Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote:

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.

The 2 Voyager probes have left or are leaving the solar system, and that is matter leaving the solar system, so by any definition the solar system is an open system. As far as science can tell, there is no boundary that prevents energy or matter from leaving or entering the system. to create anything other than an open system, there needs to be some identifiable boundary to that system, and thus far none has been observed or detected for the solar system, Indeed it is only hypothesis that suggests that the Universe is closed or isolated, and that depends on the exact definition of Universe.

thedoc wrote:If God is accepted to be eternal, there is no need for a cause of God.

Yes, that would be right.

Being eternal, God is not subject to entropy, so there's no "clock" telling us He has to have an original cause. So "who/what caused God to exist would be a nonsensical question, if by God we understand the idea of First Cause.

Not so is the universe, of course. It must needs have an origin, and a cause.

Londoner wrote:I think it must be more than a postulate.

Indeed so. For me, it's more than that, of course. It's a personal belief, not merely a neutral possibility.

But since Atheism IS a contrary postulate, one perhaps at least temporarily attractive to some people in this forum at the moment, in deference to the opposition I use the word. I don't use it for myself.

Maybe that's being too polite, but I think there's no reason for me to become uncivil in stating the case.

Immanuel Can wrote:
But since Atheism IS a contrary postulate, one perhaps at least temporarily attractive to some people .

Temporary! I've been waiting to see the light for over 60 years and nothing's happened yet. I'm starting to think I've been overlooked.

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
But since Atheism IS a contrary postulate, one perhaps at least temporarily attractive to some people .

Temporary! I've been waiting to see the light for over 60 years and nothing's happened yet. I'm starting to think I've been overlooked.

Good line. Is your sign prominently displayed? Is there a number on the house? I've noted that even street signs in Albion are located strangely. And if even the Royal Mail can't find you, how could a Supreme Being?

Well, I did say "at least". Some are temporary, and some, if they insist, may well be permanent. But I can't see any reason to be, so I'm holding out hope.

Immanuel Can wrote:...

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).

Not quite. All it means is that 'it' has no origin point within this universe but if such an 'Original Cause' did exist then it exists and as such will be in an existence and so will have a cause within 'its' existence, so turtles all the way down then.

thedoc wrote:... 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.

There is no such thing as 'human logic', there is just Logic, as Logic arises from there being existence and existence is things and states of affairs. If a 'God' exists then it is subject to Logic, that is, the Logic of the existence 'it' is in, now 'it' may well not be subject to the laws of Physics of this existence but 'it' cannot escape the laws of Logic of 'its'.

Arising_uk wrote: There is no such thing as 'human logic', there is just Logic, as Logic arises from there being existence and existence is things and states of affairs. If a 'God' exists then it is subject to Logic, that is, the Logic of the existence 'it' is in, now 'it' may well not be subject to the laws of Physics of this existence but 'it' cannot escape the laws of Logic of 'its'.

Why should God be subject to logic, unless God is a creation of human thinking. Perhaps the God you believe in is subject to logic but I do not believe in a God that is limited to any Logic.

A logical God is good for atheists to disprove, but it is not good enough for me to believe in.

thedoc wrote:The 2 Voyager probes have left or are leaving the solar system, and that is matter leaving the solar system, so by any definition the solar system is an open system. As far as science can tell, there is no boundary that prevents energy or matter from leaving or entering the system. to create anything other than an open system, there needs to be some identifiable boundary to that system, and thus far none has been observed or detected for the solar system, Indeed it is only hypothesis that suggests that the Universe is closed or isolated, and that depends on the exact definition of Universe.

Yes i thought the Voyager craft might be mentioned here! I have seen the term 'does' instead of 'can' when defining the solar system as a closed system and suggesting that matter does not cross the solar system boundary - the Heliosphere. In fact the Heliosphere stops a lot of matter such as that from gas clouds or ejections from supernova from entering the solar system.

In any case, my point that the Solar system is subject to a state of increasing entropy remains.

thedoc wrote:Why should God be subject to logic, unless God is a creation of human thinking. Perhaps the God you believe in is subject to logic but I do not believe in a God that is limited to any Logic. ...

Then you don't understand Logic. As Logic exists because there is Existence, i.e. things or states of affairs. Now if you think your 'God' is not a thing or state of affair then fair enough but then your 'God' does not exist.

A logical God is good for atheists to disprove, but it is not good enough for me to believe in.

Fair enough, if you want to believe in non-existent things that is your affair.

I am a keen fan of reductionists like Drs Dawkins and Hawking. I think that materialism provides a very rough outline of reality and is not to be taken seriously in terms of personal existentialism. That would just as irrational as those feigning certainty about reality and existence at earlier times in history.

However, there is no denying the beauty and elegance of reductionist models, despite being extremely rough sketches of reality.

Arising_uk wrote:There is no such thing as 'human logic', there is just Logic, as Logic arises from there being existence and existence is things and states of affairs. If a 'God' exists then it is subject to Logic, that is, the Logic of the existence 'it' is in, now 'it' may well not be subject to the laws of Physics of this existence but 'it' cannot escape the laws of Logic of 'its'.

Our knowledge of 'existence and existence is things and states of affairs' arise out of our consciousness, our perceptions. So, if logic arises from ' 'existence and existence is things and states of affairs', then logic is 'human logic'.

Or, if we are claiming Logic is not subject to the uncertainty that applies to ordinary human assertions, then the word 'Logic' is just taking the place of 'God' in thedoc's formulation. (And to do that, to equate God with pure reason is something I think most theists would have been happy with.)

Londoner wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:There is no such thing as 'human logic', there is just Logic, as Logic arises from there being existence and existence is things and states of affairs. If a 'God' exists then it is subject to Logic, that is, the Logic of the existence 'it' is in, now 'it' may well not be subject to the laws of Physics of this existence but 'it' cannot escape the laws of Logic of 'its'.

Our knowledge of 'existence and existence is things and states of affairs' arise out of our consciousness, our perceptions. So, if logic arises from ' 'existence and existence is things and states of affairs', then logic is 'human logic'.

I see logic in other species. For instance, a documentary where a silverback declining to go through a territory that would put his family at risk.

Greta wrote: I see logic in other species. For instance, a documentary where a silverback declining to go through a territory that would put his family at risk.

I would not see that as logic. I think logic only deals with the relationship between propositions, whereas the silverback is concerned with matters of fact. Whether the silverback is correct depends on whether it had correctly assessed the risk.

attofishpi wrote:

thedoc wrote:The 2 Voyager probes have left or are leaving the solar system, and that is matter leaving the solar system, so by any definition the solar system is an open system. As far as science can tell, there is no boundary that prevents energy or matter from leaving or entering the system. to create anything other than an open system, there needs to be some identifiable boundary to that system, and thus far none has been observed or detected for the solar system, Indeed it is only hypothesis that suggests that the Universe is closed or isolated, and that depends on the exact definition of Universe.

Yes i thought the Voyager craft might be mentioned here! I have seen the term 'does' instead of 'can' when defining the solar system as a closed system and suggesting that matter does not cross the solar system boundary - the Heliosphere. In fact the Heliosphere stops a lot of matter such as that from gas clouds or ejections from supernova from entering the solar system.

In any case, my point that the Solar system is subject to a state of increasing entropy remains.

I did not argue against that point, the solar system as a whole is probably in a state of increasing entropy, but some parts of it can be in a state of decreasing entropy, and this is where some creationists are in error about the 2nd law disproving evolution.