Why Infinity and the Laws of Thermodynamics supports, if not proves the existence of God.

a reply to: Shadow22

Why do you have to make this personal and attack me. Attack my position not me.

The OP is saying God's existence is Logical. You said God is beyond Logic and yet you also agree with the OP. How is that??? How can it be both Logical and beyond Logic at the same time???

Please try and answer without attacking me. I'm trying to follow the rules here, why don't you???

If you want to just attack each other, fine, let's do it in private not in open discussion as it will remove this topic for others.

originally posted by: Toadmund
Science can't explain it, god must've done it!
There's the answer.

+1 for religious folk!

To the contrary, what is thermodynamics but science. It explains beautifully why God exists!

Case in point - which one is first? Order or disorder?

a reply to: edmc^2

Ok, perhaps the problem is with our definition of the things we are talking about then.

Space isn't infinite though as far as we know. The expansion of Space doesn't mean it is expanding within some other Space. Space is the Space and is the limit. If it is in fact expanding it therefor cannot be infinite either, since it is still expanding.

Infinite as far as I know only exists conceptually. There is no physical infinite that we know of or that is measurable. It exists in Fractals and Math and within conceptual thinking but not in Reality. Even our own Universe as far as we know isn't infinite. In fact the part of your theory about Space being Finite is the part that seems correct to me actually.

You could perhaps say that Expanding Space is infinite because it is still expanding however that wouldn't explain the Planck length limit since that too would mean Finite Space Limitation.

Interesting thread!

Nice to see no bigots on here, yet....

It's gone 4am here, and the thread really spun me out!

Going to have another look tomorrow.

Snf

originally posted by: mOjOm
Infinite as far as I know only exists conceptually. There is no physical infinite that we know of or that is measurable. It exists in Fractals and Math and within conceptual thinking but not in Reality.

A bit off topic, but we actually do have a measurement for infinity which has been proven and is used in quantum physics.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
I think the existance of God is painfully obvious. Nothing can be created or destroyed, but simply reformatted. What does that mean? God formed the universe from His own power. It was created by Him, from Him. God is in all things.

Really??? I have to disagree with that. If God was so painfully obvious why is he simply not at least visible??? After all, keeping everything else the same and just adding that one single feature for everyone to see him visually would then at least help in making your statement true. In fact, it could be any one of our 5 senses, not just sight and have the same effect. However, it is clear that God's existence is hidden from our senses. While some clearly make the claim that "they have witnessed God" that is only an individuals claim with zero evidence for anyone else making it useless.

We exist because God created us. If one cannot arrive to that understanding independantly, then they will never be ready to learn about who God is.

Atheism is total willful ignorance. Agnosticism is slighly more respectable. God creates, and God reveals Himself to all who seek.

This is just your own personal bias toward your own belief and against just two other options. There are also many other Religious Systems with different Gods or no Gods at all all saying the same as you are. They all have their reasons and ideas all of which also have little or no actual evidence other than Faith.

Anything that is reliant on Faith is not Painfully Obvious.

Do you have to see the wind to know it exists? Cant you see God's design in the minor details of you're environment? Ever heard of synchronicities, miracles, the paranormal?

If I was pushing my faith, I would be talking about Jesus, but that's not the case.

The fact is that the universe exists because God formed it with His power. You have the ability to disagree with me because God gave you free will. Whether you believe in Darwinism, panspermia, whatever, you can not escape the FACT that this level of existance had to start at some point.

Galaxies, solar systems, planetary systems, atoms, molecules, orangelles, organs, etc. These are all fine tuned machines, just like cars, computers and robots. Ive never heard of a machine that spontaneously came into existance. All designs have a designer, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

Like I said, painfully obvious. Sometimes the existance of God is too painful for our egos to fathom, so we repress the facts and carry on without so much as tipping out hat to Him?

If God ever did appear to you, would you acknowledge Him, or assume that He is a hallucination?

i don't get how people can think God was created.

how would He be God if He was?

the universe and everything in it is His creation. plus everything else we don't actually know about,
on this plane of existence.

infinity makes time and space a moot point if one is infinite.

it's also not conceivable for the finite.

interesting thread, s&f.

a reply to: edmc^2

First off . . . no luck needed here. No S . . . No F . . . Let's be intellectually honest in stating your position. This is not a "new" concept and you certainly didn't come up with it. This argument has been made by "creation scientists" since the late 60's/early 70's and has been thoroughly rebuked since that time. A simple Google search of "does thermodynamics prove god" will bring up the many attempts by creationists to use the argument. Even Carl Sagan has explained, in two of his books, why this argument makes no sense.

