#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Atheism breaks the second law of thermodynamics
TRUE
Side Score: 20
|
 |
FALSE
Side Score: 50
|
|
0
points
3
points
Every single seconds new starts start shining ...and they are a lot more complicated that gas clouds they came from. 2nd law of TD is meant to be used in small and slow systems. It's like trying to apply quantum mechanics on large things, it simply does not work. You have to use right system for right scale. You are trying to apply laws for Classical Statistical Mechanics to huge Relativistic system. It's like measuring distance in kilograms. I advice you not to take any info from creatards, they are all illiterate fucks without a clue what are they actually talking about. Side: FALSE
|
3
points
3
points
Please explain how a) the entire universe is understood to be an isolated system & b) why an 'athiestic' understanding of the world (vs. a religious one) means that the world is not going to eventually reach a equilibrium (in terms of energy, as the 2nd law states). The isolated system argument applies to the world we live in, which is not an isolated system, yet many theists find themselves talking only about it. Side: FALSE
A closed system is closed when nothing else can interact with the components within the system. Everything in existence includes everything that is natural. Everything in existence is it's own system. Everything in existence cannot be interacted with by something outside of the system because it is everything that is. Therefore, everything in existence is it's own closed system. The second law of thermodynamic has no place in evolution. It is a universe source argument. Side: TRUE
2
points
Everything in existence is it's own system that's relativistic and Hamilton... that it's not compatible with TD at all. You are comparing apples with oranges here. Therefore, everything in existence is it's own closed system. if so ..how is chemistry possible? Your arguments are illogical and contradicting itself. Side: FALSE
2
points
I assume that you have done any course in Physics, so for you it may look like magic. this is more suitable debate for you. http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Side: FALSE
1
point
1
point
You have not answered my second point here. You are saying that the universe (everything in existence) is an isolated system. Now if 'Atheism breaks the second law of thermodynamics', please explain how an 'Atheistic' understanding of the universe breaks this law, yet a 'Theistic' understanding does not. Side: FALSE
http://www.personal.psu.edu/jmc6/ "As time goes forward (assuming things continue as they are), the available energy in the universe will eventually turn into unavailable energy. At this point, the universe will be said to have suffered a heat death, just like the coffee in the room. The present universe, as we know it, cannot last forever. Furthermore, imagine going backwards in time. Since the energy of the universe is constantly changing from a state of availability to one of less availability, the further back in time one goes, the more available the energy of the universe. Using the clock analogy again, the further back in time, the more wound up the clock. Far enough back in time, the clock was completely wound up. The universe therefore cannot be infinitely old. One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics." The only way to counter this is to disavow uniformitarianism. If one disavows that, then one cannot affirm evolution because evolutionary evidence is backed by this notion. One must choose either God or a non-evolutionary platform to be logically consistent. Moreover, the second and first laws contradict one another; the first is an eternal principal, while the second is a limiting principle. The only way to account for this is to assume that there is another "existence" outside of our own--another universe. However, if it is like ours, then you have the same problem that arises. Therefore, the only way to logically conclude how our existence "is" (keep in mind this is all scientific) is to believe that there is some sort of "existence" that does not retain the laws of our "existence" but has acted upon our "existence" in order to fulfill the unlimited principle of the 1st law, while retaining the principle of the 2nd law. Side: TRUE
3
points
2
points
First of all, I would like to point out that at the first point that I ask you to provide an argument, you have provided someone elses argument. This implies to me that you do not understand what you are saying yourself. If you want to continue this debate, please bring your own logic and understanding to the table (using resources for research is cool though, I'm not quite that much of a dick). As time goes forward (assuming things continue as they are), the available energy in the universe will eventually turn into unavailable energy. No. I believe he is referring to the constant expansion of the universe. But this does not mean that energy becomes 'unavailable', it simply becomes spread over a further distance. And regardless, it's perfectly possible that we live in a closed or flat universe, where the universe will stop expanding, maybe even contracting back into itself. At this point, the universe will be said to have suffered a heat death, just like the coffee in the room. The present universe, as we know it, cannot last forever. Again, wrong. The universe will not lose or gain any energy, it will simply become more spread out. And again, the universe could potentially last 'forever', as much as our understanding of time holds true. The universe therefore cannot be infinitely old. One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics. People hardly are claiming that the Big Bang is a typical event which follows all of the current laws of physics (remember that most laws of physics, most forces even, were created by the Big Bang ...). The only way to counter this is to disavow uniformitarianism. If one disavows that, then one cannot affirm evolution because evolutionary evidence is backed by this notion. One must choose either God or a non-evolutionary platform to be logically consistent. No. I can say that the laws of physics and science has remained consistent from the universes creation - but not before that. Why does anything outside the laws of physics require a God? I just think that it's something beyond our mechanical Newtonian understanding of the universe, not that it's impossible. And I don't understand how that has any relevance to evolution. Evolution is a biological process regarding how individuals pass on genetic information, and how this transfer can eventually cause the creation of new species through mutation and genetic progression. The LOT refer to raw energy (thermal, kinetic, and so on). You need to explain how a scientific understanding of the two is contradictory (and don't just say that 2nd law says things get more simple but evolution says it gets more complex, that just shows misunderstandings). Moreover, the second and first laws contradict one another; the first is an eternal principal, while the second is a limiting principle. Irrelevant to the original point. The only way to account for this is to assume that there is another "existence" outside of our own--another universe. No, you can say that our universe is not all that ever was, as I have already. Therefore, the only way to logically conclude how our existence "is" (keep in mind this is all scientific) is to believe that there is some sort of "existence" that does not retain the laws of our "existence" but has acted upon our "existence" in order to fulfill the unlimited principle of the 1st law, while retaining the principle of the 2nd law. No. As I have already said, you simply say that the creation of our universe followed laws different to the existence of our universe, in a way that we cannot comprehend. When replying, feel free to ignore anything that I've repeated :) Side: FALSE
