Darwinism is made up

[defendor]

I think there needs to be a fine tuning

 

If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

An outside force acted upon it.  "All energy" needs instigating.  So energy is only applicable if force is being done on energy.  If nothing instigates energy, it remains inert and acts according to newton's 1st law. The universe is a closed system, which includes Earth and anything on it.  How did the sun develop?  How did inert matter and energy abruptly explode when it is inert?  

The information in the creative order such as snowflakes, etc. do in fact posit unnatural characteristics to the laws of the universe.  This is the Theistic view, that God is holding, planning, moving all things.  Not somethings but all things.  So all things are in design of God even nature.  We see how some of these 'natural' things develop now, but also, you can't explain how they developed before.  Such as, the atomic and molecular structures that combine on one another.  As the above quote indicates, we observe the world that violates the laws of Physics, and simply asserting that nature has order still begs the question, how?

[Whitney]

The answer is that it doesn't violate the laws of physics for a snowflake to form complex patterns or for life to evolve....it just means that if the universe truly is a closed system (I believe the string theorists would consider it open) it will continue spreading out and eventually end in a heat death where everything has reached equilibrium once all the energy is converted to heat and entropy is maximized.

Perhaps reading this link will help: http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae261.cfm

specifically

4) The entropy of an isolated system will always increase in a spontaneous process.

The last definition is essentially the one you are recalling.

The idea that entropy is disorder is not quite right and its unfortunate that this concept has been held onto so long.

Consider the case where a liquid freezes into an ordered crystal; according to the definition you give this should never happen but we know that it does -- Why?

A better definition of entropy would be the definition that is common to statistical mechanics and was proposed by Boltzmann.

Entropy can be thought of as being directly related to the number of ways a system has to `arrange' itself. Each arrangement constitutes a `microstate' of the system.

Therefore, a system seeks to maximize the number of different arrangements or microstates.

To make this clear think of a container full of a gas. The gas is occupying a constant volume and is also at constant temperature. Within the container the molecules of gas will explore different positions. If you could stop the system at some time you would find the molecules at some fixed positions. Collectively, their positions represent one possible microstate. Now start the system back up again and stop it some later time. Once again you will (probably) find the system in a different microstate. Given enough time the system will explore all possible microstates as well as ending up in the same ones. The more microsates the system has available the higher the entropy.

So you see entropy has little to do with disorder -- it's about microstates.

Entropy will always increase because a system is the most stable when it has the most microstates -- disorder is not the factor.

[TheJackel]

I'm not sure how you related purpose and infinite number of moments.

Could God not also qualify as the definition of "the substance of existence itself"?

There are fundamental problems with this argument.

1) If you want to metaphorically call the substance to all existence GOD, sure!
2) Stating so would be calling all things GOD
3) Under Omniscience, you would be arguing for pure solipsism with a multiple personality disorder.

Not really going to work out especially if you want to maintain separation of individuals.. However if you maintain that the substance is that which everything is made from, there would be no actual GOD. There would only be those things to which are made from the substance itself. We are thus two unique glasses made from the same pile of sand.

[defendor]

The argument I have made is that all things that exist and continue to exist are by the authority of a Creator God.  That things compound themselves onto each other into more complex ways by the sovereign nature of God.  Not that all things are God, but that without a God, nothing could perpetually exist.  I think this is a little more in depth than just the "watchmaker" idea.

So if a system has many possible randomizations, how is that not disorder?

[Whitney]

Let me know when you want to actually address all the previous points that were put up to show why what you said was wrong...otherwise I'm done as this is a waste of my time.

[defendor]

here's a point,

science has changed drastically over the past century.  So we believe everything that we know now as complete truth, when it could change drastically in a few years.  How do you know what you know now isn't going to be proven wrong in a few years?

[LegendarySandwich]

here's a point,

science has changed drastically over the past century.  So we believe everything that we know now as complete truth, when it could change drastically in a few years.  How do you know what you know now isn't going to be proven wrong in a few years?

That's the beauty of science. It is constantly evolving ( ), so we know that we are becoming closer and closer to the truth.

Anyways, most of the time, we don't figure out something new and disregard everything we learned in the past. We add to our understanding.

[The Magic Pudding]

here's a point,

science has changed drastically over the past century.  So we believe everything that we know now as complete truth, when it could change drastically in a few years.  How do you know what you know now isn't going to be proven wrong in a few years?

There has been a lot of development in science during my lifetime, I can't say it's changed my world view that much.  I suppose I know some things, but mostly I accept the most probable explanation until another comes along.  Half an aspirin is good for me, then it's not, then it is again, I can cope with change.

[Whitney]

here's a point,

science has changed drastically over the past century.  So we believe everything that we know now as complete truth, when it could change drastically in a few years.  How do you know what you know now isn't going to be proven wrong in a few years?

Let me know when you want to actually address all the previous points that were put up to show why what you said was wrong...otherwise I'm done as this is a waste of my time.

