could science reasonably lead to faith?

[alphaparticle]

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't suggest things are chaotic, certainly not in the sense you seem to imply. The second law merely claims that if you have a large ensemble of things the configuration will tend toward the state for which there are the largest number of ways to arrange the pieces. The physical rules of the interactions between individual pieces is presupposed. Atheists do not need a 'first cause' to have a coherent worldview. There is no reason mass/energy couldn't have simply existed and have always existed. They can simply assert that the existence of a certain amount of stuff is a brute fact about the world. And really, why not? They would, justifiably I believe, question that our belief in God is any better in terms of evidential justification.

 

Ultimately there are claims that are not supportable in the classical epistemological sort of way. I make claims I cannot fully justify, so what? I believe God desires to teach me humility by putting me in this situation. The stuff that most affects the world, the existence of God, the death and resurrection of Jesus, are not fully justifiable beliefs in the foundationalist tradition. I don't care. Faith is a gift from God. I believe because He desires me to believe and grants me the faith necessary. If an atheist wants me to share reasons that make it a bit more likely, I can do that, but I have full awareness there is no bulletproof case for it- aside from the inner testimony that the Spirit gives to believers.

[Enoch2021]

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't suggest things are chaotic, certainly not in the sense you seem to imply. The second law merely claims that if you have a large ensemble of things the configuration will tend toward the state for which there are the largest number of ways to arrange the pieces. The physical rules of the interactions between individual pieces is presupposed. Atheists do not need a 'first cause' to have a coherent worldview. There is no reason mass/energy couldn't have simply existed and have always existed. They can simply assert that the existence of a certain amount of stuff is a brute fact about the world. And really, why not? They would, justifiably I believe, question that our belief in God is any better in terms of evidential justification.

 

Ultimately there are claims that are not supportable in the classical epistemological sort of way. I make claims I cannot fully justify, so what? I believe God desires to teach me humility by putting me in this situation. The stuff that most affects the world, the existence of God, the death and resurrection of Jesus, are not fully justifiable beliefs in the foundationalist tradition. I don't care. Faith is a gift from God. I believe because He desires me to believe and grants me the faith necessary. If an atheist wants me to share reasons that make it a bit more likely, I can do that, but I have full awareness there is no bulletproof case for it- aside from the inner testimony that the Spirit gives to believers.

 

 

==============================================================================================================

 

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't suggest things are chaotic, certainly not in the sense you seem to imply.  The second law merely claims that if you have a large ensemble of things the configuration will tend toward the state for which there are the largest number of ways to arrange the pieces.

 

 

Say What?

 

“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.” {Emphasis Mine}

Isaac Asimov PhD Biochemistry "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Break Even," Smithsonian Institute Journal, June, 1970, p. 6.

 

More Disorderly = More Chaotic...and it's happening "Constantly".

 

 

Atheists do not need a 'first cause' to have a coherent worldview. There is no reason mass/energy couldn't have simply existed and have always existed.

 

 

This is a 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Violation and speaks to your misunderstanding of it.

 

“The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate ‘heat death’ or, as it is technically defined, a condition of ‘maximum entropy’ . . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny.  For the fateful principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible.  Nature moves only one way.”

Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103.

 

Paul Davies PhD Astrophysics; Kings College, London: "The greatest puzzle is where all the order in the universe came from originally. How did the cosmos get wound up, if the Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts asymmetric unwinding toward disorder?"

"Universe In Reverse," Second Look, 1, 1979, p.27

 

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death.

 

If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe.

“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past. There must be some kind of boundary.”

Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, Tufts University Boston.

Grossman, L., Death of the eternal cosmos, New Scientist 213(2847):6–7, 14 January 2012.

“several different models of the universe that dodge the need for a beginning while still requiring a big bang. But recent research has shot them full of holes (see page 6). It now seems certain that the universe did have a beginning.”

Editorial: In the beginning … , New Scientist 213(2847):3, 14 January 2012

 

 

They can simply assert that the existence of a certain amount of stuff is a brute fact about the world. And really, why not?

 

 

Because to say no GOD, they MUST believe (short list):

 

1. Stupid Atoms can write their own CODE/Software and then constructed thousands of Hyper Nano-Tech Molecular Machines and Robots in each Cell.

2. Life comes from Non-Life "Naturally".

3. The Universe created itself from Nothing; Ergo, existed prior to it's existence.

4. Bacteria can turn into Giraffes (If given enough TIME).

5. Planets and Stars coalescing from Gas and Debris.

 

AND, their justifying platform for these Absurdities....."Science" ;  all the while Directly Violating:

 

1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".

2. Jeans Mass

3. Boyle's Gas Law

4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum

5. Law of Biogenesis

6. Laws of Information

7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry

8. Functional Sequence Complexity

9. Irreducible Complexity

10. Quantum Mechanics

11. Laws of Logic

12. Law of Cause and Effect

13. Common Sense

 

 

They would, justifiably I believe, question that our belief in God is any better in terms of evidential justification.

 

 

Look Up.  That would require a purposed fundamental ignorance and unfamiliarity of just Basic Laws and Principles of "Science'.

 

 

Ultimately there are claims that are not supportable in the classical epistemological sort of way. I make claims I cannot fully justify, so what?

 

 

Then that's "Blind" Faith, and is admonished against in Scripture, simply...

