LokioftheAesir

To All

Questionimg entropy is fine, entropy is one of the 'laws'. Plancks constant is also one of the 'laws' and is just as important. Gravity is not a law as such (according to Einstein) but the "effect of mass to warp space towards the point of mass" the net effect being called gravity.(well yeh call it a law, inverse square and all)
So we have a set of laws. Newtons (inertia exct), plancks and Einsteins.( i'm talking macroscopic here and not introducing quantum effects)
These laws combine into a whole where matter is clumped and organises itself into life and and stellar cycles and such.
And this is where it get hairy, 'I' believe that the universe(objecive reality or Ob/reality) is a closed system. As far as i know we have not yet observed an open system (anything less than ob/reality is part of it and thus a closed system if ob/reality is closed) An open system cannot by definition exist inside an closed one.
But, where did these 'laws' come from? For me this is the single greatest support for a 'creator'. Matter and its byproduct space (or space and it's byproduct matter if we go quantum) may well have existed in of itself but when organised by 'laws' it forms a whole new 'reality' where life is possible exct.
Theists overstep themselves in search of a god that created reality 'ex nihilo'..fools.
I propose that the working material was already existant and a creator applied his laws to it to produce a universe of beauty and mystery just as a human sculptor would do so with a lump of amorphous clay.

Thus i am a agnostic, a creator had a hand but human attempts to define a creator are futile ( at the moment)

There is one big problem with all of the reasoning. I also believe that there is no such thing as 'infinite' I believe that extent may be infinite to an extent (haha) 'as it is i think a product of mass' but duration? I find it 'very' hard to conceptualise infinate duration. I cant do it.

Cul de sac.

Loki

Detached9

How was the "creator" created? It would drop into an infinite regress or if the "creator" is the exception, that so is the uncaused universe by the same lines of logic.

LokioftheAesir

Detatched9

I have no idea. The same way ob/reality came into existance......? A finite being like myself has has no answers to unfinite regression problems. As i said infinite duration does not fit in my head(or anyones as far as i know).
Thus i'm an agnostic. (in my own meaning of the term)
The 'laws' are simply too well designed for me to accept them as random (or whatever) The idea of a creator is not paramount in my head, just a 'probable cause' and i leave it at that.
Theists spend too much time trying to identify with their god and interpreting words supposedly uttered by him in the heads of men and not enough minding their own lives.
Power trip(or inflating ones small ego with ideas of omnipotence) is the term i think.

Loki (the limmited)

KeithHarwood

The `laws' come from human beings who observe the way the world works. They are simply suscinct ways of describing the observations that things always happen this way and we've never seen them happen any other way.

When you study the `laws' further you might discover that they don't exist. The major `laws' are simply the logical consequences of the observation that one place in the universe is pretty much like any other.

For example, if you move the entire universe five inches to the left the universe appears to be unchanged (that is, you can't tell that it has moved). Consequence is the law of conversation of momentum. Similarly, rotating the universe by five degrees leaves it unchanged, -> Law of conservation of angular momnentum. Moving the universe forward through time by five minutes leaves it unchanged, -> law of conservation of energy.

In other words, these three Laws are just consequences of the observation that there is no special place, no special direction and no special moment. This observation isn't very surprising and I don't see any need to explain it. Rather, I would see a need to explain if there was something special.

Thulemanden

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Detached9:
[QB]From the book, Answers for Atheists by E. Calvin Beisner.

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.


The theist is putting too much weight on 'order'.

Order in his terms are probably made by some conscious intelligent mind.

So by defining 'order' as seen in the world og by requesting it, the theist simul. defines 'God'.

Remove 'order' and you remove the need for a 'God.

Besides, the natural world is ordered, but maybe not to the liking of the theist. Oil flows on water, gases mix, water alignes itself etc etc.

The theist has no case at all with the subject of 'order'.

Asha'man

Ok, my understanding of thermodynamics isn't great, but I think I understand one of the basic problems in its application.

First, as has been stated many times, thermodynamics is a mathematical treatment of heat, and should never be applied to anything other than heat.

Second, the concept of order gives people problems, especially if they are starting to missapply thermodynamics. I think the simple way to think about it is that creating order is not impossible, it simply requires energy. (This starts to become obvious when you have to clean your house.) That energy has to come from somewhere. Many theists insist that this energy must be supplied/applied by a god. In the case of life on earth, this energy comes almost entirely from our sun, and is not applied or directed as much as simply present. Things happen in the presence of energy, and some of those things result in more order.