put a dent in the explanations.
     
    usfan likes this.

Share This Page