Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

uwot wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:...so please keep a thick skin on.

That's rich given your refusal to engage.

Be fair, he's scared he'll go to 'Hell' for talking to us as his 'God' is the vengeful bastard one from the OT.

Apparently it's not himself he fears for, but us. The rationale, as I understand it, is that we are going to Hell anyway, but the more we upset his god, the more the vengeful bastard of the OT it becomes. Quite why that psychopath would want to inflict eternal torture, over and above the usual fire and brimstone, because I said it could go fuck itself with a cheese grater, is a bleedin' mystery. I'd have thought it was up to the Devil to punish me, why should he care what I say? It's just Mr Can throwing his toys out of the pram, because he doesn't understand atheism, he doesn't understand materialism, he doesn't understand science and he doesn't like it being pointed out.

thedoc wrote:All that is very true, but I was referring to those who try to claim that the 2nd law negates evolution and the origin of life, but evolution only applies to life after it has started. Evolution describes how living things change and adapt to a changing environment, a stable environment usually has very little evolution and more likely organisms exist with little change for a long time.

That's true, and entropy is differently applicable there: it's applicable in that Evolutionism requires attributing creative and organizing powers to non-teleological forces like time and chance, whereas entropy would lead us not to expect that.

Again these people believe that if they can discredit evolution they have proven creation or intelligent design.

I don't observe that they do, except in the cases of the manifestly uninformed. At most, that takes us to a level playing field. But the case still needs to be made, either way.

What they fail to acknowledge is that some believers can embrace intelligent design, and evolution is the mechanism.

The problem with that is substantial. I know it's a common refuge for those who want to remain Theists while gaining the cachet of being "scientific" among those for whom Evolutionism is an article of faith. But I think it never really works well: after all, the theological implications of that move are highly problematic.

Londoner wrote:It depends what you think of as Creationism.

In its most basic form, merely the postulate that the Earth was deliberately created by God, not merely as an accidental byproduct of a cosmic explosion.

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:God is likely to have some objective qualities, i guess its up to us to work out which ones.

Well, that's kind of non-committal, atto. "Likely to have..." I'm not sure where that gets us. Now, if I get your right, you are not in doubt about His existence, for you say,

There are still some things i believe of course, but as to whether there is one, leaves no doubt.

So if I'm not attributing to you anything you don't believe, you believe there IS a God, but you don't know if He has any objective qualities at all...He's "likely" to have them, but not certain to do so...

Am I representing you accurately here?

I am in NO doubt that God exists. There are some things that i know about God, and somethings that i believe re God.

On the question of specific objective qualities i don't believe the bible contains much in the way of providing us with objective information pertaining to God. I hope this clears my point of view up.

thedoc wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

thedoc wrote:
But it's not a reason for anything, it's only presented as evidence by those who have an incorrect understanding of it.

Could you give me an example as to the way this reasoning is not being presented coherently as to how something that 'resembles' 'God' could exist?

Of course for such an argument, one must accept that this 'God' would be a result of the universe rather than a creator of it.

Most people who use the 2nd law of thermodynamics don't seem to understand that it only applies to a closed system.

Yes, i am aware of this.

thedoc wrote:In an open system, such as that on the Earth, there is a constant addition of energy from the Sun. Including the Sun in the system, while still not a closed system, entropy is increasing because the decreased energy in the Sun more than balances the increased energy on the Earth.

Entropy is increasing as the Sun dissipates its useful energy out to the solar system. Sure, for the time being the Earth benefits from a small fraction of this energy.

thedoc wrote:Many people who oppose evolution and use the 2nd law to disprove it, link it with atheism, as if a person who believes in God must not believe in evolution. I believe it's the creationists and intelligent design believers who try to claim that the argument is only 2 sided, and deny that there is any middle ground, so Dawkins is reacting mostly in defense of the attack.

I am a firm believer in evolution.

