The Origin Of The "Decay" Of Nature Is Best Explained By At Least...

Comment

What caused the law to apply? God.

What caused the law to apply? Magic.

Here are two separate ideas that account for why the laws of thermodynamics apply. Now, both answers presented offer the exact same result. Neither can be scientifically validated in any way. No empirical evidence can be gathered from experimentations into either. And no predictions explaining the occurrence of future phenomenon of the same type can be made from either answer. Most importantly of all though, neither answer can be falsified. No matter how convincing or ridiculous you might think those answers to be Stranger, I’m confident that even you will admit that neither are scientific in any sense of the word. Consequently, I must ask why would you consider an unscientific answer to be the best explanation for a scientific phenomenon? I just don’t understand the reasoning behind such a decision and I’m also not certain that your reasoning in general is based on your search for the most logical answer. In my honest opinion, I think you’re less interested in seeking out the best explanation for something and more concerned with trying to find a way to fit God into science, possibly as an attempt to show up atheists. That’s not what this should be about. Allow me to explain what I think is the best explanation to your scientific question.

What caused the law to apply?

The altercation of the universe’s state of being.

Can this answer be scientifically validated?

It would be quite difficult to accomplish such a task, but it’s definitely possible. High energies are predicted to have been present during the early universe, which, according to theory, might well have been in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, can be used to create high energy collisions between subatomic particles that mimic the early stages of the universe. So theoretically, the results of such collisions may give a deeper look into what caused certain occurrences to take place.

Can empirical evidence be gathered from experimentation into such an answer?

If the proper experimentations are conducted, yes.

Can any predictions explaining the occurrence of future phenomenon of the same type be made from such an answer?

Yes. If the answer is correct, it would mean that the universe’s state of being (its density, volume, temperature, ect) is ultimately what determines how its physical laws operate.

Is such an answer falsifiable?

Of course. The experiments used in an attempt to validate the idea could just as easily end up disproving it.

My answer meets all the criteria to be considered a scientific hypothesis. Your answer, and the joke answer I gave before, do not. The best explanation from my standpoint is that the universe is its own lawmaker. Nature is in a state of “decay” if you want to call it because the universe is not in equilibrium. Once the universe reaches a state of equilibrium, no energy anywhere will be capable of being transferred to anything. Thus, no type of interactions at all will be possible. Time, as judged through the interactions of light with matter, will no longer exist. Consequently, no natural law we’re familiar with (gravity, electrodynamics, thermodynamics, ect.) will even be relevant anymore. Hence, the state of the universe once again determines the properties of its laws. And unless something interferes with that state of equilibrium, the universe will remain that way indefinitely. Perhaps it was like that before the big bang. Maybe it was in a state of equilibrium until something caused it to expand. If that’s the case, then it means that only something outside of a universe in that state could break its equilibrium (since no energy inside of that system would be able to do so). Maybe that is where your supernatural being comes into play. Or maybe a multiverse concept is the answer. I don’t know. Either way, in science the best answer is the one that can explain the most. And the answer you’ve given on this subject explains close to nothing. So scientifically, it's useless. And since we're on a scientific topic (thermodynamics), your answer is way out of place.

Comment

I didn’t offer chance as an explanation for anything. I specifically proposed that the universe’s state of being determines the properties of its natural laws. The universe is its own “lawmaker” in that scenario. Now, I know you probably don’t approve of such an idea, as you seem to be fond of a supernatural “lawmakers”. But I stand by the conclusion that the best explanation for what goes on in the universe is the universe itself. But you don't really offer any sound reasoning for why the "lawmaker" MUST be supernatural. It appears as though you just want it to be, rather than showing that it must be. I personally see no justification to employ an entity who’s not only outside this universe apparently but outside of science all together to explain what goes on in the natural world. It doesn’t make sense to me.

But aside from that, you’re taking this personally again. I feel your desire to show up atheists not only interferes with how well you can present an argument but how credible your argument actually is. You’re argument’s not stupid Stranger. It’s just that your motivation behind it is so noticeably biased it’s almost ridiculous. You seem to have chosen that conclusion simply because it’s the one most capable of humiliating atheists, not because it’s the most reasonable given the circumstances.  Forget about atheists. Forget about atheism completely. This is a scientific discussion on a scientific concept. You can’t form a conclusive theory on a scientific topic by mixing religious ideas with it and expect to be taken seriously by anyone looking at you from the realm of science. It’s not plausible. It’s counterproductive. I’m not against you on this because I despise the idea of a god doing anything. I’m not even an atheist. But viewing your standpoint as impartially as possible, I find it’s propositions to be rather weak in terms of explanatory power. And since we’re debating on a scientific subject, explanatory power is a must. Like I already mentioned, your theory has close to zero explanatory power when it comes to benefiting scientific discovery. It doesn’t answer any important questions it should be able to and it lacks the ability to be falsified. While such a proposition may be correct, it explains almost nothing. And an idea that explains nothing isn’t much of an idea. To me, it’s not about whether your hypothesis is right or wrong. It’s about what it can explain as far as thermodynamics goes and why you’re backing such a presupposition to begin with.

Comment

"I didn’t offer chance as an explanation for anything. I specifically proposed that the universe’s state of being determines the properties of its natural laws."
Is the universe's state a matter of chance or of intent?
Chance: 13th definition from dictionary.com's app: not planned or expected; accidental.

"But you don't really offer any sound reasoning for why the 'lawmaker' MUST be supernatural. It appears as though you just want it to be, rather than showing that it must be."
I give sound reasoning for why deity or deities are the best explanation. I doubt that I can prove God. I can just show that the Divine is the most rational explanation for the second law.

