Comments on: Finding God at the Sears Tower! (or) The Existence of God and the Second Law of Thermodynamics http://blog.adw.org/2009/07/finding-god-at-the-sears-tower-or-the-existence-of-god-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/ Connecting the dots between Catholic faith and culture Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:21:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Msgr. Charles Pope http://blog.adw.org/2009/07/finding-god-at-the-sears-tower-or-the-existence-of-god-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/comment-page-1/#comment-802 Msgr. Charles Pope Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:30:14 +0000 http://blog.adw.org/?p=2546#comment-802 Thanks for the clarifying remark regarding the capacity of man to know by the light of natural reason that God exists. Your remark is an important reminder and a necessary distinction to what I said. To clarify my point, although it is possible for a person know from human reason that God exists, it is my understanding that the nature of this knowledge is not in the form of a scientific proof, as though we could measure God's existence by pure scientific method. Rather the way of knowing is "proved" more in the original sense of the word. Namely that we can reasonably conclude to God's existence based on a variety of ways of knowing and observing. Pure science, based on it's rather narrow and specific focus on the material and measurable would probably not be able to prove in a purely scientific way (e..g measuring God's presence on a scale) God's existence. I don't mind when a scientist says that the existence (or non-existence) of God is beyond the scope of its disciple to discern or even have an opinion. What I DO mind is when some scientists and many more non-scientists claim that science is the only legitimate way of knowing, as though philosophy, religious knowing, empiricism and the like have no place in the discussion of topics such as life, origins, and so forth. I do not think every scientist thinks this way. But many people in our modern age are dismissive of anything that is not science or physical matter. I think the scripture (esp. Romans 1) and the teaching of the Church regarding our capacity via reason to know that God exists has in mind more than physical sciences. Perhaps to sum up, my point in this article has been to suggest that science, using it's own methodology points to certain paradoxes, and mysteries beyond its own ability at least currently to resolve other than by theorizing. THis is where faith, science, reason and philosophy can add to the overall human discussion of these matters. Science thus opens doors for those of us who think in religious terms to ponder as to God's ultimate role in all this. My critique was against the pure atheist position not against science which I presume MUST offer explanations only from within its defined scope. Thanks for the clarifying remark regarding the capacity of man to know by the light of natural reason that God exists. Your remark is an important reminder and a necessary distinction to what I said. To clarify my point, although it is possible for a person know from human reason that God exists, it is my understanding that the nature of this knowledge is not in the form of a scientific proof, as though we could measure God’s existence by pure scientific method. Rather the way of knowing is “proved” more in the original sense of the word. Namely that we can reasonably conclude to God’s existence based on a variety of ways of knowing and observing. Pure science, based on it’s rather narrow and specific focus on the material and measurable would probably not be able to prove in a purely scientific way (e..g measuring God’s presence on a scale) God’s existence. I don’t mind when a scientist says that the existence (or non-existence) of God is beyond the scope of its disciple to discern or even have an opinion. What I DO mind is when some scientists and many more non-scientists claim that science is the only legitimate way of knowing, as though philosophy, religious knowing, empiricism and the like have no place in the discussion of topics such as life, origins, and so forth. I do not think every scientist thinks this way. But many people in our modern age are dismissive of anything that is not science or physical matter. I think the scripture (esp. Romans 1) and the teaching of the Church regarding our capacity via reason to know that God exists has in mind more than physical sciences.

Perhaps to sum up, my point in this article has been to suggest that science, using it’s own methodology points to certain paradoxes, and mysteries beyond its own ability at least currently to resolve other than by theorizing. THis is where faith, science, reason and philosophy can add to the overall human discussion of these matters. Science thus opens doors for those of us who think in religious terms to ponder as to God’s ultimate role in all this. My critique was against the pure atheist position not against science which I presume MUST offer explanations only from within its defined scope.

]]> By: Tom http://blog.adw.org/2009/07/finding-god-at-the-sears-tower-or-the-existence-of-god-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/comment-page-1/#comment-800 Tom Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:23:28 +0000 http://blog.adw.org/?p=2546#comment-800 I'm with you on the difference between the traditional and modern notions of "proof." (Though as it happens we can know from human reason, and not only by faith, that God exists, right?) But the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a "law" in the modern sense. If it turns out that the entropy of the universe is decreasing, it wouldn't necessarily follow that the universe is an open system. It could be that the "law" is only an approximation. Moreover, thermodynamics is of course a science of physics. The energy from "outside" that is necessary to decrease entropy is a physical energy. It's possible, I suppose, that God is continually creating physical energy ex nihilo, but if so, I think theologians would have a great deal of revising of their own science to do. None of which is to say, I should add, that the order of the universe, and in particular of life on Earth, doesn't point to its Creator. I’m with you on the difference between the traditional and modern notions of “proof.” (Though as it happens we can know from human reason, and not only by faith, that God exists, right?)

But the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a “law” in the modern sense. If it turns out that the entropy of the universe is decreasing, it wouldn’t necessarily follow that the universe is an open system. It could be that the “law” is only an approximation.

Moreover, thermodynamics is of course a science of physics. The energy from “outside” that is necessary to decrease entropy is a physical energy. It’s possible, I suppose, that God is continually creating physical energy ex nihilo, but if so, I think theologians would have a great deal of revising of their own science to do.

None of which is to say, I should add, that the order of the universe, and in particular of life on Earth, doesn’t point to its Creator.

