Entropy, Kalam, and First Cause

[Alex K]

I saw an article describing entropy as the log of the number of states of a computer byte (i.e. the number of bits). Does this suggest that the universe is discrete, or is there a non-discrete way of imagining entropy too? (Sorry I know this is probably a silly question.)

No, it's not a silly question at all! It's a quite deep question actually. I tentatively would answer that in systems where there are no discrete states, one calculates entropy by taking the log of the measure (the volume) in space of the number of accessible states. But I'd have to crack open a book on quantum statistics to be sure...

[GriffinHunter]

Ai! I disappear for a little while and come back to find three pages of discussion to read through. So much interesting stuff here; I enjoy taking it all in and trying to understand this stuff with my finite mind.

So, a recurring theme which I observe in the explanations here is the response to my admission that I can't wrap my mind around the issue. You guys say that it's natural to not be able to understand this stuff, there are a lot of unknowns and we really don't have answers, but reality is not constrained by our ability to grasp it; if something is true then it is true, whether we understand and acknowledge it or not.

My concern is that all of that sounds remarkably similar to what the theists tell me to believe- "God is real even if we cannot comprehend him. It may not all make sense but the fact that you can't wrap your mind around it logically or scientifically doesn't mean it is false."

And, to be honest, given all of the unknowns which you guys readily admit, shouldn't we seek the explanation which has the most explanatory power for the facts which we do have? As far as I can tell, the Christian understanding of God, creation, time, space, etc fits the available data very well and explains things better than all the shaky, unknown speculation atheists propose. (of course, either way it is shaky and unknown and you are going to be making guesses that can't be proven)

Another way of putting my point: it seems like some kind of "god"-explanation is the most reasonable conclusion; the only reason one would reject such an explanation is if he were already predisposed against the notion of god. (i.e. approaches the question with unwarranted naturalistic/materialistic presuppositions)

[Tonus]

And, to be honest, given all of the unknowns which you guys readily admit, shouldn't we seek the explanation which has the most explanatory power for the facts which we do have?

Yes, we should. And people have, for as long as we've been around. The thing is, as we learn more and more about the world around us, the explanations for the unknown never ever point at a god. What evidence is there that a vastly powerful being formed the universe, or made the earth, or sculpted a man out of clay and breathed life into him?

[Pizza]

The problem is the God- model doesn't even try to make prediction about what to actually expect from the universe. It's so vague.

---

It doesn't explain anything for that reason.

[JuliaL]

As far as I can tell, the Christian understanding of God, creation, time, space, etc fits the available data very well and explains things better than all the shaky, unknown speculation atheists propose. (of course, either way it is shaky and unknown and you are going to be making guesses that can't be proven)

Yes, the Christian understanding of God fits the available data but only because
Christians keep morphing their understanding as new data comes available. It is not
the retrodictions that show a conjecture is likely true, it is the predictions which follow.
(or more importantly, that those predictions are subsequently borne out) In this,
Christianity fails miserably.

I also find there is a bias common to most people, that is, they are more tolerant of
an incorrect claim which is confidently made rather than a correct but hesitantly
made one. I found this to be the case specifically in the practice of medicine
where doctor shopping is a problem. That is, a patient (customer) will go to the
doctor who gives an answer with the greatest confidence whether they are right or
not. It is a behavior that leads to woo and is very difficult to counter because it
requires the patient be able to correctly evaluate the opinions of the expert (doctor).
This isn't likely and would remove the need for the expert in the first place.

Christianity is nothing if not confident.

[Jenny A]

So, a recurring theme which I observe in the explanations here is the response to my admission that I can't wrap my mind around the issue. You guys say that it's natural to not be able to understand this stuff, there are a lot of unknowns and we really don't have answers, but reality is not constrained by our ability to grasp it; if something is true then it is true, whether we understand and acknowledge it or not.

My concern is that all of that sounds remarkably similar to what the theists tell me to believe- "God is real even if we cannot comprehend him. It may not all make sense but the fact that you can't wrap your mind around it logically or scientifically doesn't mean it is false."

Hmmm. Yes and no. There is a whole lot human beings collectively do not know. That proves precisely nothing.

However, if we actually know a thing, than that thing should be provable. I don't investigate all provable knowledge but I have a few measuring sticks for determining what is and isn't truly proven. What we know of physics, genetics, and other fields is not only peer reviewed, but eventually tested independently and often used to create technology that works. For example, my knowledge of how a plane flies is pretty theoretical and sketchy. But I can see it works. Ditto much medicine, the internet, and the keyboard on which I type. The fact that I don't understand how the computer works precisely does not negate the fact that it does work.

And, to be honest, given all of the unknowns which you guys readily admit, shouldn't we seek the explanation which has the most explanatory power for the facts which we do have? As far as I can tell, the Christian understanding of God, creation, time, space, etc fits the available data very well and explains things better than all the shaky, unknown speculation atheists propose. (of course, either way it is shaky and unknown and you are going to be making guesses that can't be proven)

The Christian understanding of god, according to fundamentalists contradicts everything we know about the way life and the universe were formed. It's not even arguable really. The earth is much older than 6000 years, it was formed after, not before the stars, there is no vault holding water up in heaven, people are not made of clay. Mammals and reptiles began before, not after birds. And so on.