"I personally see no justification to employ an entity who’s not only outside this universe apparently but outside of science all together to explain what goes on in the natural world. It doesn’t make sense to me. "
Because, as I said elsewhere, you have blind faith in the unscientific and atheistic doctrine that only natural explanations for absolutely everything should be accepted. Your wording is (probably unintentionally) misleading, for you say "...to explain what goes on in the natural world." This gives the impression that I propose God to explain every natural phenomenon, such as thunder and lightning. He made them possible, but he doesn't have to throw thunderbolts all the time, like the Disney Zeus, which, by the way, is a better explanation for the second law than a natural explanation, thus showing how pathetic and deficient a natural explanation is. How so? Because Zeus is an intender and nature has no intention and a law like the second law has to be intended just as a commandment in the Bible has to be intended.

"But aside from that, you’re taking this personally again. I feel your desire to show up atheists not only interferes with how well you can present an argument but how credible your argument actually is."
 I'm not familiar with the term "show up."
My bias, which I am open about, does not make my argument right or wrong. Don't reject my argument because I am religious and seek to show that my religion is rational. Reject it only if my argument doesn't work. Using your reasoning, or at least the impression you're giving, people should reject K9s claim that God does not exist simply because he (or she) is so biased against theism. We should treat his arguments for what they're worth. Should we turn a blind eye to his bias or mine? No. But it doesn't invalidate anyone's arguments. Same with you. You're biased, yet I don't consider any of your arguments unacceptable because of that.

"You’re argument’s not stupid Stranger. It’s just that your motivation behind it is so noticeably biased it’s almost ridiculous."
What do you want me to do? Hide my bias like you seem to?

"You seem to have chosen that conclusion simply because it’s the one most capable of humiliating atheists, not because it’s the most reasonable given the circumstances."
It IS the most rational. I don't seek to humiliate anyone, but by seeking to take down lies, those who embrace them inevitably take offense. I love Atheists. I have had my times of resentment against some of them, such as you, but I regret it and I asked God to forgive me, and he has, and I try not to be resentful any more.
By the way... how is it humiliating to Atheists to you? Because they lack an answer?

"Forget about atheists. Forget about atheism completely. This is a scientific discussion on a scientific concept." This is also philosophical, for we are talking about something that science has not been able to, and probably won't be able to explain (at least fully). You can have the faith that it will/can, but you should admit to having that faith, which I have not seen you do here. There are two kinds of philosophies about the origin of the second law: an atheistic, merely natural one, and a supernatural one (both have variants). Since I'm for one, I naturally will oppose the other. Why complain about that? 
Perhaps, someone may say, God made a natural process that produced the law. Fine. That's possible, I guess. But it won't beat the explanation I'm supporting because there is apparently no good reason to believe that a natural thing could do it, even if God produced the law that way.

"You can’t form a conclusive theory on a scientific topic by mixing religious ideas with it and expect to be taken seriously by anyone looking at you from the realm of science."
You seem to assume that the question can be answered by science, hence the "realm of science" phrase. But that idea is not scientific.
And as I said before: my deity proposition is not scientific! (exclamation for emphasis, not that I'm angry).

"I’m not even an atheist." 
Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Yes, you are. You must say that you are agnostic, but agnostics are still atheists, because both live as if God doesn't exist.
Some Atheists say that Agnostics are just Atheists without balls. That's what THEY say. Not me. I'm not encouraging you to become an Atheist, of course, but I felt like saying what they say about you, to show how nice they are. Well, not "they," but "some of them." Being rude is consistent with atheism but inconsistent with the teachings of Yashua save for the rudeness one must have against a hypocritical Christian. That's not to say that they should be hurt physically.

Oh! And you didn't answer my question in my updated vote.

Comment

My insult was that you have blind faith, to which you have not demonstrated otherwise. I guess telling you that you have faith in something without any proof (Gasp! the mother of all insults!) is too great an insult for you to bear.

You have insulted me by comparing my faith to magic (however restrained your attack), yet that's okay? Would it then have been okay for me to say, "I'm not interested anymore, Hizashi. You've already begun your little 'attack' "?
If your insult was in retaliation, then why do you now reveal being offended by my insult when it's in the very debate explanation from the get-go? By participating in this debate and disagreeing, you showed that you could argue with someone who has said that you have blind faith without a real problem. Thus, it makes little sense that now, after coincidentally being cornered to deal with my question, you say "You hurt my feelings, so I'm not going to debate with the likes of you."

How about if I told you instead: "Excuse me. It appears that it seems that you may possibly be considering something that may not have as much proof as one may desire?" 
If I sugar-coated my "insult," like you sort of did, would THAT be okay?

I have a new debate: Your Refusal To Answer My Question Is Most Likely Because You Don't Want To Admit That God Is The Best Explanation For The Second Law. 
I don't buy your pretext. I am not sure that it is, but I am sure that you don't have a good answer to my question, for if you did, you would have answered it by now.

There is no way for me to attack atheism without hurting an Atheist's feelings. No way.

"You don’t care what I have to say, nor do you even pay attention half the time to what I do."
You say you are not here to exchange insults with me, yet in the same post say that I don't care about what you think. That's an insult and false. Of course I pay attention. I occassionally overlook something, but who doesn't? And I have more reason to suspect that you don't care what I think and that you don't pay attention to me in this debate than you do.

"I’m just the typical atheistic philosopher to you who blindly follows scientific methodology."
This statement proves that YOU didn't pay attention. I didn't say that you blindly follow scientific methodology, but that you blindly believe that the only answers one should accept for questions regarding nature are merely natural ones. That's quite different from scientific methodology.

Comment

You're just like justsumguy. You take time to insult rather than answer questions.

Twice more you insult me. That I'm immature and insincere. The latter is a lie and the former is semi-true (but not for the apparent reason you gave). 
"NEVER did I deny anything you said in your argument."
Where did I say that? I don't remember that.

"The only thing I ever did was try to explain to you why it wouldn't appear plausible to the people you're attempting to convince with it. "
The other thing you did was ignore my question(s).

