• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Answers for Atheists Q:1&2

Dancing David

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Mar 26, 2003
Messages
39,700
Location
central Illinois
The Website Answers for Atheists

Page for Question 1&2
Matter and energy have no ordering or organizing principle within themselves. Left to themselves, they would never have produced the order around us, and left to themselves even now they would eventually reach the point of absolute disorder. Scientists refer to this tendency toward randomness as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or entropy. Whatever enforces order on matter and energy cannot itself be matter and energy. For no matter or energy is exempted from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
This should lead us to two realizations: First, without something other than matter and energy to enforce order on matter and energy, there could be no order or design in the universe. Everything would be absolutely random. There would be no thinking and nothing to think about. You and I wouldn't be talking here.
The second realization we should get from the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that since all matter and energy tend irreversibly toward maximum randomness, and since the universe is not maximally random today, it cannot have been tending that direction forever. It has only been tending that way for a limited time. This means that matter and energy are not eternal; there was a time when they did not exist. This means that there must be something other than matter and energy that is eternal, for nothing comes from nothing, and if nothing exists but matter and energy, then before matter and energy existed there was nothing.
We're really left with only two options. We can believe that nothing exists, or we can believe that matter and energy and something else exist. But to believe that only matter and energy exist is to deny a basic law of physics.

I have my own comment but will see what others offer first.
 
Does it occur to you, that the singularity before the big bang, was about the most ordered you can get? We live in the chaos and disorder after the big bang.

Second, the earth does not have to be disordered, considering we get out energy from the sun, we can increase or decrease order.
 
Whatever enforces order on matter and energy cannot itself be matter and energy.

Random collections of water molecules will, under common conditions in nature, organize themselves into complex crystals we call snowflakes.

Random collections of hydrogen atoms will, under common conditions in nature, organize themselves into complex assemblages we cal stars, and then possibly later into much more complex elements such as carbon, gold, or uranium.

Only the scientific illiterati could think nature can't generate organization and complexity on its own.
 
From the "answers" for atheists site
Scientists refer to this tendency toward randomness as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or entropy
Well, first off, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is NOT also known as entropy, the 2nd law describes entropy over time. As has been stated here many times before, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to the total entropy of a closed system. It does not state that the entropy of a local area of this system cannot decrease over time. The decrease in entropy that occurs when a complex structure is assembled down here on earth is less than the increase in entropy that occurs from the sun's burning way up there, which is completely consistent with the second law.
 
Question 1 asserts that something other than matter/energy is somehow causing there to be an increase over time in the order in the universe, rather than an overall decrease as thermodynamics predicts. There is no evidence that this is the case. On the contrary, the scientific evidence seems to pretty clearly indicate that the overall disorder in the universe has been increasing just as thermodynamics claims it should.

Question 2 makes an incorrect deduction. It does not follow from the facts that disorder increases over time, and that the universe is not in a state of maximal disorder, that there must have been a time in the past when matter/energy did not exist. Just a conclusion would also require the assumption that time actually extends back infinitely (and technically, even that is not enough). But the evidence seems to indicate that time does not extend back infinitely. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that time only extends back to a certain point in the past. At that point in time, the disorder of the Universe was the lowest it has ever been. It has been increasing ever since.

These questions indicate that the author has very little understanding of the scientific theories and claims to which he is referring.


Dr. Stupid
 
I had written a lengthy post filled with much humor. Computer crashed. Its all gone.

The slimmed down version:

Order in nature (The word "order" should be more properly defined, but for all intents and purposes I'll use "A condition of logical or comprehensible arrangement among the separate elements of a group".)

Snowflakes and other crystals form very very regular patterns completely unintelligently and on their own.

Clouds form in sky in a very orderly fashion. The clouds can be catergorized and predicted.

There is a beautiful stream, as the stream flows, it sorts rocks on the rocks on the river bed. Larger rocks are found in regions of faster flowing water, and an even grade of rocks from larger -> smaller as the speed of the stream slows.

You throw a billiard ball into another, you observe the result. Replicate identical inner and outer conditions, you'll get identical results. Change the conditions in regular intervals, and you'll notice a predictable pattern of behavior emerge as you record your data.

"Order" is a natural consequence of objects casually interacting with other objects.


