ad veritas

On friday i have a BIG debate at school concerning the existence of God. The teacher made us pre-submit a few points that would be in the opening statements so that there would be some focus to the debate. Of course, the points my side recieved were scant. Here are their main points:

1) Increasing Entropy implies that There was once a perfect state that could only have been created by or originated from a god.

2) The improbability of the evolving of complex organs such as the human eye. (they claim that if the eye were to evolve it would be mono-color and have a manual focus.

3) Some vague reference to Science and Religion.

Now, most of their points have to do with evolution which is completely off-topic. I need to point this out as </i>ignoratio elenchi</i> without making it sound like a cop-out.

MY main question is (since i understand that entropy is far more complex then just the ever-decreasing amount of usable energy) how can i answer their questions about developement, complexity, and entropy? One of my opponents scoffed the other day, "our arguments are air tight."
we'll see about that
Thanks
-Daniel

ad veritas

Addendum:
I would post my points here as well, however due to the fact that the opposing side will probably be browsing the site i will refrain from doing so.

SRB

Good luck for your debate, Daniel. Here are some suggstions:

What definition of "God" is being used in the debate? God is usually taken to be a person who is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and created the universe. You could point out that most arguments for the existence of God fail to establish that that being exists. Maybe the order and origin of the universe are explained by something else. For example, perhaps there is an impersonal creative force, perhaps the order and origin of the universe were caused by a being who is not all-knowing, or by several beings, or by a being who is not all-good, etc.

Alternatively, perhaps the initial order in the universe is a brute fact - it exists with no explanation. Every theory of ultimate origins has to have at least one brute fact. Religious people often believe that God exists, with his tremendous powers and knowledge, as a brute fact. They have no explanation for why he exists rather than not, or why there doesn't exist a god with different properties altogether. If God's existence can be a brute fact, then maybe the initial order in the universe can exist as a brute fact.

Nobody knows the answers to such deep questions, but there is no reason to prefer the "God answer" to any other.

As for the evolution of the eye, you should call their bluff. In what respected scientific journal has it been announced that the eye could not have evolved? If they only have the writings of some crackpot creationist then in the context of a debate you could simply deny that their view is one that can withstand peer review and is not taken seriously by people who know what they are talking about. You could also point out that the falsity of evolutionary theory does not entail that God exists. Almost every scientist with relevant qualifications accepts evolutionary theory. How do they explain that if they are right that evolutionary theory has been disproved?

If you want some positive arguments for atheism, then I think Doug Krueger makes a pretty good case here. You should use some positive arguments for atheism in as well as dealing with their arguments.

SRB

Dr. Retard

Looks to me like a lot of non sequiturs and things that make you go "bwuh?".

Entropy increases. How does this imply an initial perfect state? Where in the world did they get that? What exactly is a "perfect state"? Is this even a scientific concept? Whatever it is, why is the only possible explanation for it some immaterial spirit? Where in the world are they getting this?

As far as the eye goes, they're just BSing. There's no crisis in evolutionary thought as regards the eye. We have a decent idea of how it came about. I don't know where they're getting this monochrome manual focus business. Some well-respected scientific journal, no doubt.

Now, if they back off of these specific and bizarre arguments, they'll probably resort to the standard design argument. This is the one claiming that order, functionality, etc. tends to come about only when designed by some intelligence. And so, when you look at such-and-such ordered, functional, etc. thing, you should conclude that a designer is responsible for it.

Some objections:

* In our experience, order, functionality, etc. seems to come about all the time, without any designing intelligence. Look at atoms, galaxies, etc. This stuff seems to happen naturally. Now, they can insist that the stuff is designed, but that's begging the question against the unconvinced nontheists they're supposed to persuade. So, then, how can they justify this premise that order, etc. usually comes about via intelligent design? I think they can't justify it. The premise is then an article of faith.

* But suppose they're right. Suppose that we should posit designers whenever we encounter ordered, etc. stuff. In that case, look at God, look at the big Intelligent Designer himself. He himself is quite ordered, functional, etc. His mind must be the most complicated, ingeniously functional thing in existence. So we should posit a new designer, a Super-Designer, who designed God's mind. And then we need a Super-Super-Designer, ... ad infinitum. This goes to show that their principle of positing designers is absurd.

* Notice that they appeal to our experience. They claim that, whenever we encounter something ordered, etc., it turns out to have a designer. These theists, these natural theologians, propose that experience should be our guide. But take another look at our experience: we never encounter immaterial minds, we never encounter moral perfection, the ability to will universes into existence, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. We never encounter anything remotely close to God. So, letting experience be our guide, we should rule out the God theory as quite 'out there', the last thing to expect. If we posit a designer, it should be made of flesh, it should be mortal, it should be of quite limited moral and intellectual faculties, and probably we should posit a bunch of them. After all, this is what experience shows us about designers.

