Hawkingfan

This line of reasoning would be valid if it were not for the simple fact that the above is a misstatement of the second law of thermodynamics. A correct statement reads, "The second law of thermodynamics states that the net entropy within an ISOLATED system is always increasing or remains constant."
An isolated system is one that does not undergo a change of state due to external work or heat transfer. The entropy in an isolated system in equilibrium is constant at its maximum value.

The major key here to demonstrating that life on earth does not violate the second law is to realize that the earth is a NON-isolated system. The earth is continuously absorbing radiative heat transfer energy from the sun and continuously transferring thermal energy to outer-space through thermal emissions. Because the earth participates in these heat transfer processes it is non-isolated.

For instance, when you freeze water the molecules of H2O line up in beautifully organised crystals. This organisation does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because the work done by the freezer in extracting the heat from the water has caused the total entropy of the universe to rise, even though the entropy of the water has decreased.

Similarly the existence of life on earth has not decreased the entropy of the universe, so the second law has not been violated. From a classical thermodynamics perspective the universe as a whole is isolated, and hence, the net entropy (disorder) of the universe continues to increase (the situation where the universe's entropy remains constant does not exist because we live in a universe with friction).

The second law states that the entropy of the sun plus the earth's entropy plus the entropy of outer-space (i.e, the net entropy) cannot decrease. It is completely acceptable for the entropy of the earth to decrease provided the net entropy of the sun and outer-space increases. As an analogy consider the freezing of water into ice. The entropy of ice is less than that of water because ice molecules are more organized (they are in a crystal lattice) than water molecules (which move about randomly). That is, the water's entropy has decreased, but only at the expense of increasing the entropy in the room and at the expense of a net increase in the universe's entropy (i.e., by the second law the entropy increase in the room must be equal to or be greater than the entropy decrease experienced by the water).

It is interesting to observe that an enormous amount of entropy production is actually associated with the formation of life on earth. According to Plank (father of quantum mechanics) the entropy flow from the sun is proportional to the reciprocal of the sun's temperature. More precisely it is four thirds times the heat transfer from the sun all divided by the temperature of the sun (about 6000 kelvin). By the law of conservation of energy (and ignoring global warming) the heat flow from the sun to the earth is equal to the thermal radiative heat transfer from the earth to outer-space. The entropy flow from the earth is therefore four thirds times the heat transfer from the sun all divided by the temperature of the earth as seen from outer-space (about 300 kelvin = 27 celsius). Therefore, the entropy flow from the earth is greater than the entropy flow to the earth which means that entropy has been produced on earth (via friction, etc.).

In conclusion the existence of life on earth does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

doodad

In primitive cultures the gods existed in material form, such as in metal, wood, or stone. In a sense the naturalistic gods, such as the sun god, the wind god, the rain god, and the like also existed in the because such terms were metaphors used to describe the power or force of these natural phenomena. Can we deny that the sun has power or that the wind has force?

In the basic sense a god is a faith object, so anything that is viewed in that manner exists, either in real or material form, or in conceptual form. The supernatural God of Christianity appears to exist as a concept but I've seen nothing to make me believe it really exists in the corporeal sense.

Jobar

Doodad, I doubt you will find a single person here who does not accept that God exists *as a concept*. (As to how well we are able to define that concept- well, that's for other threads.)

The question, I think, is (are) God(s) personified? Is there something that can be said to exist outside our human brains, that we could or should call God?

I don't see how anyone can get any good from a God who is naught but a wish-fulfillment dream. When I was young, I often read comic books, and imagined that I was Superman- wanting such mythical powers and abilities is extremely common, perhaps even universal, for humans. I can understand dreaming of God-like powers for oneself- but why would anyone fantasize about having a God who was external?

Fantasy is all very well- I still read sf and fantasy on a regular basis. But I know full well that such things are not real. Such tales are good for stress relief, and entertainment. Are you saying that is all that God is good for?

Hawkingfan

I'll answer this here. But since it falls under Biblical Criticism, if you want to post a reply, start a thread in BC.

There are many scientific absurdities and scientifically incorrect information, but I'll just post a few as compiled by Donald Morgan at the Secular Web modern library:

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:3-5, 14-19 There was light ("night and day") before there was a sun. (Note: If there were no sun, there would be no night or day. Also, light from the newly created heavenly bodies seems to have reached the earth instantaneously though it now takes thousands or millions of years.)

GE 1:12, 16 Plants began to grow before there was sunlight.

GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander.)

LE 11:20-21 There are winged creatures (birds or insects) that go around on all fours. (Note: There are no birds that go around on four legs, and all insects have six legs.)

LE 11:6 (States, incorrectly, that the rabbit, or hare, chews its cud.)

PS 121:6 It is apparently possible to suffer moonstroke as well as sunstroke.

DN 4:11 Daniel dreams of a tree so tall that it can be seen to the ends of the earth. (Note: Disregarding the fact that the tallest known trees cannot achieve such a great height and that this was a dream, this statement implies a flat earth. Because a tree could grow to an infinite height on a sphere (which the earth is), but people on the other side of it would never see it.)

MT 4:8 There is a high mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen. (Note: This implies a flat earth also.)

And as far as your question of inconsistencies please explain:

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

And as far as atrocities go, there's hundreds. But here's a couple:

Deuteronomy 22:28--"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty sheckels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

EX 21:20-21 With the Lord's approval, a slave may be beaten to death with no punishment for the perpetrator as long as the slave doesn't die too quickly.

