Evidence for The Creator: Entropy

Definitely more impressive than your flunking High School Chemistry!!!!!

 

Even if I had, I'm afraid I'm at a loss to understand how that would make Fred C. Adams anything but an idiot.

 

Nothing in your post shows a requirement for a god. The assumption that entropy would not exist without a god is unproven

 

You are projecting.

 

Hardly necessary, as of itself his pronouncement testifies to his idiocy in no uncertain terms.

 

Obviously you don't have the smarts to understand it since you can't point to anything specific in his scholarly rebuttal of your nonsense!

 

I have a cutesy alliteration phrase, to address the definition dodge that is so common, here (and everywhere in Progresso World!):

Definitional deflections denotes desperation

Defining terms is fine, for clarity of communication. But too often the definition nazis bog and muddy the discussion with irrelevant deflections, which seems to be the tactic.

'Fine Tune!' is one such example. The poster was noting the complex interrelationships with all the factors necessary for our functional universe, and the 'rebuttal', was outrage over terminology, not topical replies.

Speculations about time do not really explain HOW this alleged 'order' could have happened at all. In a godless, random universe of entropy, there is nothing and nobody to order these things, and there is no mechanism to overcome entropy to 'wind up' the universe, increase complexity via evolution, or begin the mysterious phenomenon of life.

How can there even be a 'big bang!', in a godless universe of chaos and entropy? How or what mechanism 'ordered' all matter into a particle, then triggered it into instantaneous expansion, to fill the visible universe?

This is a fantastic religious belief, not observational science, or testable methodology.

1. How could the universe have 'started', in a godless universe of chaos and dissipation?
2. Observation, indeed, tells us that something or Someone 'ordered' the universe, so it could 'wind down. Without a mechanism to overcome entropy, atheistic naturalism has no explanation for origins. Hence, entropy is evidence for the Creator, not atheistic naturalism.
3. The sun is not a mechanism opposing entropy. It is an entropic agent, breaking things down, and promoting dissipation. Only LIFE, with the ability to harness the sun's rays, can harness the undirected power toward order.
4. The mechanism of refrigeration is also an ordered, intelligent application of work, overcoming entropy, to an ordered end. It is not a naturally occurring phenomenon.
5. What 'parts' of entropy do you address? The overriding, visible, repeatable, phenomenon of entropy, as a dissipating force in the universe, is the only 'part' i am addressing. Heat transfer in a closed system is not the definition referenced here.
6. I always appreciate the civil, reasoned, and measured responses from you.. it is a refreshing change from the typical outrage, hostility, and ad hom, that is more common with detractors. IMO, you are in danger of having science and reason pull you away from the progressive Indoctrination that has swept the planet.

Entropy is not a statistical analysis of probability. It is measurable, predictable, repeatable science, that is not a probability.

The belief that life could spontaneously come from non life, or that the universe could magically order itself into the complexity we observe, or that life 'evolves' into complex forms from simple one celled organisms (that have no naturalistic explanation), are RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, not science.

I've already replied to this deflection, which ignores the premise of the OP, for unbased assertion, not reason.

 

On the contrary, I began this conversation by quoting it.

 

Why?

The entire theory of evolution is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

if everything needs a creator, then a God is no exception

 

Yet another asinine baseless theist allegation in a thread about a different baseless theist allegation.

 

Yet another atheist waste of bandwidth...

 

As usual not true! All you did was call Adams an idiot repeatedly, but that's all you have!!!!!

 

Alliteration aside, my point stands. Usually in my experience, people ask for definitions when there are two arguments that seem not to link up. It seems to me, you're playing a bit fast and loose with the interrelation between "order", "ordered", "complexity", "fine tuning", "entropy" (or lack thereof) etc.. Asking for definitions is a good way to figure out if an argument is unsound, or if it is invalid, which is often a useful start when addressing an argument.

Either way, definitions should be easy to provide, so even if the argument is facetious, the best, easiest and most dignified respons seems to me to be to provide the definitions, rather than second guessing what the argument is going to be. I've been around for a while, and while I haven't kept track of every discussion ever, I don't think I've ever seen a request for a definition that wasn't warranted.

That's a different argument, though, which is further discussed in the next paragraph. The paragraph you quoted here is about your claim that the dissipation would have already happened eons ago. Your argument doesn't specify why the dissipation would be that quick, and best guesses as far as I can tell suggest that the dissipation would be slow. I see no reason to believe that the dissipation should have been done eons ago.

The cause of the universe in general is an issue, although no more of an issue than "what caused God?" is for a theist (and I think, not really the subject of this thread). If the universe starts from a singular point, then there isn't that much entropy in it (compared to matter in a larger universe). A godless universe is one in which entropy always increases, not one in which entropy is always high.

It seems to me you use "ordered" to mean "having gone through ordering" (and you may even imply intelligent ordering). I might prefer the word "orderly" (in that it doesn't imply having gone from unordered to ordered). Normally, I wouldn't want to make the assumption that you interpreted it a certain way, instead I would just ask you to clarify exactly what you mean. However, you seem not to like people asking for definitions, so I can't do that without risking sounding facetious.

So, at risk of having misinterpreted what you mean by "ordered", I would say: Why would we think an orderly early universe was ordered, rather than simply orderly?

I believe the answers here are the same as above. I would say that observation tells us that the universe was at some point orderly, I don't think we have an observation of that the universe went through any process that overcame entropy. It seems no less plausible that the universe started out in a state in which it didn't need a process of ordering to contain order.