 

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

Now of course nobody can directly prove/validate a past event...simply because there is No Way to TEST IT (See Formal Hypothesis in previous post); However, there are indirect methods to get pretty close.

 

 

The stuff that most affects the world, the existence of God, the death and resurrection of Jesus, are not fully justifiable beliefs in the foundationalist tradition.

 

 

Well, this is a Multi-Step approach...allow me to demonstrate:

 

You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design (GOD -Guided). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?

Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible @ the same time (or do you disagree?).   This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Nature (Unguided) the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...

 

“The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION. …Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” {Emphasis Mine}

Wald, G., “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.

http://www.academia.edu/2739607/Scientific_GOD_Journal

 

Then....

 

He is the CREATOR. The "CREATOR" can't be "created" or else, HE couldn't be the "CREATOR", by simple definition.  Furthermore Logically....for finite things to exist (Universe, Us), there MUST be an Infinite/Eternal ("Always Was") Source; it's a Contingent Necessary FACT.  SEE: Aristotle (Prime/Unmoved Mover, First Cause).  To deny this, you are forced into a logical checkmate then reduced to introducing an Infinite Regress...it's Fallacious.

Nothing can CREATE itself...... because that would mean: It Existed Prior To It's Existence.  Logical Seppuku

Also, there can be Only One "CREATOR"...considering more than one, even for a Planck Time, is Logical Seppuku.

 

Then....

 

To search for the ONE TRUE CREATOR, you evaluate all the "contenders" throughout History that say or imply "They Are the One" and measure them with Reliable Historical Documentation along with the Immutable Laws of Science... it really doesn't take long.  

 

This is condensed; however, if you need me to get really specific, just ask.

 

...are not fully justifiable beliefs in the foundationalist tradition. I don't care. Faith is a gift from God.

 

 

You're using Biblical "Faith" in the "Blind" Sense motif here.  Sort of an Equivocation (Fallacy); It's not, according to Scripture...

 

"Biblical" Faith -  (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

It has Substance and Evidence.

 

"Blind" Faith --- Belief without substance or evidence. (Life from Non-Life, Something from Nothing, et al)

As mentioned above, "Blind Faith" is specifically admonished against in Scripture: (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

 

hope it helps

[Serving]

 

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't suggest things are chaotic, certainly not in the sense you seem to imply. The second law merely claims that if you have a large ensemble of things the configuration will tend toward the state for which there are the largest number of ways to arrange the pieces. The physical rules of the interactions between individual pieces is presupposed. Atheists do not need a 'first cause' to have a coherent worldview. There is no reason mass/energy couldn't have simply existed and have always existed. They can simply assert that the existence of a certain amount of stuff is a brute fact about the world. And really, why not? They would, justifiably I believe, question that our belief in God is any better in terms of evidential justification.

 

Ultimately there are claims that are not supportable in the classical epistemological sort of way. I make claims I cannot fully justify, so what? I believe God desires to teach me humility by putting me in this situation. The stuff that most affects the world, the existence of God, the death and resurrection of Jesus, are not fully justifiable beliefs in the foundationalist tradition. I don't care. Faith is a gift from God. I believe because He desires me to believe and grants me the faith necessary. If an atheist wants me to share reasons that make it a bit more likely, I can do that, but I have full awareness there is no bulletproof case for it- aside from the inner testimony that the Spirit gives to believers.

 

 

==============================================================================================================

 

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't suggest things are chaotic, certainly not in the sense you seem to imply.  The second law merely claims that if you have a large ensemble of things the configuration will tend toward the state for which there are the largest number of ways to arrange the pieces.

 

 

Say What?

 

“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.” {Emphasis Mine}

Isaac Asimov PhD Biochemistry "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Break Even," Smithsonian Institute Journal, June, 1970, p. 6.

 

More Disorderly = More Chaotic...and it's happening "Constantly".

 

 

Atheists do not need a 'first cause' to have a coherent worldview. There is no reason mass/energy couldn't have simply existed and have always existed.

 

 

This is a 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Violation and speaks to your misunderstanding of it.

 

“The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate ‘heat death’ or, as it is technically defined, a condition of ‘maximum entropy’ . . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny.  For the fateful principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible.  Nature moves only one way.”

Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103.

 

Paul Davies PhD Astrophysics; Kings College, London: "The greatest puzzle is where all the order in the universe came from originally. How did the cosmos get wound up, if the Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts asymmetric unwinding toward disorder?"

"Universe In Reverse," Second Look, 1, 1979, p.27

 

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death.

 

If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe.

“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past. There must be some kind of boundary.”

Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, Tufts University Boston.

Grossman, L., Death of the eternal cosmos, New Scientist 213(2847):6–7, 14 January 2012.

“several different models of the universe that dodge the need for a beginning while still requiring a big bang. But recent research has shot them full of holes (see page 6). It now seems certain that the universe did have a beginning.”

Editorial: In the beginning … , New Scientist 213(2847):3, 14 January 2012

 

 

They can simply assert that the existence of a certain amount of stuff is a brute fact about the world. And really, why not?

 

 

Because to say no GOD, they MUST believe (short list):

 

1. Stupid Atoms can write their own CODE/Software and then constructed thousands of Hyper Nano-Tech Molecular Machines and Robots in each Cell.

