Where's God?

[Ed1wolf]

You said this before and I responded. Why are you repeating it?

Because it appeared you didnt understand it.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: The fact that the laws of physics break down at t = 0, points to something beyond the laws of nature and physics, ie supernatural.

dm: Wait, we don't understand something, therefore it is supernatural?

The laws of physics breaking down is certainly not "natural" ie never been empirically observed. I am not saying it proves it is supernatural but it points in that direction.

dm: That makes no sense to me. Since we are finite people on a finite planet, and the universe is immense, I am not surprised that there are some things we cannot yet figure out. The fact that we do not know the cause of the Big Bang does not prove the cause was supernatural.

I am not saying it can prove it but using basic laws of logic we can show that the cause logically has to be supernatural. A cause cannot logically be part of the effect, it has to be "outside" it. That fits one of the characteristics of the Christian God. One of His characteristics is that He transcends the physical universe. There is also evidence for the supernatural from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

ed: The BB theory has pretty much proven that the universe is an effect and according to the laws of logic, it must therefore have a cause. And by studying the characteristics of this universe, ie the effect, we can determine the characteristics of the Cause. And those characteristics fit the Christian God the best.

dm: Please explain to me what characteristics of this universe indicate the Christian God explains it the best.

One of them I mentioned above. Also, purposes exist in the universe, and we know that only persons create purposes so the cause must be personal just like the Christian God. Also, the universe is a diversity within a unity, which is the basic characteristic of the Triune Christian God. It is His fingerprint on the universe. Language exists in the universe, only the Christian God knows how to create language. And there are other characteristics.

dm: What we do know is that quantum forces seem to be everywhere, even in what we call empty space. We find that particles of matter and anti-matter are springing into existence all the time in "empty space" only to annihilate each other a split second later. It happens all the time, even in the "nothingness" of space.

We also know that all of space time collapses to nothing when we trace back to the Big Bang. Beyond that there could be some sort of space time that may differ considerably from ours. What is that space time like? How do quantum effects work there? We simply don't know.

It cannot be a quantum event that caused the universe to come into existence because QM requires an interval of time in order to occur but at t = 0 there is no time for it to occur. And the fact that the universe traces backward to nothing confirms the Christian teaching that the universe was created out of nothing. There is no evidence that another space and time existed prior to the BB.

 

[muichimotsu]

Diamonds, petroleum, glaciers, and snowflakes reduction in entropy is just based on the molecular structure and there has to be a temporary huge increase in entropy. Trees assume what we are trying to prove so you cant use them as an example. But I notice the article you provide only refers to examples that ARE manmade, refrigerators, heaters, and etc. If earth also produces no loss in entropy then why does the article not mention it as a natural example?

Technically, pretty sure both of you are wrong in that the laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems, and earth is not a closed system because it gets energy from the sun constantly. So the problems of entropy apply only on the scale of the universe and that's if we assume it's a closed system, which we cannot be absolutely sure about.

The mere positing of the supernatural doesn't add credence because it could literally just fit anything in any argument from ignorance that then cannot be shown to be wrong because of specific qualities granted in the case of God (or anything, really)

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Diamonds, petroleum, glaciers, and snowflakes reduction in entropy is just based on the molecular structure and there has to be a temporary huge increase in entropy. Trees assume what we are trying to prove so you cant use them as an example. But I notice the article you provide only refers to examples that ARE manmade, refrigerators, heaters, and etc. If earth also produces no loss in entropy then why does the article not mention it as a natural example?

The point, Ed, is this:

You seem to be impressed with the recurrence of the word "personal" when you say "Nothing personal has ever been produced except by personal beings." But this is nonsense, as I've explained more than once.

To say that a personal being - a baby - was produced by other personal beings is to use the word "produced" in a misleading way. Yes, the baby emerged from a personal being, and yes, a personal being was used to grow the baby, and yes, two personal beings triggered the change that led to the baby being formed. But so what? They didn't invent the process that produced the personal being. Personal beings were made by the same process that all other living things were made: evolution. And that is an impersonal force.

So your "argument" that God must exist because there are personal beings in this universe is simply nonsense - quite literally, non-sense. Personal being exist because of an accident in evolution, nothing more. The personal was produced by the impersonal.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because it appeared you didnt understand it.

Really? We have been through this multiple times. You have asserted that "begat" could mean became the ancestor of. In response I worte:

I'm sorry, but that is simply not what it says. Here are the verses I quoted with your interpretation thrown in:

10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat [an ancestor of ] Arphaxad two years after the flood:

11And Shem lived after he begat [the ancestor of ] Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.

12And [many thousands of years later ] Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat [an ancestor of ] Salah:

13And Arphaxad lived after he begat [the ancestor of ] Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.

14And [ many thousands of years later ] Salah lived thirty years, and begat [an ancestor of ] Eber:​

Very creative interpretation, but surely this is not the author's intention.