I'm uncomfortable with calling the sun a "mechanism for opposing entropy", since for every piece of negative entropy it supplies, it causes more entropy within itself. However, the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, and any living system that doesn't include the sun won't be closed. Indeed, as can be read here:

"...although life's dynamics may be argued to go against the tendency of the second law, life does not in any way conflict with or invalidate this law, because the principle that entropy can only increase or remain constant applies only to a closed system which is adiabatically isolated, meaning no heat can enter or leave, and the physical and chemical processes which make life possible do not occur in adiabatic isolation, i.e. living systems are open systems. Whenever a system can exchange either heat or matter with its environment, an entropy decrease of that system is entirely compatible with the second law.[7]

Schrödinger asked the question: "How does the living organism avoid decay?" The obvious answer is: "By eating, drinking, breathing and (in the case of plants) assimilating."​

This paper (I only read the abstract, but it seems enough) discusses how plants can gain negative entropy from sunlight.

Sure, there are processes caused by the sun that break things down, but that doesn't mean there aren't others which can be used for negentropy.

What does it matter whether it is naturally occurring? The second law of dynamics is not circumvented by intelligence. The fact that the refrigerator was intelligently designed by humans does not excuse the fridge from the second law of thermodynamics. The point stands, that an open system (such as a fridge or an organism) that takes in energy (eating/electricity) is not closed, and entropy/disorder doesn't necessarily increase.

Well, the heat transfer in a closed system is the only version that is actually governed by the second law of thermodynamics. The other principle regularly gets broken, like by life, or gravity, or salt in ice water. It is repeatable, but certainly not universal.

Again, we would be justified in having asked for a definition. If you define entropy as the general tendency to disorder, then it is not covered by the second law of thermodynamics. If you define entropy as it normally is in physics, then life isn't actually an example of a violation.

Having defended ideas on both sides of most debates, I think this is a common issue with internet discussions in general. I don't think the education is a problematic "indoctrination", there is a problem with people making unfounded assumptions on top of their education, and not realising which assumptions they add to the mix.

Sure it is a statistical probability analysis, it is derived from statistical mechanics. Back in my uni days, I will have derived it by hand.

In statistical mechanics, entropy is an extensive property of a thermodynamic system. (source)​

Entropy is roughly a measure of how many different random ways there are to generate the same macroscopic properties. Given that there are a huge number of particles, each in a huge number of configurations, the outcome of entropy calculations will be staggeringly accurate. However, they are based in probabilities, so there is nothing categorically saying that in certain configurations, over large amounts of time, in a large amount of places, you couldn't have simple organisms arising (with plausible probability). Given that life doesn't violate entropy, small instances like that are not forbidden.

 

'Need', is vague, undefined, and irrelevant, in scientific inquiry.

'What is', should be the goal of true scientific methodology.

The Creator does not exist because of our need, or anyone's. Nor is the Creator's existence based on need. How can you evidence such an assertion?

No, 'need', is irrelevant and a religious/philosophical concept, that science cannot answer.

The evidence for our origins overwhelmingly points to a Creator, not atheistic naturalism. Those who 'need!' atheism to cope with their fears and biases are ignoring scientific and factual reality, in favor of wishful thinking.

The jeering aside, entropy and the second law of thermodynamics are intertwined. Some see them as synonymous. Imo, there are subtle nuances between them, but in the context of this thread, they are close enough to warrant a reasoned rebuttal, instead of a catty comeback.

How is there any way to overcome the obvious reality of entropy, in the universe, to 'wind up!' to a big bang, spontaneously generate life from dead matter, or increase complexity in an evolutionary speculation? Every one of those BELIEFS, flies in the face of scientific reality. They cannot be tested, repeated, observed, or defined, with scientific laws, yet are preached as 'settled science!', by progressive institutions through constant Indoctrination and propaganda.

The belief in atheistic naturalism, as 'settled science!', is the Great Deception of the 20th Century. This anti-science belief has done more damage to True Science, than any of the fantastic debunked beliefs from the past.

 

"True Science" as PREACHED to us on threads by Pastor Usfan who receives his "divine inspirations" about "entropy" from his IMAGINARY "creator"?

I uphold your right to your theist beliefs but genuine SCIENCE is not interested in your "spiritual readings" when it comes to actual KNOWLEDGE about our Universe.

 

Ad hominem is not a scientific rebuttal..

 

Ironic given your own (ab)use of ad homs instead of factual rebuttals.

 

Personal deflections from the topic do not refute the premise of the OP.

Entropy makes common ancestry, abiogenesis, and an atheistic 'big bang!', impossible. Snarky comments do not change that reality.

 

The BOGUS premise of the OP was DEBUNKED when it was moved into the RELIGION & PHILOSOPHY forum where it belongs because there is ZERO genuine SCIENCE in the OP.

And that is the REALITY that the OP needs to deal with because it is the OP's problem ONLY.

 

you're free to believe we need magic to create everything... but some of us do not believe that

if we need a creator to create the universe, then a God would need a Creator too

 

https://creation.com/who-created-god

The claim isn't everything has a cause, it is everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning.

You don't need an explanation for an explanation. In other words, if we found a mound with arrowheads and tools in it, it would be reasonable to assume that men made those instruments, without knowing anything about them.

 

Where is your CREDIBLE EVIDENCE for this "beginning" of the universe?

 

This assertion was refuted on page one. You have yet to provide a single piece of scientific evidence, experimentation or peer reviewed literature supporting your claim, while you have received all of the above in refutation of your premise.

 

this is an assertion that you can not substantiate.

because we have evidence that man exists. there is exactly zero evidence your god exists.