Science for Religion A - proof of God Creation .

a reply to: Barcs

FALSE, Man I really hate this , first of all I'm not a creationist.... did I say that ? Your are completly wrong with that assumption ? Why do you assume that ?

Today, it is customary to use the term entropy to state the second law: Entropy in a closed system can never decrease. As long as entropy is defined as unavailable energy, this paraphrase of the second law is equivalent to the earlier ones above. In a closed system, available energy can never increase, so (because energy is conserved) its complement, entropy, can never decrease.

link

Second I'm aware that entropy can never decrease in a closed system yes I didn't bother to look it up. So if we look at the blue marble from an informational viewpoint in 5 bijon years the amount information (the complexity) has increased a lot on earth. Where does that information come from ? So entropy cannot decrease in closed systems. Makes kind of sense to me because the influx of information is than zero. and internal states of the system tend to become randomized. One can easily make a simulation on a computer. But in open systems the situation is different (yeah man you're right) Soo....

Doesn't that mean that that blue marble is an open system rethorical ? Well yeah. So interaction with the universe. Nothing new I just said there is interaction with the universe.
But also that the entropy of that universe must be lower than the 'blue marble' ? Where does organizational information of the complex structures on that blue marble come from ? hey , universe had to be started with a very low state of entropy right ? And the universe is a closed system right ? (if you wanna talk multiverse and the universe itself is an opensystem , i'm gonna scream mandela) So that very low entropy , that information , that bits that created the complex structures on the blue marble (aka live on earth) must have come from the universe.... that started at extremely low entropy and high energetic state. So...

. OLD argument, dude.

Really but you don't understand the concept of argument dude. People like Roger penrose and steven hawking use the same argument it's a very valid one . Something that is old isnt obsolete. Arguments becoming old ? Like bread , like your old smelly iphone ? Arguments are logical constructs timeless ? Get it ?

a reply to: midnightstar
Then why even look at Europa?

originally posted by: frenchfries
FALSE, Man I really hate this , first of all I'm not a creationist.... did I say that ? Your are completly wrong with that assumption ? Why do you assume that ?

I didn't call you a creationist. I said that the entropy argument is a common creationist argument. Maybe you got it somewhere else. I apologize if I inferred that.

Second I'm aware that entropy can never decrease in a closed system yes I didn't bother to look it up. So if we look at the blue marble from an informational viewpoint in 5 bijon years the amount information (the complexity) has increased a lot on earth. Where does that information come from ? So entropy cannot decrease in closed systems. Makes kind of sense to me because the influx of information is than zero. and internal states of the system tend to become randomized. One can easily make a simulation on a computer. But in open systems the situation is different (yeah man you're right) Soo....

Yes, this is exactly correct. When you look at the universe as a whole (which we think is a closed system but don't know for sure), the entropy is increasing, but it affects different systems at different rates. With the earth getting new energy from the sun, the entropy is suspended, hence life and other things can potentially become more complex over time. In the big picture, however, the sun is running out of this energy, so the "disorder" is still increasing overall despite the temporary decrease in energy exchanging systems. Hope this makes sense. Entropy is really just things running out of energy.

Where does organizational information of the complex structures on that blue marble come from ?

Evolution and natural forces reacting with one another. It's not technically information. It is energy which is utilized by plants for photosynthesis, which enables changes and increases in complexity. Solar radiation also causes genetic mutations. If you want to discuss DNA, that's a different topic, but there are explanations.

hey , universe had to be started with a very low state of entropy right? And the universe is a closed system right ?

I don't think scientists actually know this, but yes the big bang requires an enormous amount of energy, and this energy has been decreasing ever since (as a whole). The idea of dark energy kind of adds a whole new dimension to this idea, however. It seems as though something is pulling the expanding energy toward it, accelerating the expansion, which if anything shows that the universe might not be a closed system. Of course there is a lot more to learn before we can definitively say one way or the other.

So that very low entropy , that information , that bits that created the complex structures on the blue marble (aka live on earth) must have come from the universe.... that started at extremely low entropy and high energetic state. So...

Again, it's not information, it's energy. Information is relative to what we can study and understand. We create information about things.

Really but you don't understand the concept of argument dude. People like Roger penrose and steven hawking use the same argument it's a very valid one . Something that is old isnt obsolete. Arguments becoming old ? Like bread , like your old smelly iphone ? Arguments are logical constructs timeless ? Get it ?

I wouldn't call it an old argument if it hadn't already been debunked into oblivion. Steven Hawking has never argued that entropy is a problem for life on earth or that it demonstrates a god / creator. There is nothing wrong with studying entropy, it's a real thing, but the concept is very often misused by people with religious agendas to argue for intelligent design or against evolution and is primarily based on ignorance of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (not accusing you, I just see it all the time). It's not proof of anything other than energy will eventually all burn out in the universe as we understand it today.

a reply to: Barcs

Hey Barcs,

You might have a point there, except the poster didn't frame those particular comments in the context of divine purpose. If that's what he/she meant then I imagine that's what he/she would have written. In fact when the poster stated that galaxies have no purpose, he/she framed that statement from a "cosmological perspective". Is this what cosmologists think? Doubtful. He/she also prefaced the entire comment with "technically speaking", not "religiously speaking".