(thermodynamics) a measure of the amount of energy in a system that is available for doing work; entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity

Now the solar system is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, can we agree on this?

attofishpi wrote:

thedoc wrote:

attofishpi wrote:
Could you give me an example as to the way this reasoning is not being presented coherently as to how something that 'resembles' 'God' could exist?

Of course for such an argument, one must accept that this 'God' would be a result of the universe rather than a creator of it.

Most people who use the 2nd law of thermodynamics don't seem to understand that it only applies to a closed system.

Yes, i am aware of this.

thedoc wrote:In an open system, such as that on the Earth, there is a constant addition of energy from the Sun. Including the Sun in the system, while still not a closed system, entropy is increasing because the decreased energy in the Sun more than balances the increased energy on the Earth.

Entropy is increasing as the Sun dissipates its useful energy out to the solar system. Sure, for the time being the Earth benefits from a small fraction of this energy.

thedoc wrote:Many people who oppose evolution and use the 2nd law to disprove it, link it with atheism, as if a person who believes in God must not believe in evolution. I believe it's the creationists and intelligent design believers who try to claim that the argument is only 2 sided, and deny that there is any middle ground, so Dawkins is reacting mostly in defense of the attack.

I am a firm believer in evolution.

(thermodynamics) a measure of the amount of energy in a system that is available for doing work; entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity

Now the solar system is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, can we agree on this?

There are several explanations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics but that all energy is uniformly distributed, and therefore not available to do work is a good one. The creationists usually argue that it is the flow from complex to simple, and this is then used to argue against evolution which involves organisms becoming more complex over time.

Yes I agree that the solar system is subject to the laws of thermodynamics but it is not a closed system, the Universe is assumed to be a closed system and eventually energy will be evenly distributed over the whole Universe, but I do not think that will happen any time soon.

attofishpi wrote:I am in NO doubt that God exists. There are some things that i know about God, and somethings that i believe re God.

Well, I could ask you how you achieved your level of certainty, I suppose. But I'll leave that question unasked.

On the question of specific objective qualities i don't believe the bible contains much in the way of providing us with objective information pertaining to God.

Well, if God exists, which you affirm He does, then surely He has objective qualities, no? For to say that an entity has no objective qualities is synonymous with saying that it cannot be known to exist at all -- for it cannot then be distinguished from any and all other entities in the universe. For a thing to "exist," it must have it's own qualities. And for you to know that God exists, you surely must have in mind a particular Entity to Whom certain objective properties must be attributed.

In other words, it won't do to say one "believes in God" but also that He has no objective traits: for to say so is simply to say one does not even know what the word "God" refers to. It refers to both anything and nothing, then.

Now, whether or not the Bible has the list of those objective traits is a question that might follow. But it's not the primary one here: the first question is whether or not God has any objective qualities or identity AT ALL, whatever they might be.

I hope this clears my point of view up.

Somewhat, but not entirely. I still don't know where you stand on the question of God having specific, objective traits. It seems to me you'd HAVE to believe He does, in order to affirm, as you do, that you know He exists. But I haven't heard you say that you understand that, so I'm unsure whether a) I'm understanding you aright, or perhaps b) you understand the real implications of your own claim to know God.

We'll see, I suppose.

thedoc wrote:Yes I agree that the solar system is subject to the laws of thermodynamics but it is not a closed system, the Universe is assumed to be a closed system and eventually energy will be evenly distributed over the whole Universe, but I do not think that will happen any time soon.

Soon or late, it makes no difference to the essential question. If the universe is a closed system, then Entropy points us to an Origin Point (capitals to indicate uniqueness and supreme importance of the referred-to event) which, logically speaking, cannot be a Naturalistic one, since the very conditions that ground what we call "Naturalism" would have had to come into being at that same time. Without that, we quickly get into a regression of causes: what made the Big Bang happen, then what made the thing that made the Big Bang happen, then what made the thing that made the thing that made the Big Bang happen...and the Big Bang stops being an explanation of the Origin Point at all.