2. Life comes from Non-Life "Naturally".

3. The Universe created itself from Nothing; Ergo, existed prior to it's existence.

4. Bacteria can turn into Giraffes (If given enough TIME).

5. Planets and Stars coalescing from Gas and Debris.

 

AND, their justifying platform for these Absurdities....."Science" ;  all the while Directly Violating:

 

1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".

2. Jeans Mass

3. Boyle's Gas Law

4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum

5. Law of Biogenesis

6. Laws of Information

7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry

8. Functional Sequence Complexity

9. Irreducible Complexity

10. Quantum Mechanics

11. Laws of Logic

12. Law of Cause and Effect

13. Common Sense

 

 

They would, justifiably I believe, question that our belief in God is any better in terms of evidential justification.

 

 

Look Up.  That would require a purposed fundamental ignorance and unfamiliarity of just Basic Laws and Principles of "Science'.

 

 

Ultimately there are claims that are not supportable in the classical epistemological sort of way. I make claims I cannot fully justify, so what?

 

 

Then that's "Blind" Faith, and is admonished against in Scripture, simply...

 

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

Now of course nobody can directly prove/validate a past event...simply because there is No Way to TEST IT (See Formal Hypothesis in previous post); However, there are indirect methods to get pretty close.

 

 

The stuff that most affects the world, the existence of God, the death and resurrection of Jesus, are not fully justifiable beliefs in the foundationalist tradition.

 

 

Well, this is a Multi-Step approach...allow me to demonstrate:

 

You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design (GOD -Guided). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?

Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible @ the same time (or do you disagree?).   This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Nature (Unguided) the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...

 

“The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION. …Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” {Emphasis Mine}

Wald, G., “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.

http://www.academia.edu/2739607/Scientific_GOD_Journal

 

Then....

 

He is the CREATOR. The "CREATOR" can't be "created" or else, HE couldn't be the "CREATOR", by simple definition.  Furthermore Logically....for finite things to exist (Universe, Us), there MUST be an Infinite/Eternal ("Always Was") Source; it's a Contingent Necessary FACT.  SEE: Aristotle (Prime/Unmoved Mover, First Cause).  To deny this, you are forced into a logical checkmate then reduced to introducing an Infinite Regress...it's Fallacious.

Nothing can CREATE itself...... because that would mean: It Existed Prior To It's Existence.  Logical Seppuku

Also, there can be Only One "CREATOR"...considering more than one, even for a Planck Time, is Logical Seppuku.

 

Then....

 

To search for the ONE TRUE CREATOR, you evaluate all the "contenders" throughout History that say or imply "They Are the One" and measure them with Reliable Historical Documentation along with the Immutable Laws of Science... it really doesn't take long.  

 

This is condensed; however, if you need me to get really specific, just ask.

 

...are not fully justifiable beliefs in the foundationalist tradition. I don't care. Faith is a gift from God.

 

 

You're using Biblical "Faith" in the "Blind" Sense motif here.  Sort of an Equivocation (Fallacy); It's not, according to Scripture...

 

"Biblical" Faith -  (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

It has Substance and Evidence.

 

"Blind" Faith --- Belief without substance or evidence. (Life from Non-Life, Something from Nothing, et al)

As mentioned above, "Blind Faith" is specifically admonished against in Scripture: (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

 

hope it helps

 

 

Hey Enoch,

 

1) Where have you been? I always log on here to see if you have been active !!

 

2) Keep up the good work, I find your replies most instructional & logical & entertaining to boot.

 

3) May God bless your passion & understanding of His mechanisms etc more & more .. just keep in mind .. you are serving a purpose indeed, so don't be so "absent" when you can help it brother. 

 

Regards,

 

Me.

[alphaparticle]

 

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't suggest things are chaotic, certainly not in the sense you seem to imply. The second law merely claims that if you have a large ensemble of things the configuration will tend toward the state for which there are the largest number of ways to arrange the pieces. The physical rules of the interactions between individual pieces is presupposed. Atheists do not need a 'first cause' to have a coherent worldview. There is no reason mass/energy couldn't have simply existed and have always existed. They can simply assert that the existence of a certain amount of stuff is a brute fact about the world. And really, why not? They would, justifiably I believe, question that our belief in God is any better in terms of evidential justification.

 

Ultimately there are claims that are not supportable in the classical epistemological sort of way. I make claims I cannot fully justify, so what? I believe God desires to teach me humility by putting me in this situation. The stuff that most affects the world, the existence of God, the death and resurrection of Jesus, are not fully justifiable beliefs in the foundationalist tradition. I don't care. Faith is a gift from God. I believe because He desires me to believe and grants me the faith necessary. If an atheist wants me to share reasons that make it a bit more likely, I can do that, but I have full awareness there is no bulletproof case for it- aside from the inner testimony that the Spirit gives to believers.

 

 

==============================================================================================================

 

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't suggest things are chaotic, certainly not in the sense you seem to imply.  The second law merely claims that if you have a large ensemble of things the configuration will tend toward the state for which there are the largest number of ways to arrange the pieces.

 

 

Say What?

 

“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.” {Emphasis Mine}

Isaac Asimov PhD Biochemistry "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Break Even," Smithsonian Institute Journal, June, 1970, p. 6.

 

More Disorderly = More Chaotic...and it's happening "Constantly".

 

 

Atheists do not need a 'first cause' to have a coherent worldview. There is no reason mass/energy couldn't have simply existed and have always existed.

 

 

This is a 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Violation and speaks to your misunderstanding of it.

