Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

Why God of course....... :clown:

 

I would ask you to kindly take a few minutes minutes checking your arguments yourself to see if they are valid before presenting them in this fashion as, frankly, you can do better.

The first thing to understand about the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that it is an empirical finding; that is, we have lots of experimental data which seems to point to it. It is not logically deduced; it is not logically necessary. Given time, we could find empirical data which disproves it. Such a finding is within the realm of possibility.

The second thing to understand is that it deals with very simple physical systems; atoms exchanging energy. To speak of the entropy of a living system is to mis-apply the law entirely. We aren't sure at all how to use this law in biological discussions.

The third thing to understand is that this law can be stated in a great many number of ways, with many different subtle meanings; this speaks to the need of exploring it further and crystallizing exactly what its dimensions and parameters are.

The fourth thing is that it applies only to "isolated systems"; systems receiving no energy from the outside. The entire universe comprises an isolated system (we think!), thus entropy in the entire universe will increase over time. But when examining evolution, our system is not the entire universe, but the earth, and the earth is far from being isolated; it is the mighty Sun which has both powered the entire kingdom of chlorophyllic life, leading to our oxygen-aspirating life, but also which provides much of the cosmic energy responsible for random mutations in genomes which, when measured against the aeons of time, occassionally produce beneficial mutations within life.

Lastly, "The second law of thermodynamics states that every natural thermodynamic process proceeds in the sense in which the sum of the entropies of all bodies taking part in the process is increased." This means that entropy rises on average; so even if we apply the second law to life systems, which we don't know how, and which we can't, because life appears to be in an open system, then that means that life can STILL evolve as long as the sum average entropy of said system is increasing. In other words, as long as the sun is running out of fuel (it is) and as long as the earth's geothermal activity is declining (it is) then these massive, massive sources of increasing entropy will be more than enough to allow for local biomass decreases in entropy.

It is common in philosophy to warn students against reading a famous argument, and finding it ludicrous and faulty on the surface; such a knee-jerk interpretation is far, far more suggestive of the student's misunderstanding of the argument than of their being more perceptive than the dozens or hundreds of generations of philosophers which have preceded them.

May I suggest that when attempting to understand a complex scientific theory like evolution, and thermodynamics, that you take heed to not assume you have "cracked the case" despite thousands and thousands of smarter and harder working people devoting their lives to this. This is a common personal fault I see too often in these discussions; someone with virtually no scientific education or understanding thinks a theory is "ludicrous" because they don't know how it fits with their other simple models; the issue can be safely assumed to be one of ignorance on the person and not on the entire collective scientific aegis.

Certainly there are debates within the theory of evolution, but there is no debate about the theory of evolution. There simply isn't, and to think there is, only broadcasts the success of certain political propaganda campaigns.

The entirety of Biology makes no sense without the theory of evolution. Ironically you are using an empirically-based theory we understand far less to argue against an empirically-based theory we understand far more.

Here is a wonderful primer on evolution that I present to anyone wishing to engage seriously with the topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg

 

Uhmmm, yeah, if you are only considering our own planet/system, but I am referring to the known universe and it is a closed system for our purposes, and the sun is just as subject to entropy as is everything else.

that Bill Nye video was cute, but seriously are you implying the the sun is the impetus for life and has been the force in evolution that has seemingly pushed it from systems/life forms of lower complexity to ones of higher complexity?
granted solar energy is a necessary component for life as we know it, but that is very tentative at best.

Bill's definition of entropy is specific for thermo dynamics, but entropy applies to all systems, granted by virtue of thermodynamics, but the net result is always from higher organizational states to lower organizational states, whether it's an apple rotting or a galaxy dying, it is still the same principles at work.

There is still that nagging question of why evolution went in the direction it did, and it isn't because of the sun. The sun may be the source of energy for this planet, but it isn't whatever has driven biology and evolution into higher and more complex systems resulting thus far in us humans debating such things.

 

Uhmmm, sure, ok.
sorry, I am not in need of any advice concerning "attempting to understand complex scientific theory", been there, been doing that for many decades now, thankyou.

 

There is always room for theories.

 

Does that mean that cultural anthropology and biological anthropology are not scientifically meaningful pursuits? A brain scientist may discover for example, this is why you think god.

 

Those fields study a diverse range of phenomena, there can be many scientifically meaningful pursuits found.

 

It is the reification of the ultimate abstraction that is the universe that leads to concepts such as "God" being assigned properties of some sort of tangible object or even personified.

Abstraction is a useful tool for dealing with, and conceptualizing complexities such as systems comprised of an assortment of parts or systems; it is even more useful for dealing with systems comprised of a collection of complex systems, themselves comprised of a collection of systems ad nauseum. Such systems as described cannot be dealt with without abstraction, the complexity must be seperated or reduced into useful units that can be dealt with as modular components.