"My concern was with your argument, not with you. But your concern seems to be with me."
I should be concerned when someone who claims to be open minded is trying to escape answering a question.

"I joined the debate because you seemed sincere when speaking to me about it."
I'm still sincere. Why do you assume I'm not?

"You want to have one of our old long drawn out discussions that goes nowhere? You know, the kind where at the end nothing’s changed at all between either of us?"
I want to have a serious discussion with you, in which we both deal with each other's points and not act as if they don't exist. If you are not willing to argue with someone who is unlikely to change their mind, then you should never argue with someone who is adamant about anything. Just argue with the most insecure people.

You know where the question is. It's in my vote.

And I'm seldom going to be on here, since I have to read Crime and Punishment in a short timespan.

Comment

Luckily for me, there is too little light in my room to read, so I have an excuse to come back here. I hate reading using the light of the lamp in my room.

High horse? No, you're assuming that, finsch. The worst about me I have seen here is my lack of gentleness, which I am sorry for, but I gotta say, it's hard to not seem cold when I'm straightforward. How can I be gentle and straightforward at the same time? I don't like to not be straightforward. It's not me.

"You were working it and you know it."
I have no idea what 'working it" means in this.

"You try and control the dialogue, you try to be the one who gets to define what the current question is and if you don’t like the reply you ignore it."
Hmm... What does "control the dialogue" translate to, really? Focus on a certain thing? What's wrong with focusing on what I think is most important (the most relevant stuff)? You assume that I ignored (parts of) your reply because I didn't like it. It's easy to treat our assumption as fact, isn't it? I've done it, and sometimes I was wrong, as you are here.

"You were insulting towards Hiz a number of times. " I don't deny that I insulted Hizashi by saying that he has blind faith but I already said that it isn't a big deal and that he was okay with it by participating at all. Where else did I insult him in your eyes?

"You never responded to or acknowledged any of my comments in any meaningful manner." So replying in part is in no way acknowledging? You made the first comment on my vote and I answered only your first question in that comment ("What do you mean by nature...") but I failed to answer your other two questions ("...and when was this point of maximum level of organization and why would this apply to the second law of thermo dynamics?"). I'm sorry for not answering those and for not explaining why. I considered them irrelevant to the validity of my debate [What difference does it make WHEN it happened? And the question, "why would this apply to the second law of thermo dynamics?"  seems to have ignored my original vote, when I said: 
((( There is a point in the past at which nature (overall) was at its maximum level of organization/order possible. Earlier than that point, the second law did not apply or exist. The second law is about breaking down, or "decay," which is what the line represents, after all. ))) ]
Maybe I'm confused about that one. Let me know, please, if I am.

Then there was your question: "Are you talking about the big bang?" to which I responded: "This debate of mine circumvents that notion." In other words, I don't have to deal with the validity of the big bang.

Then you brought up an idea which you said: "is no more supported by scientific evidence than is a creator, it just makes sense to me same as yours does to you. "
Then Hizashi responded after you, twice, and I focused on him because in his second comment, he began to deal with my updated vote, which you hadn't yet done, apparently.

"Why do you think I wandered away from this debate?" I thought you were content with your response of "You and I have equally unproven, but different beliefs" and I also thought that you were considering my updated vote, with my new argument, that has that pesky question that you haven't tackled either.

"You weren’t actually saying anything new."
My updated vote did.

"With a lot of meandering and help from Hiz and I you finally managed to make your vague point..." That so-called meandering is just my explaining to you and Hiz why your assumptions were wrong. To you, that I wasn't talking about normal "decay," and to Hiz, that I was consistent with what entropy is. And then there's justsumguy, whom I haven't yet gotten around to responding to yet. He also seems to have made an assumption he treats as fact. All three of you, the only ones who voted here besides me so far, and all against me, have made a wrong assumption and have as of yet not tackled my pesky question. And it's sad that I'm the only one who agrees with myself... so far. But the truth is not about numbers of believers.

"...then you failed to work with either of us to dialogue on the subject you brought up."
With you, I didn't, for the reasons I gave.
With Hiz, I kind of did / would have had he not refused to answer my question. Why don't you criticize Hizashi for failing to work with me "in dialogue" (by refusing to deal with my question)? I guess if he does it, it's fine, but if I do it, it's not.

(((“Where did I say that?”
Nowhere. But you seem to be replying to me as if that’s what I’ve been doing. )))
So it was just an assumption without any solid support, yet you declared it confidently.

(((“Why do you assume I'm not?”
You’ve proceeded to tell me my own faith twice, oblivious to what terminology I might use when describing it. You’ve also misrepresented my viewpoints on the subject more than once. )))
Please explain/support these claims.

"I joined the debate because you seemed sincere when speaking to me about it."
What do you mean by "speaking to me about it"? I didn't tell you to come here, as far as I remember. 
To answer your last question Hiz, I'm not sure, but think it was my offensive, "you got faith."

My question remains.

Comment

“Please explain/support these claims.”

“I have had my times of resentment against some of them, such as you, but I regret it and I asked God to forgive me, and he has, and I try not to be resentful any more.”

You refer to me as an atheist in this one, apparently ignoring the times I’ve informed you that I’m not one.

“Yes, you are. You must say that you are agnostic, but agnostics are still atheists, because both live as if God doesn't exist.”

Here’s the part where you proceed to tell me my own faith, again, using only your own terminology and not bothering to find out my own when concerning such beliefs.

“Because, as I said elsewhere, you have blind faith in the unscientific and atheistic doctrine that only natural explanations for absolutely everything should be accepted.”

“My bias, which I am open about, does not make my argument right or wrong. Don't reject my argument because I am religious and seek to show that my religion is rational.”

And no Stranger, I wasn't offended because you said I had faith. If you still don't get why I felt you were being disrespectful after this post, then I don't think you're going to no matter how many more times I explain it. Also, a few posts ago I asked you to repeat all questions you wanted me to answer so there is no confusion as to which one you're referring to (you've asked numerous ones thus far). So please repeat the question you want me to address.