And what would make a true Origin Point possible? Only a super-natural cause of some kind. The Original Cause would have to be something without an origin point of its own, because unlike the universe, it is not bound by linear time and decline, like the universe is (as demonstrated by entropy).

thedoc wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

thedoc wrote:
Most people who use the 2nd law of thermodynamics don't seem to understand that it only applies to a closed system.

Yes, i am aware of this.

thedoc wrote:In an open system, such as that on the Earth, there is a constant addition of energy from the Sun. Including the Sun in the system, while still not a closed system, entropy is increasing because the decreased energy in the Sun more than balances the increased energy on the Earth.

Entropy is increasing as the Sun dissipates its useful energy out to the solar system. Sure, for the time being the Earth benefits from a small fraction of this energy.

thedoc wrote:Many people who oppose evolution and use the 2nd law to disprove it, link it with atheism, as if a person who believes in God must not believe in evolution. I believe it's the creationists and intelligent design believers who try to claim that the argument is only 2 sided, and deny that there is any middle ground, so Dawkins is reacting mostly in defense of the attack.

I am a firm believer in evolution.

(thermodynamics) a measure of the amount of energy in a system that is available for doing work; entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity

Now the solar system is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, can we agree on this?

There are several explanations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics but that all energy is uniformly distributed, and therefore not available to do work is a good one. The creationists usually argue that it is the flow from complex to simple, and this is then used to argue against evolution which involves organisms becoming more complex over time.

Yes I agree that the solar system is subject to the laws of thermodynamics but it is not a closed system, the Universe is assumed to be a closed system and eventually energy will be evenly distributed over the whole Universe, but I do not think that will happen any time soon.

The solar system is a closed system of entropy as confirmed to me by someone who probably has a better understanding of physics than both of us - our old chum Obvious Leo. The energy that enters the solar system from the universe beyond is in such a high state of entropy that it leaves little by way of available energy to do work - useful energy.

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:I am in NO doubt that God exists. There are some things that i know about God, and somethings that i believe re God.

Well, I could ask you how you achieved your level of certainty, I suppose. But I'll leave that question unasked.

On the question of specific objective qualities i don't believe the bible contains much in the way of providing us with objective information pertaining to God.

Well, if God exists, which you affirm He does, then surely He has objective qualities, no? For to say that an entity has no objective qualities is synonymous with saying that it cannot be known to exist at all -- for it cannot then be distinguished from any and all other entities in the universe. For a thing to "exist," it must have it's own qualities. And for you to know that God exists, you surely must have in mind a particular Entity to Whom certain objective properties must be attributed.

In other words, it won't do to say one "believes in God" but also that He has no objective traits: for to say so is simply to say one does not even know what the word "God" refers to. It refers to both anything and nothing, then.

Now, whether or not the Bible has the list of those objective traits is a question that might follow. But it's not the primary one here: the first question is whether or not God has any objective qualities or identity AT ALL, whatever they might be.

I hope this clears my point of view up.

Somewhat, but not entirely. I still don't know where you stand on the question of God having specific, objective traits. It seems to me you'd HAVE to believe He does, in order to affirm, as you do, that you know He exists. But I haven't heard you say that you understand that, so I'm unsure whether a) I'm understanding you aright, or perhaps b) you understand the real implications of your own claim to know God.

We'll see, I suppose.

Yes, of course God has specific objective traits and as i said i guess its up to interested theists to ascertain what they are - what is the true nature of God, and how that relates to us.

attofishpi wrote: The solar system is a closed system of entropy as confirmed to me by someone who probably has a better understanding of physics than both of us - our old chum Obvious Leo. The energy that enters the solar system from the universe beyond is in such a high state of entropy that it leaves little by way of available energy to do work - useful energy.

