The 2nd law of thermodynamics … "proves" God exists?
- Thread starter GenJesus
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system.
- The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases.
- The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.
I still do not see how that proves a being called God who is outside the isolated system exists.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
You don't?
How did all the stuff that cannot be created nor destroyed get there in the first place? No more is being created. And none is being destroyed. So it doesn't just spontaneously burst into or out of existence. Someone from outside the system must have put it there.
If the entropy of a system always increases then how is there any order to anything unless someone from outside the system caused it to be orderly?
How did all the stuff that cannot be created nor destroyed get there in the first place? No more is being created. And none is being destroyed. So it doesn't just spontaneously burst into or out of existence. Someone from outside the system must have put it there.
If the entropy of a system always increases then how is there any order to anything unless someone from outside the system caused it to be orderly?
-
1
- Show all
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/
Also,, without that law, you can not digest food.
"Our gut relies on nerves, muscles, enzymes, and neurotransmitters to properly digest food. While enzymes mainly break down our food, the nerves, muscles and neurotransmitters physically move the food through our digestive tract from the stomach to the small intestine and to the colon. When this happens in a healthy gut, bacteria gets passed through the digestive tract along with the food to its final destination in the colon. Problems arise when something interferes with this process. "https://www.amymyersmd.com/2018/04/10-signs-small-intestinal-bacterial-overgrowth-sibo/
If that law did not exist before the fall, Adam and Eve would have died from the overgrowth of bacteria in their
system. It would be foaming out their mouth.
Also,, without that law, you can not digest food.
"Our gut relies on nerves, muscles, enzymes, and neurotransmitters to properly digest food. While enzymes mainly break down our food, the nerves, muscles and neurotransmitters physically move the food through our digestive tract from the stomach to the small intestine and to the colon. When this happens in a healthy gut, bacteria gets passed through the digestive tract along with the food to its final destination in the colon. Problems arise when something interferes with this process. "https://www.amymyersmd.com/2018/04/10-signs-small-intestinal-bacterial-overgrowth-sibo/
If that law did not exist before the fall, Adam and Eve would have died from the overgrowth of bacteria in their
system. It would be foaming out their mouth.
You are assuming the cause is God which I agree it is. You are also assuming it refutes Evolution which it really does not.
You are using the known fallacy of either or logic when there is always a third or fourth possibility. Some Philosophers claim mater is eternal, others claims it does not exist.
You are using the known fallacy of either or logic when there is always a third or fourth possibility. Some Philosophers claim mater is eternal, others claims it does not exist.
Question 3: Did the 2nd Law begin at the Fall?
Answer 3:
No, I would not say that entropy/Second Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall. The Second Law is responsible for a number of good things which involve increases in entropy, so are ‘decay’ processes in the thermodynamic sense but maybe not what most people would imagine are decay:
Answer 3:
No, I would not say that entropy/Second Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall. The Second Law is responsible for a number of good things which involve increases in entropy, so are ‘decay’ processes in the thermodynamic sense but maybe not what most people would imagine are decay:
- solar heating of the earth (heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classical case of the Second Law in action),
- walking (requires the highly entropic phenomenon of friction, otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden!),
- breathing (based on air moving from high pressure to low pressure, producing a more disordered equalized concentration of molecules),
- digestion (breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks),
- baking a cake (mixing the ingredients produces a lot of disorder), etc.
- What is contrary to Scripture is death of nephesh animals before sin, and suffering (or ‘groaning in travail’ (Rom. 8:20–22)). It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power at the Fall. He still sustains the universe (Col. 1:17) otherwise it would cease to exist. https://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics
- The above is from a creationist site.
"
From X, which is the assertion, is not yet disproved. Therefore, X.
This is a Fallacy. If X is unproven, then it is unproven and remains unproven until reason and evidence is provided or secured to establish the proof or high probability of the claim being true..
Examples:
(1)Of course God exists. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
(2)Of course pink elephants inhabit Mars. We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise?
(3) Of course Santa Claus exists. No one has ever proved, to my knowledge, that Santa Claus does not exist. And if one were to fly to the North Pole and say: Well, look, there's no toy factory there. A believer could argue: Well, Santa Claus knew you were coming and moved his operations to the South Pole. So you fly down to the South Pole. No Santa Claus factory, toy factory there. So the believer would say: Oh, he moved it back up to the North Pole.