 

“The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate ‘heat death’ or, as it is technically defined, a condition of ‘maximum entropy’ . . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny.  For the fateful principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible.  Nature moves only one way.”

Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103.

 

Paul Davies PhD Astrophysics; Kings College, London: "The greatest puzzle is where all the order in the universe came from originally. How did the cosmos get wound up, if the Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts asymmetric unwinding toward disorder?"

"Universe In Reverse," Second Look, 1, 1979, p.27

 

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death.

 

If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe.

“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past. There must be some kind of boundary.”

Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, Tufts University Boston.

Grossman, L., Death of the eternal cosmos, New Scientist 213(2847):6–7, 14 January 2012.

“several different models of the universe that dodge the need for a beginning while still requiring a big bang. But recent research has shot them full of holes (see page 6). It now seems certain that the universe did have a beginning.”

Editorial: In the beginning … , New Scientist 213(2847):3, 14 January 2012

 

 

They can simply assert that the existence of a certain amount of stuff is a brute fact about the world. And really, why not?

 

 

Because to say no GOD, they MUST believe (short list):

 

1. Stupid Atoms can write their own CODE/Software and then constructed thousands of Hyper Nano-Tech Molecular Machines and Robots in each Cell.

2. Life comes from Non-Life "Naturally".

3. The Universe created itself from Nothing; Ergo, existed prior to it's existence.

4. Bacteria can turn into Giraffes (If given enough TIME).

5. Planets and Stars coalescing from Gas and Debris.

 

AND, their justifying platform for these Absurdities....."Science" ;  all the while Directly Violating:

 

1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".

2. Jeans Mass

3. Boyle's Gas Law

4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum

5. Law of Biogenesis

6. Laws of Information

7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry

8. Functional Sequence Complexity

9. Irreducible Complexity

10. Quantum Mechanics

11. Laws of Logic

12. Law of Cause and Effect

13. Common Sense

 

 

They would, justifiably I believe, question that our belief in God is any better in terms of evidential justification.

 

 

Look Up.  That would require a purposed fundamental ignorance and unfamiliarity of just Basic Laws and Principles of "Science'.

 

 

Ultimately there are claims that are not supportable in the classical epistemological sort of way. I make claims I cannot fully justify, so what?

 

 

Then that's "Blind" Faith, and is admonished against in Scripture, simply...

 

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

Now of course nobody can directly prove/validate a past event...simply because there is No Way to TEST IT (See Formal Hypothesis in previous post); However, there are indirect methods to get pretty close.

 

 

The stuff that most affects the world, the existence of God, the death and resurrection of Jesus, are not fully justifiable beliefs in the foundationalist tradition.

 

 

Well, this is a Multi-Step approach...allow me to demonstrate:

 

You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design (GOD -Guided). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?

Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible @ the same time (or do you disagree?).   This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Nature (Unguided) the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...

 

“The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION. …Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” {Emphasis Mine}

Wald, G., “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.

http://www.academia.edu/2739607/Scientific_GOD_Journal

 

Then....

 

He is the CREATOR. The "CREATOR" can't be "created" or else, HE couldn't be the "CREATOR", by simple definition.  Furthermore Logically....for finite things to exist (Universe, Us), there MUST be an Infinite/Eternal ("Always Was") Source; it's a Contingent Necessary FACT.  SEE: Aristotle (Prime/Unmoved Mover, First Cause).  To deny this, you are forced into a logical checkmate then reduced to introducing an Infinite Regress...it's Fallacious.

Nothing can CREATE itself...... because that would mean: It Existed Prior To It's Existence.  Logical Seppuku

Also, there can be Only One "CREATOR"...considering more than one, even for a Planck Time, is Logical Seppuku.

 

Then....

 

To search for the ONE TRUE CREATOR, you evaluate all the "contenders" throughout History that say or imply "They Are the One" and measure them with Reliable Historical Documentation along with the Immutable Laws of Science... it really doesn't take long.  

 

This is condensed; however, if you need me to get really specific, just ask.

 

...are not fully justifiable beliefs in the foundationalist tradition. I don't care. Faith is a gift from God.

 

 

You're using Biblical "Faith" in the "Blind" Sense motif here.  Sort of an Equivocation (Fallacy); It's not, according to Scripture...

 

"Biblical" Faith -  (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

It has Substance and Evidence.

 

"Blind" Faith --- Belief without substance or evidence. (Life from Non-Life, Something from Nothing, et al)

As mentioned above, "Blind Faith" is specifically admonished against in Scripture: (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

 

hope it helps

 

I suppose maybe it is easier to bullet point this.

 

1. Thermodynamics are a set of statistical laws, they are not fundamental. This matters because:

    a. when talking about a *single* interaction between fundamental entities it is not at all relevant. The interaction between two isolated electrons is not subject to the second law of thermodynamics.

    b. the second law only applies to systems that are closed

2. Chaos and disorder are not the same, and neither means lack of fundamental order on the level of fundamental interactions.

3. Chaos doesn't mean lack of any fundamental laws whatsoever; chaotic systems are ones in which a small change in initial conditions lead to a significant change in state later on. They are chaotic because it is very hard to predict how the system will evolve (such as weather).

4. Disorder doesn't mean lack of *fundamental* order. Disorder in thermodynamics means a system which has evolved to the state in which its pieces could be arranged  in the most amount of ways and still be the same.

