The second law of thermodynamic

[Bread_of_Life]

Arthur

You posted:

(2) "Atheist"? What's "scientific" about a self-concocted "atheist", one who militates against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Biogenesis, etc, and who promotes his own inert, blind and mindless god-Chance? "Atheist"? How do you know for sure that the Creator-God doesn't live on Barnard's Star?

Now, quite apart from the fact that your post above was clearly inflammatory and rude, I would nonetheless like to talk to you about thermodynamics, and namely the second law of thermodynamics. Unfortunately, I cannot talk to you about the "law of biogenesis", because no such law exists in science.

However, the second law of thermodynamics is real enough - and I do believe in it fully. According to you though, I "militate against it", if you will allow the paraphrase. Why would you think this? What is it about the content of the second law of thermodynamics, or its consequences, that would make me militate against it.

Don't worry about getting technical or mathematical, I hold a bachelor of science in physics, and within that I hold a distinction in thermodynamics - so I should be able to cope.

All yours arthur.

[Arthur Durnan]

Your return was a thin read indeed in that "Non-Scientific Atheist" - why be cute about it? - failed to deal with his god-Chance - inert, blind & mindless, tho he be. Verry interesting.

The First Law of thermodynamics states that energy, the stuff of which the universe is made, can neither be created or destroyed. Two conclusions follow: (1) the total energy in universe remains constant; and (2) energy must be self-existent & eternal - exactly what the Holy Bible says about Creator-God.

The Second Law of thermof=dynamics states that while total energy remains constant, usable energy and order continually decrease as entropy increases. All fires eventually burn out. Neither the sun nor the other stars could have been burning forever. Clearly, a beginning occurred (as in Genesis One).

So, I'm still interested in YOUR self-concocted god-Chance, the inert, blind & mindless one. Even Professor Antony Flew of Reading U. has now come over to the Creator-God's team, perhaps the most outstanding philophical "atheist" in the works. Hmm.

And let me hear too about your "Roman Catholic church" & what Jesus Christ said about it and precisely where? Bench-press that. Have a great Christmas, yes?

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[traveller]

This could be a very interesting topic if the personal attacks stop. While I don't want to censor the topic, I do want you guys to be polite and civil to one another. Otherwise, buh-bye thread.

[Bread_of_Life]

Traveller,

I will of course attempt to be civil in all my replies on this board, regardless of which thread they are in. I would of course hope that Arthur would do me the same courtesy.

Arthur Durnan

The First Law of thermodynamics states that energy, the stuff of which the universe is made, can neither be created or destroyed.

Not quite so. The first law of thermodynamics is based on the premise that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it doesn't explicitely state it. The first law, in its differential form is:

dU = dQ - dW

That means, in layman's terms:

change in total energy of the universe = change in heat - work done

(1) the total energy in universe remains constant;

Correct.

(2) energy must be self-existent & eternal

Incorrect, this is not a conclusion of any law of thermodynamics. The conservation of energy, the principle that energy is neither created or destroyed is an empirical principle - it is known through testing of the current universe.

Even assuming that physical laws in the universe have always remained the same - that is, that the conservation of energy has always been a binding principle in the universe - this observation does not govern the creation of the universe, or any state before this. In other words, the observation that energy is conserved is true in this universe, but it is not a necessary logical fact - it does not always have to have been that way when or before the universe was created.

No ammount of scientific data could possibly support this essentially metaphysical presupposition.

The Second Law of thermof=dynamics states that while total energy remains constant, usable energy and order continually decrease as entropy increases.

This is an inaccurate (although not wholly incorrect) statement of the second law of thermodynamics.

The second law governs the exchange of energy between objects through work and heating. It is built on the observed fact that heat does not move from cold to hot, but rather always from hot to cold.

A variable, Entropy (notation "S") is introduced to measure the efficiency of heat/work exchange between objects. The second law reads:

dU = TdS - PdV

where dS, a small change in entropy, is defined as dS = dQ/T.

Okay, enough maths, what does this all mean? Well, one of the consequences of the second law of thermodynamics is that, if we assume a "closed system" where no heat enters or escapes (like the universe), and we do the maths, then we find that dS can only be zero or positive, entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy cannot decrease in a closed system.

