Proving the Bible is false in few words.

[tackattack]

but that's normal for Fr0d0. I'm so used to such a hullabaloo and chiding for any use of the second law of thermodynamics in a religious discussion I thought I just had to comment, nay cry out for the Void of reason.

[Caecilian]

Was that an atheist using the second law of thermodynamics in relationship to the universe in a religious debate...

hmmm where's Void when you need him

I'm not sure what you think the problem with using scientific theories (such as the second law) in a religious debate is. Evolution, for example, figures very prominently in a lot of religious debates. If Biology is OK, then why not Physics?

Funnily enough, there's an argument against the existence of god which is based on the second law. The simplified version runs like this:

1. God is a highly ordered entity.
2. God preceded the Big Bang.
3. In order to create the Big Bang, god must've been more ordered than that which he created.
4. However, by the second law the statistical probability of the Big Bang being preceded by a more orderly state of affairs approaches zero.
5. Therefore god doesn't exist.

I don't think that its a very strong argument, since a theist can simply argue that the second law doesn't apply to god.

[tackattack]

The second law of thermodynamics applies to isolated systems which the which universe is not. And yes I agree, most theists would use the God resides outside the realm of nature therefore it's rules need not apply arguement.

[tavarish]

The second law of thermodynamics applies to isolated systems which the which universe is not.

And the evidence for this is where?

And yes I agree, most theists would use the God resides outside the realm of nature therefore it's rules need not apply arguement.

Goalposts are meant to be moved anyway.

[Caecilian]

The second law of thermodynamics applies to isolated systems which the which universe is not. And yes I agree, most theists would use the God resides outside the realm of nature therefore it's rules need not apply arguement.

We don't really enough about the universe to say for certain whether its isolated or not. But my understanding is that the physicists usually assume that it is isolated. Thus the possibility of the 'heat death' of the universe.

[Fluké]

The second law of thermodynamics applies to isolated systems which the which universe is not. And yes I agree, most theists would use the God resides outside the realm of nature therefore it's rules need not apply arguement.

I always felt the transcendence point weakens God's position. If a deity exists outside the universe then how could you possibly claim that such an entity exists at all?

If you present the argument that its presence has a direct influence on this reality, then the effects of that presence should be observable, and testable. But they aren't. So, for all practical purposes, such a God may as well not exist.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

Was that an atheist using the second law of thermodynamics in relationship to the universe in a religious debate...

hmmm where's Void when you need him

I'm not sure what you think the problem with using scientific theories (such as the second law) in a religious debate is. Evolution, for example, figures very prominently in a lot of religious debates. If Biology is OK, then why not Physics?

Funnily enough, there's an argument against the existence of god which is based on the second law. The simplified version runs like this:

1. God is a highly ordered entity.
2. God preceded the Big Bang.
3. In order to create the Big Bang, god must've been more ordered than that which he created.
4. However, by the second law the statistical probability of the Big Bang being preceded by a more orderly state of affairs approaches zero.
5. Therefore god doesn't exist.

I don't think that its a very strong argument, since a theist can simply argue that the second law doesn't apply to god.

Under your definition of 'a strong argument' against theism, there are no strong arguments - since theists can simply argue that ______ does not apply. Take Watson, another member here, as exhibit A. Watson will go so far as to say that not even what is written in the Bible about the Christian deity, applies to the Christian deity: http://atheistforums.org/thread-3679-pos...l#pid70154 'insane, i know'

[Caecilian]

Under your definition of 'a strong argument' against theism, there are no strong arguments - since theists can simply argue that ______ does not apply. Take Watson, another member here, as exhibit A. Watson will go so far as to say that not even what is written in the Bible about the Christian deity, applies to the Christian deity: http://atheistforums.org/thread-3679-pos...l#pid70154 'insane, i know'

I won't deny that you make a very good point here. Its quite true that the theists will deny (or affirm) pretty much any sort of bullshit in order to keep their illusions intact.

Personally, I'd tend to see philosophical arguments against god as being more effective than empirical ones. The theists generally have a very ill-formed picture of how god relates to the material world, and this gives them plenty of wriggle-room to engage in sophistry. Their philosophical committments re. god's nature are much clearer and more inflexible, and so its harder for them to fudge things.

[fr0d0]

How are 'being an ethical automaton' and 'being the instigator of reality' contradictory? I don't see any inconsistency. If anything, it seems rather elegant, since it removes the whole issue of ethical intent from the business of creation.

Well it was only that you used the phrase to suggest options which I'm suggesting weren't there. Now you're dropping the choice from your argument.

That was my point. Schmod = god.

No it wasn't. Your point was that schmod illogically limited = God. and I showed how shmod didn't = God unless the restriction was logical.

I think that we're operating from 2 different definitions of 'omnipotent' here. For me, an absolute minimum for omnipotence would be the capacity to do anything that is nomologically possible for a finite being to do. Both Schmod and god as you've decribed him are clearly not omnipotent in this sense.

An extreme case would be a deist god, who could create the universe but then play no causal role in subsequent events. Now for me, such a causally impotent being could not possibly be omnipotent. Whereas for you, he/she/it seemingly could be, as long as the causal impotence was a logically necessary part of the nature of the entity.

I don't define God as having no causal effect. I allow for the possibility that this could happen. My only caveat being that he would, to be consistent with the logical construct, never be seen to have effect.

If God was only within the universe, and restricted to universal law, he wouldn't be omnipotent. But God isn't contained by the universe.

Now you've got me really confused. The Universe as I understand it includes everything that could possibly interact with its constituents. God in his totality is therefore definitionally part of the universe. When you say 'universe' do you actually mean 'material universe'?

The universe is God and he is also more than that. It can never be a satisfactorily scientific description, other than to say, non scientific. ie... it can never be known. This is a theological answer, and theological logic. Nomologic has no bearing.

[fr0d0]

So, for all practical purposes, such a God may as well not exist.

And that's the crux of the theological argument. You cannot know.