Argument for God's existence.

[createdtoworship]

Entropy applies in closed systems. Is the universe a closed system? Quantum particles cast doubt on the case that closed systems are even possible. So if you can demonstrate that the second law of thermodynamics applies to the universe as a whole then you’ll win a Nobel prize.

I would have to see references that entropy only works on closed systems, I believe entropy may increase with a closed system but I don't know.

 

[gaara4158]

I would have to see references that entropy only works on closed systems, I believe entropy may increase with a closed system but I don't know.

Entropy is the scientific word for a complicated concept that basically means “disorder.” The principle you’re trying to say applies to the universe is Newton’s second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy increases over time. And Newton’s second law of dynamics only applies to closed systems. So you would need to demonstrate that the universe is a closed system, which no one has.

 

[createdtoworship]

Entropy is the scientific word for a complicated concept that basically means “disorder.” The principle you’re trying to say applies to the universe is Newton’s second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy increases over time. And Newton’s second law of dynamics only applies to closed systems. So you would need to demonstrate that the universe is a closed system, which no one has.

again, you would have to cite an authoritative article stating that newton's second law only applies to closed systems. If you cannot provide it, then it is not a statement that has evidence. Why would that even be the case? It doesn't make sense to me. Why would it only apply to closed systems?

 

[gaara4158]

again, you would have to cite an authoritative article stating that newton's second law only applies to closed systems. If you cannot provide it, then it is not a statement that has evidence. Why would that even be the case? It doesn't make sense to me. Why would it only apply to closed systems?

It takes more than an article to learn and understand the second law of thermodynamics, and ultimately neither of us has access to the data and calculations that would settle this matter. This is just a re-hashing of the very first argument that we went through in this thread, so I’ll just point you there.

 

[createdtoworship]

It takes more than an article to learn and understand the second law of thermodynamics, and ultimately neither of us has access to the data and calculations that would settle this matter. This is just a re-hashing of the very first argument that we went through in this thread, so I’ll just point you there.

so if you cannot give evidence for your statement, then we will ignore it. That is what you do to my statements that don't have evidence. Isn't this fair? If you wish, by all means give a post of where you discussed this topic, I don't recall ever talking about entropy in this thread.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Dude, it's part of the definition:

Saibal Mitra, a professor of physics at Missouri State University, finds the Second Law to be the most interesting of the four laws of thermodynamics. “There are a number of ways to state the Second Law," he said. "At a very microscopic level, it simply says that if you have a system that is isolated, any natural process in that system progresses in the direction of increasing disorder, or entropy, of the system.”​

[Emphasis Added] ~ What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

In a fictive reversible process, an infinitesimal increment in the entropy (dS) of a system is defined to result from an infinitesimal transfer of heat (δQ) to a closed system (which allows the entry or exit of energy – but not mass transfer) divided by the common temperature (T) of the system in equilibrium and the surroundings which supply the heat:[8]​

[emphasis added] ~Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases.​

[emphasis added] ~ The Laws of Thermodynamics | Boundless Chemistry

A more formal definition for entropy as heat moves around a system is given in the first of the equations. The infinitesimal change in entropy of a system (dS) is calculated by measuring how much heat has entered a closed system (δQ) divided by the common temperature (T) at the point where the heat transfer took place.

The second equation is a way to express the second law of thermodynamics in terms of entropy. The formula says that the entropy of an isolated natural system will always tend to stay the same or increase – in other words, the energy in the universe is gradually moving towards disorder. Our original statement of the second law emerges from this equation: heat cannot spontaneously flow from a cold object (low entropy) to a hot object (high entropy) in a closed system because it would violate the equation. (Refrigerators seemingly break this rule since they can freeze things to much lower temperatures than the air around them. But they don't violate the second law because they are not isolated systems, requiring a continual input of electrical energy to pump heat out of their interior. The fridge heats up the room around it and, if unplugged, would naturally return to thermal equilibrium with the room.)​

[emphasis added] ~ What is the second law of thermodynamics?