Wrong, it doesn't matter if energy is entering the system, or leaving the system, the solar system is not a closed system, because energy is radiating away from the system faster than it is entering the system, it is open. Energy itself cannot be in any state of entropy, it can only add to, or take away from the total energy of the system. If Obvious Leo said that he didn't know what he was talking about. It doesn't matter how much energy is entering the system or how much is being radiated away, there is a net imbalance and therefore it is an open system.

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:Yes I agree that the solar system is subject to the laws of thermodynamics but it is not a closed system, the Universe is assumed to be a closed system and eventually energy will be evenly distributed over the whole Universe, but I do not think that will happen any time soon.

Soon or late, it makes no difference to the essential question. If the universe is a closed system, then Entropy points us to an Origin Point (capitals to indicate uniqueness and supreme importance of the referred-to event) which, logically speaking, cannot be a Naturalistic one, since the very conditions that ground what we call "Naturalism" would have had to come into being at that same time. Without that, we quickly get into a regression of causes: what made the Big Bang happen, then what made the thing that made the Big Bang happen, then what made the thing that made the thing that made the Big Bang happen...and the Big Bang stops being an explanation of the Origin Point at all.

And what would make a true Origin Point possible? Only a super-natural cause of some kind. The Original Cause would have to be something without an origin point of its own, because unlike the universe, it is not bound by linear time and decline, like the universe is (as demonstrated by entropy).

It is assumed by theists that God has always existed and is the cause of the Universe. If God is accepted to be eternal, there is no need for a cause of God. God may have amused himself by creating an infinite number of universes before ours, we have no way of knowing till after death, maybe. Why does everyone expect that God will be bound by human logic and limits, God is beyond human logic and limits and therefore only knowable by what God chooses to reveal.

thedoc wrote:It is assumed by theists that God has always existed and is the cause of the Universe. If God is accepted to be eternal, there is no need for a cause of God. God may have amused himself by creating an infinite number of universes before ours, we have no way of knowing till after death, maybe. Why does everyone expect that God will be bound by human logic and limits, God is beyond human logic and limits and therefore only knowable by what God chooses to reveal.

Since there is NO limit to what people will accept the conclusion is that ANYTHING is acceptable. There isn't a single sacred book that isn't replete with absurdities. With theists every absurdity is a reason to believe as per Tertullian's sincere statement which has an inverse logic all of its own: Credo quia absurdum.

thedoc wrote:

attofishpi wrote: The solar system is a closed system of entropy as confirmed to me by someone who probably has a better understanding of physics than both of us - our old chum Obvious Leo. The energy that enters the solar system from the universe beyond is in such a high state of entropy that it leaves little by way of available energy to do work - useful energy.

Wrong, it doesn't matter if energy is entering the system, or leaving the system, the solar system is not a closed system, because energy is radiating away from the system faster than it is entering the system, it is open. Energy itself cannot be in any state of entropy, it can only add to, or take away from the total energy of the system. If Obvious Leo said that he didn't know what he was talking about. It doesn't matter how much energy is entering the system or how much is being radiated away, there is a net imbalance and therefore it is an open system.

You seem to be mixed up between 'closed' and 'isolated' systems. I found this online which explains the difference:-

Systems can be classified as open, closed, or isolated. Open systems allow energy and mass to pass across the system boundary. A closed system allows energy but not mass across its system boundary. An isolated system allows neither mass or energy to pass across the system boundary.

Therefore an isolated system is the universe, a closed system is the solar system.

Immanuel Can wrote:It depends what you think of as Creationism.

In its most basic form, merely the postulate that the Earth was deliberately created by God, not merely as an accidental byproduct of a cosmic explosion.

I think it must be more than a postulate.

To identify as a Creationist is to do more than allow something as a possibility. We can never rule out any theory of that type, so if Creationism is only put forward as a postulate we would all have to be simultaneously Creationists, atheists and every other possibility.

Besides, if I am not actually asserting something like Creationism is true, then what I am really asserting is 'I don't know'.

So, I don't think it makes any sense to treat something like Creationism (or atheism or theism) as a postulate. You either claim to have evidence for a view, or you don't hold that view.