Also, why do you say there is no way to test the purpose of something? Unless you mean the 'divine' purpose of something? In which case I would agree...

originally posted by: Barcs
Do you consider function and divine purpose to be the same thing? I know you said irrelevance, rather than function, but function is essentially what is being discussed. Things have functions, sure, but do they have a divine purpose? The evidence is extremely lacking in this department, that's all.

I consider function and purpose to be highly correlated, from a mechanical perspective. I also consider these two things to be highly indicative of design. Whether something has a divine purpose or not is beyond my purview.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: frenchfries
entropy always increases , yet silly people on a blue marble. For me enough proof.

False. Entropy only increases in a closed / isolated system. The universe contains many open and closed systems, the entire thing isn't going to experience entropy at the same rate. This is a common creationist misunderstanding and shows you didn't even read the 2nd law of thermodynamics in its entirety. The earth receives new energy from the sun on a daily basis. There is no reason to think order cannot increase when the earth is an open system actively receiving new energy. OLD argument, dude.

The universe itself must necessarily be a closed system, physically.

Since we are making reference to the beginning of the universe, not to the beginning of the planet, we are referring quite specifically to a closed system.

This is a common anti-Creationist straw-man argument and shows your denial dealing with implications that might counter your current world view.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: midnightstar

I really think you should avoid the word proof, when you don't actually prove anything. This is a common fallacy committed by creationists. You guys claim "proof", but yet not a single thing you say can be tested, it's just pure guesswork. When a new idea is presented in science, they ask, "How can we test this?" Creationists say, "I don't have an explanation or understanding of everything, therefor it was god" but offer no way of testing this idea beyond assumptions and conjecture. These claims are the same old apologetic claims that have been floating around the internet for the past 20 years or so.

Again with reference to Creationists? No one else in this thread brought this label up. No one but you is talking about Creationists and you keep putting words into their mouths which I doubt they have ever uttered.

Perhaps you are a representative of the Creationist philosophy?

People of faith do have evidence of God. They experience normal human doubt at times and do continually seek evidence of God, especially when challenged by others such as yourself. They continually seek, and find, validation for their beliefs. Statistics from scientific studies show that this is the normal human experience and this, in turn, suggests that those who cannot validate their spiritual side have some sort of abnormal deficit. Since it seems acceptable to to you to denigrate those who hold different beliefs to you, I might just point out that the correlation between the percentages of population for those who do not believe there is a God and the percentage of population for those with non-injury intellectual disabilities is very close.

As for science, there are many of its concepts that cannot be tested yet are held as fundamental. As an example, how could we test that the Hubble constant is representative of the optical Doppler shift of an expanding universe? We can't, it works within a framework of theories which we cannot prove. There are also several indications that the red-shift we see (which underlies the Hubble constant) is not indicative of an expanding universe, such as the existence in significant numbers of very distant objects which are highly blue-shifted (and relative to the observational frame of nearby red-shifted objects, they would be travelling at superluminal velocities if time dilation did not skew their observations in their local frame, i.e: they are moving relative to each other at the very limits of which time and space would allow, from ALL observational frames).

So your claim here is that the ocean has "the perfect amount" of salt, so it must have been created? Again, your evidence is not testable, you are expressing your opinion, not giving proof of anything. the freezing point of salt water is -2.7 c, then why didn't the globe already get frozen into oblivion? During the last glacial period (10,000 years ago), the average temperature on earth was well below that, so why didn't it go into this regression where the entire planet freezes? Based on science, this hasn't happened on earth since 650 million years ago. One problem with your claim is that the planet still goes through seasons, so even though it may be cold and much more frozen at the polls during colder times, to actually get to the point of freezing the entire planet, you'd actually need much lower average temperatures than you claim. The actual numbers to compensate for a completely frozen earth are more like -74 degrees Fahrenheit on average and it hasn't been that cold since 650mya during the snowball earth stage. A difference of 5 degrees Fahrenheit (NOT 5%, big difference) isn't going to freeze the entire planet.

There are too many other factors involved. In order for what you say to be true, the salt content in the oceans would have to be way lower and it would have to be still, which leads me to the next point. The oceans are constantly moving. You need much cooler temperatures to freeze moving water, you have to be at least -55 degrees Fahrenheit and that's not even accounting for the salt.

I have made ice-cream, you make it by stirring it as it freezes. I don't need liquid nitrogen to do so, just standard -4 degrees C ice cubes made in a normal freezer, mixed with salt in the outer part of the ice cream maker. This allows the ice cubes to de-solidify and produces a mush (bigger contact area than the cubes) which effectively freezes the ice cream in the inner container.

Of course, the reaction of salt dissolving in water is endothermic, so the solution does cool below -4 degrees C, but the amount of cooling is only to -8 degrees or so.

At - 4 degrees C, the stirred salt-ice mixture still retains frozen particles. A normal freezer at -4 degrees C keeps the ice-cream frozen, indicating that you don't need to go below 4 degrees to freeze ice cream. I doubt very much that you need - 55 degrees to freeze stirred salt water, even at extreme salt solutions, especially with the actual oceanic salt levels and the movements being slow, at tidal and Brownian motion velocities.

