Entropy and Causality used as a proof for God's existence [You Respond]

Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
Entropy and Causality used as a proof for God's existence [You Respond]

Quote:

The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy decreases. In other words, the purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos, not order, and available energy necessary for work is lost (mostly as heat) in this process. Eventually, the universe will run down and all life and motion will cease.  This is the natural tendency of all things.  Batteries run down, machines break, buildings crumble, roads decay, living things die, etc.  Left to the natural state, all things would eventually cease to function.

  1. The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down."
    1. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.
    2. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.
  2. Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size.
    1. It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand; therefore, it is finite in size.
  3. All events have causes.
    1. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.
      1. We've already established the universe cannot be infinitely old.
      2. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state of unusable energy, which it is not.
      3. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.
  4. Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.
    1. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
      1. Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself.
    2. Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.
      1. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist.
      2. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
    3. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.
      1. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.
    4. An uncaused cause would be separate from the universe.
      1. Being separate from the universe, which was caused to be, it would not be subject to the laws of the universe since it existed independent of the universe and its laws.
      2. This would mean that entropy need not be required of the uncaused cause.
  5. This uncaused cause is supernatural.
    1. By supernatural is meant completely 'other' than the universe and is not the product of it.
      1. This uncaused cause must be incredibly powerful to bring the universe into existence.
  6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
    1. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state. 
    2. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning. 
    3. This means that God is uncaused.
  7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.

Left of Larry posted something about carm.org (which I have seen that site before) and I thought since we haven't been getting very many interesting emails that maybe we could post some of the insane stuff on that site as proofs for God/Christianity.  The above quoted came from http://www.carm.org/atheism/entropy.htm so im curious on what others thoughts/refutations are.   

 


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
Bonus points:[quote}"Since

Bonus points:

Quote:
"Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible."

Is it me or do these people always project their own issues on us? 


systemnate
Silver Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-08-24
User is offlineOffline
"Since the universe is

"Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe."

 That's based on the assumption that the universe is finite.  If there was a beginning, and there is a need for an uncaused cause - why does it have to be God?  Why can't it be Oxygen, Methane, Hydrogen etc.?

"The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.

  1. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state. 
  2. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning. 
  3. This means that God is uncaused."

LOL.  The Bible teaches this so it is true.  It says so in Psalm chapter 90.

That's absurd.  Many other religious claims teach and say other things so can we just assume those are true also?  Also a clear use of circular reasoning.


Refuted.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
systemnate wrote:  

systemnate wrote:

 

That's based on the assumption that the universe is finite. If there was a beginning

 

There was.

 

Quote:
 

 

 why does it have to be God? Why can't it be Oxygen, Methane, Hydrogen etc.?

 

Oxygen/Methane/Hydrogen didn't even form until billions of years after the Big Bang. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13827
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ok, I challenge this moron

Ok, I challenge this moron to reconstitute a 3 day old dead body based on thermodynamics or entropy.......oops, I forgot the old trump card, "God did it".

Oh, and they have to give testable falseifiable examples based on peer reviewed studies of how one would medically be raised from 3 days of death and flesh rot. Go ahead guys, use your Jesus based "Entropy" and explain it. I'm quite sure you can.*cough cough* ROTFLMAO 

When the theists attempts to incorperate real science to justify absurdities what is really going on is, "Pay no attention to the myth behind the curtain". 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


systemnate
Silver Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-08-24
User is offlineOffline
Probably.  I'm not trying

Probably.  I'm not trying to show that with infinite regression you would find oxygen, hydrogen, and methane.  What I'm saying is even though that is not the case, that would be more probable than an omnipotent being. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
  1. The universe is not


1. The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down."

1. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.

2. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.

2. Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size.
Would size even have meaning if it were infinite? For instance, what's the length of a horizontal vector?

1. It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand; therefore, it is finite in size.
How would something become infinite in size? That something can expand implies a finite measure. At what point does it transcend measure and become infinite? This statement makes no sense to me.

3. All events have causes.
As an inductive statement, and a practical basis for most logic it generally works, but is not an absolute. You go on to contradict yourself by setting aside a concept that defies this. If you're going to posit it as an absolute, it's either true -- in which case an infinite regress is inevitable -- or there's a first case, rendering this statement false.

1. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.

1. We've already established the universe cannot be infinitely old.

2. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state of unusable energy, which it is not.
Assuming it's a closed system, right?

3. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.
I don't think this means anything.

4. Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.
Why can't there be an infinite number of regressions? Why does the cause have to be singular? Why does the cause of this universe have to be the terminus to regress?

1. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
Why would this be so? It seems like you're begging the question in assuming the "cause" has to have a requisite set of features you introduce without justification.

1. Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself.

2. Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.

1. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist.

2. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.

3. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.

1. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.

4. An uncaused cause would be separate from the universe.

1. Being separate from the universe, which was caused to be, it would not be subject to the laws of the universe since it existed independent of the universe and its laws.

2. This would mean that entropy need not be required of the uncaused cause.

5. This uncaused cause is supernatural.

1. By supernatural is meant completely 'other' than the universe and is not the product of it.

1. This uncaused cause must be incredibly powerful to bring the universe into existence.

6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.

1. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.

2. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.

3. This means that God is uncaused.

7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.

You introduce not just a deity, but a specific deity, into the argument, and fail to justify it in any way. It's a complete non-sequitur, especially if you position an intelligent being as a first cause, which is even more implausible than an inanimate thing arising ex nihilo.

{fixed for IE broswer}


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Inbetween (6) and (7) it

Inbetween (6) and (7) it assumes the Bible is correct. If you deny that premise, the argument fails. He should've just stated this premise outright, that way his argument can be reduced to:

(1) The Bible is correct

(2) The Bible says Yahweh created the universe

(3) Therefore, "Yahweh created the universe" is correct.

 When the argument is stated so bluntly, it's absurdity is clear. Besides that, there is another problem in the argument. His use of "supernatural" is evidently an abuse of terms. I wouldn't call 11-dimensional membranes, pre-universe false vacuums, and so on, "supernatural" but that's what they'd be called under his use of the term.

The argument is easily disposed of. Ray Comfort's "The Atheists' Worst Nightmare" argument was better than this Tongue out 

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Hey, I don't even have to

Hey, I don't even have to fucking type anything! It falls so perfectly within the vice-grip of my three refutations that there is nothing to add on...

Lies, Damn Lies, and False Beliefs about Ex Nihilo and Its Relationship to Thermodynamics

The Absurdity Of Creationist Cosmology

All a posteriori Arguments For the Existence of God Are Intellectually Bankrupt

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Apokalipse
Apokalipse's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
the argument is just

the argument is very easily refuted.

 

the argument:

1. everything has a cause.

2. At the same time, not everything has a cause, because there must have been an uncaused cause somewhere

3. that cause is god

 

 

1 is baseless

2 contradicts 1 (special pleading)

3 is non-sequitar

 

also, the laws of thermodynamics are only necessarily true in a  closed system. I don't know how many times that has to be drummed into people's skulls.