 

Here is an example of what I mean if that is unclear. Take a bag full of red and black balls that you have thoroughly shook together, and suppose you are going to dump them on the floor. How would you expect them to be arranged? Most likely they will be fairly mixed up. You wouldn't expect right balls all separated from the black, all the red on the right, all the black on the left for instance. That is highly unlikely. The mixed up red and black ball state is the more disorderly one, and the one most likely to actually occur. This is all that the second law of thermodynamics states. I think too many presentations are semi-mystical in their talk about 'disorder', but really all it is saying is that statistically, you are much more likely to get red and black balls all mixed together than separated out when you dump the bag on the floor.

 

Please note, the red and black balls at no point fail to operate according to the *fundamental* laws of physics.

 

and 5. the observable universe certainly has a finite beginning. That does not imply that it could not have arisen out of a yet larger system. That matters because if I could assert, as a possible speculative possibility that if the universe popped into existence due to a quantum fluctuation, concerns about the second law of thermodynamics are not relevant (due to my bulletpoint 1).

 

So that is related to the issues surrounding attempting to use statistical rules to show that the universe requires a Creator. I don't think it works.

 

As to your theological concerns, I do not think 1 thess is talking about providing philosophical proofs of things. I believe in the context it means prove all things against scripture. Similarly with Hebrews, which talks about all of the reasons we ought to trust in God based on scripturally reported happenings. My faith is not blind, it is provided by God. I am constantly interacting with the Spirit and over time have accumulated a lot of personal evidence. I acknowledge, though, that that will be unlikely to convince someone else.

[Enoch2021]

I suppose maybe it is easier to bullet point this.

 

1. Thermodynamics are a set of statistical laws, they are not fundamental. This matters because:

    a. when talking about a *single* interaction between fundamental entities it is not at all relevant. The interaction between two isolated electrons is not subject to the second law of thermodynamics.

    b. the second law only applies to systems that are closed

2. Chaos and disorder are not the same, and neither means lack of fundamental order on the level of fundamental interactions.

3. Chaos doesn't mean lack of any fundamental laws whatsoever; chaotic systems are ones in which a small change in initial conditions lead to a significant change in state later on. They are chaotic because it is very hard to predict how the system will evolve (such as weather).

4. Disorder doesn't mean lack of *fundamental* order. Disorder in thermodynamics means a system which has evolved to the state in which its pieces could be arranged  in the most amount of ways and still be the same.

 

Here is an example of what I mean if that is unclear. Take a bag full of red and black balls that you have thoroughly shook together, and suppose you are going to dump them on the floor. How would you expect them to be arranged? Most likely they will be fairly mixed up. You wouldn't expect right balls all separated from the black, all the red on the right, all the black on the left for instance. That is highly unlikely. The mixed up red and black ball state is the more disorderly one, and the one most likely to actually occur. This is all that the second law of thermodynamics states. I think too many presentations are semi-mystical in their talk about 'disorder', but really all it is saying is that statistically, you are much more likely to get red and black balls all mixed together than separated out when you dump the bag on the floor.

 

Please note, the red and black balls at no point fail to operate according to the *fundamental* laws of physics.

 

and 5. the observable universe certainly has a finite beginning. That does not imply that it could not have arisen out of a yet larger system. That matters because if I could assert, as a possible speculative possibility that if the universe popped into existence due to a quantum fluctuation, concerns about the second law of thermodynamics are not relevant (due to my bulletpoint 1).

 

So that is related to the issues surrounding attempting to use statistical rules to show that the universe requires a Creator. I don't think it works.

 

As to your theological concerns, I do not think 1 thess is talking about providing philosophical proofs of things. I believe in the context it means prove all things against scripture. Similarly with Hebrews, which talks about all of the reasons we ought to trust in God based on scripturally reported happenings. My faith is not blind, it is provided by God. I am constantly interacting with the Spirit and over time have accumulated a lot of personal evidence. I acknowledge, though, that that will be unlikely to convince someone else.

 

 

 

 

=====================================================================================================

 

1. Thermodynamics are a set of statistical laws, they are not fundamental. This matters because:

    a. when talking about a *single* interaction between fundamental entities it is not at all relevant. The interaction between two isolated electrons is not subject to the second law of thermodynamics.

    b. the second law only applies to systems that are closed

 

 

a. Say what?

 

b. Baloney....

 

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.” 

Dr. John Ross (Harvard scientist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40

 

And especially this (Again)....

 

“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.”

Isaac Asimov PhD Biochemistry "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Break Even," Smithsonian Institute Journal, June, 1970, p. 6.

 

Aren't these "Open Systems" (a Room, Houses, Machinery, Life, Earth) Dr Asimov is talking about?  Why would he specifically identify "Open System" and state...this is what the 2nd Law is all about....if it wasn't about them, pray tell??    

 

Are you saying that when you light a fire here on Earth, that it gets Hotter the further you move away from it?

 

 

 

2. Chaos and disorder are not the same...

 

 

Chaos "Synonyms":  Disarray, Discord, Disorder, Entropy, Turmoil....: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/chaos?s=t

 

 

3. Chaos doesn't mean lack of any fundamental laws whatsoever...

 

 

I never said it did; Ergo...Straw Man (Fallacy)

 

 

5. the observable universe certainly has a finite beginning. That does not imply that it could not have arisen out of a yet larger system.

