well, first of all, i like to say i'm new to the site. i haven't been really active as of late, sadly. however, i do want to contribute or post a blog whenever i can. it is nice to have a community like this.
having said that, i recently found a video on youtube by the name of "atheist gets owned". for what i get the video is a debate between theist vs atheist. however, the video only shows one small part where the guy represeting the theist ask the other one the following question: " give me any empirical evidence for explosions producing states containing more order an complexity"( i think that's the question. do excuse me if a made mistake or misunderstood the question. i can't understand the accent of the guy)?
the guy first answer was the bing bang. but the theist guy didn't accept that answer, so he got another answer. which the theist guy took as an theist argument for the existence of god.
first of all, my intention by posting this blog is to know how would you had answer to the theist guy. and help to created a counter argument in that case.
i like to say that i really am interested in books about the bing bang, so if you have any recommendations they are welcome.
to be sure, i don't know about such explosions, apart for the bing bang, i would have answered the guy. however that does not proof the existence of a god. because that's what science is about. hypothesis or theories that are only proved right when we have enough evidence. which means, nothing is absolute and new theories can be created and proved depending of the level of evidence and technology. the second answer, which the theist guys took for a theistic argument( you have to watch the video); well, a engine is designed by an intelligence, by us. but that doens't make us gods, us the human race. so that again, does not proof the exitence of a god.
please share your thoughts and feel free to criticize my counter argument, which i know is lacking. and i apologize in anticipation for any grammal mistakes.
( if anyone can tell me how to add the link of the video, i'll be grateful)
[Video added by moderator]
thanks, for the reply.
copy and paste the link - It's too hard to understand what the actual question is from this post.
thanks, again. i guess it was kind of hard to know my point without the video. need to learn to edit the post.
There is no agreeing to disagree because you are unequivocally wrong. It is the scientific consensus that the universe is a closed system. If it wasn't an ordered system to start off with, we wouldn't be here to ask if it is a closed system. The open question is WHY it was ordered in the beginning. This has been known since Ludwig Boltzmann first helped craft the laws of thermodynamics in the 19th century.
Here is CAL Tech physicist Sean Carroll on the subject. It that isnt enough check out Brian Greene, Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, or the gagillion other popularizers who discuss this all the time.
Also, the cosmological argument is an argument from contingency and you are completely missing the point of it. (Everything has to have an explanation by its own character or by a necessary being. The universe is not necessary because it is contingent. Therefore and necessary being is its explanation. etc...etc...) I don't think it works but you are getting it completely wrong regardless.
who said entropy can't increase in an orderly and closed system? that is how entropy works. in closed systems, the potential to do work is slowly lost. order turns into disorder because it is easier to be disordered. this however is a probabilistic argument and is not guaranteed (just really likely).
and no we are not confusing anything. The universe started out in a very orderly state. This has been known for over a hundred years. What you are saying about entropy is just wrong. I can recommend you some of the books I used when I first started studying physics in college and maybe they can help clear up your misunderstanding.
"The difference between a system and its subsystems. The comment about us not being here to know that the universe is closed proves that point."
No, you are completely misunderstanding what I was saying. I was making an anthropic argument for the initial order of the cosmos.
did you watch the video? it answers your question better than I could by typing,
do you think Dr. Carroll is wrong and somehow someone with no education in physics somehow knows more than a physicists with a doctorate from Harvard? Maybe you can write him a letter at Cal Tech explaining the new laws of entropy you discovered.
apparently the entirety of modern cosmology is wrong and some kid on the internet is right about thermodynamics. I better go slap the shit out of my professor for teaching me those lies about the universe.
also the first cause argument is about the cosmos, not living things -facepalm- and "since we don't even know if formal logic or the scientific method could have existed before the Big Bang. Its metaphysics." is one of the oddest sentences I have ever seen. Of course the scientific method didnt exist "before" the big bang! It is a method done by people. LOL
"Oh, and by the way, I think your argument about "tendency" is also wrong. What the Second Law says, if you follow the mathematical basis for it and not the English, is that GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME all closed physical systems WILL (guaranteed) become more disordered. So, no, it is not just a "tendency" as you interpret that word. It is guaranteed."
It isnt my argument, it is what the laws of thermodynamics say. It is all probabilitistics (but still overwhelmingly likely). How do you not know that? Given infinite amounts of time, random objects will randomly pop into being if you take the laws of thermodynamics seriously (brains, people, etc...etc....) in fact, Ludwig Boltzmann (the founder of modern thermodynamics) jokes about the idea of us all being resurrected from the dead given thermodynamics.
also, I never made an ad hom attack. ad hominems say "you dumb so you are wrong." I said "you are dumb and you are wrong (joke btw)" Big Difference.
You are wrong because it is the overwhelming scientific consensus that the cosmos started out highly ordered and closed. since then, it has increased in disorder. we know this is the case because given the value of the cosmological constant, the universe's overall entropy has to be in a very specific range. if it was not, the universe would have expanded too much (given the acceleration rate caused by the constant) and we would not be here. Unless you are suggesting that there are no observers (us), then you seem to be wrong.
Here is professor Lawrence Krauss discussing the evidence and reason for this line of thinking. Watch this whole video before you post again or I know you have no regard for reason and evidence.
"When making arguments for God's existence we are talking about sub systems of the universe. If we were talking about the universe as a whole we would be making a moot point because we cannot prove experimentally that the universe is an ordered system, as A WHOLE, not in its parts. Do you follow so far?"
No I don't follow you and I have never heard a single apologist argue that God is proven because of closed systems within the universe. Can you show me where an apologist has said that?
I would have said "No, i don't know." simply because I don't know. Then I would have replied with "With me not knowing, how does this prove there is a god and also how does it prove your specific god of your religion is true?"
In hyperphysics I found that entropy is defined such that "If snapshots of a system at two different times shows one state which is more disordered, then it could be implied that this state came later in time. For an isolated system, the natural course of events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy) state."
If we look at the motion of all the atomic and subatomic and electromagnetic material in a star like our sun, we would notice that they are very random and multidirectional. Now lets look at the same things shortly after it explodes.
1. All the EM radiation is traveling outwards in an orderly fashion.
2. The vast majority of the subatomic material has formed into organized atoms, a more orderly grouping.
3. All the organized atoms are traveling outwards in a more or less orderly fashion compared to the random and intense motions inside a star.
These conditions occur and make the result more orderly because thermodynamics only deals with heat, work and the internal energy of a system. No where is potential energy, such as gravity, accounted for.
Is this an example he is asking about?