However, if we assume an open system, and do the maths, it turns out that entropy is free to increase or decrease.

But what does it matter? What does entropy really mean? After all, it's just a made up variable to describe efficiency of heat exchange, what does it actually correlate to in real life?

Well, the first thing it correlates to is the capacity to do useful work. The lower the entropy, the higher a system's capacity to do useful work. Another thing it correlates to is order - the lower the entropy, the higher the order (in general). That means that the universe, as a closed system, is generally moving toward disorder. Lets clarify that - if we add up all the systems that make up the universe, every planet, lifeform, sun, plant etc - and we add up the order in all of those - and we do the same in a million years, the total order will have decreased. So will the capacity of the universe to do useful work, in a similar way.

Of course, that doesn't mean that say, a little corner of the universe couldn't have increased in order slightly - it could have - because it would be an open system. It just means that there would have to be an even bigger decrease in order elsewhere to make up for the small increase. So, for example, when a baby develops in a womb, that is an increase in order in that womb - but the decrease in order of the sun that fed the plants that made the food that went into making that baby has been more than enough to make up for it.

Similarly, when I seperate my knives and forks, there is a local increase in order - in my kitchen. But again, the order in the Sun that went into making the food to power me into doing my dishes in the first place is big enough to make up for the small increase in order in my kitchen.

All fires eventually burn out. Neither the sun nor the other stars could have been burning forever. Clearly, a beginning occurred

This is true, the current universe with current physical laws could not possibly have been running as it is for an eternity in the past.

I still don't see why I would disagree with the second law of thermodynamics, you have yet to make that quite clear.

So, I'm still interested in YOUR self-concocted god-Chance, the inert, blind & mindless one

I have no God, I am an atheist. This comment is intended to inflame and start an argument, so according to the wishes of traveller I will ignore it, unless you actually have a real question to ask.

And let me hear too about your "Roman Catholic church" & what Jesus Christ said about it and precisely where?

I never made any claim concerning the Roman Catholic Church being related to or ordained by Christ. Perhaps you should ask a Catholic?

[traveller]

Traveller,

I will of course attempt to be civil in all my replies on this board, regardless of which thread they are in. 

I know that you do SA, and it does not go unnoticed. Thank you.

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings,

I find this thread interesting because I see the Laws of Thermodynamics in the scriptures, written long before these laws were identified as such. I see the 1st Law written here:

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Colossians 1:16-17 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

And the 2nd Law I see here:

Romans 8:20-22 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

The 1st Law tells me the purpose for which it exists, that is for the purpose of Christ. It also tells me that He is the one who "sustains" all things. That is, until the conclusion for which these laws are attained, then shall come the end and this creation shall be done away with. This reveals there is an "outside agency" controlling all the factors that go into this creation including all the "physical laws", and even the "spiritual laws" that go into causing it to "consist and have being".

The 2nd Law is revealed most clearly in the word "vanity", which in the Greek is:

3153 mataiotes {mat-ah-yot'-ace}

from 3152; TDNT - 4:523,571; n f

AV - vanity 3; 3

1) what is devoid of truth and appropriateness

2) perverseness, depravity

3) frailty, want of vigour

By its very nature, creation is unable to "sustain" itself. The "law of motion" states that any object in motion will continue in the direction of that motion unless acted upon by another agency. Eventually the object will cease to be in motion, not because it does not have the intertia to continue, but because there is always an outside agency acting upon it - to alter its course or to cause it to come to a rest. a simple test of this is to watch water run downhill until it comes to a level place where it cannot overcome the resistance of the forces acting upon it. There is no such thing as an eternal downhill slope. Resistance is always there in every aspect of our creation to bring things to a standing halt.

We see this also with spirituality or morality. Without an outside agency acting upon a person's will, it will continue to "go downhill", until it reaches its lowest common denominator.

But very fortunate for us, we have a God who is the "sustainer" of all that there is, and He is also the one who is able to take the "weakest" and make it "strong". He also has the power to take the "strong" and make it "weak", and this is where the foolish in heart will end up when they say "there is no God".

