We have VERY clear evidence that entropy has not been a problem to day. For example, WE are here!! And, we see trillions of starrs, a good proportion of which are emitting at least as much energy as our own Sun. There is NO "dogmatic assertion" in that - or in the observation that this universe is more than 10 billion years old. And, there is no dogmatic assertion in noting that this universe hasn't lived out half its life. You're idea that physicists don't know abbout entropy is ridiculous - isn't it?
That is an honest approach I see. I do see a great deal of evidence in my Faith. I am in the last third of my life so I have also some experience as to my faith. I hear scientific explanations all the time from people that never explored the experiments themselves. They take a lot on faith. I do know what you say about doctors to be true. I see them more often than I like as I have some problems, but when I like their demeanor, I often trust in God and take it on faith. Last time I asked for a second opinion from a doctor he said "Well o.k. ......you're ugly!
Then squaring your assertion with, e.g., the invariance of the speed of light, the spin of subatomic particles and the gravitational constant won't be a problem, so ante up. Quote them - and no slapdash paraphrasing allowed. Sure, just like electrons "naturally" carry a charge equal and opposite to that of a proton even though they're less massive by three orders of magnitude, and "naturally" have opposing spins when they occupy the same orbital, and "naturally" don't stick to a positively charged nucleus like magnets to a fridge even though there's no mechanism by which they can orbit the nucleus like the Moon orbits the Earth. Actually if you put them together at STP and do nothing else, all you get is a mixture of H2 and O2... ...but as a member of the PF atheist brain trust, you already knew that, of course.
As I pointed out, no intelligent creator is needed, only a spark, like from natural occurring lightning, and BANG you get water. Actually having done that in a chemistry lab, I can tell you from first hand experience that there is an explosion when H2 and O2 are combined and water H2O is left behind. ...but as a member of the PF creationist lack of brain trust, you already knew that, of course. In any case the point was you get only a specific molecule based on the valence electrons in the outer shell of the atoms. You don't get H2O2 or OH naturally.
Indeed I did, so thanks for nothing. Trust me, I get your point a million times better than you do: your point is to justify sneering at the Creator by exulting in your ignorance of everything it takes to make "natural" chemical bonding possible.
Point to one, that's right one academically qualified scientist, in an appropriate field on the entire planet who is actively working towards scientific proof/theory/mathematically sound equation that would disprove the existence of God. Answer? To the best of my knowledge zero. Yet here we all are wasting our time responding to repeated attempts by scientifically unqualified theists (i.e. usfan) who are desperately trying to use science as a means of proving the existence of God. Well pardon me for stating the obvious but if you can't disprove the existence of God using science how (in the name of God) are you supposed to prove his existence using the same toolbox? So if usfan has his way then fine, he gets to march up to the pulpit of science and pontificate away on why (as a layman) science 'proves' God exists using current scientific theory. But that also means any qualified scientist in the US who cares to do has the right to march down the aisle of any Church in the country and lecture usfan (and like minded individuals (scientific novices) on the 'scientific' reasons why God can't possibly exist - regardless of the fact those scientists having zero understanding of or qualifications in theology.
Scientists have better things to do with their time. Sad that the same cannot be said of theists like the OP.
Yep, and to be absolutely fair the vast majority of theists (myself included) have no problem with science getting on with its job (and improving their lives as it does so) while they apply the lessons they learn from theology to their own lives. Alas, as in the rest of life there's always the 1% who have to do their 'best' to ruin a good thing for everyone else.
No, that's totally wrong. There just needs to be an energy input. A very random energy input, such as sunlight, works just fine. There's no requirement for any intelligent ordered force. With that correction, your argument goes boom. We know you're emotionally incapable of accepting that. Your reality-defying theory there gives you justification in your own mind to spew spittle-flecked hate rants, and you get your thrills doing that.
For in the years since Einstein’s equations equations hinted of the infinity associated with singularities in black holes and that of the one Hubble’s observation of the universe’s expansion from what has been characterized as The origin singularity the expansion hinted at when Einstein’s equations were applied, many theists unable to deny the seemingly obvious hint of the universe’s expansion from a common point coupled with the relative success of Einstein’s equations to predict, many theists have pointed to the predictions of infinities (considered by many in science to be problem with the completeness of Einstein’s equations) in black holes, and more specifically at the origin singularity, as ‘scientific’ evidence of God. So, while many Theists trash science for the failures to ‘prove’ they switch to claiming scientific proof of their beliefs. One of my favorite lines from the Bible, one I suggest contains an often overlooked epistemological illogical assumption, but is both cornerstone to different approaches to understanding between religion and science and to different means used for understanding reality; “In the beginning ...”. What is the epistemological illogical assumption? BTW, nearly every religion has an origin story.
