Detached9

From the book, Answers for Atheists by E. Calvin Beisner.

I think most of the claims are misunderstandings of science, but I'm not exactly sure where. Maybe someone could help me pinpoint the errors?

Theist: I have solid proof that matter and energy aren't the only things that exist. [...] Matter and energy have no ordering, or organizing, principle in themselves. Left to themselves, they would never have produced the order around us, and left to themselves even now they would eventually reach the point of absolute disorder --- maximum randomness, I think it's called.

I'm assuming it's a misunderstanding of entropy. I don't know if the argument is discussing what goes on in Earth or the actual universe. From what I've gathered, at the start of the big bang, there was the least amount of entropy, or the most amount of order. I can't fathom the universe being an open system, I believe it is closed. How could it not be? If it is closed, then does entropy always lead to disorder? *confused*

Theist: Without something other than matter and energy to enforce order on them, there could be no order or design in the universe. Everything would be absolutely random.

I have trouble even understanding this part. This is a certain theists way of explaining why there must be "something else" out there.

Theist: Believing that only matter and energy exist means denying the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

What I wonder is, if these claims are valid, why aren't they in any peer-reviewed scientific journal? Or do scientists have some conspiracy going on?

SingleDad

Another theist misunderstanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Quelle suprise.

This is a nonsensical statement. The 2LoT is about matter and energy, nothing else.

It is unclear how and why the universe was originally highly ordered. However, the existence of order is no more astonishing than the existence of the universe itself.

There is certainly no process that continues to "enforce" order; the order that we see now is already present. For instance the order of life is "bought" at the price of disordering the sun; like energy, order cannot be created, it can only be transformed.

Indeed the 2LoT is the formal expression that there isn't anything that "enforces" order.

ecco

From a less technical perspective… a snowflake is a highly ordered entity. It is formed in the chaos of the unordered atmosphere. Of course, it could be that god makes every snowflake individually.

Detached9

The problem was, the argument had to deal with the universe (closed) not Earth (open).

Scotty

A total non-scientist here, but just from reading those single quotes, don't you have to add gravity into the equation? I mean, matter and energy by themselves, sure, I could see them just sitting around having a good time, but adding gravity in, you have a reason for the Earth forming, chemicals bonding and snowflakes to build...? I seems to add the _other_ factor in that they say is missing - God is gravity?
Totally off-track?
Sorry if I am being stupid here, not an unusual thing for me!

-Scott

Theophage

Actually Scotty, I think you struck a useful point here. Forces like gravity do cause a certain amount of ordering (though not in a thermodynamic way) which is opposite of the theistic claim that matter/energy cannot do any ordering on its own.

Another example is a cereal box. Ever wonder why the broken pieces and crumbs are all on the bottom? Start with an even mixture of different sized pieces, add vibrational energy (shake the box) and viola! you get the little pieces on the bottom and the big pieces on top. No invisible magic "Cereal Organizer" necessary...

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

"God *was* my co-pilot, but our plane crashed in the mountains and I had to eat Him..."

SingleDad

This is another place where the going gets tricky. Thermodynamics describes heat, not ordering. Although thermodynamics uses a concept of ordering, it is not a theory about order, it is a theory about heat that uses a very specific definition and model of a particular kind of order.

For instance, if we had a closed system of ordinary gravitational matter, the clumping of the matter due to gravitation would not have any effect on the heat of that matter. From a thermodynamic standpoint, the even distribution of gravitational potential energy is less energetically stable (and thus more highly ordered) than the resultant clumps.

Detached9

I really wish I had a better understanding of thermodynamics and entropy. Entropy... oddly enough, intrigues me tremendously. George Carlin did a rant on it, Bad Religion has a song on it, and Moxy Fruvous (something like that) also has a song on entropy.

It seems I'm not the only one...

Anyone know I really good place to learn about thermodynamics? I found places such as secondlaw.com but they weren't that great. I am also not an expert when it comes to science, I understand logic very well, but science... depends on the topic.

Quantum physics --- no fucking clue. Entropy --- learning.

Bill

Well, the key site for entropy information is <a href="http://www.math.psu.edu/gunesch/entropy.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>. That site has individual pages on the various forms of entropy, including entropy in

• <a href="http://www.math.psu.edu/gunesch/Entropy/infcode.html" target="_blank">Information and Coding Theories</a>
• <a href="http://www.math.psu.edu/gunesch/Entropy/phys.html" target="_blank">The Physical Sciences</a>
• As well as several others listed <a href="http://www.math.psu.edu/gunesch/entropy.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>.

As it says <a href="http://strauss.lanl.gov/outgoing/Gedanken/introtomaxent/IntroToMaxent.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>, the words "maximum entropy" can have several different meanings, depending upon the context.

The whole business becomes quite muddled-up when Bayesian Probability Theory is introduced. Those who advocate the Christian worldview can "prove" their worldview simply by adjusting the prior probabilities of certain things being true. Given those assumptions, the answer becomes obvious. The error, then, lies in the assumptions.

Well, there is a heck of a lot of information for you to peek and poke at. Just begin <a href="http://www.math.psu.edu/gunesch/entropy.html" target="_blank">HERE</a> and peek-and-poke your way around the web, bookmarking whatever you personally find to be interesting. It should be fun or its not worth doing.....

== Bill

Theophage

That's what I was alluding to when I said that the organization due to gravity was not order in a thermodynamic sense. I meant to give the impression that "order" as used in thermodynamics is different.

But something else you wrote struck me oddly:

For instance, if we had a closed system of ordinary gravitational matter, the clumping of the matter due to gravitation would not have any effect on the heat of that matter. From a thermodynamic standpoint, the even distribution of gravitational potential energy is less energetically stable (and thus more highly ordered) than the resultant clumps.

Wouldn't the temperature rise in a bunch of matter compressed by gravity? I'm thiking proto-stars here...