]]> By: Msgr. Charles Pope http://blog.adw.org/2009/07/finding-god-at-the-sears-tower-or-the-existence-of-god-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/comment-page-1/#comment-796 Msgr. Charles Pope Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:55:13 +0000 http://blog.adw.org/?p=2546#comment-796 Yes I think you are right. If we could construct an example where it was violated it wouldn't prove that God exists. The word "proof" here is used in the historical Christian sense more to mean a demonstration of what we speak. If we could prove God exists in the modern notion of the word faith would not be necessary. When St. Thomas Aquinas spoke of five "proofs" for the existence of God he meant really "a demonstration" . So when I write my "proof" for the existence of God I do not claim to have removed the need for faith. Rather I mean something like this: "Tom when you speak of a closed system as needing energy from "outside the system" this is what we mean by God. That something is ultimately need from "outside the system" speaks to us of God. You may not agree it is God, but it demonstrates that something outside is needed. Ultimately we see this as God. Yes I think you are right. If we could construct an example where it was violated it wouldn’t prove that God exists. The word “proof” here is used in the historical Christian sense more to mean a demonstration of what we speak. If we could prove God exists in the modern notion of the word faith would not be necessary. When St. Thomas Aquinas spoke of five “proofs” for the existence of God he meant really “a demonstration” . So when I write my “proof” for the existence of God I do not claim to have removed the need for faith. Rather I mean something like this: “Tom when you speak of a closed system as needing energy from “outside the system” this is what we mean by God. That something is ultimately need from “outside the system” speaks to us of God. You may not agree it is God, but it demonstrates that something outside is needed. Ultimately we see this as God.

]]> By: Tom http://blog.adw.org/2009/07/finding-god-at-the-sears-tower-or-the-existence-of-god-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/comment-page-1/#comment-792 Tom Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:58:07 +0000 http://blog.adw.org/?p=2546#comment-792 An open system can decrease its entropy by receiving energy from outside the system. Within a closed system, the local entropy of a subsystem can decrease if it receives energy from another subsystem (where the entropy is increasing); the sum of the changes in entropy across all subsystems of a closed system will be positive (or zero, for a system in equilibrium). Thermodynamically speaking, that the earth is an open system is established by the fact of sunshine. One problem with this line of thought is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is established by observation. If we could construct an example where it was violated, it wouldn't prove God exists, it would prove the Law isn't a "law" so much as a guideline (maybe sort of like Newtonian mechanics). An open system can decrease its entropy by receiving energy from outside the system. Within a closed system, the local entropy of a subsystem can decrease if it receives energy from another subsystem (where the entropy is increasing); the sum of the changes in entropy across all subsystems of a closed system will be positive (or zero, for a system in equilibrium).

Thermodynamically speaking, that the earth is an open system is established by the fact of sunshine.

One problem with this line of thought is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is established by observation. If we could construct an example where it was violated, it wouldn’t prove God exists, it would prove the Law isn’t a “law” so much as a guideline (maybe sort of like Newtonian mechanics).

]]> By: Msgr. Charles Pope http://blog.adw.org/2009/07/finding-god-at-the-sears-tower-or-the-existence-of-god-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/comment-page-1/#comment-787 Msgr. Charles Pope Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:40:18 +0000 http://blog.adw.org/?p=2546#comment-787 What causes decreasing entropy "increase elsewhere?" What causes decreasing entropy “increase elsewhere?”

]]> By: Msgr. Charles Pope http://blog.adw.org/2009/07/finding-god-at-the-sears-tower-or-the-existence-of-god-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/comment-page-1/#comment-786 Msgr. Charles Pope Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:36:55 +0000 http://blog.adw.org/?p=2546#comment-786 Curious as to why you do not consider the earth a closed system. It seems that is a debatable point. And what of the universe? Also I do not think my argument depends entirely on resolving the open/closed question. The essential question is, where does complexity come from when the tendency is for things to return to equilibrium? A cup of hot coffee does not suddenly leap into existence. Neither does the sears tower or you and I. Something must cause this and or maintain it, otherwise, it will trend to fall apart (entropy) and return to its basic components. Curious as to why you do not consider the earth a closed system. It seems that is a debatable point. And what of the universe? Also I do not think my argument depends entirely on resolving the open/closed question. The essential question is, where does complexity come from when the tendency is for things to return to equilibrium? A cup of hot coffee does not suddenly leap into existence. Neither does the sears tower or you and I. Something must cause this and or maintain it, otherwise, it will trend to fall apart (entropy) and return to its basic components.

]]> By: Ronin Zakath http://blog.adw.org/2009/07/finding-god-at-the-sears-tower-or-the-existence-of-god-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/comment-page-1/#comment-785 Ronin Zakath Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:39:09 +0000 http://blog.adw.org/?p=2546#comment-785 The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. Therefore, your article and argument fails. The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to a closed system.

The earth is not a closed system.

Therefore, your article and argument fails.

]]> By: Tom http://blog.adw.org/2009/07/finding-god-at-the-sears-tower-or-the-existence-of-god-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/comment-page-1/#comment-784 Tom Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:37:03 +0000 http://blog.adw.org/?p=2546#comment-784 Erm... the closed system in this case is the universe. There can be a lot of decreasing entropy in our neck of the universe as long as there's enough of an increase elsewhere to balance out. I'm also wary of a proof of God's existence that implies He habitually acts against the natural laws He composed. Erm… the closed system in this case is the universe. There can be a lot of decreasing entropy in our neck of the universe as long as there’s enough of an increase elsewhere to balance out.

I’m also wary of a proof of God’s existence that implies He habitually acts against the natural laws He composed.

]]>