So based on those numbers, you are way off with your estimation of the salt content of the oceans (which changes over time depending on how many glaciers and frozen sea water there is. You need a much bigger difference than 5%. We know this because of the past history of the planet and the fact that the oceans are constantly moving. Also even if everything you said was true, it STILL wouldn't be evidence for design. To claim design you need actual evidence in support of a designer and mechanisms of the design process that can be tested. This type of thing has NEVER been observed, so no matter how many times you appeal to coincidence or your personal faith, there is still no objective testable evidence whatsoever to support design.

So, you are saying that these observations haven't been observed? Of course they have!

It is just that you choose to interpret the observations as supporting anything else other than conscious design.

a reply to: Barcs

Thanks for reacting..

Indeed , it's called the heatdeath of the universe. Well Im on that bandwagon and it makes a lot of sense. thanks for explaining.

Well you defined it how it is but may i add....

Well I referred to information theory as an abstract mathematical concept used to define complexity. when we talk live we about talk about objects in which complexity is higher and therefore entropy much lower. Go 4 biljon years back in time and earth becomes a glowing sphere with very high entropy. According to science nothing really special happened on earth on a cosmological scale.
That's earth expirienced the same events like all the other planets right ? However live exists on earth right ? And again according to scientists that's a very special event. So the mere existance of live must be because the parameters are just right for our blue marble so that certain algorithms lead to selforganizing of structures like DNA and bluewhales. The mere existance (forget allah,god ,aliens,invertedmatrices, and simulation theory) is what I call a wonder because this universe can do fine without live and the physical validity of algorithms that lead to selforganizing of structures is an extremely odd coincidence at least... (WHY can a ball of clay become a Quantum supercomputer after 5 biljon years , and why does the universe inherit that possibility that's the question)

I don't think scientists actually know this, but yes the big bang requires an enormous amount of energy, and this energy has been decreasing ever since (as a whole).

I Don't think the universe is loosing energy ... e=mc2 total is always the same... exactly zero. Could be wrong though ?

Darkmatter idea beh!

I think idea of darkmatter is a kind of mathematical patch up. Mathematical ideas more or less are always a superset of reality (many formula's and concepts can explain the same process) . Like reality formulas become the classical newton ones at low speed. Both are always valid but's kind of handy to use the newton formula's at low speed... a
Well darkmatter is inverse , more math to explain the math... that might explain processes in the universe we cant see and are far far away.

So... In my opinion darkmatter is like calling pseudo-random numbers true random , just because one cannot deduce the algorithm ..

I wouldn't call it an old argument if it hadn't already been debunked into oblivion.

Well here on ATS ok ... they are quite good in debunking/desouling stuff a lot goes here into oblivion that's a fact.

Heard any new arguments ? What's the hype right now Lets follow that,. paarrrtyyy

But the concept is very often misused by people with religious agendas

thumbs up !!! Indeed. But also the opposite is true it's used by people with scientific agendas to push certain ideas into their community.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
You might have a point there, except the poster didn't frame those particular comments in the context of divine purpose. If that's what he/she meant then I imagine that's what he/she would have written. In fact when the poster stated that galaxies have no purpose, he/she framed that statement from a "cosmological perspective". Is this what cosmologists think? Doubtful. He/she also prefaced the entire comment with "technically speaking", not "religiously speaking".

Also, why do you say there is no way to test the purpose of something? Unless you mean the 'divine' purpose of something? In which case I would agree...

Yes, I was referring to divine purpose or intelligent design. I mean it's right in the title of the thread, "proof of god creation", so arguing about functionality is just a red herring, as it doesn't show evidence toward ID. We know things have function, but that doesn't lend credence to the idea of divine purpose, or intentional creation. That was what I was trying to get across. Arguing about "structure" of galaxies, or functionality of stars or planetary systems isn't relevant to the question of whether they were actually intentionally designed.

I consider function and purpose to be highly correlated, from a mechanical perspective. I also consider these two things to be highly indicative of design. Whether something has a divine purpose or not is beyond my purview.

I know the words "function" and "purpose" have similar meanings, but I don't see how it's highly indicative of design or even relevant to the discussion. I get that it's your opinion, and I respect it, I just don't see the correlation.

originally posted by: chr0naut
The universe itself must necessarily be a closed system, physically.

How is it necessary that it is closed? What if 2 big bangs are expanding toward one another and exchange heat and matter? Obviously that's hypothetical, but I say there is too much we don't know to say for sure that it is closed because we DON'T KNOW what else is out there or going on at the furthest reaches of the expansion. Dark energy kind of begs the question. Once we figure that out it will probably open up a whole new world of understanding about the nature of the universe.

Since we are making reference to the beginning of the universe, not to the beginning of the planet, we are referring quite specifically to a closed system.

The problem is people are using that argument based on earth and using life or evolution as an example. The universe as a whole could very well be closed, but the earth / sun system is open. So bringing up entropy as an argument for design comes up blank.

This is a common anti-Creationist straw-man argument and shows your denial dealing with implications that might counter your current world view.

I know you say this jokingly, but I don't really have a world view. I just agree with science and admit that the unknown is still unknown rather than jam square pegs in round hole to make a personal belief work or validate it to myself. Why do faith based belief systems need validation in the first place?

Again with reference to Creationists? No one else in this thread brought this label up. No one but you is talking about Creationists and you keep putting words into their mouths which I doubt they have ever uttered.