And the words in red are the words that one would need to add to these verses to make them mean what you claim they mean. And as I explained before, that is a very creative interpretation, but surely this is not the author's intention. And you responded to this. And then all of a sudden you act like the conversation never happened and its like:

Good morning! It's groundhogs day!
Ancient genealogies often have a mixture of direct descendents and descendents many generations into the future...​

And so you just repeat the same day all over again with you repeating the same thing you said last time we discussed it, and pretending the previous discussion never happened.

Why won't you acknowledge that past conversations happened?

Again, the writer of Genesis clearly did not think the flood was 2 million years ago. If he thought that, he would not have written it this way. And even if he thought it was 2 million years ago, he was surely mistaken, for no such flood happened.

 

[John Helpher]

That doesn't sound a whole lot different from an atheistic view of the universe, where the forces of the universe are present in people as they work good.

Forces of the universe? I'm wondering if you understand what Atheism is; there is no intelligence, guidance, or purposeful intent. There is nothing except random, irrational processes which, through dumb luck, interacted in a way which resulted in everything we see now.

Interesting. In Christian America, 125,000 people have died of Covid.

Most of this would be because these Christians aren't taking necessary safety precautions. They argue against wearing masks and they continued gathering together in large groups. That's not God's fault. He's given us the means (i.e. science) to understand what the virus is and how to slow the spread of it, but we mostly ignore those instructions (although, to be fair, even non-Christians tend to ignore safety guidelines when those guidelines interfere with what they want to do).

It is a shame to Christianity in general that so many people in the name of Christianity have given such a poor testimony through their stubborn refusal to act with wisdom and kindness. It is especially galling that so much of this resistance to safety precautions has been for political expediency disguised as a willingness to trust in God's protection.

How can a loving God watch what is going on in the ICUs, have the power to intervene, but instead just choose watching and comforting? That does not make sense to me.

I suspect it does not make sense to you because you're missing a good deal of information. Your perspective is very tiny; you only see a God who does not conform to your ideas of how he should behave and as a result you think he's the bad guy, similar to a child who thinks his parents are unfair for not allowing him to eat sugar for every meal.

When it comes to God, understanding is always more forthcoming when we stop blaming him and recognize that he has the right to do anything or to do nothing. Until we can accept that as the starting point, our outrage will always blind us to the bigger picture.

Because life is good. Death deprives us of that good.

There's a lot of good information, especially in the teachings of Jesus, to contradict this, but rather than quoting from an overtly religious text I'll post a few quotes from Socrates who will school you on just how foolish your comments about death really are (if I may be so verbose). Atheists tend to view Socrates as an Atheist so perhaps he will get through to you in a more useful way. These quotes are from his trial (typically referred to as the apology), where he is sentenced to death by corrupt officials who hate him for his criticisms.
-------
"Strange, indeed, would be my conduct, O men of Athens, if I who, when I was ordered by the generals whom you chose to command me at Potidaea and Amphipolis and Delium, remained where they placed me, like any other man, facing death—if now, when, as I conceive and imagine, God orders me to fulfil the philosopher's mission of searching into myself and other men, I were to desert my post through fear of death, or any other fear; that would indeed be strange, and I might justly be arraigned in court for denying the existence of the gods, if I disobeyed the oracle because I was afraid of death, fancying that I was wise when I was not wise. For the fear of death is indeed the pretence of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being a pretence of knowing the unknown; and no one knows whether death, which men in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good. Is not this ignorance of a disgraceful sort, the ignorance which is the conceit that a man knows what he does not know? And in this respect only I believe myself to differ from men in general, and may perhaps claim to be wiser than they are:—that whereas I know but little of the world below, I do not suppose that I know: but I do know that injustice and disobedience to a better, whether God or man, is evil and dishonourable, and I will never fear or avoid a possible good rather than a certain evil".

" I would rather die having spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet at law ought I or any man to use every way of escaping death. Often in battle there can be no doubt that if a man will throw away his arms, and fall on his knees before his pursuers, he may escape death; and in other dangers there are other ways of escaping death, if a man is willing to say and do anything. The difficulty, my friends, is not to avoid death, but to avoid unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death. I am old and move slowly, and the slower runner has overtaken me, and my accusers are keen and quick, and the faster runner, who is unrighteousness, has overtaken them. And now I depart hence condemned by you to suffer the penalty of death,—they too go their ways condemned by the truth to suffer the penalty of villainy and wrong; and I must abide by my award—let them abide by theirs. I suppose that these things may be regarded as fated,—and I think that they are well".

"But the oracle made no sign of opposition, either when I was leaving my house in the morning, or when I was on my way to the court, or while I was speaking, at anything which I was going to say; and yet I have often been stopped in the middle of a speech [Socrates earlier explained that this "oracle" is a voice he hears, which he believes to be the voice of God guiding him], but now in nothing I either said or did touching the matter in hand has the oracle opposed me. What do I take to be the explanation of this silence? I will tell you. It is an intimation that what has happened to me is a good, and that those of us who think that death is an evil are in error. For the customary sign would surely have opposed me had I been going to evil and not to good".