(4) Of course leprechauns exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
(5) Of course ghosts exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
(6) Of course yellow polka dotted aliens exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
(7) Of course X exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
...
Example:
...
There is the mistake of thinking that there are only two alternatives of a false dilemma:
Premise 1:Either X exists or X does not Exist
Premise 2:You cannot prove that X does not exist
Conclusion: X does exist.
OR
Premise 1:Either X exists or X does not Exist
Premise 2:You cannot prove that X does exist
Conclusion: X does not exist."http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialScien...ER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm
From X, which is the assertion, is not yet disproved. Therefore, X.
This is a Fallacy. If X is unproven, then it is unproven and remains unproven until reason and evidence is provided or secured to establish the proof or high probability of the claim being true..
Examples:
(1)Of course God exists. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
(2)Of course pink elephants inhabit Mars. We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise?
(3) Of course Santa Claus exists. No one has ever proved, to my knowledge, that Santa Claus does not exist. And if one were to fly to the North Pole and say: Well, look, there's no toy factory there. A believer could argue: Well, Santa Claus knew you were coming and moved his operations to the South Pole. So you fly down to the South Pole. No Santa Claus factory, toy factory there. So the believer would say: Oh, he moved it back up to the North Pole.
(4) Of course leprechauns exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
(5) Of course ghosts exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
(6) Of course yellow polka dotted aliens exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
(7) Of course X exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
...
Example:
- Premise: If yellow monkeys in the jungle J exist, then you will observe the yellow monkeys in jungle J
- Premise: No observation of yellow monkeys in the jungle J occurs
- Conclusion : There are no yellow monkeys in the jungle J
...
There is the mistake of thinking that there are only two alternatives of a false dilemma:
Premise 1:Either X exists or X does not Exist
Premise 2:You cannot prove that X does not exist
Conclusion: X does exist.
OR
Premise 1:Either X exists or X does not Exist
Premise 2:You cannot prove that X does exist
Conclusion: X does not exist."http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialScien...ER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm
-
1
- Show all
Since the law you refer to has nothing to do with genealogy, you can not trace back to Adam and Eve.
A non Christian can use the same poor logic to say they traced back to Lucy and they would be wrong too.
It is only another false assumption.
Name the "2nd law of thermodynamics in reverse" and demonstrate it. Such a rule does not exist and can not be proven that it ever existed.
A non Christian can use the same poor logic to say they traced back to Lucy and they would be wrong too.
It is only another false assumption.
Name the "2nd law of thermodynamics in reverse" and demonstrate it. Such a rule does not exist and can not be proven that it ever existed.
-
1
- Show all
"
“”The very lack of evidence is thus treated as evidence; the absence of smoke proves that the fire is very carefully hidden.
—C.S. Lewis (in a glimpse of clarity)
"
“”The very lack of evidence is thus treated as evidence; the absence of smoke proves that the fire is very carefully hidden.
—C.S. Lewis (in a glimpse of clarity)
"
-
1
- Show all
I think this is the jest the OP is trying to prove,
"
The inspired writer wrote in Hebrews 11:3, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Paul declared in Acts 14:17, “Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” The psalmist affirmed, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (19:1). Paul assured the Romans, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (1:20, emp. added).
In closing, we return to Lord Kelvin, the Father of Thermodynamics, for fitting final thoughts.
"
CONCLUSION
Evolutionists claim that science and the idea of God are irreconcilable. “Only one of them can be the truth,” they say, “and you cannot prove there is a God.” However, the Laws of Thermodynamics, which science itself recognizes in its explanations of the phenomena in the Universe, were designed by the Chief Engineer. As expected, they prove to be in complete harmony with His existence, contrary to the claims of evolutionists. God, Himself, articulated these laws centuries ago. At the very beginning of the Bible, the First Law of Thermodynamics was expressed when Moses penned, “Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day, God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done” (Genesis 2:1-2, emp. added). After the six days of Creation, the mass/matter/energy creation process was terminated. As evolutionist Willard Young said regarding the First Law: “Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can only be converted from one form to another” (Young, 1985, p. 8). Through the hand of the Hebrews writer, God also articulated centuries ago what scientists call the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands; they will perish, but You remain; and they will all grow old like a garment” (1:10-11, emp. added).The inspired writer wrote in Hebrews 11:3, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Paul declared in Acts 14:17, “Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” The psalmist affirmed, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (19:1). Paul assured the Romans, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (1:20, emp. added).