Did you not read the title of the thread? I'm not strictly referring to young earth creationists, I'm saying "one who believes/supports the idea creation". You don't have to be a YECer to be creationist. I could have said "religious folk", "ID advocates" or "god believers", but I felt creationist covered all of those. Either way, the label I use is irrelevant. The title says "proof of god creation", so creationism was part of this thread from post #1. What words have I put in their mouths? I'm sorry, dude, but I was talking about the OP, that very clearly claimed there is proof of creation.

People of faith do have evidence of God.

They have subjective/circumstantial "evidence" at best, nothing testable that proves anything.

Statistics from scientific studies show that this is the normal human experience and this, in turn, suggests that those who cannot validate their spiritual side have some sort of abnormal deficit.

I'd like to see those scientific studies. Abnormal deficit of what? Last I checked, science recently showed links between strong religious belief (fundamentalism) and brain damage, but I'm eager to see what scientific research you are referring to.

Since it seems acceptable to to you to denigrate those who hold different beliefs to you, I might just point out that the correlation between the percentages of population for those who do not believe there is a God and the percentage of population for those with non-injury intellectual disabilities is very close.

I don't denigrate anybody's personal beliefs, and I never have. I merely argue against the false claims and false evidence presented by believers who claim it is proven or that science is wrong. If this thread were called, "the reasons I believe in god", I'd have no issue with it, but that's clearly not the case. Also you are going to have to post that "correlation" between non belief and "intellectual disabilities". That sounds like complete BS and I don't buy it for a second. If you are just saying there is a similar percentage number, then your argument is a joke, so I hope that's not it.

I have made ice-cream, you make it by stirring it as it freezes. I don't need liquid nitrogen to do so, just standard -4 degrees C ice cubes made in a normal freezer, mixed with salt in the outer part of the ice cream maker. This allows the ice cubes to de-solidify and produces a mush (bigger contact area than the cubes) which effectively freezes the ice cream in the inner container.

Are you kidding me? You are comparing a small jug of ice cream turning to slush, to huge moving bodies of salt water??? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous and is a false comparison. They aren't even close to the same thing.

I doubt very much that you need - 55 degrees to freeze stirred salt water, even at extreme salt solutions, especially with the actual oceanic salt levels and the movements being slow, at tidal and Brownian motion velocities.

Your doubts are unfounded. You don't need -55 if you are just freezing a cup of salt water. But we're talking HUGE bodies of water that are constantly moving FAST. What part about the ocean moves slow? There are currents that are always there. Maybe you have never taken a boat out on the ocean but it's constantly moving all over the place. Look at the waves and the swells. It may be calmer during slack tide, but that doesn't generally last long, and it's still moving during that time. You are comparing apples to moons. It's not even remotely close. Your ice cream doesn't experience seasons with different temperatures at different regions, and isn't on the same scale as trying to freeze salt water oceans as happened with snowball earth 500mya. It's also good to note that the earth DID recover from the snowball period.

So, you are saying that these observations haven't been observed? Of course they have!

Completely frozen oceans in recent times have been observed? Salt content being created and set up by a designer has been observed? I'm sorry dude, I generally have fun debating you, but that claim is ridiculous.

It is just that you choose to interpret the observations as supporting anything else other than conscious design.

Wrong. Either something has been observed and tested or it hasn't. Belief is not equal to testable observation. Evidence is not up for interpretation, despite how many times you guys repeat this.

originally posted by: frenchfries
I Don't think the universe is loosing energy ... e=mc2 total is always the same... exactly zero. Could be wrong though ?

You aren't wrong, energy cannot be created or destroyed only change forms, but we're talking about it in terms of entropy, which is about the measure of energy not available to be useful in the thermodynamics process (ie energy conversion or working with machines). I'm not a physicist or engineer, so my description is probably lacking, but it's kind of like how nuclear fusion converts hydrogen to helium, which keeps the heat and light energy coming from a star. Once the star runs out of hydrogen, there is no more potential energy to keep the fusion process going so it collapses onto itself, and goes Nova, or becomes a red giant (depending on the type of star). There is still energy, it's just not useful in nuclear fusion so it leads to more "disorder" (which is really a poor term to describe it IMO). If the earth were not getting energy from the sun, it would still be lifeless boring frozen ball of ice and rock. I know it's way more complicated than just that, but that's the very basic idea of it. Hope I conveyed it properly.

Darkmatter idea beh!

I think idea of darkmatter is a kind of mathematical patch up. Mathematical ideas more or less are always a superset of reality (many formula's and concepts can explain the same process) . Like reality formulas become the classical newton ones at low speed. Both are always valid but's kind of handy to use the newton formula's at low speed... a
Well darkmatter is inverse , more math to explain the math... that might explain processes in the universe we cant see and are far far away.

So... In my opinion darkmatter is like calling pseudo-random numbers true random , just because one cannot deduce the algorithm ..

I was talking about dark energy, not dark matter. Dark matter is indeed assumed to exist because the math doesn't work without it. It's a hypothetical concept because we can't measure it, we can only see affects from what we think it might be, so you are correct about that for the most part.

Dark energy however, I brought up to question whether the universe is actually a closed system. Something is making the expansion of the universe go faster, and we don't know what it is so we call it dark energy, but we really have no clue what it is or what causes it. Could it be an illusion?

thumbs up !!! Indeed. But also the opposite is true it's used by people with scientific agendas to push certain ideas into their community.