 

[createdtoworship]

so you don't have evidence that entropy exists only in closed systems. That is what I thought. Those are not peer review journals, and websites have their share of humanistic bias. So please either find a source that is non biased, or find an example of entropy not working in an open system. Which I did not see in any of your links, including one which was wikipedia. Wikipedia should be banned for science topics, due to error. But I like it for other stuff.

But lets say you find evidence it only works in a closed loop system: Entropy exists (second law of thermodynamics), so the fact that it exists, shows that we are either in a closed loop system, in which the problem still exists that if the local universe is winding down, there must have been a beginning where it was wound up. Most scientists accept that the universe had a finite past. So again, there was a beginning. So I am unsure where the question on the side of atheism lies. Even if a multiverse created the known universe, it would still entail a beginning.

 

[Tinker Grey]

so you don't have evidence that entropy exists only in closed systems. That is what I thought. Those are not peer review journals, and websites have their share of humanistic bias. So please either find a source that is non biased, or find an example of entropy not working in an open system. Which I did not see in any of your links, including one which was wikipedia. Wikipedia should be banned for science topics, due to error. But I like it for other stuff.

But lets say you find evidence it only works in a closed loop system: Entropy exists (second law of thermodynamics), so the fact that it exists, shows that we are either in a closed loop system, in which the problem still exists that if the local universe is winding down, there must have been a beginning where it was wound up. Most scientists accept that the universe had a finite past. So again, there was a beginning. So I am unsure where the question on the side of atheism lies. Even if a multiverse created the known universe, it would still entail a beginning.

As you can see...

again, you would have to cite an authoritative article stating that newton's second law only applies to closed systems. If you cannot provide it, then it is not a statement that has evidence. Why would that even be the case? It doesn't make sense to me. Why would it only apply to closed systems?

Your original dare was to provide articles about the 2nd LOT applying only to closed systems. I provided this.

Try not to move the goal posts. It'll hurt your back.

 

[createdtoworship]

but at this point, lets post this from a book I read today:

objection:

The Scientific Method does not prove God. So it is illogical to believe in God.

Refutation:

The classical definition of a Scientific Hypothesis is that it is indeed a Scientific Hypothesis if it is (a) testable, and (b) falsifiable, by experiments that are (c) repeatable and (d) reproducible.


By this definition, there is Absolutely Nothing of Atheism that is Scientific.


I.e., There is Nothing of Atheism that is (a) testable, and (b) falsifiable, by experiments that are (c) repeatable and (d) reproducible.


Therefore, if the only way to knowledge is through the Scientific Method, then you can Most Certainly NOT know that Atheism is true in any sense of the word.


So, defining the Scientific Method as the only way to truth is definitely NOT a friend of Atheism...

I would venture to say the scientific method does not prove 99% of what it claims to prove.

If one only believed in the scientific method for truth claims, then they would not even believe in their own mind. you cannot prove to a third party, the existence of a mind. Sure you can use EKG's etc, but how do you truly know that those even apply or prove the existence of an immaterial entity? You can't see it, feel it, hear it, touch it. You can't put it in a testube. So apparently the mind of the atheist according to this line of thinking does not exist.

 

[createdtoworship]

or this one:

You have never seen God. I have never seen God. So it is illogical to believe in Him.

Response

It is not illogical to believe in something that is invisible to you if you have other grounds to believe in that something.

There are many different things that we cannot see (with our eyes) that we accept as being true.

E.g., The existence of

1) Electrons

2) Protons

3) Neutrons

4) Individual atoms

5) Your brain

6) Your Mind

7) The minds of other humans

8) Your dog’s mind

9) Your dog’s brain

10) Electric Fields

11) Magnetic Fields

12) Gravitational fields

13) The far side of the moon

14) Free-will

15) Justice

16) Consciousness of other human beings

17) The wind

18) Yesterday (you cannot see yesterday now; you have a memory of yesterday, but not a direct visual experience of it now).