Comment

"You refer to me as an atheist in this one, apparently ignoring the times I’ve informed you that I’m not one." 
I didn't ignore your claim that you are not an Atheist. I just use a different definition than you, apparently, and it is my right, isn't it? 
You are an Atheist according to the definition I gave. Atheism includes Agnosticism in that definition. Atheism is the lack of belief in the supernatural or the denial of the supernatural. You lack belief in the supernatural (though you see the supernatural as a possibility), so you are able to be considered an Atheist.

(((“Yes, you are. You must say that you are agnostic, but agnostics are still atheists, because both live as if God doesn't exist.”

Here’s the part where you proceed to tell me my own faith, again, using only your own terminology and not bothering to find out my own when concerning such beliefs.)))
Within context, when I said that those who live as if God doesn't exist can be considered Atheists, there was also the definition that preceded it, so it's not just my own made-up definition.
I can figure out that the definition of Atheism that you use excludes you, so there's no need to ask, in my opinion.
Why should I use your preferred definition when I have an alternative? 
finsch calls my religion (at least in part) a mythology, yet I'm not going to say to him, "You must not call it a myth because that's not my terminology for it. You should use my definition of my belief(s), not any alternative, especially not your own preference."

((( “Because, as I said elsewhere, you have blind faith in the unscientific and atheistic doctrine that only natural explanations for absolutely everything should be accepted.”

I have NEVER claimed that to be my viewpoint on such situations. In fact, I’ve specifically informed you numerous times in the past that that’s a completely inaccurate portrayal of my overall position. And yet, despite that, you still choose to say what you do about what I believe. )))
I apologize for not explaining this inference. Here goes.
You think that the best explanation for the second law's origin is a natural one ("The universe’s state of being could be the determination of how the natural laws work. In fact, I personally find that a far more likely answer than turning to a supernatural cause, as it makes sense that the universe’s laws are reflected on what its energy levels are at any given time") even though I'm confident that you should know that a scientific law can not come into existence accidentally just as one of the ten commandments can't come into existence accidentally. This relates to my pesky question. Since you have no good reason to believe that one of the ten commandments was an accident, and, by extension, that a scientific law couldn't have come into existence by accident, your belief that a natural explanation for the second law of thermodynamics is the best explanation is blind faith and an irrational position.

The question was:
How is it that a physical law (which is abstract in a way, but that's a matter of our understanding of it. It is independent of our understanding of it, and that makes it something other than abstract, at least in part) can be an accident but not an abstract idea? Abstract things are still natural things, according to Atheists (since the natural is all they believe in). 
So, since abstract ideas are part of nature, why would you consider it impossible for an abstract law to come about without a creator who intended for it to exist, while simultaneously maintaining that it is possible for a scientific law to come about without a creator who intended for it to exist?

((( “My bias, which I am open about, does not make my argument right or wrong. Don't reject my argument because I am religious and seek to show that my religion is rational.”

I didn’t reject anything in your argument at all. I only expressed concern about its explanatory power and your intentions behind such an argument. This is what caused me to presume you thought I was denying your idea. )))
I understand now why you thought so. 
I didn't mean that you did reject, but that you shouldn't reject. 
It's like saying "Don't give up" to someone who hasn't, just to say good advice. And I know that you didn't need advice, but I felt like saying it anyway. Hey. I think we're understanding each other now.

"And no Stranger, I wasn't offended because you said I had faith." You were offended that I said that you had blind faith in an atheistic doctrine, though. Because you do not consider yourself to be an Atheist. At least the Atheist part got you offended, correct?

Comment

I’m not asking you to go by a definition of something you don’t want to. I only ask that you be respectful enough not to think that yours is the only one that matters when concerning someone else. Considering someone else’s definition doesn’t mean you’re relinquishing the meaningfulness of your own. In fact, doing the former is one of the best ways to progress a conversation, as a common ground can be found as a result.

I feel the need to point out that what you consider to be a “good reason” and what I consider to be a “good reason” do not necessarily have to be the same. That’s largely a subjective playground. It’s not really appropriate to state that I have no “good reason” for believing something when your reasoning so obviously doesn’t match my own. You may not see a “good reason” for my conclusion, but then again I, and others, don’t see a “good reason” for yours either. So we stand at a stalemate on this part.

Now to your question. Abstract ideas are apart of nature only because they’re apart of people, which are also apart of nature. But if we didn’t exist, then it’s reasonable to state that neither would abstract ideas essentially. But since natural laws are independent of our existence, they would remain regardless of if we existed or not. The only abstract part about natural laws is that the abstract ideas concerning them are made by us. But natural laws predate out abstract thoughts about them. So I don’t agree that the abstract concept of a law made for our understanding is necessary for said law’s existence (as it would exist the same regardless of what abstract idea was linked to it). Hence, I don’t agree that saying a scientific law, which is explained by our abstract ideas, must be intentionally created by an intelligence due to us having abstract ideas about it. Maybe universal laws did have intention behind them upon creation. But is it a necessity? I wouldn't think so (unless you want to say that natural laws wouldn't exist without abstract thought). By the way, I’m assuming your using the most common definition of the word “abstract”. You need to let me know if you’re not.

I now get what you were trying to say about most of the concerns I had before. It’s just the way that you phrased some things lead me in the wrong direction.

And yes, I did find it disrespectful that you deliberately proceeded to call me an atheist despite the fact that I informed you I didn’t consider myself one. It gave the impression that you didn't care what my thoughts were, which also made me question why were even having a conversation to begin with.

Comment

"I’m not asking you to go by a definition of something you don’t want to. I only ask that you be respectful enough not to think that yours is the only one that matters when concerning someone else. Considering someone else’s definition doesn’t mean you’re relinquishing the meaningfulness of your own."
 I don't think that mine is the only one that matters concerning you, and never did, absolutely. I have considered your definition; I just don't use it.