 

 

But you were arguing in a previous post that Matter could have existed forever?  The you question it by proffering an Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy)...."That does not imply that it could not have arisen out of a yet larger system" ?? 

 

Please post the Formal Hypothesis of this  "Larger System" to disqualify this as a Textbook Argument From Ignorance (Fallacy).....?

 

 

Here is an example of what I mean if that is unclear.

 

 

Oh it's quite clear, See above and previous post IN TOTO.

 

 

That matters because if I could assert, as a possible speculative possibility that if the universe popped into existence due to a quantum fluctuation

 

 

Quantum Fluctuation?? You're grasping @ Straws now, and this one is "Virtual", a Mirage.... Aren't you Begging The Question (Fallacy)? I must ask, where'd you get the Quantum Vacuum for the Fluctuation?

 

Alan Guth, professor of physics at M.I.T, “In this context, a proposal that the universe was created from empty space is no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from”.

Guth, Alan The Inflationary Universe (New York: Perseus Books).1997, p. 273.

 

Philip Yam of Scientific American wrote, “Energy in the vacuum, though, is very much real. According to modern physics, a vacuum isn’t a pocket of nothingness. It churns with unseen activity even at absolute zero, the temperature defined as the point at which all molecular motion ceases”

Yam, Philip, “Exploiting Zero-Point Energy,” Scientific American, 277[6]:82-85. 1997, p. 82.

 

“Quantum mechanics tells us that the vacuum of space is not empty; instead, it crackles with energy”

Gefter, Amanda, “Touching the Multiverse,” New Scientist, 205[2750]:28-31, March 6 2010, p. 29.

 

"Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics…can produce something from nothing…. But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing…. Theories that the Universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their “quantum vacuum” is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not “nothing”

Sarfati, Jonathan D. “If God Created the Universe, Then Who Created God?,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 1998 12[1]:21.

 

"A more fundamental problem is that Tryon’s scenario does not really explain the origin of the universe. A quantum fluctuation of the vacuum assumes that there was a vacuum of some pre-existing space. And we now know that “vacuum” is very different from “nothing.” Vacuum, or empty space, has energy and tension, it can bend and warp, so it is unquestionably something."

Vilenkin, Alex,  Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang). 2006, p. 185.

 

Then the Coup De Gras....

 

"The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing."

Albert, D PhD ( Physics, Philosophy)., On the Origin of Everything: review of A Universe From Nothing, by Lawrence M. Krauss, New York Times, 23 March 2012

 

And Speaking of Quantum Mechanics....which Pummels Materialism/Methodological Naturalism all by itself which has been Validated by Experiment over and over again, Can you tell us...

 

Who collapsed the wave function Initially, to produce Matter?  He surely knew...

 

Pioneer of Quantum Mechanics, Nobel laureate Physics...

 

"The first gulp from the glass of natural science will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." --- Werner Heisenberg

 

 

So that is related to the issues surrounding attempting to use statistical rules to show that the universe requires a Creator. I don't think it works.

 

 

It does, you just have to drop your Conjured "Statistical Rules" then it's quite clear.  Moreover, if it didn't "think it works" you wouldn't have floated the disheveled "Quantum Fluctuation" that just got taken to the woodshed.

 

 

As to your theological concerns, I do not think 1 thess is talking about providing philosophical proofs of things.

 

 

I dunno, HE said Prove ALL things...pretty comprehensive and exhaustive to me.  And the Context is "The Whole Counsel of GOD".  And who said anything regarding "Philosophical Truths"?

 

 

My faith is not blind

 

 

 

I didn't say it was; However, your Caricature of it was denoting the "Blind" Variety.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

Hey Enoch,

 

1) Where have you been? I always log on here to see if you have been active !!

 

2) Keep up the good work, I find your replies most instructional & logical & entertaining to boot.

 

3) May God bless your passion & understanding of His mechanisms etc more & more .. just keep in mind .. you are serving a purpose indeed, so don't be so "absent" when you can help it brother. 

 

Regards,

 

Me.

 

 

Thank You, that was way too kind.

 

Not use to compliments...I don't know how to act   .  If you call me a few names...then I can relate.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

1. Thermodynamics are a set of statistical laws, they are not fundamental. This matters because:

   

 

 

 

And btw...

 

“There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude.  On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances.” {Emphasis Mine}

A.B. Pippard, Elements of Chemical Thermodynamics for Advanced Students of Physics (1966), p. 100.

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

Just thinking out-loud...

 

I'd like to Scrutinize this Passage of Scripture because it's Profound and Fascinating (Yes, ALL Scripture is.... but I quickly run out of Time and Space     )...

 

"Biblical" Faith -  (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

It has Substance and Evidence. .... but it's unseen.

 

This obviously is not your typical "Evidence" or "Substance"....what in the World could Paul be talking about here?

 

This is my take and as such it could be wrong, but....

 

Is this a first century depiction of Functional Sequence Complexity?

 

Functional Sequence Complexity is........"INFORMATION", Irreducible Complexity, and Specified Complexity (All earmarks of an Engineer/ DESIGNER)....you can't SEE these, they're intuitive. However....You can TEST for them 

 

Information: Is Immaterial and Semiotic.

 

Information---the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information
 

It's CREATED then Transmitted to a Receiver for the purposes of instruction/guiding for a specific purpose and intent.