All of these objections come from Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

Less philosophically, you might want to point out that the more we study the universe, the more order, etc. seems to be an inherent principle of the universe. This stuff does seem to develop on its own, with no designers in sight, according to laws that we more or less understand.

Wyrdsmyth

1) How does increasing entropy imply that there was once a "perfect state"? What is a "perfect state"? What is the criteria used to define such a thing? Is a perfect state one that is completely static, or one without any entropy at all, or what? Why assume that entropy is "bad" or "imperfect" and that the opposite of entropy -- something like static, unchanging order -- is "good" or "perfect"? Another point to raise, is that if the increase of entropy is only the increase of messiness, imperfection, and so forth (and all the other rhetoric that might be used), then what does that say about the supposed "creator," if we are going to assume such a creator exists? If we are going to define the creation as imperfect, then how can we conclude that it could have only come from a creator that is perfect? Wouldn't it make more sense to conclude that a perfect creator would only create perfect creations, and that an imperfect creation implies an imperfect creator? Or, even, does it make the most sense that an "imperfect creation" is in fact, so entropic exactly because it was not designed at all?

2) How can one calculate the "improbability" of the human eye evolving? What are the numbers, and how exactly does one arrive at them? How does one define "complex"? Is it a relative term, or not? And how does that relate to concluding something was designed or created? After all, there are simple designs (such as crude Paleolithic tools, which were "designed" though you might mistake them for ordinary rocks), and there are complex forms that appear in nature (crystals, tornadoes, snowflakes, etc.), that we do not normally conclude are designed simply by virtue of their complexity. Can evolution explain many "complex" things? What would half a wing look like... Ever see a flying squirrel? How about a simpler version of the eye... Ever see the light-sensitive spots on a worm? More to the point, what is more plausible: evolution or divine creation? How does divine creation account for such things as the simple tailbone on humans? Isn't it the most plausible explanation for the tailbone that humans (or our ancestors) had tails, that became shorter and shorter until eventually there was nothing left but a few residual bones? What is the alternate explanation making use of a divinity -- that God put those bones there to make us think evolution might be true?

3) Since point three was not really given, I can't offer any suggestions here, except perhaps to compare the record of success between science and religion (if they are going to be pitted against each other by your opponents), and to deflect any assertions that science is the "religion of skeptics" or any such nonsense. Science doesn't work for or against religion, it doesn't have an agenda, it's simply a tool and a method, and the most effective one we've ever developed as human beings for learning about our universe. But if it's findings do contradict the established "truths" of certain religions, then it those religions that must give ground -- not science. If we don't like what we see when we look through telescopes, the solution is not to ban the use of telescopes.

Jet Grind

I'd just like to give my advice on point one, as the other points have already been well addressed.

The "increasing entropy" or "thermodynamics" arguments have already been given hypothetical solutions by modern science. Since we have discovered that the universe is expanding, that allowes increasing room for order to form. Many things in our universe produce order from randomness, a good example is the formation of a snowflake. Many physicists (e.g. Victor Stenger) believe that natural processes alone could've produced the order in our universe. Basically, since you have a universe with an infinite amount of time to develope, simple randomness will eventually produce a structure with a self-perpetuating tendency. If you want to read further into this, read Victor Stengers book "Not by Design: The Origin of the Universe". Also, I'd expect them to define exactly what this perfect state is, and the laws of thermodynamics indicate that it ever existed. And furthermore, how it is evidence for the existence of God.

joedad

Daniel,

Hello and Welcome. Just some thoughts.

Whether you preface a statement with, "Assuming a god exists," or "assuming a god does not exist," you've assumed some concept of "god." That assumption has to be defined for purposes of argument. It must have some definition and properties to hold the definition, or else you aren't assuming anything. Are you talking about a giant invisible sky fairy, or an undetectable gas cloud just beyond the Kuiper Belt or a being that creates universes? Or What? This is the Achilles heel of any god argument. Are they talking about a god - so which god - or the concept of a god? Please define somehow.

If someone says that there is only indirect evidence for god, but we cannot get a physical representation, although we can model such a concept, ask them to do so. We can model gravity but have only hypothesized gravitons. Is Gravity therefore a god?

If they decide to acquiesce and say, "Okay, for purposes of argument, god is an invisible undetectable gas cloud orbiting our solar system," ask them how they detect something undetectable, unless of course god is like gravity. If gravity is not a god, why not?

If their argument is along the lines that because the Universe exists a god is necessary, then the existence of gravity necessitates a similar need such as invisible gravity birds, simply shepherding the stuff of the universe according to our observations. If the existence of "gravity" does not necessitate the existence of gravity birds, how does the existence of the universe and the sum of its behaviors, necessitate the existence of a similar entity?

If the existence of the Universe necessitates the existence of a being that creates universes, doesn't the existence of a being that creates universes necessitate the existence of a being that creates beings that creates universes ...and so on ad infinitum?

