“The Second Law of Thermodynamics, for application, requires the condition that the there exist a containment of energy within the system. The Earth, however, receives trillions of megajoules of energy from the Sun and other sources, and hence, the application of the Second Law requires careful consideration of this fact. Things can go from disorder to order, within a system (the Earth) when energy is input into the system.”
“...Things can go from disorder to order, within a system (the Earth) when energy is input into the system.”
That is the ‘tornado in a junkyard’ theory. Input of energy is not sufficient to create order out of chaos.
By that logic, then I should be able to explode a thermonuclear weapon over Detroit, and create San Francisco from the fireball.
Spontaneous or otherwise, energy cannot organize and “freeze” into useful objects or organisms without some LAW directing that formation. However, what force creates those guiding LAWS? And from whence came the primal energy? Energy requires a CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE to DIRECT its PROPER application, so to transform the energy into FORMED MATTER. EVERY ACTION MUST have a FIRST CAUSE.
Hence, metmom’s reply:
“But not spontaneously. Work must be done for that to be accomplished. What is the mechanism that initiated and maintains the work?”
PRECISLY!
There are such things as reversible and irreversible processes, among others, where the rates of energy transfer and conversion determine what is and isn't possible.
It isn't a binary "either-this-or-that" sort of a scenario that is at play in the real world that allows you to pull out this example above.
Spontaneous or otherwise, energy cannot organize and “freeze” into useful objects or organisms without some LAW directing that formation. However, what force creates those guiding LAWS? And from whence came the primal energy? Energy requires a CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE to DIRECT its PROPER application, so to transform the energy into FORMED MATTER. EVERY ACTION MUST have a FIRST CAUSE.
Are you sure all this was not done by a committee of celestial parliamentarians?
When you say "lawgiver" and "primal source", it's all fine and dandy until an elaborate tale is woven to associate that with the god of the Old Testament. The intermediary processes need further elaboration than mere mythology.
What you've basically done is attempt to introduce the classic god-of-the-gaps, and to such arguments, this lengthy thread has the answers, a few of which I will reproduce here: "... the point of the discussion that introducing mysticism into areas of scence that are yet to be fully explained as a stop-gap "solution" is not an acceptable mode of scientific progress. The common trick that's played by these proponents of the 'theology of the fringes', involving vagueness of terminology and inappropriate usage of concepts, is as follows: 1. First, they make the presumption or the implication that science knows or can explain everything. 2. Next, they pick and choose those areas that are still insufficiently explored, and demand an explanation for them. This was what was being done when the earlier poster attempted to bring in not just a deity, but a deity of his / her choice, to pose as if that deity is the solution to the incomplete understanding of the position-momentum uncertainty - a classic case of introducing a god-of-the-gaps. To such proponents, the tactic to be employed to counter their "reasoning" is simple. Make them climb down from the vanguards of scientific knowledge, and instead force them to go into the doctrinal and scriptural basics of their faith, straight to the definitional roots of their deity(s). To these proponents, I ask that they answer questions such as these: Firstly, if their adopted deity(s) is (are) beyond the realms of time and space, then it implies that time has no influence over it (them) - in essence, it is (they are) timeless and has / have existed forever. Since the beginning of anything requires a transformational change from the moment of non-existence to the moment of existence, so too must the beginning of even the process that leads to creation, undergo a period of change. The present Universe (and they assume is the only universe) had a finite 'beginning', they believe. This implies that this Universe also was once under the realm of non-existence. Now for the deity to have begun the process of creation, it must have undergone a transformation, or change, from within the realms of its timeless existence, to the period of change that occurred when it decided to create. Since change implies time, how then is this deity existing in a timeless realm? Secondly, and this is more specific to the religions under consideration, if you believe in the deity of the Old Testament, and also believe the deity to be the source of all morality, then what happened during the moment when this deity ordered for the son of David to suffer a week-long illness and then perish, for no fault of its? Additionally, how was it moral for the same deity to order for the slaughter of the Amalekite children and infants as detailed in 1 Samuel 15:3? These are merely examples of forcing such introducers of the gods-of-the-gaps to reconcile the contradictions of their own adopted religions. To them, the choices available are as follows: 1. Reconcile with the contradictions by means of logical arguments. 2. Adopt the an agnostic, or at best, a deistic concept for the god they introduced to fill in the apparent gap." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2657994/posts?page=376#376 Ever notice how the proponents of these gods-of-the-gaps make it all a matter of binary choice, even when such discretised “us vs. thems” don’t exist in the real world? I mean, “believe or burn for eternity” would be a great reason to adopt a particular brand of superstition now, wouldn’t it? When other lures fail, that’s the threat they resort to, and Pascal’s “wager” is pulled out of the magic hat like it was earlier on in this thread. Now back to the problem of the non-existence of strict bipolar choices - what’s a stillborn child, the mentally challenged, and other human beings without the capacity to make free choices to do? Creation was finite, but punishment has to be eternal. How inspiring! Amazing to see how no one was able to pull themselves out of the paradox that prevents their deities from being incapable of separating themselves from the shackles of time. As simple a concept as change necessitating time is now impossible for them to grasp. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2657994/posts?page=857#857 Address the arguments above - especially the paradox introduced by assuming a "first cause" and we'll have something to discuss. Practically everything else has been covered in the comments earlier.