Oh yeah? You are saying scientists are using the concept of entropy to push scientific agendas? Like what? Improving knowledge and learning how to harness energy efficiently in power plants? With the intelligent design crowd, it is used to promote religious world views. Big difference. I never hear scientists claim that entropy suggests god doesn't exist or that naturalism is a fact. They use the knowledge to create engines and real world things that wouldn't work without it.

If we're a simulation, then I guess "God" is the programmer. Or programming team.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
The universe itself must necessarily be a closed system, physically.

How is it necessary that it is closed? What if 2 big bangs are expanding toward one another and exchange heat and matter? Obviously that's hypothetical, but I say there is too much we don't know to say for sure that it is closed because we DON'T KNOW what else is out there or going on at the furthest reaches of the expansion. Dark energy kind of begs the question. Once we figure that out it will probably open up a whole new world of understanding about the nature of the universe.

If the Big Bang events interact with each other physically at any stage, they are part of the same universe. The universe containing multiple Big Bang events remains as closed a system as one only containing a single Big Bang. A Big Bang event is not a universe. If there is no physical interaction from outside of the universe, it is necessarily a closed system.

The problem is people are using that argument based on earth and using life or evolution as an example. The universe as a whole could very well be closed, but the earth / sun system is open. So bringing up entropy as an argument for design comes up blank.

I disagree.

Please explain why the entropy argument for a designed universe is somehow invalidated because specific systems within it are open systems. Does an overarching object set, which is a closed system, simply evaporate because it contains subsets that are open systems?

People, when talking about the creation of the universe, and relating it to their experience, will always be using things from these open systems to explore ideas. The thing is, these open systems exist entirely within a fully closed system, so the question of how they might arise within a closed system that contains them is still valid.

I know you say this jokingly, but I don't really have a world view. I just agree with science and admit that the unknown is still unknown rather than jam square pegs in round hole to make a personal belief work or validate it to myself. Why do faith based belief systems need validation in the first place?

Probably, because most normal people 'just want to know' and use their wits and reason to seek answers. They are not content in parroting what someone else calls science, without deeper validation.

Did you not read the title of the thread? I'm not strictly referring to young earth creationists, I'm saying "one who believes/supports the idea creation". You don't have to be a YECer to be creationist. I could have said "religious folk", "ID advocates" or "god believers", but I felt creationist covered all of those. Either way, the label I use is irrelevant. The title says "proof of god creation", so creationism was part of this thread from post #1. What words have I put in their mouths? I'm sorry, dude, but I was talking about the OP, that very clearly claimed there is proof of creation.

Yes, you are quite right. It was remiss of me to ignore the thread title.

They have subjective/circumstantial "evidence" at best, nothing testable that proves anything.

Yes the evidence is subjective, but not all circumstantial.

The fact that people test and validate their beliefs means that it is testable.

I'd like to see those scientific studies. Abnormal deficit of what?

I propose that disbelief in God appears to be a deficit of a sense of the numinous, or an inability to reason about abstracts - a high functioning autism which is unable to see anything which is not blindingly obvious, to the point where they deny it can even exist.

Surveys from 2016 reveal that 9% of the population do not believe in a God or universal spirit (If you want to dispute those figures, go ahead but I'm not wasting my time on it). 9% isn't the statistical norm, so I called it 'abnormal', meaning it is not 'the normal'.

Regarding the articles, you can look up "atheism and mental health" on Google scholar if you wish.

Here's a random few:

Religious Belief Systems of Persons with High Functioning Autism People with high-functioning autism are more likely to be atheist.

Does private religious activity prolong survival? A six-year follow-up study of 3,851 older adults. Those who are generally atheist don't appear to live as long as those who are generally religious.

The origins of religious disbelief Rather than rationalism, emotional issues appear to be a stronger motivator towards atheism.

Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism - Paul C. Vitz Equates atheism with 'daddy issues' from a Freudian psychological standpoint.

Belief in God rises with age, even in atheist nations Shows that an atheist view may be because of immaturity.

Religion and suicide: Buddhism, Native American and African religions, Atheism, and Agnosticism. Shows that professed atheists are more likely to self harm than those who are religious.

Hypothalamic digoxin, hemispheric chemical dominance, and spirituality. Shows a relationship between neurochemical abundances or deficits and atheism.

Influence of craniofacial surgery on the social attitudes toward the malformed and their handling in different cultures and at different times: a contribution to social world history. Speaks of mistreatment of those with facial deformities within cultures that are not predominantly Christian (specifically mentions atheist cultures).

a reply to: Barcs



'which is about the measure of energy not available to be useful in the thermodynamics process '
Thanks for your explanation , there is still a lot to learn about entropy for me . I took more or less the physics view in that one.

ou are saying scientists are using the concept of entropy to push scientific agendas? Like what? Improving knowledge and learning how to harness energy efficiently in power plants? With the intelligent design crowd, it is used to promote religious world views. Big difference.

