you guys think this argument disproves atheism? no sarcasm please, i am free thinker?

Question

first of all, this argument supports an ANTHROPOMORPHIC interpretation of God, not the kind atheists mock, white beard, white robe and all.

According to the law of thermodynamics, a spontaneous reaction in a closed space would increase the amount of entropy in that space. From this, we can imply that the amount of energy AVAILABLE TO DO WORK, is decreased due to increase in thermal energy. Therefore, the beginning of the universe had to have been at a definite time and place. that's not it, dont start yelling yet. As we all know, molecules react in a way that allows them to reach homeostasis. From that we can imply that the big bang occured because the molecules (actually, matter would be a more accurate discription) seeked homeostasis. But what caused the matter to be in such an unstable state in the first place?please, i just thought of this, i know its not perfect, I just want your imput. Please no sarcasm, I am a free thinker and if you have enough logic, I will believe you.TY

i also wanted to add in the fact that numbers are only representations for values, not considered themselves a value, therefore, the fact that we can prove that we are within a certain place and time by means of using numerals, it is because the numerals represent certain places on the timeline or whatever you call it. It would not be possible to represent a certain point on something besides points if it were infinite, just wanted to post this to back up my 2nd premise.

to print ninja and king james, i reposted it on accident the second time because my browser closed and my computer restarted so I thought it got canceled. it was an accident.

as I stated above, this is to prove the existence of an anthromorphic interpretation of God.

to the person saying that my argument is just a bunch of big words, please elaborate on your claim.

dude to the person called "seriously". the marble and bowling ball fall at the same speed because they have the same AERODYNAMICS. feather drops at different rate than rice bag because they have DIFFERENT AERODYNAMIC STRUCTURES. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS. you only show your own ignorance with your post

those of you accusing me of commiting logical fallacy of appealing to unknown, this IS NOT TRUE, seeing as how, AS I STATED, i am talking about an ANTHROPOMORPHIC sense of God. I bet you only read the title or the last part of the question.
or, you are missing a science class as well as an english class

vorenhutz, the law of thermodynamics can be used to imply that the universe was created at a point in time. I will not post why, i don't feel like it right now.

Law of thermodynamics basically says- if spontaneous reaction happens within a closed amount of space, then entropy increases

print ninja, singularity states that it has infinite density and volume, not infinite energy. please do not use that claim against me

to snark:
an·thro·po·mor·phic /ˌænθrəpəˈmɔrfɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-thruh-puh-mawr-fik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, esp. to a deity.
2. resembling or made to resemble a human form: an anthropomorphic carving.

we have different interpretations. deal with it

to:
synaptic distress: i will put the statement in simpler terms, but some things may be distorted.
I believe in an anthropomophic God, first of all. it is hard to define in several sentences so I won't try since I dont want to give you wrong impressions.
My argument goes like this:

All molecules react in order to reach an increased state of stability.

Obviously, we know that the Universe exists seeing as how we are alive.

If something has to act in order to reach stability, it must have been in an unstable state before.

How, then did it get into the unstable state? this is what i'm asking

to mormoh or whatever:
I will repeat this one more time

All molecules react to become more stable.
If the Universe always existed, then everything would even out, as in molecules and energy.
Life as we know it cannot thrive in continuous equilibrium.
Obviously we are alive,
which then contradicts that we are in continuous equilibrium.
which then implies that unvrse wasnt cr

to:
synaptic distress: i will put the statement in simpler terms, but some things may be distorted.
I believe in an anthropomophic God, first of all. it is hard to define in several sentences so I won't try since I dont want to give you wrong impressions.
My argument goes like this:

All molecules react in order to reach an increased state of stability.

Obviously, we know that the Universe exists seeing as how we are alive.

If something has to act in order to reach stability, it must have been in an unstable state before.

How, then did it get into the unstable state? this is what i'm asking

to mormoh or whatever:
I will repeat this one more time

All molecules react to become more stable.
If the Universe always existed, then everything would even out, as in molecules and energy.
Life as we know it cannot thrive in continuous equilibrium.
Obviously we are alive,
which then contradicts that we are in continuous equilibrium.
which then implies that unvrse wasnt cr

to hamoh. you show your ignorance with your posting. If you do not understand my words, does it make my argument illogical? second of all, i made a logical implication. I did say imply, get over it.

Example:
I have five dollars
i speand one dollar on a cookie
i can imply that I lost one dollar.
not illogical, is it?

Answer 1

Why are you reposting this?

In all likelihood, the laws of thermodynamics would not apply at the level of a singularity.

Next question.

EDIT: You can't logically apply laws of physics to states that DEFY those laws. Thermodynamics do not work at the quantum level.

The universe either appeared from nowhere in a process we can't yet explain, or it has always been here and it expanded from a central point as the evidence implies. It's entirely possible that our universe is expanding into an "anti-universe" that will, at some point halt the expansion and start a collapse. It may be that these two dimensions are eternally expanding and contracting against each other via a force we are unable to comprehend.

There are many possibilities, but the likelihood is that our science is right now too immature to adequately explain the processes that cause our universe to exist. As temporal creatures, we think in terms of "starts and finishes", "beginnings and ends". The frustration lies in knowing there are levels of understanding we simply aren't evolved enough to access. Yet.

Answer 2

All you seem to have said is that the universe "had to have been at a definite time and place". Of course, you offer no logical reason why this should follow from your description of thermodynamics, but even so, why would it "disprove atheism"? What's the connection between a universe created at a definite time and place and theism?