"And yes, I did find it disrespectful that you deliberately proceeded to call me an atheist despite the fact that I informed you I didn’t consider myself one. It gave the impression that you didn't care what my thoughts were, which also made me question why were even having a conversation to begin with. "
I see; it's all coming together. You said that you're not asking me to go by a definition of something I don't want to, so that means that you're fine with me calling you an Atheist? You can think I'm wrong, but do you demand that I stop calling you that even though you have said that you're not asking me to change my definition to what you want?

As for "good reason," I know it's pretty much subjective, but I said that, thinking that you couldn't provide such a reason that I wouldn't be able to show as a bad reason in the eyes of most people. That's not to say that most people collectively determine what is good, but that I can use near-universal views on what a good reason is to my advantage.

I expected you/someone to make the argument that you did (as my talk of the abstractness of physical laws in parentheses in my vote would indicate), and I had a counter-argument prepared. However, I have reviewed it, and it isn't as good as I thought it was initially (when you like someone, you are likely to overlook flaws, just as with an idea you like. By the same token, when you oppose someone, you are likely to even seek flaws, just as you would an idea you oppose).

That counter-argument I prepared is that you consider an abstract law's coming into existence by accident an impossibility on the basis of your experience: that all abstract things you know of are produced by a mind. I was going to, and do say, that you should be consistent by also considering a natural law's coming into existence by accident an impossibility (or unlikely, at least) based on the same thing: that all of your experience, and mankind's, tells us that laws are always intended, whenever we know of their beginning for sure.  And since a physical law (the second law, in this case) is more impacting than a merely abstract law (such as "Do not commit adultery" or "If something bad can happen, it will"), how can the one that applies to all energy (except perhaps for dark energy, if that even exists) in the Cosmos, and having applied to all energy at once, most likely!, be an accident while one that has no impact on anything but people who may put it to practice be intended without exception?

Upon review, I can see more clearly now that, as you pointed out (and as I also did in my vote), natural laws are independent of minds, so it seems that it is just a fairly reasonable assumption that natural laws were intended.

This means that my argument is a bit weak.
Thus, I will now have to focus on the concreteness of what the second law is (about).

But before I do, I gotta say: even my sort of weak argument is good enough for my claim that the supernatural is the best explanation because you have more reason to believe that the second law was intended rather than an accident, as I just explained. So, even just using my prepared counter-argument with its shortcoming, your choosing to have faith that the second law was most likely an accident is completely arbitrary and without any support whatsoever (as far as I see) except the perceived possibility of it. I'll go into that "possibility" later, if God permits.

So, what is the non-abstractness of the Second Law of ThermoDynamics? It is about energy (except perhaps dark energy, if that even exists, as I mentioned before); that energy disperses to where there is less (as long as no force keeps it together, sustaining it's organization, which requires energy. And such work involves loss of energy pretty much without exception, meaning that heat death is inevitable). It is the behaviour of energy. It is the relation between energy and its environment, right? I'm sure I'm making this too simple for you, so go ahead and complicate things (sarcasm intended).
And if I'm missing anything, let me know.
After you tell me what you consider to be the non-abstractness of the second law, then I may continue.

My definition of abstract is: of the mind; not in observable reality. Is that fine?

"Hence, I don’t agree that saying a scientific law, which is explained by our abstract ideas, must be intentionally created by an intelligence due to us having abstract ideas about it."
Remember: I'm not saying in my debate "title" that the supernatural is a MUST (though I may get around to saying that later on. You'll have to wait). The question so far is... What is most likely: Intention behind it or accident(s) behind it?

"I now get what you were trying to say about most of the concerns I had before."
You said "most." What concern, besides the main issue of the aforementioned question, remains?

Comment

I don’t demand that you do anything particularly. I would prefer that you not refer to me as an atheist, as I don’t consider myself one. But I obviously can’t stop you from doing so if you want to. However, I think you understand why I thought it disrespectful in the first place. It would be similar to me constantly calling you a “heretic” despite the fact that you didn’t view yourself as one.

And actually, you described thermodynamics fairly accurately that time. There’s no need to make it more complicated unless you want me to go into detail about certain things concerning it.

As for the existence of thermodynamics’ second law, I think you’re missing a grander concern. More specifically, I think you're trying to fit God into the wrong place. You slightly touched upon the issue earlier on, but I got sidetracked with what you were saying in the rest of that post to progress on that certain topic. Personally, I don’t think a god has anything to do with what goes on within this universe (or any other for that matter). At least not directly anyway. Here’s how I see it. Our universe has rules. It has laws. These laws are consistent. They are not the kind that are breakable (to our knowledge). The speed of light is a permanent limit to objects with mass. A person will never be able to travel at light-speed. Now, I know God is acclaimed to be able to do the impossible. I would agree on that notion as well, since a god who couldn’t wouldn’t be much of a god in my eyes. But as far as we know, nothing apart of this universe is exempt from its laws. So while God may be able to do anything, it’s not practical for me to believe he exists within this universe anywhere because of that reason. Thus, I stand by the conclusion that the best explanation for why the laws of entropy are the way they are is the universe’s state of being. Like I’ve already said, such a hypothesis doesn’t propose the laws are accidental, but yet they are determined by the universe’s energy levels. Now, after I mentioned that the first time you proceeded to ask a question pertaining to whether or not the universe’s state of being was intentional. That’s what I think is the grander question. While I consider it unreasonable to invoke the supernatural as an explanation for something within this universe, explaining something outside this universe  with the laws of this universe poses quite a problem. So I find it more logical to offer God as an outside explanation rather than an internal one.

Comment

"I would prefer that you not refer to me as an atheist, as I don’t consider myself one."
I would prefer that you did not refer to me as an opponent of science, for I don't consider myself one. So, if you'll be fair, we can make a deal.