 

[doubtingmerle]

Diamonds, petroleum, glaciers, and snowflakes reduction in entropy is just based on the molecular structure and there has to be a temporary huge increase in entropy. Trees assume what we are trying to prove so you cant use them as an example.

Ah, diamonds, petroleum, glaciers, snowflakes and trees can all have a reduction in entropy. And none of these require human interaction. All that is required is that we are dealing with an open system that is able to share heat and/or matter with the outside environment. If that happens, a system can decrease in entropy. And if there is a mechanism to use that decrease in entropy such that the end result is something we consider organized, then we can get things like diamonds, snowflakes, and glaciers.

You say there is a temporary huge increase in entropy involved. Flapdoodle. Please document your claim.

There is nothing temporary about it. If an open system decreases in entropy, it can only do that by transferring heat and/or matter to the outside environment. When it does that, the outside environment always has a net permanent increase in entropy greater than or equal to the amount of entropy that was transferred to it from our open system.

This permanent increase of the environmental entropy occurs regardless of whether a person is interacting with the process. People take low entropy carbon and oxygen and convert them into high entropy carbon dioxide. The increase in the universe's entropy due to the fact that you breathed out carbon dioxide is always greater than any decrease in entropy as a result of what you do.

You downplay the mechanism of molecular structure. Why doesn't that count? Again, what we see is a reduction of entropy of these open systems. It doesn't matter if the mechanism that does it is molecular processes, machines, planetary dynamics, or humans. As long is it is an open system that transfers heat and/or matter with the environment, then any number of different mechanisms can use that to create a low entropy substance.

You allow that trees and humans can cause a decrease in entropy in an open system (and I might add, they can do it only if they increase the entropy of the rest of the environment more than the local decrease.) If trees and humans can decrease entropy of an open system, why can't apes? And if apes can decrease entropy, then how exactly do the laws of thermodynamics keep them from evolving?

But I notice the article you provide only refers to examples that ARE manmade, refrigerators, heaters, and etc. If earth also produces no loss in entropy then why does the article not mention it as a natural example?

See Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics (gmu.edu)?

 

[doubtingmerle]

OK, Ed, what will it be now? Hitler, gay sex, or the Big Bang?

The laws of physics breaking down is certainly not "natural" ie never been empirically observed. I am not saying it proves it is supernatural but it points in that direction.

The Big Bang? Ok, lets shift modes and talk about the Big Bang.

Please tell me how you concluded that "never been empirically observed" means "supernatural".

If nobody had ever empirically observed me hit a tulip with a baseball bat, and then I do it, would that be supernatural?

I am not saying it can prove it but using basic laws of logic we can show that the cause logically has to be supernatural.

You can't prove it is supernatural but you can prove it?

Let me correct your sentence. You can't prove it; you can't prove it.

A cause cannot logically be part of the effect, it has to be "outside" it. That fits one of the characteristics of the Christian God. One of His characteristics is that He transcends the physical universe.

You seem to be confusing claiming to transcend the universe and transcending the universe. Those are two different things.

If I were to claim to transcend the universe, would that claim prove I was the cause of the universe?

God as described in the Old Testament doesn't seem to transcend the firmament, which is a fictitious structure thought to hold stars and rainwater.

There is also evidence for the supernatural from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Mathematics can't be expressed in language, therefore God?

Words in languages can't be defined without using other words, that are defined using other words, that are defined using other words, in one big circle. You can't define a language with out being circular. Ergo God?

One of them I mentioned above. Also, purposes exist in the universe, and we know that only persons create purposes so the cause must be personal just like the Christian God.

Apes can also have purposes. Have we proven that the world was created by apes?

Also, the universe is a diversity within a unity, which is the basic characteristic of the Triune Christian God. It is His fingerprint on the universe.

When my cat vomits, there is a diversity within a unity. Ergo God?

Language exists in the universe, only the Christian God knows how to create language.

Humans and dolphins have also created languages. Was the world made by dolphins?

It cannot be a quantum event that caused the universe to come into existence because QM requires an interval of time in order to occur but at t = 0 there is no time for it to occur.

Beyond the Big Bang we don't know. It is like dividing zero by zero. The answer is undetermined. Perhaps the same basic space time exists when you go back "before" the Big Bang. Perhaps there is some other sort of space time. We don't know.

What we do know is that quantum effects are universal, even in areas of space that we consider to be "nothing". We simply do not know if quantum effects, or something like quantum effects existed before the Big Bang, but it sure seems likely.

And the fact that the universe traces backward to nothing confirms the Christian teaching that the universe was created out of nothing.

Suppose that somebody had started a new religion that teaches that the world was created by doubtingmerle out of nothing. Does that make me the creator?

There is no evidence that another space and time existed prior to the BB.

What we observe is that something other than the forces of our universe appear to have inflated spacetime in the first fraction of a second, and even today is inflating spacetime. This appears to not be something caused by the universe, but something "outside" it that inflates spacetime. We don't know what is doing that.