19) Electromagnetic waves

20) Radio waves (as a subset of electromagnetic waves)

None of these things are visible to you, but you (and I) are rational (and logical) in believing in these things even though we cannot see them visually (with our eyes).

So, a thing (or an entity) does NOT have to be directly visible to us, for us to be rational and logical in believing that it exists (or that it is true).

We believe in these things (listed above) as an Inference to a Reasonable Explanation or an Inference to a Rational Explanation, based on other evidence than eyesight.

Similarly with God.

We come to the inference (the conclusion) that God exists based on a variety of kinds of evidence that we have discussed in the OP

both above quotes from : "does logic point to God" John M Kinson

 

[createdtoworship]

I've read a bit of your thread. It made me question if there is even an ounce of humanity left in you.

Eternal punishment for finite crimes is never justified.

I replied to this already, but I thought about something. How do you know that sinning (finite crimes), is truly finite?

our mind, the thing that commands our body and brain to commit sin, is massless. Therefore it is outside of time. So it is eternal. So the thing that causes us to sin is eternal. So in conclusion, when we sin, it is not a finite crime as you said, but an eternal crime. a crime that goes directly into eternity to stay forever. That is unless somebody pays for your sin. Either by your death in an eternal hell, or by someone elses death (a perfect person) Jesus. So I recommend you trust Him with your whole heart. Turn from any known sin and follow Him daily. If you do not accept the gospel message, you don't make it. Does that makes sense?

 

[createdtoworship]

another one:

Most of what we know (as individuals) about reality are NOT proved. Rather, they are Inferences to a Reasonable Explanation, or Inferences to a Rational Explanation.


And we are Rational (and logical) in subscribing to such beliefs (even if we cannot prove them to be absolutely true) based on the fact that they are Inferences to a Reasonable Explanation.





Similarly (the inference to God is Logical)





Similarly, the inference to God is an Inference to a Reasonable Explanation, and an inference to a Rational Explanation based on the evidence (see further below).

---


It is true that we do not have absolute proof of the existence of God (because God has chosen to remain Partially Hidden, NOT wholly Hidden, but partially Hidden for the period of our temporary existence on earth (to give us the free-will to make choices for good or evil, to give us the freedom to co-create ourselves into the kind of creatures that would be Heaven to be with for eternity, or Hell to be with for eternity).


True love is not possible without free-will, and the freedom to choose our destiny. And similarly, true character is not possible without free-will, and the freedom to choose our destiny. And God chooses to remain Partially Hidden in order to gives us the freedom to choose our character, to develop our character for good or for evil, and to choose our eternal destiny (as one that will match the character we have chosen to develop).


However, as we have seen above, we do NOT have to have absolute Proof of something to be rational (and logical) in believing that that something is true (see the examples I listed above).

---


In addition, God is NOT completely Hidden.


He has provided evidence for his existence for anyone who seeks him with Sincerity, Humility and Perseverance (because God is looking for such kinds of people to be his adopted children for eternity). See below.





Rational (and Logical) Evidence for God





If we consider Theism and Atheism to be metaphysical hypotheses (explanations of reality) then we can use the relevant guidelines/ methods to come to a reasonable inference to choose between the two.


There are certain features about reality that make more sense (or flow more naturally from) a Theistic Worldview than from an Atheistic Worldview.


And there is a reasonable argument for the existence of God from the wonder and order of the natural universe.


The key areas of evidence (features about reality) that struck me are:


(1) The big bang origin of the universe (more to be expected a-priori if Theism were true than Atheism)


(2) The anthropic fine-tuning of the universe/physical constants of the universe for life to exist (more to be expected a-priori if Theism were true than Atheism)


(3) The origin of first-life defies random-chance and natural law (more to be expected a-priori if Theism were true than Atheism)


(4) The presence of codes, language, and software in DNA is more in keeping with Intelligent Design than with purely naturalistic-atheistic processes. (more to be expected a-priori if Theism were true than Atheism)


(5) Free-will, moral obligations and responsibility; all of these fall apart if atheism is true (atheism expects pure materialism/physicalism which necessitates determinism, which eliminates free-will, and therefore moral obligations and responsibility; but none of us and no society can live reasonably in a manner consistent with no free-will, no moral obligations, no moral responsibilities, no rewards for good behavior, no punishments for bad behavior, no civil laws, no criminal laws, no justice system).