"But as far as we know, nothing apart of this universe is exempt from its laws. So while God may be able to do anything, it’s not practical for me to believe he exists within this universe anywhere because of that reason. Thus, I stand by the conclusion that the best explanation for why the laws of entropy are the way they are is the universe’s state of being."

Then reject the idea that God is a part of nature and subject to natural laws, and deal with the proposition that he is not a part of nature and that he is above natural laws (hence "supernatural," i.e. above the natural), which is the idea of the Divine that I'm for.

"...it's not practical to believe he exists within this universe..." I don't think he does. Since natural laws are subject to him, and not the other way around, he can break them (hence, miracles' possibility) and surely he has the power to enter his creation (The Cosmos) as a man (The Logos).

"Like I’ve already said, such a hypothesis doesn’t propose the laws are accidental, but yet they are determined by the universe’s energy levels. Now, after I mentioned that the first time you proceeded to ask a question pertaining to whether or not the universe’s state of being was intentional. That’s what I think is the grander question. While I consider it unreasonable to invoke the supernatural as an explanation for something within this universe, explaining something outside this universe with the laws of this universe poses quite a problem. So I find it more logical to offer God as an outside explanation rather than an internal one."
As I understand it, you're saying that it's more logical to offer God as an outside explanation for the state of the universe rather than the second law's origin.
Well, I said earlier that it may be that God used a natural process/thing (which would be at least a part of the state of nature) to produce the second law, making the second law come into existence and apply to all energy at once. But the issue is: what's most likely?
An intender using a process we do not know of to make a law that probably applied to all energy at once OR an intender making it be by his great power, "ex nihilo," out of nothing? 
Whichever one of these two you prefer, it involves intent.

The idea that the 2nd law applied to all nature at once by accident (i.e. not ultimately intended) is exceedingly unlikely, so I don't consider it as serious competition for "best explanation."
All it has going for it is the perceived possibility of it. That belief is no better than the belief that Elvis was an extraterrestrial.
After all, that may be a possibility, too.
And to elaborate on this parallel, all of our experience tells us that people are actually...people!... (not aliens from beyond earth)... especially when we know for sure when and how they were born, just as all laws are intended when we know their beginning. Sure, all laws, the beginnings of which we know of, are made by at least one mind (and I think often one mind), but what does that lead you to be inclined to believe: that the order that natural laws describe unlikely originated in a mind, or that the order that natural laws describe likely originated in a mind? I believe that an honest, and open minded person, will be inclined to believe as I do on this, and choose to agree with me that the origin of the decay of nature is best explained by the Divine.
And my religion explains WHY there is this "dying" in the first place. When we see decay and death, we can blame Adam, ourselves.

Likewise, the idea that the 2nd law gradually applied to more and more energy until it reached the universal level where it's at now, and this by accidents (without any intention whatsoever), is also not worthy of being taken seriously, although you may believe "most unlikely" rather than "impossible" just because you believe that it may be a possibility.

"explaining something outside this universe with the laws of this universe poses quite a problem." I don't see the problem of inferring the supernatural from the second law's origin, because I'm open-minded.

Comment

I don’t recall saying you were an opponent of science anytime during this debate. But a deal you have.

“Then reject the idea that God is a part of nature and subject to natural laws, and deal with the proposition that he is not a part of nature and that he is above natural laws (hence "supernatural," i.e. above the natural), which is the idea of the Divine that I'm for.”

That’s exactly the kind of god I just described. My point was, however, that offering something that doesn’t abide by natural laws as an explanation for something natural is counterproductive. Think about it. Potentially, God could be the cause of virtually every phenomenon known to exist. But does claiming, or even knowing, that explain anything about how said phenomenon occur? No.

“As I understand it, you're saying that it's more logical to offer God as an outside explanation for the state of the universe rather than the second law's origin.”

I’m saying it’s more logical to offer God as the direct cause for existence itself, rather than for every other consequential event after the creation of existence. God being an indirect cause for everything else would suffice for me.

“Well, I said earlier that it may be that God used a natural process/thing (which would be at least a part of the state of nature) to produce the second law, making the second law come into existence and apply to all energy at once. But the issue is: what's most likely?”

What’s most likely to me is that God created all of existence itself, and everything that happens afterwards is an indirect consequence of said creation. So, essentially, whatever track the universe is on now was bound to happen after that point. Thus, everything in existence, both known and unknown, was intentional to some degree or another. But again, I feel the need to say that accounting for something’s existence doesn’t necessarily explain much about it. Hence, my continuously pointing out that explanatory power is your argument’s weak point. But if, as I suspect, this has less to do with explaining something and more to do with accounting for its existence, then I suppose what I pointed out isn’t much of a weakness after all.

“An intender using a process we do not know of to make a law that probably applied to all energy at once OR an intender making it be by his great power, "ex nihilo," out of nothing?”

The most reasonable choice to me is that God created existence, of which our universe became apart of, with its laws determined by the state of its properties (volume, temperature, energy, ect).

“The idea that the 2nd law applied to all nature at once by accident (i.e. not ultimately intended) is exceedingly unlikely, so I don't consider it as serious competition for "best explanation."

Lol. Nothing can really compare to an answer which offers an eternally perfect law-defying god as an answer Stranger. Even if you are wrong, no one can ever prove it. That fact can be both a strength and a weakness, depending on the situation.

“And my religion explains WHY there is this "dying" in the first place. When we see decay and death, we can blame Adam, ourselves.”

Theology is usually what tries to answer “Why?”. Science usually focuses on the “How?”. But when you bring up thermodynamics, I’m automatically going to think you’re wanting to talk science. At the beginning, it seemed like you were asking how the laws of entropy pertained to the origins of the universe. Therefore, I gave you a scientific response to a scientific concern. But now it appears like what you’re really trying to cover is why they exist at all, which is more of a theological question really. It just took a while for me to make that distinction, since you did kind of blur the lines between theology and science a few times (which got sort of confusing).