 

[Ed1wolf]

No, sorry, there was no global flood 2 million years ago. The problems with a global flood are insurmountable. See Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition (talkorigins.org) . If you will take a look at that and still come back and say you think such a flood occurred, then lets start another thread to discuss it.

Many of those problems dont apply to a flood that occurred 2 mya. As far as animals traveling God could provide for them as they traveled and protect them. There is evidence that the Chinese in the Middle ages built wooden seaworthy ships 450 feet long. And Noah's technology would have been far more advanced prior to the scattering to the languages at Babel similar to Middle Age technology. As I stated earlier the global flood was primarily a supernatural event. The flood story does not mention sheres which is the hebrew word for insects, other arthropods, and most aquatic animals to be taken into the ark so they were not included om to the ark.

dm: In the meantime, I find Genesis as a book of errors. It says trees were made before the sun, which is wrong.

No, the entire physical universe was created at Gen. 1:1. The sun was "revealed" later after the debris surrounding the earth was removed to an ancient hebrew observer on the surface. Plants were created before animals on the third age just like the fossil record records.

dm: It says creation took six days, which is wrong.

No, the hebrew can also mean six ages of finite but indeterminate length which we now know from God's other book, nature is the correct interpretation.

dm: It has two accounts of creation, one which says beasts were created before man, and one which says beasts were created after man.

No, we know from studying ancient documents that very often ancient writers give a summarized list of chronological events and then "zoom" in on the key event. This is what the story in Genesis 2 is, it is a zoom in on the sixth age which is the most important because Man was created in that age and establishes His relationship with God on a day in that age.

dm: Genesis says stars are in a "firmament" with water above the firmament.

The separation of the "waters" refers to the formation of troposphere, and the stars became visible in the expanse (firmament) of the sky.

dm: Genesis says God gave us every plant to eat, but we know some are poisonous.

As long as man ate from the Tree of life no poison could kill him. This was how he could potentially live forever, the tree of life provided the necessary chemicals to protect humans from death.

dm: Genesis says Adam named all the animals, but there are millions of species.

If he hadnt rebelled, he had eternity to name them.

dm: Genesis says people lived to be over 900 years old, which is impossible.

Evidence?

dm: It says languages were created instantaneously, but we know they evolved over time.

Actually linguistic experts like Chomsky say that there is evidence that our brains have a built in syntax and grammar. That shows that at one time there was one language.

dm: Genesis refers to people with camels long before camels were domesticated.

Evidence?

dm: Let's face it. Your claim that the extraordinary science of Genesis proves it is written by God is wrong. Not only is the science far from extraordinary, but it is often flat out wrong.

Fraid not, see above.

 

[Ed1wolf]

If you refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, are you being fair to them? If you refuse to let them eat at your restaurant, shop in your store, ride on your airline, or serve on your school board, are you being fair to them? If you are not fair to them, will they want to be fair to you?

Fairness is irrelevant. Our nation is founded on rights. As long as your religious practice does not infringe on other peoples rights as noted in the Bill of Rights you are free to practice it as stated in the First Amendment.

dm: Taking it further, if you refuse to let women, gays, people of color, Jews, or any other minority buy your cakes, eat at your restaurant, shop in your store, ride on your airline, or serve on your school board, are you being fair to them? If you are not fair to them, will they want to be fair to you?

On the other hand, if we don't allow you to practice your religion that excludes certain minorities from your services, are we being fair to you?

Race and ethnicity are immutable characteristics, it is against our laws to discriminate against such things. However, there are no laws against discriminating against immoral behaviors. Klan members are fired from jobs and refused services all the time.

dm: These are actually hard questions, with no easy answer.

Yes, some of them are hard questions but in that our nation is based on freedom most of these decisions should be made by the people involved not imposed by the government.

dm: My point is that we cannot allow religion to be a trump card that overrides all other laws. If we say you can discriminate because you are religious, what about the non-religious? If I wanted to, can I discriminate too? If you can discriminate but I cannot, how is that fair? And if everybody can discriminate anytime they want, will society stay cohesive?

See above for a rational and Constitutional way to handle it.

dm: Many people on both sides consider that the other side has no valid argument, and refuse to listen. But these are actually legitimate questions. In a proper democracy, people would hear each other out, and come up with rules that are as fair as possible to all.

I agree but in America where freedom is one of our most important principles, the government does not have the authority to enforce fairness, only justice based on our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Fairness is a subjective idea, we have to have objective justice. Life itself is not always what people think is fair.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1Wolf,
Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over when they have been answered in detail? What is your strategy? Are you hoping we all walk away shaking our heads in sorrow, while you pound your chest in victory?