[defendor]

There has been a lot of development in science during my lifetime, I can't say it's changed my world view that much. I suppose I know some things, but mostly I accept the most probable explanation until another comes along. Half an aspirin is good for me, then it's not, then it is again, I can cope with change.

So the facts change and your world view doesn't, does that mean your world view is not based on facts? or do you bias the facts to fit your world view?

[TheJackel]

The argument I have made is that all things that exist and continue to exist are by the authority of a Creator God.  That things compound themselves onto each other into more complex ways by the sovereign nature of God.  Not that all things are God, but that without a God, nothing could perpetually exist.  I think this is a little more in depth than just the "watchmaker" idea.

So if a system has many possible randomizations, how is that not disorder?

Not that all things are God, but that without a God, nothing could perpetually exist

Oh but one intentionally ignores that consciousness requires cause to exist? I don't think you have properly addressed how to use infinite regress.

So if a system has many possible randomizations, how is that not disorder?

There is not perpetual "order" and everything is perpetually chaotic like to where order comes from chaos, or a system with positive, negative, and neutral feedback. Order in this sense is never static, but ever changing order.

Example:

The shapes you find in sand dunes is order from a system with feedback, or known as a system of chaos. All that means in laymens terms is the constant change of order to where more complex things of order can emerge.. Such as sand dunes, snow flakes, waves in the ocean, how your hair blows in the wind, or how smelly your farts can be.. And giving the nature of energy and chaos, nothing is ever 100% random chance. Everything is probability of order from a chaotic system.

[defendor]

There is not perpetual "order" and everything is perpetually chaotic like to where order comes from chaos, or a system with positive, negative, and neutral feedback. Order in this sense is never static, but ever changing order.

So if everything is perpetually chaotic, how has there been observable laws of physics or anything in the universe developing to any extent that it has?

If Gibbs free energy holds true, then how is there established order?

btw just curious to know what your background in this field is, do you have a degree or formal education in applied sciences?

[TheJackel]

There has been a lot of development in science during my lifetime, I can't say it's changed my world view that much. I suppose I know some things, but mostly I accept the most probable explanation until another comes along. Half an aspirin is good for me, then it's not, then it is again, I can cope with change.

So the facts change and your world view doesn't, does that mean your world view is not based on facts? or do you bias the facts to fit your world view?

Oh jeeze.. When a fact changes the body of facts that supported the fact that changed don't just get tossed in the toilet..  The evidence may have pointed to something to be a fact, but missing evidence to which is later discovered might change that fact into something more factual.. Such as the concept of the Earth being flat was based on facts that didn't have all the facts to realize the Earth wasn't flat.. This doesn't magically make all the evidence that supported a flat Earth concept wrong, or even not to be included into supporting that the Earth is an oblate sphere!.. So yes, our beliefs in facts are based on the evidence that supports them. If new evidence arises that changes something to be no-longer a fact, we will gladly change our views to reflect what the further evidence tells us, or shows us. And it will always show why the previously thought to be fact was wrong and why we thought it was right. If science didn't function properly, you wouldn't have Nuclear Power plants, your computer, or even a car to some of our butts to work everyday.

You let us know when you can provide a body of facts that can actually validate the existence of a GOD. Especially when many of you theists claim it's not made of anything.

[defendor]

So if the facts become more factual, then were they ever facts to begin with?  The earth being flat is not a fact, so it was never a fact.  So when facts came out supporting a spherical earth, the old 'facts' were not regarded as facts.

Could a 'conscious energy' be a definition of a god

[TheJackel]

There is not perpetual "order" and everything is perpetually chaotic like to where order comes from chaos, or a system with positive, negative, and neutral feedback. Order in this sense is never static, but ever changing order.

So if everything is perpetually chaotic, how has there been observable laws of physics or anything in the universe developing to any extent that it has?

If Gibbs free energy holds true, then how is there established order?

btw just curious to know what your background in this field is, do you have a degree or formal education in applied sciences?

Firstly, you don't seem to comprehend GIbbs free energy.

Gibbs free energy is the maximum amount of non-expansion work that can be extracted from a closed system;

Good thing we don't exist in a "closed system".. And secondly, no closed system can remain permanently a closed system simple because of atomic decay. The second law of thermodynamics only pertains to isolated closed systems. In an open system (aka applying the other laws of thermodynamics), your argument is entirely useless. However, even in a closed system there remains a chaotic system with feedback.

Now go find do some experiments and let me know what the constant pressure and temperature is of our universe.

Also:

Gibbs energy (also referred to as ∆G) is also the chemical potential that is minimized when a system reaches equilibrium at constant pressure and temperature. As such, it is a convenient criterion of spontaneity for processes with constant pressure and temperature.

Well, even empty space doesn't maintain a constant pressure and temperature..I wonder why    Can anyone here state the OTHER laws of thermodynamics ?