(6) Mind, consciousness; These flow naturally (are more to be expected) if Theism is true. However, these do not naturally obtain if atheism (physicalism/materialism) is true. Mind, consciousness have properties that are completely different from mere collections of atoms.


(7) Out of Body Experiences -- where the person's consciousness experiences a change in location (in point of view) and the person sees things at a distance from their body (where there is no line-of-sight). and these things that they saw (events they saw) are independently confirmed by an external third party or parties. This is evidence for mind-body dualism (and against mind-brain monism). And again, this is more in keeping with Theism (it matches more closely with the expectations of theism; and does not match the materialistic/physicalistic expectations of atheism)...


These (above) are some (but not all) of the things that I looked into in some detail, and which convinced me (over time) that Theism is the more rational (and logical) view (based on the evidence) than Atheism... and that the evidence (as above) supports Theism over Atheism.

from same book

again we can talk about any of this stuff. I don't agree with all of it, but some of it.

 

[createdtoworship]

one last one:
Atheism is strongly linked to pure materialism.


Pure materialism is strongly linked to determinism, to an absence of free-will. This is why many leading atheists believe that we do not have free-will. If we do not have free-will, then we would not be able to make logical and rational choices between alternative hypotheses. Belief in Atheism would simply be an epiphenomenon of a particular arrangement of atoms/molecules in the atheist’s brain. Now, why should such a deterministic arrangement of atoms necessarily correlate with an external truth-claim about the universe. There is no reason why such an arrangement of atoms should correlate with the truth of atheism. So, if atheism is true, then there is no reason to believe that the Atheist’s reasoning (that he uses to arrive at his conclusion that Atheism is true) can be believed (because his belief and “reasoning” is all predetermined by pure billiard-ball interactions of atoms/molecules). In this sense Atheism is self-refuting. If it is true, we cannot rationally (and logically) demonstrate or know that it is true. And if Atheism is false, it is false (of course).


---


(b) Atheism is strongly linked to neo-Darwinian Macro-Evolution.


Pure neo-Darwinian Macro-Evolution will optimize each creature for survival and reproduction. Such evolution does not optimize a creature for true hypotheses about the nature of reality. So Evolution as such is indifferent to the ability of the creature to reason to metaphysical truth. Given that metaphysical truth does not impact survival and reproduction, there is no reason to believe that Evolution will optimize the creature to reason correctly to metaphysical truth. Therefore, if Atheism is true, there is no reason to believe that the Atheist’s reasoning (that he uses to arrive at the conclusion that Atheism is true) can be believed. In this sense Atheism is self-refuting. If it is true, we cannot rationally (and logically) demonstrate or know that it is true. And if Atheism is false, it is false (of course).


---


(c) Atheism is strongly linked to determinism, to an absence of free-will.


This is why many leading atheists believe that we do not have free-will. If we do not have free-will, then we would not be able to make rational (and logical) choices between alternative hypotheses. Belief in Atheism would simply be an epiphenomenon of a particular arrangement of atoms/molecules in the atheist’s brain. Now, why should such a deterministic arrangement of atoms necessarily correlate with an external truth-claim about the universe. There is no reason why such an arrangement of atoms should correlate with the truth of atheism. So, if atheism is true, then the atheist


---


Now, if it turns out that we (as Atheists) insist that Evolution creates true beliefs that increase our survivability and well-being (even though we do not have good grounds to believe that), then…


A belief that increases our survivability and well-being would be created in us by Evolution, and would therefore be true (or be more likely to be true than a false belief which would more likely reduce our survivability and well-being).