Where have they been answered in detail? I have repeated some of them because you appear not to fully understand them. My purpose is to demonstrate the rationality of Christianity not convert anyone because I know I cannot convert anyone, only God can do that. Even many Christians dont realize how Christianity is the most rational worldview.

ed: You do have a reason but it is not objectively rational, it may be subjectively rational, but it is based on an irrational sentimentality for homo sapiens...Your wisdom is just based on personal preference. How is your personal preference better than someone like Jeffrey Dahmer?...But human wisdom is just based on emotion for homo sapiens, not anything objectively rational....Yes, but your opposition has the same foundation as those that committed it. Irrational Human emotion. Why are your brain chemicals that caused your emotion to oppose it "better" than the chemical reactions causing the emotions by the Nazis that implemented "bad".
Are you done yet?

How can chemical reactions before an act cause that act to be moral...

dm: Now are you done? I get a turn? Thank you.

As you should know, I responded to this in detail in two lengthy posts last week. Instead of responding to those posts, you just keep rambling on with the same thing you have been saying for months.

There are at least two motivations for moral behavior. First, we admire other humans and want to help them. Second, we need other humans, and can only reach a state of fulfilling existence by cooperating fairly with others. If we choose fulfilling existence, then we need to cooperate. If we were to seek fulfilling existence, but not choose cooperation, then we are not being fair. Those who choose not to be fair can and should be condemned for their choices.

The second reason is not subjective. It is a matter of life or death. If we want to live, then certain rules of fair behavior need to exist.

No, even the desire to live or die is subjective. Some people want to die. Some people want to live. Nothing objective there. Either decision is not based on anything objective, it is just the persons preference.

ed: Christian morality is based in the objectively existing moral character of the Creator as revealed in the Bible. Not pure emotion as humanism is. objectively true wisdom.

dm: And yet you make the subjective decision that "the Creator" (all three of them) has "objectively existing moral character". How is your subjective view that the Creator is objective better than my subjective view that people are great?

No, God's objective existence can be demonstrated using logic, though not proven of course. Your belief that humans are great cannot be demonstrated with logic and in fact if atheistic evolution is true then we definitely are not great or special.

dm: And if you cannot accept my subjective view that people are great, what about the objective argument that certain rules are required in order for us to live?

Just because the majority of humans WANT to live, does not mean that that view is any better than the humans that dont want to live or that dont want other humans to live. Morality by majority vote has led to many atrocities.

 

[John Helpher]

You seem to be confusing claiming to transcend the universe and transcending the universe. Those are two different things.

The point is, what cause caused this effect? You can't explain away the science of our universe with obnoxious jargon. Flipping Atheists! You guys are always so hard-hearted. Do you understand what Atheism really is? No intelligence. No purpose. No intent. No guidance. Just random, irrational, dumb luck processes which chanced into the amazingly, stupefyingly astoundingly complex, dynamic, interlocking systems we see all throughout the universe, but especially in life.

You seem to genuinely believe that all this complexity is a result of accident. My goodness but your argument is stupefying. If you're right, then your own arguments are simply a result of chaotic, random, dumb-luck chemical reactions; you prove that you have zero credibility with such an argument. It's just like, you're the rise of skywalker of Atheists with this kind of argument!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The point is, what cause caused this effect? You can't explain away the science of our universe with obnoxious jargon. Flipping Atheists! You guys are always so hard-hearted. Do you understand what Atheism really is? No intelligence. No purpose. No intent. No guidance. Just random, irrational, dumb luck processes which chanced into the amazingly, stupefyingly astoundingly complex, dynamic, interlocking systems we see all throughout the universe, but especially in life.

You seem to genuinely believe that all this complexity is a result of accident. My goodness but your argument is stupefying. If you're right, then your own arguments are simply a result of chaotic, random, dumb-luck chemical reactions; you prove that you have zero credibility with such an argument. It's just like, you're the rise of skywalker of Atheists with this kind of argument!

Hi John,
Please try to be more respectful. The rules of this forum enjoin all of us, Christians and non-Christians alike, to be polite to each other. Telling people that they are hard-hearted, implying that they are stupid, saying that their arguments are stupefying and being dismissive of your debating opponent are not polite ways to react. You can disagree with @doubtingmerle without insulting him.

 

[John Helpher]

Please try to be more respectful.

Try dealing with the substance of my post instead of feigning outrage.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Technically, pretty sure both of you are wrong in that the laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems, and earth is not a closed system because it gets energy from the sun constantly. So the problems of entropy apply only on the scale of the universe and that's if we assume it's a closed system, which we cannot be absolutely sure about.

I think you are referring to the concept that entropy never decreases in a closed system. That is correct. But technically that is not the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states:

Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time. Source: Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia​

That is commonly called the Clausius statement of the second law. Some people use the Kelvin statement, which is just another was of saying the same thing.

The second law is quite useful in designing engines. If a boiler sits idle, the heat dissipates into the room. The first law says no energy was lost. Where did the energy go? It can no longer drive our steam engine. What happened? The energy was not lost. Instead, it was converted to a different form, entropy. The second law says you can't get that heat back into the boiler unless you have some other change, that is, unless you have an open system where some external cause works on your system from outside. The entropy of your closed system increased, and there is nothing you can do to reverse that process as long as it remains a closed system. A corollary of all this is:

The entropy of a closed system never decreases.
​

That is commonly referred to as the second law. It is not technically the second law.