Furthermore, Carl Sagan points out that if the second law of thermodynamics were applied to a god, then god would necessarily have to die.

To start, it is based on a complete misrepresentation of Thermodynamic law and Entropy . . . or, if not intentionally trying to confuse believers, a misunderstanding.

The second law of thermodynamics states that "the entropy of an isolated system does not decrease". This is often taken to mean that "disorder always increases" and is frequently misinterpreted. Another way of putting it is "An isolated system's ability to do work decreases over time". The second law provides the thermodynamic arrow of time in that one can tell the difference between the past and the future by looking at the amount of entropy in the closed system.

All the second law explains is the transfer of energy within a system . . . it is not about "chaos" and "order" as laypeople would use those terms. The most important aspect of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system. Simply by insinuating that space is infinite, but the matter of the universe is not . . . you are arguing against your own point, as in influence of the "infinite" on the "finite" delegates the overall structure to an "open" system and negates the laws of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is a law of statistical mechanics . . . not a fundamental law of nature.

n actuality, as opposed to being in a state of complete disorder upon achieving maximum entropy, the universe has instead homogenized and become more uniform. In very simple terms, maximum entropy ≠ disorder, get it? It is on a basis similar to this that scientific educators have recognized that the disorder terminology, while simple and easy to comprehend, is an oversimplification at best, and a misleading false analogy at worst. As a result, disorder terminology has been largely phased out; most chemistry textbooks, for example, have removed (or at least heavily edited out) the disorder terminology.[2] Of utmost importance, entropy is an energetic phenomenon, and only tangentially has to do with the distribution of matter in a system.[3] (Statistically speaking, the molecules of a gas are unlikely to move to one side of a container without work being done on the gas. But doing work on the gas would increase the entropy of the universe, as the plunger, or whatever does the compression, would have to increase its entropy.)

So, correctly used, the thermodynamic law states that as the universe spreads out energy will become homogenized, as opposed to collected in a small area . . . which is exactly what we see when studying the cosmos.

If you would like a more creationist based analogy or thought experiment . . . I give you the great PZ Meyers:

"The second law of thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen."

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

All very good questions and one's I've thought about and still do think of very frequently actually. So let's take them one at a time.

Do you have to see the wind to know it exists? Cant you see God's design in the minor details of you're environment? Ever heard of synchronicities, miracles, the paranormal?

No, because the wind has many other features which I can verify independently and repeatedly as well as consistently with a great deal of reliability to verify it's existence. I can see/hear/feel/etc. the minor and major details that you're talking about. Many of which can become overwhelming and seemingly indescribable when known, even for just a moment. However, because of my own limitations in grasping such things and understanding them completely I can not and will not allow myself to conclude some answer for them out of that lack of comprehension. I see incredible connections and concepts which aren't yet able to be explained yet that doesn't mean I default to some God Being as a result. It does also depend on what you mean by the word God also. That needs to be defined as it changes from person to person. I agree there are things and forces much bigger and more powerful than me, sure, but that doesn't mean the same as some Personal Creator God as so many Religions try to promote.

If I was pushing my faith, I would be talking about Jesus, but that's not the case.

Like I said above, that needs to be defined very clearly for us both to really know what we are discussing. Until then I can only assume what you mean by God and you can only assume what I mean as well.

The fact is that the universe exists because God formed it with His power. You have the ability to disagree with me because God gave you free will. Whether you believe in Darwinism, panspermia, whatever, you can not escape the FACT that this level of existance had to start at some point.

I just don't understand the need for your Creator God to have those things, if in fact we do. In fact, an infinite omni-everything God would actually negate such things as Free Will, if we in fact have it. In fact it is all those Characteristics of God which Religious and followers speak so much about which contradict each other that make the idea of God seem even more silly. All the talk about Limitless Power and such contradicting with the obvious limitations that God also seems to possess doesn't make sense the more thought I put into it.

Galaxies, solar systems, planetary systems, atoms, molecules, orangelles, organs, etc. These are all fine tuned machines, just like cars, computers and robots. Ive never heard of a machine that spontaneously came into existance. All designs have a designer, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

Like I said, painfully obvious. Sometimes the existance of God is too painful for our egos to fathom, so we repress the facts and carry on without so much as tipping out hat to Him?

Why must their be a creator. All the fine tuning you speak of and the complexity doesn't require a Creator to make it all work if that is simply the only way it will work. What I mean is that while we see something complex with so many variables, it may be that there aren't any other possible alternatives making it the only possible configuration. With only one possible configuration which works then there is no longer anything complex about it, it just is, or it's not, all such ideas of "fine tuning" are just a creation of our own misunderstanding.