It is all written in the scriptures, if only we are able to "scientifically" examine it.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

[Arthur Durnan]

Truth to tell, we evidently disagree re some aspects of thermodynamics. I appreciate his interpretation. Hopefully he permits a demurrer. Certainly, if one cannot respond as one sees fit, ie, demanding answers re points raised by the other - ie, such as his "Crusades=Christians" evaluation, his self-concocted oxymoron - for that is what it is - of "Scientific Atheist," & the mathematically-precisioned & created universe minus an intelligent Creator-God Designer - you could earnestly consider halting this particular thread....altho that is not necessarily my first desire. Again, if he raised those three points, shouldn't he also be expected to specifically respond to the points I raised? N'est-ce pas?

We stand to be reminded that it is He who tried to "connect" the Middle Ages' Crusades with Christianity albeit in a very quik, off-the-cuff fashion. The "Crusaders," (mostly if not all Roman Catholics) were for the large part, essentially thieves, roustabouts, kidnappers & killers. He is also the one who attributes "scientific" to the word "atheist," but fails to rationally connect the terms.

Our opponent neglects to tell us how he can emply the term "atheist", much less "scientific atheist," when, for example, he has not dealt with the problem of his having journeyed to Alpha Centauri or Star 3457 or wherever else in order to show that a Creator-God definitely does not exist there...or anywhere else in whatever galaxies.

To think, for example, that the DNA code comes from pure randomness is, to this particular observer, wholly irrational. I quote astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle: "Higher life forms emerging by chance - which is where I draw the name of his evolutionary "non-god" god-Chance from - is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping thru a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein." Suffering succotash, it's as simple as ice cream, yes?

I am also extremely interested in his quik portrayal of Islam as opposed to New Testament Christianity, of Muhammad therefore versus Jesus Christ. All if not most of current global terrorism is performed in warrior-general Muhammad of Yathrib's name. Surah 9:29-31 is especially revealing re Islam's true intent. Surely any "atheist," whether claiming to be "scientific" or not, will not accede to Muhammad's call to massacre "infidels" and "renegades."

The scientific odds against his view tend to be quite impressive. Borel's law of probability states that if the odds of an event happening are worse than 1 in 1*10^50, then that event will "NEVER HAPPEN" (his emphasis). Dr. Harold Morowitze, professor of biophysics at Yale (of all places) estimates that the probability of the chance formation - again which is where I draw the name of his god-Chance from - of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 out of 10^340,000,000 - one out of ten to the 340 millionth power is unimaginable odds. Little wonder that Professor Antony Flew of Reading University perhaps the most outstanding philosophical atheists of our generation, has just recently abandoned his "scientific atheist" position. Might the gentleman who signs himself as "Scientific Atheist" respond to such an eminent (scientific atheist) professor's scientific conversion?

Should observers follow Professor Antony Flew, for one of a long list of examples, or should they retain their "Scientific" alongside "Atheist" designation? Excellent query. A votre sante!

And, of course, to one and all, Merry Christmas!

And above all else, Happy Birthday, Jesus!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[pretzelperson]

Dr. Harold Morowitze, professor of biophysics at Yale (of all places) estimates that the probability of the chance formation - again which is where I draw the name of his god-Chance from - of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 out of 10^340,000,000 - one out of ten to the 340 millionth power is unimaginable odds. Little wonder that Professor Antony Flew of Reading University perhaps the most outstanding philosophical atheists of our generation, has just recently abandoned his "scientific atheist" position.

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even though the "odds" indicate an impossibility, you must be able argue against the evolutionists experience: The "unimaginable odds" resulted in the universe as we know it. As such, I don't believe you have succeeded. I believe that just as it is impossible to prove a supreme being created the universe it is also impossible to prove that the universe evolved by chance.

Edited December 20, 2004 by pretzelperson

[Guest Blind_Guardian]

Arthur, why have you suddenly changed the subject of this thread when the discussion on the original topic does not appear to have finished yet? At the moment It looks as if Scientific Athiest is right.

Also the probabilty of life forming which you gave may be very slim but surely eventually it would happen since it is not actually impossible.

[Arthur Durnan]

Gee whiz, may I enquire as to whether "pretzel" has reference to one's actual name or to one's modus operandi? Whatever, I'll be quite pleased then to rest my case on 1 out of 10^340,000,000 (to the 340 millionth power) on the side of the Creator-God. THAT'S more preferable, is it not, than that ever offered by Vegas oddsmakers, no?

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com