“I don't see the problem of inferring the supernatural from the second law's origin, because I'm open-minded.”

And on this last one, that wasn’t the point I trying to make. You got it backwards. I wasn’t discrediting the supernatural as a suggestion for the origins of anything. What I was saying was that using laws of this universe to explain something outside this universe (such as another universe perhaps) is impractical (unless we assume the laws to apply elsewhere, which I see no reason to do as of yet).

Comment

"I don’t recall saying you were an opponent of science anytime during this debate. But a deal you have." 
Not here, but months ago you have, and in other words. I have a better idea than that deal (which I had not yet agreed to since all the terms and loopholes weren't covered): I call you an agnostic but reserve the right to call you an atheist by the broad definition I gave earlier (as long as it applies to you), and you don't have to do anything (you get to call me an opponent of science in the potential, future arguments we may have about macroevolution and the big bang). That way, I don't resign a bit of my freedom of speech and I get to appease you and you don't resign a bit of your freedom of speech, either.

"That’s exactly the kind of god I just described. My point was, however, that offering something that doesn’t abide by natural laws as an explanation for something natural is counterproductive. Think about it. Potentially, God could be the cause of virtually every phenomenon known to exist. But does claiming, or even knowing, that explain anything about how said phenomenon occur? No. "
I answered this above, on the 21st, when I said: 
((( Your wording is (probably unintentionally) misleading, for you say "...to explain what goes on in the natural world." This gives the impression that I propose God to explain every natural phenomenon, such as thunder and lightning. He made them possible, but he doesn't have to throw thunderbolts all the time, like the Disney Zeus, which, by the way, is a better explanation for the second law than a natural explanation, thus showing how pathetic and deficient a natural explanation is. How so? Because Zeus is an intender and nature has no intention and a law like the second law has to be intended just as a commandment in the Bible has to be intended. )))
I also said on that same day:
((( "This is a scientific discussion on a scientific concept." This is also philosophical, for we are talking about something that science has not been able to, and probably won't be able to explain (at least fully). You can have the faith that it will/can, but you should admit to having that faith, which I have not seen you do here. )))
Thus, talk about my idea not able to be proven wrong is pointless, for I never said that my deity proposition is scientific (falsifiable). The same goes for your criticism of my idea as no more than an "accounting for" the second law, as opposed to a scientific explanation of its origin, which may never happen or even be possible, though you're certainly free to have faith that it may be. I gave a definition of "explanation" as "account for" under Grenache's vote, on the 21st.

"I’m saying it’s more logical to offer God as the direct cause for existence itself, rather than for every other consequential event after the creation of existence. God being an indirect cause for everything else would suffice for me."
What is this "existence" you speak of?

"What’s most likely to me is that God created all of existence itself, and everything that happens afterwards is an indirect consequence of said creation."
So you seem to be leaning towards theistic evolutionism (both organic and non-organic evolution). God does not need a big bang to create anything. God does not need macroevolution to produce animals. But you'd believe that he did that unnecessarily, because you believe that they are proven without any reasonable doubt, so "obviously that's the means God used to make nearly everything that is."
Let me see how far I can argue against those ideas, which nearly all Atheists embrace (a telling fact) without having to deal with their "validity," for I should study more before I do that.
We can tell certain things about the Divine one(s), can't we?

1) He is super powerful; able to make something be when it was not.

2) He made a unique kind of being, our kind, with knowledge of what is good and what is evil.

3) There is both great order (usually involving beauty) as well as good, and there is great disorder (sometimes involving uglyness) as well as evil.

4) The Creator must have the power to enter his creation. Communicating with living beings is possible, for practically nothing is impossible with God.

Based on the first part of 3, we can tell that God allows most of us to enjoy beauty. This means that God is not a vicious, totally evil being, at least, for God allows people to enjoy beauty, pleasure, and good things. A nice beach at the Keys is an example. 
Based on 1, nothing created escapes the Creator; all things that exist are allowed to exist. 
Since we know that, then what do we make of the second part of number 3? Why would a God who obviously cares about beauty and order and allows creatures to enjoy such good things also allow imperfections, disorder, destruction, uglyness and evil?
Based on 4, it is possible that religious scriptures, or even a single person, can have God speak through them. Please consider mine, since I'm obviously promoting my religion here (and we should consider nearly every alleged truth from God if we are open-minded).
My religion gives the best explanation I've seen to answer the question I asked a moment ago. I'd like to hear of a better one, if there is any.
The Jewish scriptures tell us that number 2 (pun just realized and intended) is the reason. Number 2: mankind; our kind of creature with a conscience, is to blame for much evil in the world, for the decay of nature, and for nearly all unpleasant things.

To be continued...

Comment

I claim that the Jewish explanation for evil's existence (which Christian and Muslim ones are/reflect) is the best one. Anyone out there! Offer a better explanation. Challenge me. It's good mental exercise.

Since you, Hiz, are an Agnostic considering Theistic evolutionism [Wait. What are you? Do you believe that the supernatural exists (as a few of your comments might indicate), which would make you a Theistic evolutionist, or are you still waiting for scientific proof or something? I don't want to assume what you are from what you've said, since some of your statements seem contradictory (that you are an Agnostic and that you also consider a particular idea of nature's origin related to God to be most likely) and I hope you understand why I am confused about that. If you say that you still do not believe in any supernatural being, then back to intention I go], I think you should deal with the idea of a Creator who, as I was saying, creates a Cosmos that he knew would be doomed somehow. The question of WHY? is important, for it has to do with the meaning of life, and you know that God's existence must have something to do with the meaning of life, if you believe that a god exists.