2nd Law of Thermodynamics

The author has no idea what he is saying, he is merely throwing out buzzwords (and as pointed out, hardly using them correctly).

The author is lucky if he can explain the difference between an open system and closed system, even luckier if he can identify that the earth (which is being showered by the huge star we see during the daytime) is an open system. There is no "continually regressing into disorder" with life as the open system it is.


The next paragraph follows:
The second realization we should get from the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that since all matter and energy tend irreversibly toward maximum randomness, and since the universe is not maximally random today, it cannot have been tending that direction forever. It has only been tending that way for a limited time. This means that matter and energy are not eternal; there was a time when they did not exist. This means that there must be something other than matter and energy that is eternal, for nothing comes from nothing, and if nothing exists but matter and energy, then before matter and energy existed there was nothing.
We're really left with only two options. We can believe that nothing exists, or we can believe that matter and energy and something else exist. But to believe that only matter and energy exist is to deny a basic law of physics.
"Something doesnt come from nothing" is the First Law of Thermodynamics, ya dumdum :D

Option #3:
Simple description: In the beginning, there was no time or space. No temporal dimension means the universe is not eternal, but has been around for a measurable time. No spacial dimensions means the universe is effectively a 0D point.

According to QM, there exists what are called "virtual particles" can poof into and out of existence (we know these little critters exist, and we are greatful they are around because they evaporate blackholes). A virtual particle poofs into that 0D space... uh-oh, now what happens when you force 20 lbs of potatoes into a 5 lb bag... thats right: BOOM!

A point-particle in a 0D space (a point/singularity) means literally infinite energy. The Big Bang simply refers to the expansion of space, with that expansion there was no longer an infinite amount of energy, but certainly no shortage of it.

Holy moly! Thats a lot of energy with an extremely low entropy. The universe will eventually succomb to the Second Law, but just not yet. The universe is tending more and more towards disorder, as it should be.

Case in point: The author has probably never attempted any outside reading, his claims have been parroted many times by many IDers. "Utter silliness" is how I describe with optimism.
 
I don't generally have a problem when people use the term, "God" to refer to the mysteries of the universe. The universe may very well be self-aware. I do not think consciousness is a uniquely human phenomenon, nor do I think it only occurs on this planet.

Still, we have no objective evidence that I know of to suggest the existence of a "creator." Is it so hard to fathom that the universe is self-created?
 
The fact that they so thoroughly misunderstand one of the most basic laws of the universe doesn't give me much hope that they've got the smarts to predict whether the most elusive force exists.


This is like taking your sick child to someone who doesn't have a grasp of germ theory.
 
BTW these were just from Question one:

Matter and energy have no ordering or organizing principle within themselves.

I think that this is the error in the fallacy of composition that they present. They assume that matter and energy can not in and of themselves produce the order seen in the universe. This can be seen either two ways, the order created is part of the properties of the particles of energy or for some reason the order is imposed from without.

I take the first course, electrons can not occupy the same place because of thier intrinsic properties and therefore there is no 'ordering' power that needs to keep them seperate.

First, without something other than matter and energy to enforce order on matter and energy, there could be no order or design in the universe.

This is just a restatement of the first assertion, why can't energy particles contain properties that allow for order.
 
Question for physicists:

Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics mean that the creation stories in the bible must be wrong? Doesn't "creation" mean decreasing entropy (in addition to creating matter), or have I missed something?
 
Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics mean that the creation stories in the bible must be wrong? Doesn't "creation" mean decreasing entropy (in addition to creating matter), or have I missed something?

Well, considering that it was apparently God who created the entire universe...and considering the laws of physics break down at the big bang, then I don't think it has to be wrong.

I believe that if God created the Universe, he created it from part of himself.
 
RichardR said:
Question for physicists:

Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics mean that the creation stories in the bible must be wrong? Doesn't "creation" mean decreasing entropy (in addition to creating matter), or have I missed something?
Not a physicist but...

I dont know how meaningful it is discuss Creationism in terms of science when the answer to any possible dilemma could be "God did it".
 
The first quote simply engages in question begging. Look at the very first sentence: "Matter and energy have no ordering or organizing principle within themselves". In other, the argument is premised on the assumption that organization does not come from physical sources, which is exactly what the argument supposedly establishes!