If you merely mean that god created everything, but we don't know how, in what way does god explain anything? It's an explanation in the way that a stork brought you is an explanation for your existence. But unlike most explanations produced by science, the god story has no predictive powers. It provides no more information than "because." Nor is there anyway to test it. Or even to choose between god hypothesizes: Yahweh or Allah, the explanation has the same lack of predictive power.

Another way of putting my point: it seems like some kind of "god"-explanation is the most reasonable conclusion; the only reason one would reject such an explanation is if he were already predisposed against the notion of god. (i.e. approaches the question with unwarranted naturalistic/materialistic presuppositions)

If there were any evidence of a god, than that would be so. But there is no difference between saying there must have been a god and there must have been a magic mystic force. Neither explains anything. But are just a dressed up way of saying "we don't know," but suppose it was "fairies."

But sure, I'm predisposed to accept naturalistic explanations. So far they are they only explanations with any predictive power whatsoever. If god made the heavens and the earth were an explanation of the heavens and the earth than knowing that would tell you something useful about the heavens and the earth. But it does not.

[Mudhammam]

I don't really mind entertaining the idea of a first cause, though I've explained in the other thread why none of us are obligated to; first causes aren't always gods, that's a separate claim that requires more substantive addressing than just "but there's a cause, though!"

Right. I think the ancients may have been on to something with the idea of a self-sufficient principle or necessary being. The fuck up, unfortunately, that has overstayed its welcome oh, for only a couple thousand years, is the totally irrational metaphysical division of body and mind, and then to simply declare self-sufficiency for the latter on a dubious basis and declare a victory for their ancestral mythologies, because well, what the hell.

[watchamadoodle]

Here is a diagram of ancient Hebrew cosmology. If you read Genesis with this diagram in mind, then many of the stories make more sense. You can see how God could flood the earth by opening the gates in the sky, etc.

[Mudhammam]

Ai! I disappear for a little while and come back to find three pages of discussion to read through. So much interesting stuff here; I enjoy taking it all in and trying to understand this stuff with my finite mind.

So, a recurring theme which I observe in the explanations here is the response to my admission that I can't wrap my mind around the issue. You guys say that it's natural to not be able to understand this stuff, there are a lot of unknowns and we really don't have answers, but reality is not constrained by our ability to grasp it; if something is true then it is true, whether we understand and acknowledge it or not.

True. But skeptics tend to place their value of knowledge in the matrimony of empiricism and reason---the two become one flesh---rather than any dogma enjoined to faith claims. Sure, no one can dismiss deism with complete certainty, but it's not exactly that interesting of a position to many considering the possibilities built on the monument of knowledge and not what many consider an irrational leap rooted in primitive thought. We tend to be biased towards seeing false patterns in data, which is why methods for discerning fact from fiction have become increasingly rigorous over the past five centuries; some doubt God is an idea that really survives that rigor.

My concern is that all of that sounds remarkably similar to what the theists tell me to believe- "God is real even if we cannot comprehend him. It may not all make sense but the fact that you can't wrap your mind around it logically or scientifically doesn't mean it is false."

The difference is that atheists can support the claim that some facts about reality do not conform to our conception of logical. We do not need to make an unjustifiable assertion about any system or being beyond the data our brains collect, and then backtrack when we're called to account for our claims, as atheism is merely the absence of any positive claim about an entity in existence and its "incomprehensible" nature. The Universe is more than enough for us to try to wrap our heads around. No need to make an extra step beyond the material reality assuming that some laws really are fundamental.

And, to be honest, given all of the unknowns which you guys readily admit, shouldn't we seek the explanation which has the most explanatory power for the facts which we do have? As far as I can tell, the Christian understanding of God, creation, time, space, etc fits the available data very well and explains things better than all the shaky, unknown speculation atheists propose. (of course, either way it is shaky and unknown and you are going to be making guesses that can't be proven)

Another way of putting my point: it seems like some kind of "god"-explanation is the most reasonable conclusion; the only reason one would reject such an explanation is if he were already predisposed against the notion of god. (i.e. approaches the question with unwarranted naturalistic/materialistic presuppositions)

Explanatory power? I don't see it. You make a few claims here though, and I would like to know what exactly you mean. First off, can you tell us about your basic beliefs regarding Christianity?

[Cato]

Another way of putting my point: it seems like some kind of "god"-explanation is the most reasonable conclusion; the only reason one would reject such an explanation is if he were already predisposed against the notion of god. (i.e. approaches the question with unwarranted naturalistic/materialistic presuppositions)

Dumbass! To be effective, foreplay must be arousing yet inferior to the actual fucking. What I quoted above indicates that you suffer from premature ejaculation. You sauntered into these forums sincere in your quest for rational conversation, yet dropped the turd above.

Some kind of 'god' could never be a reasonable conclusion for anything, except for maybe an excuse that your dumbass parents would believe in lieu of the truth that you got knocked-up by the village idiot.

Also, if I were to throw a stone at your face I guarantee you would duck without giving it much thought. So much for unwarranted materialistic presuppositions.

Hint: What you consider profound, most of us have already considered and can easily dismiss; many times we borrow refutations that are already 500 year old. Try this: evidence. Sounds simple enough, but it's something that nobody before you has been able to produce. We've heard all the arguments, but have never been given any evidence. You can't argue your god into existence. Try pointing the cunt out if you can.