Indeed big difference , look I'm not defending religious zealots. But the point is this that science isn't that innocent anymore. I've seen the ugly side of science from nearby and sometimes money rules more than the first law of thermodynamics . And that alone is enough for me (my opinion and experience) to conclude that science has an agenda too. However in theory science is the best thing that ever happened to humanity I do agree.

a reply to: chr0naut

Religious Belief Systems of Persons with High Functioning Autism

"We suggest that individual differences in cognitive styles is an
important predictor of human belief systems, including
religious belief. An extreme type of cognitive style is high
functioning autism. The 2 studies reported here found that
individuals with HFA have a higher rate than neurotypicals
of endorsing atheism and agnosticism. HFA individuals
thus resemble another group of high-systemizers
(scientists), who also reject religious belief at a relatively
high rate."

note: autistic people resemble scientists. thats a pretty positive takeaway.

Does private religious activity prolong survival? A six-year follow-up study of 3,851 older adults.

"Those reporting rarely to never participating in private religious activity had an increased relative hazard of dying over more frequent participants, but this hazard did not remain significant for the sample as a whole after adjustment for demographic and health variables."

note: the document is very abbreviated and condenses useful data into a less informative sparknotes version.

The origins of religious disbelief

note: these diagrams are very useful for comparing the psychology of theism and atheism. i took the liberty of cutting and pasting them for instructive purposes.

Belief in God rises with age, even in atheist nations

note: correlations can be drawn between aging and certain psychological factors as noted in the charts posted above. fear, self-realization, and grief are examples. "insurance fever" is what i like to call it, the pressure to make plans and settle your affairs before "something bad happens".

Religion and suicide: Buddhism, Native American and African religions, Atheism, and Agnosticism.

"Research has repeatedly demonstrated that religiosity can potentially serve as a protective factor against suicidal behavior. A clear understanding of the influence of religion on suicidality is required to more fully assess for the risk of suicide. ... Practice recommendations are offered for conducting accurate assessment of religiosity as it relates to suicidality in these populations."

note: it would appear that further research is warranted before making decisive statements on the correlation between suicide and atheism. it should also be noted that some branches of spirituality endorse suicide or self harm under the right context, making this a selective assessment of a broader influence on psychological stability.

Hypothalamic digoxin, hemispheric chemical dominance, and spirituality.

note: the article indicates that atheist neurochemistry displays a lean toward analytical behaviors and objective evaluation, aka "left brain thinking". doesnt really strike me as an impairment per se. the same patterns were observed in autism studies. it is amusing that some people use autism as a case study like that is a non offensive way to portray someone as mentally deficient. autism is not retardation, particularly high functioning cases. i believe some instances are referred to as "savants" aka geniuses.

Influence of craniofacial surgery on the social attitudes toward the malformed and their handling in different cultures and at different times: a contribution to social world history.

note: there are no citations or examples provided for this study. poorly assembled.

notes are my thoughts, in case that wasnt clear.

its also worth pointing out that "irreligion" is the 3rd biggest faction globally. 2nd is islam (and look how well thats going) and 1st is christianity. it is not that theism is dying, but that atheism and agnosticism are becoming more accepted/respected as a perspective.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

Religious Belief Systems of Persons with High Functioning Autism
"We suggest that individual differences in cognitive styles is an
important predictor of human belief systems, including
religious belief. An extreme type of cognitive style is high
functioning autism. The 2 studies reported here found that
individuals with HFA have a higher rate than neurotypicals
of endorsing atheism and agnosticism. HFA individuals
thus resemble another group of high-systemizers
(scientists), who also reject religious belief at a relatively
high rate."

note: autistic people resemble scientists. thats a pretty positive takeaway.

Autistic people may resemble scientists, so, are they actually scientists, then?

Belief in God rises with age, even in atheist nations

note: correlations can be drawn between aging and certain psychological factors as noted in the charts posted above. fear, self-realization, and grief are examples. "insurance fever" is what i like to call it, the pressure to make plans and settle your affairs before "something bad happens".

Insurance is fiscally prudent. There is no "fever" related to Insurance, that's just hyperbole.

There is no reason to assume that there is fear driving motivations in the mature - prevalence of phobias reduces by nearly a half (when compared to younger age groups) in those over 60, according to the US National Institute of Mental Health. The mature are less fearful.

Irresponsibility, a lack of wisdom, a lack of insight and emotional instability are hallmarks of immaturity.

Religion and suicide: Buddhism, Native American and African religions, Atheism, and Agnosticism.

"Research has repeatedly demonstrated that religiosity can potentially serve as a protective factor against suicidal behavior. A clear understanding of the influence of religion on suicidality is required to more fully assess for the risk of suicide. ... Practice recommendations are offered for conducting accurate assessment of religiosity as it relates to suicidality in these populations."

note: it would appear that further research is warranted before making decisive statements on the correlation between suicide and atheism. it should also be noted that some branches of spirituality endorse suicide or self harm under the right context, making this a selective assessment of a broader influence on psychological stability.

You ignored the first sentence, however, it says, in the section you bolded, that further research is needed into "the influence of religion on suicidality..." and said nothing about research into correlation between suicide and atheism.

It is obvious from the first sentence you quoted that the writers of the paper were quite convinced of a body of research equating religosity as a potential preventative factor against suicide.

Hypothalamic digoxin, hemispheric chemical dominance, and spirituality.

note: the article indicates that atheist neurochemistry displays a lean toward analytical behaviors and objective evaluation, aka "left brain thinking". doesnt really strike me as an impairment per se. the same patterns were observed in autism studies. it is amusing that some people use autism as a case study like that is a non offensive way to portray someone as mentally deficient. autism is not retardation, particularly high functioning cases. i believe some instances are referred to as "savants" aka geniuses.

Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by impaired social interaction, verbal and non-verbal communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior.

Less than 10% of autistic people display savant abilities. Savant abilities are also present in those who are not autistic.

While savant abilities in the autistic may appear to be genius, these people have disabilities, which is why we identify them as autistic. Autism is not a requirement of genius.

notes are my thoughts, in case that wasnt clear.

its also worth pointing out that "irreligion" is the 3rd biggest faction globally. 2nd is islam (and look how well thats going) and 1st is christianity. it is not that theism is dying, but that atheism and agnosticism are becoming more accepted/respected as a perspective.

Your notes on these seem valid enough and, yes, some of the papers to which I posted links don't explicitly say that disbelief in God could be a due to deficit, but such papers do exist. As I pointed out, a search on Google scholar would probably identify most of those papers. I'm really not that driven to go beyond that.

The first paper I posted a link to, and which you did not actually refute, is an example of a paper which proposes a link between disbelief and autism. On the other hand, as an aspie myself, I probably fall within the spectrum of HFA but I am a believer in God, so it obviously doesn't universally apply, if there is any such link at all.

In regard to Islam, the vast majority of Muslims are gentle, reasonable and law abiding. The press sees a few terrorists and labels them as Islamic (such as daesh) but the fact that they kill innocents, the majority of whom are Muslim, shows that these terrorists are as Islamic as the Westboro Baptist Church is Christian.

While disbelief in God is becoming more prevalent in Western countries, in other, often vastly more populated countries, religion is growing.

The CIA World Fact Book estimates that only 2.5% of the world's total population disbelieves in God and they are not the 3rd most prevalent group after Christianity and Islam, but closer to 7th.

(You referred to "the irreligious" but this group includes those who profess belief in God or a universal spirit, but do not participate in any organised religion).

a reply to: chr0naut

interesting points.

i propose that belief in god appears to be a deficit of a sense of the numinous, or an inability to reason about abstracts - a high functioning autism which is able to extrapolate anything which is not blindingly obvious, to the point where they insist that it must exist.

originally posted by: chr0naut
If the Big Bang events interact with each other physically at any stage, they are part of the same universe. The universe containing multiple Big Bang events remains as closed a system as one only containing a single Big Bang. A Big Bang event is not a universe. If there is no physical interaction from outside of the universe, it is necessarily a closed system.

The laws of physics apply within our big bang expansion bubble, so it's only fair to refer to that as the system. If there are other bubbles out there they could have very different laws of physics. Entropy might not even affect some of them. The entire universe (meaning everything in existence)being a closed system bears no indication on the creator mystery. All entropy means is that our bubble will eventually run out of useful energy for thermodynamics processes and cool down unless something else adds more energy. It has nothing to do with creation or increase in complexity in energy receiving systems.

There is also an obvious problem with claiming that entropy applies to everything in existence. This means god must exist within the universe and can't exist outside of it, which means he couldn't have created it. It also means god must experience entropy. So if this is how you want to play it, then it only makes my job easier and we can end this argument now.

Please explain why the entropy argument for a designed universe is somehow invalidated because specific systems within it are open systems. Does an overarching object set, which is a closed system, simply evaporate because it contains subsets that are open systems?

People, when talking about the creation of the universe, and relating it to their experience, will always be using things from these open systems to explore ideas. The thing is, these open systems exist entirely within a fully closed system, so the question of how they might arise within a closed system that contains them is still valid.

I'd rather know how the argument is VALIDATED in the first place. Please show me the exact connection between useful energy in thermodynamics processes and creation / creator. I already explained that entropy can be offset by the addition of useful energy and that our big bang bubble doesn't experience entropy equally at all places at the same time. It doesn't seem like you see entropy for what it really is. I can't blame you, it's far more complicated than I am letting on and it's tough to research because "disorder" is almost an abstract concept when used to describe it. It took me a while to even get a basic understanding of it.

Probably, because most normal people 'just want to know' and use their wits and reason to seek answers. They are not content in parroting what someone else calls science, without deeper validation.

They are not content in parroting science, but they are perfectly content in parroting religion and faulty arguments about god's existence apparently. Go figure. Wanting to know the answer and actually knowing the answer are 2 completely different things. If something is based on faith and good deeds, then let it be based on faith and good deeds. That should speak for itself, not inventing flawed reasons to justify believing. If you are doing that, it means you are having doubts about the beliefs. That's how I see it at least.

Yes the evidence is subjective, but not all circumstantial.

Either, Or. It doesn't matter. None of it is objective or testable.

The fact that people test and validate their beliefs means that it is testable.

But they don't test or validate anything! They just believe it strongly, which my point. Please name a way for somebody to test the existence of god or validity of any belief system without confirmation bias? You'll win a Nobel prize if you have figured this out!

