Pattern recognition and belief in God

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

Actually, in two of your examples, the theory does preclude the supernatural nonsense. For example, our theory of optics tells us that the exact location of the end of a rainbow depends on the observer's position with respect to the Sun.

Except of course those cunning leprechauns have arranged matters so they just seem that way in order to cover their tracks. I'm surprised that someone of your usual acuity didn't realise that... 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is not natural for more complex thing to arise from less complex.

Of course it is. How on earth can you not know that?

It is demonstrable that naturally occurring events tend to destroy complexity rather than create it.

You're thinking of entropy. Entropy increases in isolated systems - it can decrease in open ones. Try looking up the second law of thermodynamics.
 

It is why all living things will eventually die.

If you’re thinking of the heat death of the universe, then probably yes. That tells you nothing though about the emergence of life in the meantime.

It was a miracle that the first living cell was not killed off by natural forces before it reproduced.

How do you know that it wasn’t?
 

The ability of living things to reproduce is evidence of intentional design to combat the natural events which ultimately destroy life and generate ever increasing chaos.

Childish, evidence-denying bollocks. FFS, at least try to read something about this before making a fool of yourself again here.

[torridon]

It is not natural for more complex things to arise from less complex.
It is demonstrable that naturally occurring events tend to destroy complexity rather than create it.
It is why all living things will eventually die.
It was a miracle that the first living cell was not killed off by natural forces before it reproduced.
The ability of living things to reproduce is evidence of intentional design to combat the natural events which ultimately destroy life and generate ever increasing chaos.

That's a simplistic misunderstanding of thermodynamic law.  Complex things derive from simpler underlying constituents. Complex molecules derive from the bonding together of underlying atomic matter. Spiral arm galaxies derive from billions of individual star systems being drawn into a larger construct under the influence of gravity.  You talk as if 2LT were the only principle of physics known, and if that were the case then there would be nothing more complex than flat uniform undifferentiated plasma anywhere.  But the universe is not like that; everywhere we look, we see rich, diverse, complexity arising out of simpler underlying constituents and persisting against the entropy gradient.

[Sriram]

That's a simplistic misunderstanding of thermodynamic law.  Complex things derive from simpler underlying constituents. Complex molecules derive from the bonding together of underlying atomic matter. Spiral arm galaxies derive from billions of individual star systems being drawn into a larger construct under the influence of gravity.  You talk as if 2LT were the only principle of physics known, and if that were the case then there would be nothing more complex than flat uniform undifferentiated plasma anywhere.  But the universe is not like that; everywhere we look, we see rich, diverse, complexity arising out of simpler underlying constituents and persisting against the entropy gradient.

Yes...and that is what shows Intelligence working within the system. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Yes...and that is what shows Intelligence working within the system.

It shows no such thing. Why on earth do you think it does?

[torridon]

Yes...and that is what shows Intelligence working within the system.

That is what is known as a non-sequitur, in the business. 

Just supposing you are right, that the existence of natural laws in the universe is due to some external behind-the-scenes intelligence, then what would be behind the external intelligence that gave rise to our natural laws. A behind the scenes guiding hand implies an infinite regress of guiders.

[ippy]

Yes...and that is what shows Intelligence working within the system.

Because the life cycle of the moth is short I had thought it would help with anyone that has difficulty coming to terms with the reality of the well proven T of E, I suppose Wikki would be your best bet for the moment but there are plenty of books available on this subject, you'd best get reading Sriram.

Regards, ippy.

[Sriram]

That is what is known as a non-sequitur, in the business. 

Just supposing you are right, that the existence of natural laws in the universe is due to some external behind-the-scenes intelligence, then what would be behind the external intelligence that gave rise to our natural laws. A behind the scenes guiding hand implies an infinite regress of guiders.

And what is behind the Natural Laws and the Big Bang..?  How did they arise?  You think there is no Infinite Regress there...!!?

[Alan Burns]

You're thinking of entropy. Entropy increases in isolated systems - it can decrease in open ones. Try looking up the second law of thermodynamics.
 

Outside human perception, there is no differentiation between isolated systems and open systems.
You appear to be using some form of deliberate selectivity to back up your argument.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

And what is behind the Natural Laws and the Big Bang..?  How did they arise?  You think there is no Infinite Regress there...!!?

I don't know, and nor do I know if the question even makes sense.

If you want to posit a "something" that's "behind" these things though, what's behind that? That's your infinite regress problem.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Outside human perception, there is no differentiation between isolated systems and open systems.

Your responses are becoming increasingly bizarre. Our planet is a system. It's open to energy from the Sun. Whether or not there happen to be people to perceive that doesn't change the fact of it.

You appear to be using some form of deliberate selectivity to back up your argument.

No, just reason and evidence. You should try it one day. Why not begin with what the second law of thermodynamics actually says to see where you went wrong?

[torridon]

And what is behind the Natural Laws and the Big Bang..?  How did they arise?  You think there is no Infinite Regress there...!!?

That's your claim that there is something 'behind' things, not mine.  It's classic agent detection bias, you merely haven't learned to shed it yet.

[Stranger]

It is not natural for more complex thing to arise from less complex.

Outside human perception, there is no differentiation between isolated systems and open systems.

Snowflakes must be god-magic, then.

Are you really this scientifically illiterate?

[Alan Burns]

Snowflakes must be god-magic, then.

Are you really this scientifically illiterate?