Ok, let us assume that this hypothetical-atheist view is correct.


Then we bring up this point, that there is a lot of evidence that belief in God (and in particular the Christian God) increases the well-being of the believers.


Believers experience peace, joy and comfort in the midst of the trials of life. As a result, depression, mental illness, suicide are substantially reduced in committed believers (committed followers of the Christian God).


And committed believers in Christ avoid various physical habits that are self-destructive. So, belief in the Christian God increases our mental (and other) well-being and survivability.


Therefore, based on the atheist’s reasoning (presented above), the Christian God must be true.



from same book

 

[createdtoworship]

some questions I have,

what give a multiverse the power to create?

why does anything exist at all?

if an uncaused multiverse exists (theoretically), why does it exist? If it is mindless, loveless, and massless (which it would have to be to be outside time), why would it go through the wasted energy to create a totally separate universe? Why not save it's energy?

 

[Tom 1]

If God is outside time, when did he create the universe? How does a being outside time do anything? How would it sequence it actions? Can it do one thing before another?

Frankly, an infinite regress is much easier to believe.

The biblical idea of God is that he is eternal and infinite, and any ordering of events, if you like, is from that perspective a matter of will, not the result of the inevitable forward movement of time, as in the projection of something eternal into a context where it has a when. Things only have a when in time, outside of that something that happens has always happened, God’s expressions of his will are infinite, so any event that has a when in our universe is simply an expression of that infinite will into a time bound context.
Also, the bible doesn’t teach that there was nothing (or that there was anything) before the universe, just that God brought it into order.

 

[gaara4158]

so if you cannot give evidence for your statement, then we will ignore it. That is what you do to my statements that don't have evidence. Isn't this fair? If you wish, by all means give a post of where you discussed this topic, I don't recall ever talking about entropy in this thread.

Yes that’s fine, it’s the same concept as “there must be a creator because there’s been a finite amount of time.”

 

[gaara4158]

some questions I have,

what give a multiverse the power to create?

why does anything exist at all?

if an uncaused multiverse exists (theoretically), why does it exist? If it is mindless, loveless, and massless (which it would have to be to be outside time), why would it go through the wasted energy to create a totally separate universe? Why not save it's energy?

These are questions for astrophysicists and theoretical physicists, not random nontheists.

 

[Skreeper]

coming from someone who does not believe in objective morality, is their really something called objective "humanity." You self refute yourself. Careful. If God can be absolutely evil for creating eternal hell, when absolute evil cannot exist, it self refutes. This violates the rule of noncontradiction.

Atheist claim: "There are no absolutes." If this is true the statement becomes false Because it is making an absolute claim. It self refutes.

Atheist claim: "There is no truth." If it is true, the statement becomes false. It self refutes, because it is relaying the truth that truth does not exist.

This is just incoherent word salad.

our mind, the thing that commands our body and brain to commit sin, is massless.

The thing that commands my body to do things is my brain, which isn't massless. I don't believe in the "soul" or "mind".

Does that makes sense?

Nothing you have said thus far makes any sense.

True love is not possible without free-will, and the freedom to choose our destiny. And similarly, true character is not possible without free-will, and the freedom to choose our destiny. And God chooses to remain Partially Hidden in order to gives us the freedom to choose our character, to develop our character for good or for evil, and to choose our eternal destiny (as one that will match the character we have chosen to develop).

I can still have free will and decide to reject God even if I knew he existed.

He has no excuse to hide himself if he wants us to follow him.

 

[Tom 1]

This is just incoherent word salad.

I think there's a point there. How does a moral relativist decide something is 'bad'?

 

[Skreeper]

I think there's a point there. How does a moral relativist decide something is 'bad'?

Just like I decide how something is "beatiful" or "ugly". Just like I decide how something is "delicious" or "disgusting".

I don't really know how to tell you "how" I decide how something is bad other than to point to my own internal moral compass.