The second law of thermodynamics is frequently misunderstood by both creationists and evolutionists. Creationists incorrectly miss the fact that entropy can decrease in an open system. Evolutionists recognize that entropy can decrease in an open system, but credit the sun with decreasing the entropy. This is wrong. The sun increases the energy of the planet and the entropy of the planet, putting it into a high energy, high entropy state (in the extreme, think runaway global warming). But heat transfer to outer space in effect gives that unwanted entropy to outer space. Take it! We don't want it!

The sun loses energy and entropy. Outer space gains energy and entropy. And the earth is in the middle, basically staying in approximately the same state, but it can gain or lose energy, and it can gain or lose entropy.

See Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics (gmu.edu)

​

 

[doubtingmerle]

Flipping Atheists! You guys are always so hard-hearted. Do you understand what Atheism really is?

John, you are welcome to post here, but I agree with @InterestedAtheist that you are going to need to tone it down if you want to stay. You are allowed to attack arguments all you want, but you are not allowed to attack other people by calling them hard-hearted or other names. Can we ask that you please stick with the rules of this forum, and refrain from attacks on the person?

 

[Tinker Grey]

John, you are welcome to post here, but I agree with @InterestedAtheist that you are going to need to tone it down if you want to stay. You are allowed to attack arguments all you want, but you are not allowed to attack other people by calling them hard-hearted or other names. Can we ask that you please stick with the rules of this forum, and refrain from attacks on the person?

Perhaps, he doesn't understand what Christianity really is.

 

[John Helpher]

John, you are welcome to post here, but I agree with @InterestedAtheist that you are going to need to tone it down if you want to stay.

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my post. I expressed my frustration more strongly than I should have. I'm sorry for that. Allow me some leeway to explain my point of view, and perhaps we can come to some mutual respect.

Here's some comments from a recent post of yours:

When my cat vomits, there is a diversity within a unity. Ergo God?

Ed was essentially saying that creation itself is evidence of intelligence and design, and you reply with a snarky rejoinder about cat vomit, replete with a winky face. If you were saying something that both you and Ed would find genuinely clever or amusing I could understand the winky face, but I'm pretty sure you knew Ed would not appreciate his comments being compared to cat vomit so what was that winky face for?

Suppose that somebody had started a new religion that teaches that the world was created by doubtingmerle out of nothing. Does that make me the creator?

Ed isn't saying it was created from nothing. That is the Atheist position; that there was nothing and then suddenly, there was everything including time/space/matter and all the laws which govern these concepts. No guidance, no intelligence, no purpose, no intent (as these things require a mind); just nothingness and then everything. It's fine for you to believe that, but Christians don't believe that. Christians are saying there was God, and God used his intelligence and power to make all these things. If there is a creator, then it is inaccurate to say there was nothing. Have you ever heard it explained this way before? Can you see how it looks a lot like stubbornness to continue arguing that Christians say there was nothing?

I realize you are offended by that, but what else do you call it when someone consistently misrepresents an argument? Maybe there is still some misunderstanding here, but in my experience this misunderstanding is unreasonably persistent.

OK, Ed, what will it be now? Hitler, gay sex, or the Big Bang?

This sounds an awful lot like sniping. I mean, maybe that's why this particular area was set up, so you guys can have a place where you can do this kind of thing and it's just understood that that's what happens here.

I'm actually quite happy to participate in respectful discussion, but surely you can see how it comes across when you make demands for respect and then make the kind of comments you've been directing toward Ed, who, from what I can see, was being respectful.

You can't prove it is supernatural but you can prove it?

Let me correct your sentence. You can't prove it; you can't prove it.

I can see how Ed's comment could have come across as confusing, but if that is the case then you'd just ask for clarification or elaboration instead of this snarky "let me correct your sentence" and then change it to something ridiculous. How is that respectful?

Ed's point was that the cause of the universe must be able to exist outside of the universe. He can't empirically prove this by putting the universe in a test tube for you, but logically the creator exists outside of what he creates. That's all he was saying and quite frankly I don't think his comments were so confusing that you could not come to that conclusion.

I realize you all strongly disagree with Ed, but browsing through your responses to him, there is a persistent hint of ridicule which you yourselves may have become so used to that you don't even realize it's happening, and then, when someone like me comes along and says you're being stubborn, suddenly you're very offended.

Here's an example:

Perhaps, he doesn't understand what Christianity really is.

I don't understand Christianity because I said you guys are stubborn in an admittedly more aggressive manner than I should have? And what does that imply for you guys? Because you're not Christian it's okay for you to be aggressive? There is one standard for you and a different standard for me and if I dare to challenge the sniping you'll hit me over the head with my own Christianity. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the meaning of your comment, but that's how it comes across.

Here's one last example

Personal beings were made by the same process that all other living things were made: evolution. And that is an impersonal force.