Any pattern perceived in a snowflake is just human label.
Outside human perception it is just water molecules - no specific complexity.

Our perception of increased complexity arising from less complexity would only appear to happen in life forms which are already complex.
Outside these life forms there is no apparent growth in the complexity of our material universe.

[Sriram]

Sriram,

I don't know, and nor do I know if the question even makes sense.

If you want to posit a "something" that's "behind" these things though, what's behind that? That's your infinite regress problem.   

Exactly!  Everything is caused by something.....whether Intelligent cause or otherwise.  Infinite Regress doesn't go away even in science....!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Any pattern perceived in a snowflake is just human label.

No, it’s a set of material properties that exist whether or not there’s anyone there to perceive them.

Outside human perception it is just water molecules - no specific complexity.

Madness. How do you feel about water itself then? After all, water has properties that neither hydrogen nor oxygen have – do you also think that water only behaves as it does because people are looking at it? Why not? 

Our perception of increased complexity arising from less complexity would only appear to happen in life forms which are already complex.

Gibberish.

Outside these life forms there is no apparent growth in the complexity of our material universe.

Not of “the universe” as a whole, but there certainly is in parts of it that aren’t isolated. Entropy can measurably decrease in those parts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy   

I advised you to find out something about the subject before making a fool of yourself again here. Why didn’t you listen?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Exactly!  Everything is caused by something.....whether Intelligent cause or otherwise.  Infinite Regress doesn't go away even in science....!

Dear god but you struggle. It “goes away” in science because it’s incoherent. Time itself is a property of the universe, and you can’t have a “before” time. If nonetheless you want to posit a “something” to kick of the universe then you just give that something the same infinite regress problem. What would be “behind” that?     

[Stranger]

Any pattern perceived in a snowflake is just human label.

Idiotic drivel. The snowflake has lower entropy than the water droplet from which it formed. It has nothing to do with human labels.

Outside human perception it is just water molecules - no specific complexity.

You keep using this phrase "specific" complexity as if it means something. If you're not referring to entropy, then what the hell are you talking about?

Our perception of increased complexity arising from less complexity would only appear to happen in life forms which are already complex.
Outside these life forms there is no apparent growth in the complexity of our material universe.

Simply false on both counts. It seems your ignorance of science is as comprehensive as your ignorance of logic, and you seem to care just as little about it.

Why is it you seem to want to present your faith as illogical, dishonest, and (now) scientifically illiterate too?

[Stranger]

Everything is caused by something.....

Firstly, time and causation are internal to the universe (space-time manifold), there is no reason to think that it applies to the manifold as a whole, and good reason to think that it doesn't. Secondly, even within time, quantum mechanics tells us that there are events that don't have specific causes.

[torridon]

Any pattern perceived in a snowflake is just human label.
Outside human perception it is just water molecules - no specific complexity.

Our perception of increased complexity arising from less complexity would only appear to happen in life forms which are already complex.
Outside these life forms there is no apparent growth in the complexity of our material universe.

You're not paying attention.

Atoms combine with other atoms to make molecules, more complex structures, and they manage to do this without being alive. Molecules combine with other molecules to make more complex molecules.  Long chain carbon compounds form by the bonding together of short chain carbon compounds. And so forth right up until you get giant galaxy clusters hundreds of millions of light years across, and all without being alive.

[jeremyp]

It is not natural for more complex things to arise from less complex.

Yes it is.

It is demonstrable that naturally occurring events tend to destroy complexity rather than create it.

"Tend" does not mean  "Always". Some naturally occurring events make complex things out of simple things. Would you say, for example, an acorn is more or less complex than an oak tree?

It was a miracle that the first living cell was not killed off by natural forces before it reproduced.

It probably was.

The ability of living things to reproduce is evidence of intentional design to combat the natural events which ultimately destroy life and generate ever increasing chaos.

It's evidence that the consequences of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are far less predictable than its simplicity would suggest.

[jeremyp]

Outside human perception, there is no differentiation between isolated systems and open systems.
You appear to be using some form of deliberate selectivity to back up your argument.

The Earth is not an isolated system. It is subject to a constant directed stream of low entropy energy from the Sun. It emits high entropy energy in all directions. Viewed as a black box, the Earth increases the entropy of the Sun's rays enormously. All of the processes that are involved in life increase overall entropy.   

[Sriram]

Firstly, time and causation are internal to the universe (space-time manifold), there is no reason to think that it applies to the manifold as a whole, and good reason to think that it doesn't. Secondly, even within time, quantum mechanics tells us that there are events that don't have specific causes.

That's a lot of words with convoluted ideas.  The fact is that we don't and perhaps cannot know First Causes. Therefore, Infinite Regress is as relevant to scientific theories as to spiritual ones.   

[Stranger]

That's a lot of words with convoluted ideas.

Not really, they are based on the two most fundamental (well tested) theories of reality we have (general relativity and quantum field theory). Both suggesting (in somewhat different ways) that the question of first cause or infinite regress may not be applicable.

Therefore, Infinite Regress is as relevant to scientific theories as to spiritual ones.   

Science is telling us that the question may not be relevant, "spiritual theories" appear to be indistinguishable from blind guesses.

[Alan Burns]

Would you say, for example, an acorn is more or less complex than an oak tree?

The example you choose is very specific to this earth and its life forms.
Outside living matter, natural events tend not to create the specific complexity existing within life forms.
Natural events will cause destruction of life forms, which is why things die.