In closing, we return to Lord Kelvin, the Father of Thermodynamics, for fitting final thoughts.
I cannot admit that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative Power. Science positively affirms Creative Power. It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being [Acts 17:28—JM], but in the creating and directing Power which science compels us to accept as an article of belief.... There is nothing between absolute scientific belief in a Creative Power, and the acceptance of the theory of a fortuitous concourse of atoms.... Forty years ago I asked Liebig, walking somewhere in the country if he believed that the grass and flowers that we saw around us grew by mere chemical forces. He answered, “No, no more than I could believe that a book of botany describing them could grow by mere chemical forces”.... Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion (as quoted in Smith, 1981, pp. 307-308, emp. added)."http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2106
Yes. I am glad you agree that the cause is God.
I don't know why it would be a fallacy. Either God did it or He didn't do it.
If He didn't do it then how did matter, which can't be created, get created??? That makes no sense, imo. A creator must have created something that can't be created nor destroyed if it, in fact, exists.
I wonder if you don't believe in God if you can admit that something that can't be created nor destroyed but still exists must have been created by a Creator since it doesn't spontaneously come into existence by itself.
I don't know why it would be a fallacy. Either God did it or He didn't do it.
If He didn't do it then how did matter, which can't be created, get created??? That makes no sense, imo. A creator must have created something that can't be created nor destroyed if it, in fact, exists.
I wonder if you don't believe in God if you can admit that something that can't be created nor destroyed but still exists must have been created by a Creator since it doesn't spontaneously come into existence by itself.
It is the either or fallacy. evolution or creation. There are two other claims, one is mater does not exist.
The other is Mater is eternal with the Big Bang as a natural event. Even if we were to eliminate the non-God choices, we still have not proven that God exists. That is a set of proofs within itself.
For the God choice to be valid, we must demonstrate it is possible that God exists using basic philosophical arguments that have been know for centuries. One need only visit a library look God existence up in an Encyclopedia of Philosophy to find out what those basic argument are. Even Intelligent Design is not a new argument. It is just an variation on one of the well known basic existing arguments.
the entropy-is-non-decreasing-law is specifically true only for a closed system, which is one in which no heat energy leaves or enters.
earth itself is not a closed system; it receives energy from the sun and radiates energy into space, itself. no single living creature on earth is a closed system; we absorb and transfer energy with our surrounding environment.
this is the argument you will encounter about entropy vs. the existence of evolution: it doesn't apply, because you are trying to project it onto open systems. decrease in entropy on earth is more than made up for by increase in entropy in the sun and surrounding space. it is the same with a refrigerator - it cools things inside it, lowering entropy, but doesn't violate the 2nd law because it isn't a closed system by itself. it sheds heat into the kitchen through the coils at the bottom or back of it, raising the entropy of the entire house.
even with that said, simply disproving some aspect of evolution doesn't prove God exists anymore than proving an odd sound you hear in the woods isn't a heffalump proves it must be a bandicoot.
earth itself is not a closed system; it receives energy from the sun and radiates energy into space, itself. no single living creature on earth is a closed system; we absorb and transfer energy with our surrounding environment.
this is the argument you will encounter about entropy vs. the existence of evolution: it doesn't apply, because you are trying to project it onto open systems. decrease in entropy on earth is more than made up for by increase in entropy in the sun and surrounding space. it is the same with a refrigerator - it cools things inside it, lowering entropy, but doesn't violate the 2nd law because it isn't a closed system by itself. it sheds heat into the kitchen through the coils at the bottom or back of it, raising the entropy of the entire house.
even with that said, simply disproving some aspect of evolution doesn't prove God exists anymore than proving an odd sound you hear in the woods isn't a heffalump proves it must be a bandicoot.