There is a conflict between macroevolution and the idea that mankind brought death to nature. It is the origin of death. For macroevolution to work, death must exist before anything resembling man, or even a slug. However, death allegedly originated with sin (according to the best explanation, which I say is the best because it has no better alternative in sight. If there is only one chess player in a competition that's open to all with a nice prize, that chess player is the best in the competition. To say to that chess player "You're not the best," yet not know of anyone better is nonsensical), which only beings with consciences can commit. So there's a problem for justsumguy and other heretics like him.
And if you believe that death came before the Fall of Adam, then shouldn't you believe that God is evil, punishing multitudes of generations of living beings with feelings just because one of their descendants would choose to do evil?

My God allowed animals and the rest of nature to suffer/break down/die because of their master's sins (man has dominion over earth and animals. You don't have to be religious to accept that). If a father sins, God allows the children to be affected by the sins. If a shepherd makes a big mistake, the sheep can suffer/die. However, how can an ancestor suffer and die for a descendant's crime? 
Or worse: How can an ancestor suffer and die for a descendant's crime when that descendant is not of the same lineage, or even species (however you define species. Hint, hint). That seems quite backwards, especially in this scenario. I'll have to talk more about this if someone still disagrees.

When I said I wasn't going to yet tackle macroevolution's validity, I was thinking of its scientific validity, not its philosophical validity.
I'm sure you consider science to be above philosophy, Hiz, but it's just a matter of time before I come back to forandagainst and go all out.

((( “The idea that the 2nd law applied to all nature at once by accident (i.e. not ultimately intended) is exceedingly unlikely, so I don't consider it as serious competition for "best explanation."

Lol. Nothing can really compare to an answer which offers an eternally perfect law-defying god as an answer Stranger. )))
If you included my explanation in your quoting of me, which followed my claim, for how pathetic any alternative to the supernatural has to be, then your mocking wouldn't seem so reasonable. Remember: any alternative to the supernatural is equal to the belief that Elvis was E.T's brother, or E.T. in disguise. Depends what you fancy, in utter arbitrariness and want of good reason.

(((Theology is usually what tries to answer “Why?”. Science usually focuses on the “How?”))) True.

"At the beginning, it seemed like you were asking how the laws of entropy pertained to the origins of the universe. Therefore, I gave you a scientific response to a scientific concern. But now it appears like what you’re really trying to cover is why they exist at all, which is more of a theological question really."
I'm dealing with both, especially since we already covered that we don't know what natural thing produced the order that the 2nd Law describes, if there was any natural cause at all. Surely we can move on.

"What I was saying was that using laws of this universe to explain something outside this universe (such as another universe perhaps) is impractical..."
Well, when we're talking about the supernatural in every comment, and not about extra universes, then of course I'll assume you meant the supernatural when you said "something outside this universe."

So... yeah.

Comment

“What is this "existence" you speak of?”

Everything and anything. All observable and unobservable phenomenon.

The rest of your first post I can probably address all at once. To be precise, I’m leaning towards a concept that doesn’t go against observable scientific evidence (such as the big bang or evolution). It has nothing to do with whether or not God can do something. It has to do with whether or not what someone’s claiming God did makes sense in light of what I see. While God may not need a big bang to create anything, it’s a logical deduction that our universe began with one. Hence, it’s also a logical deduction that God might have been the cause. Likewise, while God may not need evolution to produce new species, it’s a logical deduction that that’s how new species arise. Hence, it’s also a logical deduction that that’s how God does so (if you believe he does at all). On another note, scientific theories can’t be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I don’t believe I’ve ever told you they could. But they are made to be as accurate as possible. I know you don’t think the theories on evolution or the big bang are accurate at all, but you won’t be able to argue against my ideas on this particular part until you demonstrate your presumptions about them to be true. But that would take us back into our old debates about said subjects, which you said you don’t want to do right now. So I wouldn’t suggest we go any further on this specific topic.

“Do you believe that the supernatural exists (as a few of your comments might indicate), which would make you a Theistic evolutionist, or are you still waiting for scientific proof or something?”

I don’t know Stranger. It all depends on your terminology. By definition the supernatural cannot be explained by science. So obviously I’m not waiting for scientific evidence in support of it. But if you define the supernatural as something unexplainable by science, then logically whatever’s left must be it. Under that premise, whatever science can’t explain would be considered supernatural. But since science is constantly advancing and explaining what could not be explained previously, what’s considered supernatural will also constantly fluctuate as science does. So overall I can’t really give you a straight answer. I think there’s plenty more ways to view the situation than what I know. So I’m not in a rush.

“There is a conflict between macroevolution and the idea that mankind brought death to nature.”

Most definitely. But I don’t believe man brought death to nature itself. So this isn’t a problem for me.

“When I said I wasn't going to yet tackle macroevolution's validity, I was thinking of its scientific validity, not its philosophical validity.
I'm sure you consider science to be above philosophy, Hiz, but it's just a matter of time before I come back to forandagainst and go all out.”

I consider science to be above philosophy when concerning scientific concepts. So yes, in this case the science of evolution is far more important to me than any philosophy you have about it.

“If you included my explanation in your quoting of me, which followed my claim, for how pathetic any alternative to the supernatural has to be, then your mocking wouldn't seem so reasonable. Remember: any alternative to the supernatural is equal to the belief that Elvis was E.T's brother, or E.T. in disguise. Depends what you fancy, in utter arbitrariness and want of good reason.”

That was my point. It wasn’t an insult. It was just a statement. For a moment it seemed as if you were expecting there to be a better answer than a supernatural one (which made me chuckle a bit). No answer can “beat” a supernatural one because a supernatural one can account for literally anything at all.

I think we’ve pretty much covered all we can so far. Most of what’s left concerns science itself, which you said you didn’t want to debate yet. I responded to everything I read that appeared important to the conversation. I didn’t really comment on the parts where you were telling me your beliefs. There’s nothing for me to say on those.