If God ever did appear to you, would you acknowledge Him, or assume that He is a hallucination?

Of course I'd acknowledge Him. I wouldn't bother even thinking about subjects like this at all if I had already made up my mind to deny anything else. That is the whole reason I'm saying God is not Painfully Obvious. To me Painfully Obvious is the opposite of a God described as Outside of Time and Space, Paranormal and made known through Faith. Painfully Obvious things are all the things NOT in those catagories. That is the main contradiction that we need to figure out. How is it that you claim God, which you also link to such concepts as Paranormal as being Obvious when other Paranormal things like Ghosts are anything but Obvious???

If God is so Painfully Obvious then why are there thousands of Religions who are trying to explain such an Obvious entity while at the same time not being in agreement with one another??? Something so obvious to me would mean an easily agreed upon consensus of what everyone's talking about, not the opposite.

a reply to: solomons path

If you say that it "has been thoroughly rebuked since that time", do you mean the late Dr. Sagan?

Where he said as you've quoted:

Furthermore, Carl Sagan points out that if the second law of thermodynamics were applied to a god, then god would necessarily have to die.

Problem with this statement is that it doesn't apply to the Creator since he is NOT part of the creation but outside of it.

As I said in the op:

"An infinite being but on a higher plane of existence in the scheme of things. Just like any creator is greater than his/her creation, so goes with this Being. For how could the thing be greater than the "one" who created the "thing"? It can't be. Hence, just like us, greater than the things we made so does the Creator of all things".

Entropy is part and parcel of nature and the nature of things, hence subject to it.

As for the many attempts by others to prove the existence of God via thermodynamics, I don't know about them but one thing I do know, water always falls downward not upward. Hence, ORDER precedes disorder not the other way around.

And contrary to what you said it's a fundamental law of Nature or for that matter the universe or any system you think exist. There's no question about it because they all share the same source of existence - an infinite space. Like I said in the op:

"ALL material, physical things DEGRADE in time. Left to themselves, all things in PHYSICAL ORDER tend toward DISINTEGRATION/disorganization/degradation. All things (physical) are subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. From hot to cold, just like a mechanical watch, it will eventually wind down to a stop! Left on its own, the universe will become chaotic and finally succumbed to entropy."

Even evolutionist agree to this fact!



www.youtube.com...

As for PZ, of what he said:

ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen."

He totally missed the point! There's no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics if logic and commonsense prevails because the baby who grew up to be an adult is a product of an already ORDERED system - the parents.

In fact as the 2nd law stipulates, things of order tend to degrade. This IS the case of the baby, as it grows older his body becomes more unstable, the cells in the body becomes weaker and older then finally succumbed to death - entropy.

On the other hand, evolution as championed by Mr. Meyers IS in TOTAL violation of the 2nd law for the simple obvious reason that evolution stipulates that man evolved from the lowest form of organism to highest most complex form (man). Something that if you honestly consider is a miracle by it itself IF it indeed happened.

So my question to you is this since you seem to be a follower of Mr. Meyers:

Which one violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics:

Creation or Evolution?

Why?

originally posted by: dentedjaw
next lets consider humans from two or three thousand years ago. if i was able to visit them, and bring some modern day tech with me, they would think it was magical. this is because what they didnt understand was called magic. but why is it easy for humans to call advanced tech magic. from the advanced tech point of view these thoughts are silly and ridiculous, but they are valid are realistic from a primitive point of view.
- See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

A bic lighter.

I enjoyed your post, your idea of anything that would rule the Universe(s) as being energy are things I have pondered about.
Suppose 'god' was sub-atomic in size and lived in a quark somewhere, god would be so small, yet so fundamental and everywhere at all times. This god would not care about us, it would be unthinking and autonomous behaving according to the rules of its make up. It would not be a being.

'In the image of 'god' '
Sure, don't we mirror everything else in the Universe, we are made of the same atoms.


I have often also wondered if the atoms in our bodies contain within them the ability to store information and maybe this energy could be released upon death, becoming a ghost.

I think about this stuff a lot, don't a lot of people wonder what rules the Universe?

It's energy!

Mornin',

So...1+1=God, huh?
Funny.
I could have sworn it was "2".

-Peace-

a reply to: edmc^2

Well I guess God has something to learn - he/she never knew he/she was a Carnot engine



The second law is about heat transfer - that's it. Isolated systems always move toward equilibrium.

And "isolated" is the operative word here. The second law was founded on adiabatic systems (look it up). Whatever you're proposing, I think you might want to consult with your God to find out if he/she is a heat transfer system.
I know a lot of engineers who would be very interested in this.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: ProfessorPlum
So the claim that "nothing created the universe" is illogical, but pushing the question back one more step and claiming "God created the universe, but nothing created God" is logical?