As for the other stuff about Autism and atheism, I think the connections are very flimsy and I suspect cherry picking, I'd wager that if you searched google scholar for "RELIGION and mental health" you will find just as many articles, like the study on brain damage and strong religious convictions, or the ones that show people getting worse when prayed for. I will do a little research and get back to you next time I have a moment. Who cares about what's "normal"? Popular belief doesn't have any influence on whether or not that belief is true. 9% is an incorrect number you neglected Buddhists, but by your argument, every person that does something that isn't the norm is automatically abnormal. Surely there's something you like that most other don't. It's called being an individual and not a drone.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

Are you kidding me? You are comparing a small jug of ice cream turning to slush, to huge moving bodies of salt water??? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous and is a false comparison. They aren't even close to the same thing.

It is water, salt and movement at an experimental scale, demonstrating the physics of scenario (the ice cream is physically separate separate from the salt water), I would say it's a valid. Beyond that, we do have observable examples to see how things scale.

Are you, perhaps, suggesting that to understand large scale events we need to multiply the smaller experimental results by the increase in scale?

By that method, if we are getting -8 degrees in a jug volume (approximating a litre) we must be getting temperatures of -1,335,000,544,699,999,999,718.85 degrees below absolute zero by multiplication (of course, at absolute zero there is no further thermal energy to extract, so the water temperature would have to stop getting colder at -273.15 degrees C). The upshot is that by this (faulty) method, the water could not be warmer than absolute zero.

Also, since agitated salt water is partially solid at about -8 degrees C, how is movement maintained down to such low temperatures as -55 degrees C?

Your doubts are unfounded. You don't need -55 if you are just freezing a cup of salt water. But we're talking HUGE bodies of water that are constantly moving FAST. What part about the ocean moves slow? There are currents that are always there. Maybe you have never taken a boat out on the ocean but it's constantly moving all over the place. Look at the waves and the swells. It may be calmer during slack tide, but that doesn't generally last long, and it's still moving during that time.

Icebergs (oceanic salt water, frozen) have core temperatures of between -15 and -20 degrees C, even when external air temperatures are colder. What sort of forces would agitate an entire ocean as frozen solid as an iceberg?

You see, a salt water liquid ocean could not exist on Earth at the -55 degrees C temperature you quoted. It would require an amount of salt and mixing forces far beyond what any earthly environment could supply.

You are comparing apples to moons. It's not even remotely close. Your ice cream doesn't experience seasons with different temperatures at different regions, and isn't on the same scale as trying to freeze salt water oceans as happened with snowball earth 500mya. It's also good to note that the earth DID recover from the snowball period.

The Snowball Earth was a hypothesis postulated because of geographical indications of glaciation at tropical latitudes. There are many things that cause similar geographical features other than glaciation, so the evidence may well have been misinterpreted. Similarly, orbital precession, moving magnetic poles and plate tectonics also can explain the location of glaciation evidence at tropical latitudes. The Snowball Earth is not a definitive and evidenced fact of science and should not be referred to as such.

The problem with a Snowball Earth is that the frozen oceans would reflect away thermal energy and the Earth would cool even more. Once a Snowball Earth has occurred, there is no way to break back out of the situation and for the Earth to melt again.

Completely frozen oceans in recent times have been observed?

That was your conjecture. You can't expect that proposing something absurd and then blaming someone else for it, is reasoned argument against them.

Salt content being created and set up by a designer has been observed? I'm sorry dude, I generally have fun debating you, but that claim is ridiculous.

We do observe salty oceans. We don't observe the conclusions we draw from the evidence.

You seem consistently to confuse evidence and inference. For instance, when you keep saying there is no evidence of the existence of God, yet everything that exists evidences the conclusion (from one viewpoint).

Perhaps you might consider this less inflammatory example:

We don't observe Black Hole singularities. We have no evidence of them. However, we can calculate their existence from known physics, we also observe things such as: X-ray aura effects, gravitational lensing, pulsed radio signals at high frequencies, invisible objects at the core of intense gravitational areas such as the orbits of nearby stars, infalling matter luminosity, gross gravitational effects upon galaxies and gravitational effects upon nearby gasses.

There is evidence which supports the theory, and there is the theory itself, which is entirely inference. Can you see the difference?

Wrong. Either something has been observed and tested or it hasn't. Belief is not equal to testable observation. Evidence is not up for interpretation, despite how many times you guys repeat this.

Evidence is always up for interpretation, as previously explained.

Perhaps all 'us guys' keep repeating it because it is true, perhaps It is you who who has a mental block and doesn't seem to 'get' what is obvious to just about everyone else.

originally posted by: frenchfries
'which is about the measure of energy not available to be useful in the thermodynamics process '
Thanks for your explanation , there is still a lot to learn about entropy for me . I took more or less the physics view in that one.

Don't worry, dude, it took me a while to even figure out the basics. I used to think of entropy like a process of decay, but that's not really what it is. It's funny because my dad has a masters degree in thermodynamics and works strictly with marine vessels. Maybe I'll strike up a conversation about this on father's day and ask him how he factors in entropy.

Indeed big difference , look I'm not defending religious zealots. But the point is this that science isn't that innocent anymore. I've seen the ugly side of science from nearby and sometimes money rules more than the first law of thermodynamics

. And that alone is enough for me (my opinion and experience) to conclude that science has an agenda too. However in theory science is the best thing that ever happened to humanity I do agree.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. You have to be careful, because some scientific interests are definitely bought out by certain corporations and government agencies. It's not really the fault of science or the scientists, however, and on the flip side, it does create jobs.