Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. It's odd but at one time 'Thermodynamics law 2 disproves atheism' was a quite a popular apologetic. The idea was that the earth would run down and die (entropy) and when we pointed out that it wasn't a closed system and energy to run everything comes from the sun, they argued that the sun itself would run down and die.
We of course said "Yes, we know that. So what?" In fact i have an idea that the cosmos may recycle it's spent universes, the 'chaos -mass' starting to pull together into another Big -bang event. Many of which are going on all the time.
However, the point is that Entropy doesn't have any impact of the God -debate, because an end to our sun and world is inevitable. But really -so what?
because an end to our sun and world is inevitable.
Do you think that will be before or after George R.R. Martin finally gets around to finishing the Saga of Fire and Ice?
06-12-2018, 12:21 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
The creative force in the universe doesn't make sense from an atheistic perspective. Nature seems to decay, which is just the opposite. That creativity has to come from somewhere.
Even children understand that.
We actually understand all the forces of nature - PERIOD! And without entropy increasing there would be no complexity - thus no life.
Also, in that simple high entropy state at the end of our universe it is modeled that another quantum fluctuation can start at another low entropy state and another BB will again create another universe.
We actually understand all the forces of nature - PERIOD! And without entropy increasing there would be no complexity - thus no life.
You don't understand entropy! Most theists don't!
Learn a little!
Also, in that simple high entropy state at the end of our universe it is modeled that another quantum fluctuation can start at another low entropy state and another BB will again create another universe.
Sorry, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my point.
I suspect it's this idea that Something had to start off the process of creation. They are thinking in terms of some Act of Will to decide to start the process.
Nobody knows whether that is what even happened, though it is an intuitive idea that any act of creation requires a creator. Of course, what sems to make sense to humans is not always the way things are. Some physicists say that all you need if gravity to get things moving. I can see that a valid alternative to Goddunnit.
The bottom line is that Nobody Knows, but theism knows that 'what other explanation but Someone starting it off is there?' is one of their best gaps for god arguments. Of course it still leaves the "Which god?" question even if Prime Mover is accepted. But then you run into the assimption that the only Really valid God -claim is the Abrahamic one, the Bible being used in a sort of circular mutual validation.
None of this has much validity in logical terms, but it makes perfect sense in terms of BibleGod faith -claims.
This is why repeatedly and inevitably, in all religion -irreligion debates "Who made everything, then?" is going to come up.
"We Don't know" isn't seen as a logically valid response, but as a confession that we have no reply to "(Bible) God dunnit" and thus is a win for Godfaith, when it really isn't.
It's almost the same argument with Abiogenesis, even though there are some hypothetical explanations and some handy indirect evidence. The line there is that we have no fossil evidence. So Goddunnit is still considered the Default explanation unless one can prove something else. The A priori assumption that a god exists is the logically false faith-claim that makes the whole theistic argument logically invalid from the start. It makes the theist apologist take the position that the god -claim (and the belief that this has to be Bible -god can be argued to later) is the default theory that atheists have to disprove, when logically it is a faith -claim that the theists have to prove. But they really cannot get their heads around that one.
The "laws of nature" just popped out of nowhere, right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