Checkmate. You win.

Of course it's logical for the simple fact that space is infinite and has always existed and uncreated. Unless of course you're telling me that there's no such thing as infinite space then you win. But the reality it exist and IS INFINITE. Q to you then is do you believe that it is?

Really? Do you have documented sources demonstrating that the universe is physically infinite? I have a hard time believing in anything infinite which exists outside of our heads. The number of particles in the universe isn't even infinite.

originally posted by: tsingtao
i don't get how people can think God was created.

how would He be God if He was?

the universe and everything in it is His creation. plus everything else we don't actually know about,
on this plane of existence.

infinity makes time and space a moot point if one is infinite.

it's also not conceivable for the finite.

interesting thread, s&f.

How can God come from nothing if the universe can't? And please don't say "Because he's God!"

Also, according to what instruction manual are creators prohibited from being created? Where does it say that God cannot have a father? Other than the Bible, I mean.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Because special pleading:

Special pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency — in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules.
While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a formal fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
I think the existance of God is painfully obvious. Nothing can be created or destroyed, but simply reformatted. What does that mean? God formed the universe from His own power. It was created by Him, from Him. God is in all things.

We exist because God created us. If one cannot arrive to that understanding independantly, then they will never be ready to learn about who God is.

Atheism is total willful ignorance. Agnosticism is slighly more respectable. God creates, and God reveals Himself to all who seek.

I see a lot of assertions being passed off as "facts" and "evidence" here. In other words, you are submitting your own opinions as expert analysis. Do you have any actual science to share? I thought this discussion was taking place according to the rules of logic.

a reply to: edmc^2

Problem with this statement is that it doesn't apply to the Creator since he is NOT part of the creation but outside of it.

Logically speaking, this means he is part of a larger creation. Where did this creation come from?

"An infinite being but on a higher plane of existence in the scheme of things. Just like any creator is greater than his/her creation, so goes with this Being. For how could the thing be greater than the "one" who created the "thing"? It can't be. Hence, just like us, greater than the things we made so does the Creator of all things".

Theoretical metaphysics is just so cool to play with, isn't it? No rules, no logic, just pure imagination!

"ALL material, physical things DEGRADE in time. Left to themselves, all things in PHYSICAL ORDER tend toward DISINTEGRATION/disorganization/degradation. All things (physical) are subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. From hot to cold, just like a mechanical watch, it will eventually wind down to a stop! Left on its own, the universe will become chaotic and finally succumbed to entropy."

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". From this law, I gather that the universe tends toward EQUILIBRIUM, not annihilation. It must maintain balance.

...Wait, you got your definition of entropy from a Christian website? What's wrong with Wikipedia? No, nevermind, stupid question.

Which one violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics:

Creation or Evolution?

However, there are a couple things missing from the statement “disorder increases over time”, such as a solid definition of “disorder” (it’s entropy) and the often-dropped stipulation that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.

Creatures, both in the context of growing and reproducing, and in the context of evolution are definitely not closed systems. Doing all of that certainly involves an increase in order, but at the expense of a much greater increase in disorder elsewhere. Specifically, we eat food which, with all of its carbohydrates and proteins, is fairly ordered, and produce lots of heat, sweat, and… whatnot. Food, and air, and whatnot are what make living things “open systems”.

www.askamathematician.com...< br />


Ta-da. It's amazing what you find when you aren't making the same mistakes over and over and over again...like people who orient their science around a decidely UNscientific book.

a reply to: mOjOm

The OP is saying God's existence is Logical. You said God is beyond Logic and yet you also agree with the OP. How is that??? How can it be both Logical and beyond Logic at the same time???

I am profoundly relieved that I am not the only one who noticed this glaring discrepancy. And apparently, this contradiction in itself is considered logical by many members here.

a reply to: edmc^2

You know if you are going to try to make a scientific argument using the Laws of Thermodynamics, it helps to actually LIST them so everyone has a good idea of where you are arguing from and won't be able to misinterpret the laws because they don't fully know what they are. Here, I'll help you out:

Laws of Thermodynamics

Zeroth law of thermodynamics - If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they must be in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law helps define the notion of temperature.

First law of thermodynamics - Heat is a form of energy. Because energy is conserved, the internal energy of a system changes as heat flows in or out of it. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.

Second law of thermodynamics - The entropy of any isolated system almost never decreases. Such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium — the state of maximum entropy of the system. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.

Third law of thermodynamics - The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.[2] With the exception of glasses the entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically close to zero, and is equal to the log of the multiplicity of the quantum ground state.