The second quote is rife will non sequitors. For instance, the sentence "and since the universe is not maximally random today, it cannot have been tending that direction forever" makes no sense; the latter does not follow from the former. Apparently the writer has never heard of the concept of "asymptotic".

The answer to the last question is also interesting.
Q: "I'd like to become a Christian. But I'm afraid I couldn't hold up under the troubles I’d experience if I did. Couldn't I put it off until near the end of my life, and then receive Jesus as Savior and Lord?"
A: "Putting of receiving Jesus until just before you die is a terrible risk: you might die suddenly and not have time to trust in Jesus. "
That seems like a really odd answer to me. It's a bit like answering the question "Is it okay to stab someone?" with the answer "No, you really shouldn't do that. You might get some blood on your clothes". I mean, isn't arguing for your religion on the basis of pragmatism odd?

RichardR said:
Question for physicists:

Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics mean that the creation stories in the bible must be wrong? Doesn't "creation" mean decreasing entropy (in addition to creating matter), or have I missed something?
Well, the creation of energy from out of nothing would violate the First Law. However, I don't think it would violate the Second. Entropy is a measure of how many arrangements of matter there are; for instance, in ice, the molecules are trapped in a lattice, so there are fewer arrangements and therefore less entropy than in water. Creating more matter would mean more arrangements which means more entropy.
 
Many of the arguments put forward in this thread are invalid since it is by no means certain that the universe is a closed system.
(edited because of typos)
 
I'm not a big fan of Intelligent Design because there doesn't seem much intelligence behind it. It's the big things which are the giveaways, like war, famine, disease and natural disasters. My pet theory which I'm working on is that the universe is actually in a state of collapse, and the big bang is actually the big crunch; we only conceive of it happening in our past as a function of the way that biological systems operate under entropy. I've got no evidence for this of course, it's just that some days I wake up with the feeling that the universe really, really sucks...
 
BTW these quotes are all from the first question and answer for Anwers for Athiests. The answers go down hill from here:

In answer one there is this great debate on the immaterial
We're really left with only two options. We can believe that nothing exists, or we can believe that matter and energy and something else exist. But to believe that only matter and energy exist is to deny a basic law of physics.

Atheist:Okay, something other than matter and energy exists. But you can't really know anything about it. After all, statements only have meaning if they can be investigated for truth or falsehood by empirical means. I take the scientific approach: nothing is meaningful that can't be tested empirically.

Think for a moment about that statement. Can it be tested empirically? Definitely not. It is an overarching principle about empirical investigation, and cannot itself be tested by empirical means. If it is true, then it calls itself meaningless. Whatever is meaningless cannot be true, since truth depends on meaning. So, that principle cannot be true.

Nothing prevents our talking sensibly about non‑material things.


Fine. In principle I have to agree-it isn't meaningless to talk about non-material things. But you can't know anything about them.

Do you know that you can't know anything about them?

Yes.


Then you do know something about them! You know that you cannot know anything about them. But if that's true, then it's something you know about them. Your own statement condemns itself, you can and do know something about non-material things.


Fine. But you can't know anything more about them.

Except that, you can't know anything more about them? Every time you limit what may be known about non‑material things, you add something else you know about them. The only logical approach is to admit that you can know about non‑material things, and then see where the evidence leads to determine what you know about them.

Well, all right. Where does the evidence lead? What do you think we can know about non‑material things?

First, we know that they exist‑or that at least one non‑material thing exists. At least one non‑material thing must have made matter and energy.
 
Flaherty said:


Random collections of water molecules will, under common conditions in nature, organize themselves into complex crystals we call snowflakes.

Random collections of hydrogen atoms will, under common conditions in nature, organize themselves into complex assemblages we cal stars, and then possibly later into much more complex elements such as carbon, gold, or uranium.

Only the scientific illiterati could think nature can't generate organization and complexity on its own.

My favorite to point out is that, according to that theory, an air conditioner wouldn't work, either. It increases order (lower energy air molecules) in a local area, at the cost of greater disorder in the overall system. And that's exactly what life does, too. Your body is a very complicated water wheel driven by dripping water of the food you eat.
 

Back
Top Bottom