Most critically, the "Convention" has to be PRE-ARRANGED between the Transmitter and Receiver for it to be UNDERSTOOD. Without UNDERSTANDING...There is NO INFORMATION, it's a Cacophony of NOISE.

 

See this......C A T ? This is a "CODE". For what? ......

 

The Letters C A T aren't spelled out on it's fur. C A T is the "CODE" name "WE" (Intelligent Agents) gave it. The meaning is the agreed upon convention "SOFTWARE"; It's semiotic.

 

Paul Revere...what's the "CODE" ? One Light or Two Lights, right? What's the Software? It was the Agreed upon Convention between Paul and The Patriots. Who Created the Software/Message (The "1 if by Land and 2 if by Sea")....the Lights?

 

You're looking @ a "CODE" right now....it's called the English Language. The Software (Meaning) is the Preemptive Agreed upon Convention so we can Understand the Message, it's Semiotic. Without "Meaning" there is No Information/"CODE" it's utter noise.
CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, Without Exception!

 

We find this INFORMATION/Software in DNA and all Engineered Systems....the  "sine qua non" of Life.  

 

Irreducible Complexity :  This is quite easy to understand;  Let's use a Bicycle: You have the frame, handle bars, handle grips, seat, mirror, 2 wheels, chain, peddles, flag.  What Irreducible Complexity is speaking to is there are certain parts of the system that must be present/complete and "functioning" to make a Bicycle a "functioning" Bicycle.  With our parts above, which are absolutely necessary? Frame, Handle Bars, both Wheels, Chain, Peddles.  If you take one of these away....you have a Football Bat; These are absolutely necessary; Ergo...the system is Irreducibly Complex.

 

We find this in all Engineered Systems and is also....the  "sine qua non" of Life.  

 

 

Specified Complexity: Again this is found in ALL Engineered Systems. 

 

Complex and Order:  hhhhhhdddddduuuuuu: Crystals, Snow Flakes, Sand Dunes. (These are governed by Natural Law)

 

Specified Complexity: "We hold these Truths to be self evident",  Sand Castles, The Genetic CODE, Barbecue Grills, Indy Cars, Hyper-NanoTech Machines and Robots (Kinesin, ATP Synthase, Flagellum, Cilia....ad nauseam) et al.

 

"Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity."

L. Orgel PhD Chemistry, The Origins of Life (New York: John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.

 

We find this in all Engineered Systems and is also....the  "sine qua non" of Life.  

 

 

Compelling OR....am I off the reservation ?

 

regards

[alphaparticle]

Enoch,

 

It *is* by definition a statistical law. Your quote isn't saying that it isn't, but it is clarifying that that doesn't mean what some people think it does. For my purposes that means it lacks meaning when talking about simple interactions in two-body systems. It is ill defined. It's like asking what the density of a hydrogen atom is- not very useful. You can think of this like watching a video of an egg breaking and being cooked; you'd know immediately if the tape were played backward. On the other hand, if you have two billiard balls (in ideal conditions), and you only saw the balls collide, you couldn't tell if the video was played backward or not.

 

The quote you put up there has nothing to do with what I am saying now. Look at the part following what you bolded "in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude."  In other words, the thought that the second law prohibits all the air in your room from suddenly coalescing to one corner (this is vanishingly unlikely, it is a *statistical* theory) but not that there would be a more local violation in a much smaller part of your room, the centimeter cubed portion by your ear say, is to misunderstand. It's still extremely unlikely that in the centimeter cubed patch by your ear the molecules will suddenly arrange to be in one half of the cube. This could be rephrased in these terms, entropy goes like the natural log of the number of ways you can arrange the pieces to get the same macrostate.

 

It may also be possible that he has in mind something a bit more subtle than this, maybe likely, but I can't tell based on a quote out of context. That is part of the reason why I dislike discussions that consist of smatterings of quotes rather than carefully dealing with a concept from the ground up. But, it may be he wants to talk about any interactions in which on one side of the interaction there are multiple states which are available and on the other side there is a very specific outcome, then you could very meaningfully talk about knowing if the tape ran backward or not, even if only two entities are involved. I can provide examples if you'd like. It would cause maybe an important refinement of the concept, but I think the links below will address both ways we have been discussing this.

 

But, if I ask if it is a violation that a single molecule happens to bump against one particular neighbor vs another? Suppose I take a single molecule H2 molecule and put it in a bottle. That it happens to be in one half of the bottle vs another wouldn't surprise you or me. Applying the second law to that question is as useless as me asking you what the density of H2 is in that bottle, or what its temperature is. On the other hand, fundamental laws (electrodynamics for example) always apply, always has meaning.

 

All that is a very long winded way to say, I am not asking for violations large or small (re your quote). I am asserting that the second law doesn't apply to every question.

 

Here are some links that describe what I am saying more clearly.

 

Looking at entropy and the concept of disorder: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop.html#e3

 

Entropy and the number of ways to arrange a system: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop2.html#c1

 

"and from the above link a way to understand the second law: For a system of a large number of particles, like a mole of atoms, the most probable state will be overwhelmingly probable. You can with confidence expect that the system at equilibrium will be found in the state of highest multiplicity since fluctuations from that state will usually be too small to measure. As a large system approaches equilibrium, its multiplicity (entropy) tends to increase."

 

How many ways can you arrange the molecules in my cup of coffee so that it has the same temperature? The same density? It will tend toward the state such that, given its interaction with the larger system, the number of ways is maximal.