Note there were no "molecules" in the beginning universe, not even atoms. Too hot.

Indeed, perhaps you are asking why was it so hot in the beginning, when everything seems to just want to cool down? Wouldn't "cold" be the natural state and "hot" an unnatural one. And then equating this "unnatural" heat with the direct influence of a "god"??

Heck, if that's what you want to think, but you might as well just say that heat IS a natural state, and all this "cooling down" is evidence of some sort of "expansion" of the universe, spreading the heat out so it has a lower temperature (while remaining as the same overall amount of heat energy).

I don't actually follow your arguement though, so I don't know if this is what you are talking about...

Answer 3

no.

scientist don't understand EVERYTHING about science , even if they are an expert in that area.
there could be exceptions or things we don't know about certain thing.

for example , just for example only. if you drop a bowling ball and a marble , both would have to drop at the same time and hit the ground together .
thats thereotical.
similarly , if you drop a bag of rice or a bag of gold , they would theoreotically hit the ground at the same time.

however then , one day , bob drop a feather and a sack of rice and realise that the feather take a long time to drop. and he goes around and prove that the theory of gravity pulling everything downwards at the same strength is wrong.

now , is it right ? no he isnt. gravity still pull downs everything at the same rate.
the reason feather drop at a slower rate is due to air resistance. one thing bob didnt realise about that .

so there could be other exceptions relating to your post that scientist had not discover about.

edit :

as i said , it was an example . people may not have known all about aerodynamic when they said this.

further more if you drop a feather and a sack of rice on moon , where there is no air , and experimented on a vacuum before , both hit the ground at the same time.

so am i showing ignorance or are you ?

it's no wonder ignorant people like you get flamed and sure everyone else appeared ignorant to you

Answer 4

"You guys think this argument disproves atheism? no sarcasm please, i am free thinker?"
No, and I will explain why, without sarcasm. First, you have to understand that atheism isn't a belief system to be proved or disproved. We make no claims. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. We are not claiming that god does not exist. There is a big difference. All we are saying is that we have not seen any evidence that leads us to a belief in god. Do you understand what I am saying? We have no belief, so you cannot argue against it? For example say you have two children in the lunch line at school. The Christian child says, "The hamburgers we are having for lunch are poisoned." The atheist child says, "I have seen no evidence of this." Do you see how the burden of proof is placed on the Christian child? He is the one claiming the burgers are poisoned, so he must be the one providing the proof that what he says is correct. The atheist child isn't claiming they aren't, he is just saying that he has seen no evidence of it. It isn't something you prove or disprove. It is just an observation, made by a person, concerning the claimed existence of god.

Answer 5

Geeez! I watched some of the true thinkers discuss the SCIENCE of the Universe, on the documemtory "THE UNIVERSE"! You can't touch the likes of Tyco, Copernicus,NEWTON , Eienstien etc. They got it right w/o using a term most laymen never heard, or understands. So Just define your terms. I personally believe the big bang to be FACT! You spoke of molicules, I think of atoms, using the 'big words' are cool also. But truely the argument is a standoff.You are a good guesser though But Dude LOGIC can't cut it 'cause all logic ain't the same. y'know why I accept the big bang? And God said, "Let light be" ,,,,,BANG!!!!!! Oh yes you did say,,,IMPLY!

Answer 6

You would have to really be a non thinker to believe that the scientist who have yet to discover a fraction of the universe would be able to come up with the big bang theory and have it stick.

1.your right what caused the upset

2. how can scientist (humans) feel so sure that what they are saying is a fact, NASA has yet to discover what is out there

3.if scientist KNOW THEIR IS NO GOD then why don't they know how to cure, cancer or aids

3.everything living thing has been detailed down to the utmost detail

4. the bible ..name another book that answers any question you have

Answer 7

no longer all of us know a ethical code. There are sociopaths in each society. If the ethical argument truly starts from the declare that each physique human beings know morals, then that's fake from its concept. it is likewise fake to assert "a regulation demands a lawgiver." All "regulation" ability in technological information, working example, is that a regularity has been recognized. Morality purely demands an be attentive to-how of human wellbeing. Behaviors that are conducive to that wellbeing are (form of talking) ethical, and individuals that don't serve that wellbeing at the instant are not ethical. technological information is unquestionably appropriate to help us comprehend what our nature is and the thank you to serve our wellbeing. the only reason there are assorted ethical codes with the aid of the international is because of the fact this scientific artwork has yet to be accomplished.

Answer 8

If you actually want a scientific answer, why aren't you asking this in Astronomy?

Atheists are not required to go to college and study astrophysics.

Edit - I think you should probably get out a dictionary and look up the word "anthropomorphic", btw.

I'M TYPING IN CAPS TO GET YOUR ATTENTION, LET'S SEE IF IT WORKS THIS TIME.

Good. Now, once again... go look up the definition for "anthropomorphic".

Being so adamant in your use of the word, while using it wrongly, is making your entire argument suffer.

Answer 9

People will believe what they want to believe. But everything I have learned about quantum physics just makes so much since to me, and not because I am a scientific person. If you consider yourself spiritual, in any way, and haven't looked into this awesome science, I suggest that you do!

Answer 10

how does that argument "support an ANTHROPOMORPHIC interpretation of God"? all that it shows is that we don't know the details of the origin of the universe (nor do we know, i would add, IF the universe had an origin at the big bang or perhaps some earlier time).