This thread is for proof that God exists

by juandefiero 375 Replies latest jw friends

  • shepherdless


    I can see why you might think that Shepherdless but actually Prologos is correct.

    All living things locally and temporarily defy entropy.

    To be precise, I said that life doesn't contravene "the second law of thermodynamics", and I stand by that. (Entropy was the term used by Prologos.)

    When you apply the second law of thermodynamics, you must first select the closed system that you are considering. By "closed", I mean with a boundary around that system where no energy enters or exits. The law predicts that if you can identify such a system, entropy within it can only increase.

    A living thing is not such a closed system. All living things eat, breathe, etc.

    Simple examples of what the second law of thermodynamics predicts are:

    - a petrol engine that runs out of fuel will eventually come to a halt;

    - it is impossible to build a "perpetual wheel"; and

    - if you tape over the mouth and nose of a living thing (and stick a cork in it), it will eventually die.

    If you are evaluating a living thing that CAN eat (ie get an external source of energy), or an engine that has an external supply of fuel, etc, then you have to apply the FIRST law of thermodynamics.

    So living things don't "defy" the second law of thermodynamics; it is just that that law does not apply to them. (I suppose in a strict literal sense, they do temporarily defy entropy.)

    In fact, the only being that I can think of that defies the second law of thermodynamics is God, but perhaps I will leave that discussion for another day.

  • prologos

    shepherdless: 1. Minor point, but I think you have some of the physics slightly muddled there.

    On the 0 zero sum energy universe: I should not have been referring to the matter/ gravity balance but the matter /antimatter near balance during the big bang. my idea is, that it took tremendous energy to have a universe come into being and then send it on it's way expanding. If that energy was and always exists in the "nothing, void" well, why would a creator not be able to use it?

    you have read some fundamentalist Christian literature that suggests that life or evolution contravene the second law of thermodynamics. I do not remember, but like to hear your counter arguments. Whenever I see a law- defying act, and life is that in a sense, I am in awe. that is why I prefer surfing to skiing. Surfing you do on energy, skiing on gravity, a compelling downward force. So, life, like flying aerobatics, surfing is a divine experience. the beginning of the universe is kind of divine too.

    I am a worker innovator, and it is hard to convince us of the non-existence of at least a non-material beginner at the material's beginning, the Deist option.

    PS: I like your 4 times that flight evolved. sounds like the 4 natural laws that allow airfoils to lift. it is inevitable in both cases. !) Newton's pushing air down, 2) Bernoulli's suction upward, 3) riding the circular the wave that the airfoil generates, and 4) centrifugal force that exerts an upward, outward pressure from the curved airflow.

  • cofty
    I suppose in a strict literal sense, they do temporarily defy entropy - shepherdless

    You got there.

  • slimboyfat
    According to Kurzweil the whole universe is on course to become self-aware, presumably that also means in some sense alive, therefore the reversal of entropy would not be temporary.
  • prologos
    slimboyfat: "the whole universe is on course to become self-aware, yeah, when you look at a picture of the superclusters of galaxies, the wall & void, tendrils ,--it looks a lot like the filaments of the neurons in the brain. from brane to brain.
  • Island Man
    Island Man

    "But reality shows that evolution tends toward similar forms all the time. It seems to have a deeps structure."

    That's because the finite nature of the natural world, pre-existing anatomy and the laws of physics mean there are only so many kinds of forms that can be achieved. Natural constraints result in a certain threshold of variety which cannot be surpassed. So you would inevitably find the same functions/forms evolving multiple times.

    As an example, we see legs being used for locomotion in multicelluar organisms but we never see wheels. Pre-existing anatomy - maybe a fixed vascular and neural network - imposes a constraint that makes it virtually impossible for wheels to develop in complex multicelluar organisms

  • prologos
    Island Man: makes it virtually impossible for wheels to develop in complex multicelluar organisms, but they exist in the physical world, pinwheel galaxies, even wheels within wheels, two adjacent circular bodies counter-rotating (Earth and venus. ,
  • slimboyfat

    When you point out that the natural world tends to present recurring challenges as well as limit possible solutions you are in fact restating the problem rather than refuting it. Why is reality constructed in such a way that evolution tends to produce in some sense predictable, or recurring, challenges/outcomes? Pointing to the mechanism is not an answer to the question, this in fact is the question. It's as if there is something deep within the structure of the universe that tends toward the outcomes we observe as subjects/objects. Atheist philosopher Mary Midgley described the situation this way in Are You An Illusion?

    The idea of natural selection, which, as we shall see, is usually called in to account for this vast creative surge, is already looking increasingly inadequate to explain evolution. The main trouble with it is, I think, best explained by the analogy of coffee. Natural selection is only a filter, and filters do not provide the taste of the coffee that pours through them. Similarly, the range of evolutionary alternatives between which selection takes place has to be there already in matter. How it comes to be present there is the real mystery about creation.

    This may sound like an argument for creationism if you don't follow it closely because it superficially resembles the "no survival without arrival" rhetoric of Watchtower creationism. But it is not disputing evolution. It is asking what it is about the stuff of the universe that it is primed to produce subjects as well as objects. Evolution is the filter through which matter passes and emerges as various life forms. But what is it about the stuff of the universe itself that makes it express itself in this way?

  • Landy

    The root of the issue isn't a belief in creationism or any of the other bible stories.

    When it comes down to it, it's a choice between rational, evidence based thinking vs superstition.

  • Coded Logic
    Coded Logic
    Why is reality constructed in such a way that evolution tends to produce in some sense predictable, or recurring, challenges/outcomes?

    This is a loaded question - it's an attempts to limit direct replies to only those that support the questioners agenda. It's equivalent to asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

    There is no evidence that reality is constructed on behalf of biological processes. Rather, biological processes are one specific aspect of reality. We could easily replace your question with just about anything.

    Why is reality constructed in such a way that it tends to produce:

    • Black holes
    • Rocks
    • Orange Cats
    • Saturday morning cartoons
    • Farts
    • etc.
    It's as if there is something deep within the structure of the universe that tends toward the outcomes we observe as subjects/objects.

    Have you not heard of physics? Cause and effect? Action and reaction? It's not something "deep within the structure" that causes outcomes. It is the structure that causes outcomes.

    You're a bit like a guy who walks into a crowded restaurant and sees that a hundred people are all sitting in the dining hall and asks, "What is it that all these people have in common that they happen to be here at the same time? What is the common thread?"

    Is it because they're all hungry? No, some of them aren't eating.

    Is it because they all live nearby? No, many of them are from out of town.

    Is it because they all did x, y, or z? No, some portion of them didn't do x, y, or z.

    And you keep on fretting over the question not realizing the question is the answer. What they all have in common is they're all in the restaurant at the same time! And what brought each person there is entirely different and unrelated circumstances.

Share this