In any case, the abstraction doesn't really exist except for conceptually in our minds.

 

What about the God Particle?

 

Yes, there is room for God in evolution. Evolution is not as random as Darwin thought. Evolution is actually laid out before us, like the reels of a film are laid out waiting to play themselves out in a film. There's no guarantee of success with the experiment of human evolution, but the trajectory is ultimately a spiritual one, as man seeks to further empower and enlighten himself in the ongoing quest of being conscious of his godliness. The next step is for the modern mainstream paradigm to shift from looking at the world as empty and alien to us, to realizing that we are all an integral expression of the universe itself. Humans becoming more conscious of this allows the Universe itself to become more conscious of itself.

 

Thanks for your careful rebuttal of the points I presented opposing your argument. Good luck with that ego.

What about it?

Just in case you're under this very common misunderstanding about evolution, the actual "randomness" of evolution is a minor factor concerning mostly cosmic rays and copying errors influencing the genome. The bulk of evolution occurs through the mechanism of Natural Selection; that's why it's called The Evolution of Species by Natural Selection. Natural Selection is not "random", but it's also not "directed" by anything other than the totality of the relationship between organism and environment; the environment provides selection pressure for certain traits over others. For example if food is found mostly at the tops of trees, there will be pressure for animals which can either climb trees or reach them through sheer size; neither the food, the trees, nor the animals are consciously aware of this nor do they partake in any kind of planning session to coordinate.

You assert that evolution is "laid out before us", do you have any evidence, or is this to be added to the list of "Things Chinacat asserts but never provides evidence for"?

 

.

 

Kundalini I would say is the evidence. Kundalini is dormant in all humans but always has the potential to be awakened. This is the intelligent energy that's directing our evolution, despite Science's non-acceptance of its existence.

 

Well to begin with, and which will probably be mentioned numerous times, we have the problem that God has not been defined in this thread. There are some concepts of God that I would consider incongruous with science, but is the idea that there is a higher power in the universe than man incongruous with science? Not at all. It's a very important scientific question, in fact.

Also I like what tyrsonwood said about not being able to prove the existence of scientists. Everyone is forced to make assumptions on a daily basis -- does the making of an assumption make one not scientific?

 

Can you prove this, or are you just assuming? Please prove to me how aware or not aware that any tree, rock, or animal is. Also prove to me that there's not some sort of higher intelligence directing this process of "selection pressure".

 

except for is a huge exception
An idea can become a material form apart from the conceiving of it.
They are called inventions.
It is not so meaningful to say only exists conceptually in our minds as it is to say the mind as far as luminous imagery is naturally abstract.
We know god is a phenomena that can be studied in men so the question then becomes is there a role for god in the individual students life. Obviously that is a matter of the scientists desired aim and the perceived or hypothetical function of the god in question. That is why there are both PhD's and Holy men as per view of their peers as well as some really great guys with degrees.

If it is as I have suggested, god to be the creative tiller of your own experience then to learn of your role in it would be appealing across the board. It is possible to learn never to perceive yourself a victim again no matter the circumstance. To be aware of this compared to the profound perception that things happen to us is like being in possession of an advanced software operating system. You are running the deluxe version of human awareness while everyone else is running the trial starter kit and debating with each other about who did what while you increasingly learn to occupy your own space in an abundant manner. So much so that your life is not about competing with anyone or even dealing with your own complaints but more about being asked for assistance and being able to meaningfully respond. No longer insecure of your own safety the question becomes how to be truly helpful.

 

The awareness is fundamentally unknowable, and I have described my views of panpsychism elsewhere. The higher direction has never been seen, thus the onus is on you to prove that it does happen. Surely if it does, there must be unambiguous evidence.

I really don't want to turn these threads into "Chinacat attempts to redeem his Kundalini and Astrology obsession".

If you think science is non-accepting of kundalini, whatever on earth that means ("science" isn't 3 guys in a building in Washington...), then again we come back to the issue of "show me the money".

I will keep saying this until you vomit and delete your account. If you want science to study kundalini, then show me where this phenomenon kundalini is that I may study it.

 

Higher power runs into the same issues of semantics as God. From the way you have defined higher power, insinuating that it is beyond the capacities of man, then yes it is incongruous with science because science as method, observation and study is dealing with human observations and understanding from the human capacity.

 

Don't we exist in a closed system in terms of atmosphere? Meaning life exists within the troposphere and everything we know of life is recirculating within it. We are learning to extend life, to tend life, to cultivate systems that otherwise wouldn't exist within a limited context. We create temporary conditions for ourselves to the extent we are able. There are no limits in the province of mind although there are limits to the body. I probably don't understand your points as well as you do but feel free to inform me of anything you perceive I don't understand.

 

So what might you say on the phenomology of "God"?

So I CAN invent me a god then?