1
point
2
points
So you don't want to have a debate that requires big arguments? with all due respect and as minimum offense as I can display here with this... really?!? By making that small little paragraph of yours, he responds to every word in it, you were just asking for big arguments... Secondly if you don't want to debate anymore, it shows little sportsman ship to go "you're wrong I cannot help you and then follow up saying, to do dispute it would take to big of arguments* to be blunt with you, sounds like a cop-out to me. If you truly wish to not continue for whatever reason, you don't just say "well your wrong and I do not wish to argue with you anymore about this"... come on? really? I don't mean to be disrespectful, but really? you should have just stopped responding whether it was because "it requires to big of arguments" or any other reasons. Side: FALSE
No, it simply shows that I don't want to debate someone who I think doesn't know what he is talking about. Remember, don't argue with a fool, lest you wish for onlookers to think you a fool as well. But, I digress, I'll give you something: "No. I believe he is referring to the constant expansion of the universe. But this does not mean that energy becomes 'unavailable', it simply becomes spread over a further distance. And regardless, it's perfectly possible that we live in a closed or flat universe, where the universe will stop expanding, maybe even contracting back into itself." That is scientifically inaccurate. The Laws of Entropy state that as entropy increases the usable energy decreases. If you'd like to check it against someone who is not straight up saying that he believed in God, then go here: http://web.mit.edu/16. Second, this defies his entire argument later, in which he states that uniformitarianism is true. He is logically inconsistent. I could give you more but, like i said, thats all I want to go into today because I can't help someone who doesn't want me to use scientific sources in my argument because it shows that I don't know what I'm talking about. Side: TRUE
1
point
Don't argue with me on this, I feel personally to not have a lot to offer on this debate, nor am I wishing to debate you. I just don't agree with your last response to him. If you don't think he knows what he is talking about, explain to him, if he is being foolish point it out to him, someone has to be logically superior in an objective debate scenario to truly have a debate. Of course you are going to think that the person is incorrect or illogical, that is why you disagree with them, you wouldn't argue with someone who you agreed that there stance was completely logical, surely you have to think you are at least slightly more logical to do so? Side: FALSE
Actually it does. A closed system is not in fact closed if a supernatural force can come in from the outside and change things. How does the absence of a god working on this system mean that the law is being broken? Is it because there has to be a supernatural force in the closed system that is not being accounted for? Side: FALSE
Alright, put it this way: everything in nature has a beginning and end, yet supernatural things do not require beginnings nor ends. Natural law still works, even if the supernatural interact with it (meaning God either creating or destroying things Himself). The only thing that would do, then, would simply add to the already natural status of the system. Side: TRUE
1
point
everything in nature has a beginning and end proof please. supernatural things do not require beginnings nor ends first you should prove their existence before you start describing them in detail... Natural law still works, even if the supernatural interact with it ...and that's because you feel it in your stomach ... or?.. Side: FALSE
Ok, your belief is that a supernatural power can modify a closed system without affecting anything, but how does the absence of a god working on this system mean that the law is being broken? How is no supernatural power not supported when obviously there is no outside influence, but a supernatural power is supported, when both do not affect thermodynamics? Side: FALSE
http://www.personal.psu.edu/jmc6/ "As time goes forward (assuming things continue as they are), the available energy in the universe will eventually turn into unavailable energy. At this point, the universe will be said to have suffered a heat death, just like the coffee in the room. The present universe, as we know it, cannot last forever. Furthermore, imagine going backwards in time. Since the energy of the universe is constantly changing from a state of availability to one of less availability, the further back in time one goes, the more available the energy of the universe. Using the clock analogy again, the further back in time, the more wound up the clock. Far enough back in time, the clock was completely wound up. The universe therefore cannot be infinitely old. One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics." The only way to counter this is to disavow uniformitarianism. If one disavows that, then one cannot affirm evolution because evolutionary evidence is backed by this notion. One must choose either God or a non-evolutionary platform to be logically consistent. Side: TRUE
See, that's the argument I wanted to see. I understand what you are saying now. If we wind the universe clock all the way back to time 0 we have a closed system with all the potential energy of the universe and the big bang happens and all the energy gets turned to matter. The second law of thermodynamics is not violated and no god is needed. Side: FALSE
When you put into place the 3rd law of thermodynamics and the law of angular momentum you have to conclude that the spinning mass that "exploded" had to have been spinning, which would mean that you had to have a beginning of some sort (an initial push). This means that uniformitarianism cannot be true (that the spinning mass was not spinning forever) or that it is true (and there must be a God). Side: TRUE
I don't really have a problem with this logic. I have problems with Atheism. There are so many things that could be supernatural, like all of the laws of thermodynamics. All of the rules of the universe can easily be explained as rules created by a god. So, fundamentally I can not refute your argument. But, I am not totally convinced that the Big Bang didn't cause the rotational forces (spinning) as well as the outward forces (expansion). I don't think you have really found the proof you need since we can't gather any information from the start of the universe. I also don't believe you can rule out that it was spinning before without violating thermodynamics. I could even go for a third explanation that it comes from an undiscovered source that will be found in the future. Side: FALSE
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
The available energy within the universal system has yet to be expended, and until that happens, energetic transfers can and do cause systems within the system to increase complexity, albeit temporarily. The natural formation of crystalline structures, clouds and the aging of a simplistic infant to a more complex adult are all examples of this, and if thermodynamics functioned in such a rudimentary fashion as your personal understanding would seem to indicate, these things would be proof against THERMODYNAMICS, not atheism. Continue your studies. Side: FALSE
1
point
1
point
|