..typical progressive 'rebuttal' ..ditto.. Ironic, that to 'rebut' the OP, personal attacks are the preferred tactic. The subject is entropy, and HOW or WHAT mechanism can overcome this most obvious, basic principle in the natural universe to: increase complexity, for common ancestry begin life from non-life, for abiogenesis wind the universe up, so you can have a big bang Unable to produce science or reason, progressive indoctrinees resort to their favorite tactic: Ad Hominem. ..of course, there are also appeals to authority, and poisoning the well, when you cannot refute a premise.. ANYTHING but a rational, topical, scientific based reply.. Ye, like take pot shots at their ideological enemies. That is SO 'scientific' You mean by censorship, ridicule, and personal attacks, when a clear premise is presented? I admit it is a distraction, but i have come to expect that from progressive indoctrinees. Reason and science are not really in their repertoire. So, none of the pseudoscience indoctrinees can explain a mechanism to overcome entropy, so their beliefs in common ancestry, abiogenesis, and a naturalistic big bang could even happen? Just cling to a religious fantasy, and attack any unbelievers with jihadist zeal?
Seriously? An 'energy input!!' Overcomes entropy? The sun is probably the most entropic force on earth, degrading EVERYTHING, reducing it to simpler, random compounds and elements. Only the ORGANIZING power of life, can harness that energy, and produce order and complexity. Plants harness sunlight to grow, and that sustains all other life. But the sun, without life, is entropic, and degrades and randomizes everything in its reach. My argument is sound, and fits with observational science. The fantasy of these magical processes 'ordering' the universe, with nothing to overcome entropy is absurd and illogical. There is nothing to 'boom!', even. ..then, you project your own hatred and bias on me, to deflect even more from the obvious lack of evidence or arguments for your irrational beliefs. ..progressive indoctrinees...
I don't see any theists 'trashing science!!', or 'hating!', or 'denying!!', or any of the favorite accusations and deflections from the topic. Entropy. Deal with it, or pretend there are magical processes to overcome it, to fit a religious belief. But ridiculing caricatures of a perceived ideological enemy is hardly a 'scientific rebuttal'
Using basic reasoning it can only be construed as an "ad hom" if YOUR statement was INTENDED as an insult. Was this statement of YOURS intended as an insult? Yes or no?
What? Stating that you are not a scientist is a personal attack?? If this is incorrect I apologize. But by way of clarification what exactly are your academic credentials in science? (BTW I will of course assume that if you don't reply that you have none.) And yes, the subject is entropy, I am well aware of that. I simply pointed out that you cant have it both ways. If a scientific layman can use science (however incorrectly) to try and prove the existence of God then any qualified scientist has the right to argue the opposite. For that matter they have the right to lecture you on theology even if they are totally unqualified. As for the 'Ad Hominem' complaint. This seems to be pretty much your standard response anytime anyone dares to criticize your posts. So please point to the personal attacks in my line of argument - with one simple clarification. Daring to disagree with you is not a personal attack, it just means we disagree. And if you find that fact is offensive, well that says far more about you than it does about me.
I don’t deny entropy. I disagree that it is evidence derived by the application of the scientific method of an intelligent creator any more than the confirmed observations of the apparent expansion of universe appearing to trace back to a common origin (whether a singularity or some other common origin) being evidence of a creator. I am not one to pretend there are magical processes relative to religious doctrine. The fact is, I can’t explain what triggered the universe’s beginning and expansion, assuming there was a causal event, and not some other model of explanation. There is more than one plausible model that has been proposed, but I haven’t seen that of the few still standing and being investigated, including the possibility that the universe we observe is one of many in an ongoing process of many universe’s being generated in a larger scheme than we’ve imagined, or a in cyclical process, or an extension of some phenomena in a string of pre existing universe’s or something we’ve yet to understand given our instruments of observation and data collection. Which is the more likely to be the correct one? I, though I can’t offer alternatives, my subjective view is we are still at the beginning of our investigation, given we have only been developing the tools to assist in the investigation for a tiny slice of human existence. I’m ok with continuing investigation rather than accepting the answer and closing inquiry with an unsubstantiated answer attributing existence to an intelligent creator. The universe is a amazing thing, and seems to have an amazing set of rules it follows that we are only beginning to decipher. But, I can’t help but have the subjective feeling we are like fish in a small pond trying to make sense of the pond and what is beyond. I have found this panel discussion of interest on the topic, others may as well.
This is a complete misrepresentation of entropy and ignores the existence of closed and open systems. Entropy does not mean, for example, that snowflakes or crystals can never form, which is what the OP would require in order to be true Entropy does not mean that everything, everywhere, always, in all cases, tends toward disorder.
The unanswered question is., is this finely tuned universe pure chance or the result if a creative intelligent force outside of it ? No one knows and those that claim to know are idiots So we only have opinions stated as truth.
On a local scale, absolutely. This is basic thermodynamics, and you're totally ignorant of it. You have no business being in a discussion with the grownups. You personal nutty definitions of "entropy" have no relation to the scientific concept. You're pulling an equivocation fallacy here. You make up your own dumb definition for "entropy", and then you try to switch it out with the real definition. Oh, you're a Gaian tree-hugger, invoking your weirdass earth spirits. Understand that thermodynamics doesn't care about your Gaian religion. Your rants about entropy are still really stupid.
Equivocation, ad hominem, and other fallacies do not improve your arguments, or provide a mechanism to overcome ENTROPY, to increase complexity and diversity (common ancestry), order life (abiogenesis), or 'wind up' a universe that is obviously winding down. You can berate me all you want, to try to distract from the impotence of the science behind your beliefs, but entropy continues its randomization, contradicting every tenet of atheistic naturalism.