Ask them to define complexity by asking them to point to something that is not complex. IOW, point to a part of the Universe that is the opposite of complex. Sounds like their "complexity" is nothing more than "I don't know." Thunder and lightning were once complex enough to be the product of a god's will. Are thunder and lightning not complex enough anymore or does a god still hurl thunderbolts? Ask them to point out the threshold between complexity and non-complexity, that threshold that points to a god. Is this god still tumbling every sand grain and directing the footfall of every ant? If not why not and how not? IOW, where does this god say, "hands off!"

What is "perfection?" Are there "perfect" electrons? Are they gods? Why not? How not?

If you can get them to attempt to define and illustrate illustrate their god their complexity and their perfection you shouldn't have any problems holding your own.

joe

acronos

Why is an initial universe more perfect than the end of the universe? The end of the universe you have zero entrapy and a perfectly uniform universe. The initial universe didn't have an infinite supply of energy or entropy. It only had more entropy and energy than at any other time we are aware of. The initial state of the universe was chaos and explosions. Why is enough chaos to blow apart any atom more perfect than now which can support life?

No one who supports evolution postulates that the human eye just appeared out of nothing. If that was what was actually postulated, then the creationists would be right that it is extremely improbable. The creationists create a strawman when they try to calculate the probability of this assembly from scratch. Real evolutionary scientists think that the eye was created in stages. Each stage as not nearly so improbable. There is plenty of evidence in the actual structure of the human eye that indicates that the eye is actually a bad design if it were designed from scratch. You can find more information here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html.

You probably should look at the fine tuning argument because it seems to be the current fad.

atheists have many different reasons for their beliefs.
Common reasons:

Lack of evidence for a God? Pretty much the only evidence that Jesus even existed is foistered by christians(the christian authored bible filled with contridictions) or is questionable. The evidence for God is even more sketchy.

Christianity has made a constant retreat. The world was flat, it's not. Disease is the wrath of God, then why is God's wrath cureable with antibiotics. Lightning was the wrath of God, then why is Gods wrath cureable with a lightning rod. The world is 6000 years old, then how can we see stars that are billions of light-years away.

Which God? Why shouldn't I worship purple elves or Isam.

Which denomination? If God loves his people, why wouldn't he have been clear about how to become a christian. If he was clear, why are there nearly 10000 denominations that heavily disagree. You have to be baptized, you pray him into your heart, you have to join this church.

The problem of evil - How could a perfectly good god create a universe that has evil in it.

If they are arguing off topic concerning evolution, I say being specific about the local religion and finding direct flaws with it.

Anyway, good luck.

Zee

Hi, I would like to point out something.

About entropy, we have an example of what is called as the "perfect order". Something with perfect order by definition has zero entropy, and there is no way to put more order into the system. An example of such system is a material at 0 Kelvin. This example is mentioned in most thermodynamics textbooks.

0 Kelvin is known as the absolute zero. There is no way to bring a material to a temperature lower to this value. At this point, all particles in the material are freeze in space, thus it is in a perfect order (instead of vibrating randomly).

You must note that the total entropy in the universe always increase (assuming that universe is a closed system). About Jet Grind's argument, it is true that a high entropy state can produce a more ordered state. However, this orderness can only be localized. That's it, the entropy of a a part of a system may decrease, but the entropy of the entire system will always increase. For example, the entropy of the earth decreases (this is evident from evolution, and I hope you believe in evolution), however, the entropy of our solar system increases.

The begining of the universe is something that we refer to a zero entropy state. The definition of order in thermodynamics is not simple. Indeed, the big explosion a long time ago has much less entropy than the universe today, even though the term big bang itself sounds chaotic to your ears.

OK, that's about the explanation of thermodynamics.

Theistics argument can be developed readily from this law. The argument simply says that "if we have a system that is consuming fuel, and the system is still runing today, somebody shoud have put fuel into the system before."

If you are debating a Christian, it will be easy, because the bible never mention anything about the big bang 5 million years ago (it is supposed to be "SAZHAM!"). So cosmology simply says that Genesis is wrong, there was no Adam and Eve, so human never fell into sin, and there is no reason for Jesus to come and save us. If you are not debating a biblical inerrant, it will be much harder.

Off course, there is still a large possibility for another higher being involved, but it can be the Titans, Amon, Wishnu, or a divine sea toad. The big bang itself does not necessarily means "Something created big bang." It might be jsomething that science cannot explain yet, just like thunder 2000 years ago. We have to keep searching for the answer instead of accepting the "fact" that "God did it!".

SRB

That is a non sequitur. First of all, there is no reason to identify the someone (or an impersonal something) with the god of theism. There are countless other possibilities. Second, the pre-existing order (or "fuel") might simply exist as a brute fact. Why not? Theists suppose that an ordered and powerful deity exists as a brute fact. Maybe it is instead the ordered initial state of the universe that is a brute fact. Or maybe there are lots of universes, some ordered and some not; perhaps we happen to be existing in one of the relatively ordered universes.

SRB