[Enoch2021]

Enoch,

 

It *is* by definition a statistical law. Your quote isn't saying that it isn't, but it is clarifying that that doesn't mean what some people think it does. For my purposes that means it lacks meaning when talking about simple interactions in two-body systems. It is ill defined. It's like asking what the density of a hydrogen atom is- not very useful. You can think of this like watching a video of an egg breaking and being cooked; you'd know immediately if the tape were played backward. On the other hand, if you have two billiard balls (in ideal conditions), and you only saw the balls collide, you couldn't tell if the video was played backward or not.

 

The quote you put up there has nothing to do with what I am saying now. Look at the part following what you bolded "in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude."  In other words, the thought that the second law prohibits all the air in your room from suddenly coalescing to one corner (this is vanishingly unlikely, it is a *statistical* theory) but not that there would be a more local violation in a much smaller part of your room, the centimeter cubed portion by your ear say, is to misunderstand. It's still extremely unlikely that in the centimeter cubed patch by your ear the molecules will suddenly arrange to be in one half of the cube. This could be rephrased in these terms, entropy goes like the natural log of the number of ways you can arrange the pieces to get the same macrostate.

 

It may also be possible that he has in mind something a bit more subtle than this, maybe likely, but I can't tell based on a quote out of context. That is part of the reason why I dislike discussions that consist of smatterings of quotes rather than carefully dealing with a concept from the ground up. But, it may be he wants to talk about any interactions in which on one side of the interaction there are multiple states which are available and on the other side there is a very specific outcome, then you could very meaningfully talk about knowing if the tape ran backward or not, even if only two entities are involved. I can provide examples if you'd like. It would cause maybe an important refinement of the concept, but I think the links below will address both ways we have been discussing this.

 

But, if I ask if it is a violation that a single molecule happens to bump against one particular neighbor vs another? Suppose I take a single molecule H2 molecule and put it in a bottle. That it happens to be in one half of the bottle vs another wouldn't surprise you or me. Applying the second law to that question is as useless as me asking you what the density of H2 is in that bottle, or what its temperature is. On the other hand, fundamental laws (electrodynamics for example) always apply, always has meaning.

 

All that is a very long winded way to say, I am not asking for violations large or small (re your quote). I am asserting that the second law doesn't apply to every question.

 

Here are some links that describe what I am saying more clearly.

 

Looking at entropy and the concept of disorder: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop.html#e3

 

Entropy and the number of ways to arrange a system: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop2.html#c1

 

"and from the above link a way to understand the second law: For a system of a large number of particles, like a mole of atoms, the most probable state will be overwhelmingly probable. You can with confidence expect that the system at equilibrium will be found in the state of highest multiplicity since fluctuations from that state will usually be too small to measure. As a large system approaches equilibrium, its multiplicity (entropy) tends to increase."

 

How many ways can you arrange the molecules in my cup of coffee so that it has the same temperature? The same density? It will tend toward the state such that, given its interaction with the larger system, the number of ways is maximal.

 

 

=====================================================================================================================

 

The quote you put up there has nothing to do with what I am saying now. Look at the part following what you bolded "in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude."  In other words, the thought that the second law prohibits....

 

Ahhh, you're misunderstanding it.

 

“There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude.  On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances.” {Emphasis Mine}

A.B. Pippard, Elements of Chemical Thermodynamics for Advanced Students of Physics (1966), p. 100.

 

When he says this... "in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude" he Immediately follows it with "On the contrary...." 

 

That means he's referring to the Mistaken Antecedent ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.  In other words, there aren't any Violations, EVER.  Follow?  It's quite clear what he's saying, just like.....(Einstein, Asimov, Ross, Davies, et al), by the totality of his thought here.

 

 

What does this mean to you (From Above)..."no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances" ??

 

 

It may also be possible that he has in mind something a bit more subtle than this, maybe likely, but I can't tell based on a quote out of context.

 

 

Really?  How so.....?

 

Go ahead and Validate this Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) by specifically showing HOW and WHERE it is out of context....?

 

 

That is part of the reason why I dislike discussions that consist of smatterings of quotes rather than carefully dealing with a concept from the ground up.

 

 

Yea sure....especially when each systematically refutes your unsupported conjectures.  It's called Supporting what you say and it's practiced from 3rd Grade to the Supreme Court on a daily basis and is Uber Prolific in Scientific Literature....in the form of Parenthetical Citations, Bibliographies/Works Cited Pages.

Due to the Impracticality of using a Bibliography/Works Cited Page in forums and their formats, I just go ahead and Provide the Entire Quote/Quotes with the Appropriate Citations right in the body of my posts. 

 

Your "contrived" charge is quite Nonsensical here.

 

You also have seemed to have dropped (among others) your: 2LOT only applies to "Closed-Systems" motif.  Does that mean tacitly, that you were mistaken with this conjecture?

 

 

2LOT applies to the entire universe IN TOTO...it is Immutable like all of the Laws of Thermodynamics.  However, I always think of it it terms of DeltaG and it's impact on Biological Systems... that's where my expertise lies.  Now we're moving beyond mere "Statistics" sir.

 

So in this case.... for your "Hypothetical Atheist" he has no recourse.  So lets go ahead and leave the analogies of : eggs, balls, and coffee cups and let's talk about the "actual" Unassailable WALL that 2LOT provides here....in "Open Systems", eh?  I promise it'll be quick!