So your "argument" that God must exist because there are personal beings in this universe is simply nonsense - quite literally, non-sense. Personal being exist because of an accident in evolution, nothing more. The personal was produced by the impersonal.

Why is Ed's argument nonsense? Because you disagree with his conclusion? That's not a good reason to call an argument nonsense. He's expressing it in a strange way (i.e. the personal thing) but the essence of his argument is that intelligence is the cause for ordered information. That makes perfect sense. It is observable and testable. Yes, testable. We can literally test that random change will not produce ordered information. Here's one method:

Take this paragraph of text and use a random number generator to select a letter e.g. if the generator outputs 11, then, starting at the first letter, count to the 11th letter. Then use a random letter generator to replace that letter e.g. if the generator outputs an "e" then replace the current letter with an "e".

Keep repeating this process and you will quickly see that such random changes only degrade the information; you will end up with genuine nonsense. Can you see how I'm not calling your argument nonsense just because I disagree with you? I'm using an empirical test to demonstrate how the nonsense forms in real time.

Now extrapolate the results of this test to something much more complex than a paragraph of text, like amino acids, proteins, and DNA. Even the simplest protein has more than 100 amino acids in it, all of which are precisely ordered in a long chain and only then, folded into what is essentially a nano machine.

The chances of even a single protein forming by chance is a number so small that it essentially becomes meaningless as useful data. One protein. The simplest cell is made up of more than a hundred different proteins all of which dynamically work together to make the cell what it is. All testable, observable evidence demonstrates that this is simply not possible through random chance. It is nonsense.

And yet you call Ed's argument nonsense. Why? You didn't even give a reason other than that the way he explained it was strange (i.e. the personal thing) and concluded that the explanation must be evolution.

That does not come across as respectful, to me. It sounds like the old, familiar tinge of intellectual brow beating which is found in so many Atheist arguments. Like I said earlier, perhaps you guys don't even realize you're doing it or maybe you're so sure that the existence of a super intelligent being is ridiculous that you feel such sniping is justified.

I talked to an Atheist some years back who tried to explain that he did, indeed, know that he was ridiculing Christians, but he said it was justified because he thought that doing so would genuinely help the Christians awake from their foolishness. In his mind, he was helping them by mocking them. But, when I ridiculed him, he was suddenly angry. I tried to explain to him that I was only trying to help him awake from his foolishness, but his feelings were so hurt that he could not see past them. Perhaps there is some of that happening here without you guys realizing it.

Anyway, I'll leave it there for now. Let me know what you think. Can we still salvage some semblance of respectful debate here, or will I be banished for my temerity?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I expressed my frustration more strongly than I should have. I'm sorry for that.

No need to apologize for expressing frustration strongly. You are welcome to argue as strongly as you want, as long as you are arguing the point, instead of attacking the other person.

Ed was essentially saying that creation itself is evidence of intelligence and design, and you reply with a snarky rejoinder about cat vomit, replete with a winky face. If you were saying something that both you and Ed would find genuinely clever or amusing I could understand the winky face, but I'm pretty sure you knew Ed would not appreciate his comments being compared to cat vomit so what was that winky face for?

My comment about cat vomit proving God was intended to be sarcasm. Sarcasm is usually easy to detect in real life, because the person's expressions reveal it as sarcasm. On the Internet, sarcasm can often appear to be serious. (I know. More than once I argued against something I saw posted on the Internet, only to be told later that the statement I was responding to was just sarcasm.) When I use sarcasm, I sometimes find it helpful to include a winky smile face so everybody can see I am just joking.

Ed isn't saying it was created from nothing. That is the Atheist position; that there was nothing and then suddenly, there was everything including time/space/matter and all the laws which govern these concepts. No guidance, no intelligence, no purpose, no intent (as these things require a mind); just nothingness and then everything. It's fine for you to believe that, but Christians don't believe that. Christians are saying there was God, and God used his intelligence and power to make all these things. If there is a creator, then it is inaccurate to say there was nothing. Have you ever heard it explained this way before? Can you see how it looks a lot like stubbornness to continue arguing that Christians say there was nothing?

Actually, the universe coming from nothing is a big part of Ed's argument. He argued that, "the fact that the universe traces backward to nothing confirms the Christian teaching that the universe was created out of nothing." He gets that from his interpretation of the scientific viewpoint, that when you trace back to the moment of the Big Bang, our equations become undefined, analogous to being zero divided by zero. Ed interprets that as "nothing" but that is not exactly true. We are at the equivalent of nothing divided by nothing, which is undefined.

And yes, when Ed says it traces back to nothing, he does not mean no God. He means "nothing (except for God)." Somehow he thinks he can tack (except for God) unto nothing. If he can do that, why cannot scientists tack on (except for quantum effects, cosmic inflation, etc.) When we tack in things like quantum effects and cosmic inflation (which were most likely there at the moment of the Big Bang) there is indeed "something" that could have caused the universe.

This sounds an awful lot like sniping. I mean, maybe that's why this particular area was set up, so you guys can have a place where you can do this kind of thing and it's just understood that that's what happens here.