Let me know if you want to continue this in Biblical Criticism.

JCS

Because there is no reason that I should.

topane

Never seen or heard one.

Silent Acorns

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JubalsCall
What "scientific absurditites, scientifically incorrect information, and atrocoties" are in the Bible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll add this too Hawkingfan's atrocity list:

The entire Exodus story. It's nothing more than the story of an evil god who kills tens of thousands of innocent people just to prove that he's got the biggest cock.

This is perhaps the most important book in the Bible, since it lays the groundwork for everything after it. The fact that there isn't a shred of evidence (outside of the Bible) for it ever happening is bad enough, but the scale of the evil that "I am what I am" unleashes for no reason other than to show off his power and stroke his ego proves that this is one god who doesn't deserve our love and support.

Muad'Dib

To the book of Ruth's original audience Ruth was a godly woman, but she is by no means godly by contemporary Christian standards.

Here's the key observation. "Feet" is often used in Hebrew as a euphamism for "genetalia". (This is well-attested by Hebrew scholars and extrabiblical literature of the time.)

Thus when Ruth comes to Boaz in Ruth 3 after he has eaten and is quite possibly drunk, she comes to him and "uncovers his feet"--i.e., seduces him and sleeps with him.

Besides linguistic evidence, there are a number of internal factors that paint seduction as the more plausible picture:

• Verse 3: "Anoint yourself and put on your best clothes"--so she can lie at his (literal) feet in the middle of the night when he can't see her (cf. vs. 14) and has to ask who she is (vs. 9)? Everyday clothes would be fine for such a chaste encounter, whereas the need to look and smell good for seduction is obvious.
• Verse 7: "When Boaz had eaten and drunk and his heart was merry"-i.e., he was pretty drunk. There's ample textual evidence, both inside and outside the Bible, that shows that drunk men don't tend to think clearly.
• Verse 10: Boaz is very happy that Ruth hasn't gone after younger men. What part of sleeping innocently near him would communicate that?
• Verses 13-14: Boaz's "Lie down until morning" is followed by her leaving before anyone can see her. If she was just lying there and he finally notices her in the middle of the night, what reason would she have to stay after he's already agreed to seek her hand? Why not just go home right away? Yeah, it's dark and all, but it was just as dark when she left in the early morning. On the other hand, if they've been having a little fun she has obvious reasons for staying.

Now, Ruth is willing to do anything she has to in order to provide for her family (i.e., Naomi); that takes guts, determination and is in many ways admirable. But those who place sexual purity above all else will naturally disagree with this assessment.

If this is sufficiently interesting you may want to start a new thread in BC&A to discuss it--it would be a little out of place here in EoG.

doodad

As to the concept, if one were to ask a thousand people he might get more than a few answers as to what God is like. I personally
don't think a supernatural god exists in the real sense, but that seems to be besides the point. It's the belief that one exists that influences people's thinking and behavior.

Religion is a mind game that deals with people's emotion, their hopes and dreams, their wants, their fears, etc. Much of their emotions is not rational so religion gives them a little salve to ease the pressure. As I have pointed out before it can provide at least two psychological defense mechanisms, which are safety valves to vent stress and grief. One is the mechanism of displacement, and the other is the mechanism of rationalization, or trying to make sense out of nonsense.

Which is best, a bible or a shrink jacket? Which is best, rationalization or striking out in anger because one cannot handle an emotional situation? It seems to me that the practice of religion does have some therapeutic value in some cases, and it's a relatively inexpensive bandaid.

I practice religion, and am in favor of it because the principles therein are conducive to acceptable behavior. That's not to say that religion has a monopoly on moral standards or standards of acceptable behavior, but religious doctrine provides this need for millions of people. Most fundies discount the behavior aspects of religion saying we are free from the law and Christ's love motivates us to behave well. However, at the basis of the concept of salvation is the idea of being rewarded for goodness and punished for evil or sinful behavior.

A fantasy of an external power isn't all that different from the desire to be led or the desire to know there is a higher authority that can rectify errant behavior. In reality such authority is our secular system of justice, but some choose to think that it comes from a divine source. Let them believe it if it keeps them in line.

I am one of the few who doesn't try to sell others on the practice of religion, but I am interested in providing some perspective as to why people practice religion and the benefits they hope to obtain from doing so. If people submit to such a regimen and they realize value from it in the way of self control and emotional comfort then it's a worthwhile pursuit IMO.

doodad

Thanks for making my point. God is a concept although most believers cannot see that and certainly would not admit it. Why can't a non-believer see it for what it is and find something else to harp about? The argument that God does not exist in the objective sense begs the issue because he doesn't . It's like barking up the wrong tree. He ain't there, and never will be.
If an atheist truly thinks that God is merely a fantasy or a concept then his rants must also be some form of entertainment.

Faith in God, or the belief that He exists, is not based upon reason or logic so trying to convince a believer otherwise is rather futile because he doesn't need logic to believe, only a desire or some other emotional drive such as fear, ego, and the like.

I once participated in a freethinkers forum where the owner was always asking the posters if there wasn't something more constructive for an atheist to consider. How about the joys and fears of a non-believer? Surely such matters are dealt with in some fashion. Wouldn't that be more constructive to talk about than throwing around worn out cliches about believers?