The jokes about "Hitler, gay sex, or the cause of the Big Bang" deal with the history of this thread. It began when people brought in Hitler. That is verification of Godwin's Law that says discussion of Hitler seems to end up on every Internet thread. This thread then switched to the cause of the Big Bang, which I have found to be almost as ubiquitous as discussion of Hitler around here. So I started joking about always diverting to Hitler or the Big Bang. Then discussion of gay sex continued. All three topics have nothing to do with the opening post. But they keep popping up. Perhaps we should rename this thread, "Hitler, gay sex, and the cause of the Big Bang"

If my jokes aren't funny, please ignore them. As my kids put it, they can always expect a few Daddy jokes from me. Yes, I know Daddy jokes aren't the best, but hey, you are talking to the Dad, and so you will get Daddy jokes.

Oh, and Happy New Year!

 

[John Helpher]

My comment about cat vomit proving God was intended to be sarcasm.

I don't understand why you would be sarcastic toward someone who was attempting to express his honest perspecrtive during a debate. Why would you do that? This is especially true considering the way you rebuked me about not making issues personal and discussing with respect. It's as though you have one standard for yourself (and presumably other Atheists) and a different standard for those Christians who attempt to engage with you.

Humor has become a rather significant issue in the past few decades. So very few people understand that humor is actually one of the most complex issues to understand properly. It doesn't seem that way because that is the nature of humor; it is so often mistaken for causal foolishness.

Some people use humor to bring joy to themselves and others. This is the truest essence of what humor is meant to be. However, a more subversive, yet still consistent-with-truth aspect of humor is to bring attention to an important issue. I say subversive because this is more so an issue of justice co-opting humor; in this context justice is justified. The humor is not overtly meant to result in joy, but for the just, the pursuit of justice is joy even if it is not funny in the way that we would normally think of humor.

But that is not the kind of joke you're making. You were not trying to bring joy to Ed nor were you using satire to shed light on an important issue that may otherwise be missed or suppressed. Your comparison of his argument to cat vomit was simply to communicate your disdain for his perspective. You are using humor in perhaps the most egregious way possible; as a cloak for your bitterness.

Try not to take that personally. I think we both know that referring to an opinion as cat vomit isn't funny to the person who offers that opinion. Adding a winky face doesn't make it funny. Calling it sarcasm doesn't make it funny. The opposite is true; it's as though you want the bitterness to be understood. You want to think of yourself as a reasonable, rational person, but still, that bitterness wants to be recognized, so you add a winky face to make it clear. Why would you call someone's argument cat vomit and then think they'll be happy with a winky face. That makes no sense.

This is why I so strongly suggested that you are hard-hearted. Again, I feel I must comfort you by asking you not to take this personally, but rather to genuinely consider the merit of my argument. The cat vomit thing simply does not make sense in this context, except as an expression of contempt.

And yes, when Ed says it traces back to nothing, he does not mean no God. He means "nothing (except for God)."

Thank you for acknowledging this. Except, you go from this rather sincere interpretation of what Ed means (despite the confusing way in which he expresses it) to this...

Somehow he thinks he can tack (except for God) unto nothing.

He's not tacking anything on. He's just expressing it in a confusing way. It is up to sincere people to see past the confusion of what a person is attempting to express. Obviously, if there is a supreme intelligence which created the universe, then there was not nothing.

From OUR perspective everything "boomed" into existence. We get this idea of a big bang based on the red shift we've observe, which indicates that the universe is expanding. If it is expanding, then, going back in time it would be contracting and because the universe is finite, this contraction, in the context of time, must have an initial starting point.

Something caused this point to be and to expand. Not only that, but to be a "big" and to be a "bang", would necessarily require the laws of physics to determine what big and what bang is. How can that be before there is a big bang which creates these laws? Even more than that, laws have no meaning without intent and yet everything we see in the universe; all the ordered structure, dynamic interactions, and ordered complexity inherently demonstrate an intelligence behind all that order. There is intent behind the order of these laws.

We don't know what existence is like outside of time/space/matter, and that is the point; there wasn't nothing. We tend to perceive it as everything coming from nothing because we lack perspective. For all we know the creator has a gigantic warehouse full of materials that he used for creation. Ed hasn't come to that realization yet (or at least, he's not describing it in that way) but he's not wrong about the need for a creator who caused all this to happen.

He's not "tacking" anything on to anything. Deep down in his spirit he knows there is a creator and that's what he's arguing for. And you call it cat vomit. Shame on you.

If your kid came home from school and said all the other kids called their drawing cat vomit and then laughed, you'd know that wasn't just a joke. You would know that your kid was being bullied. Go ahead, be upset with me for hurting your feelings. Shame on you for playing your contempt off as a joke. Shame on you for using your fatherhood to legitimize your bitterness as just a "dad joke".

And, happy new year to you, as well. Aren't we all having a rather amusing laugh right now! Thanks for hearing me out. You're a good sport.