3 ms·

> I just don't believe in the supernatural or any belief system that requires the breaking of the Second Law of Thermodynamics without any explanation of how.

> I just don't believe in the supernatural or any belief system that requires the breaking of the Second Law of Thermodynamics without any explanation of how. Like the spontaneous generation of life that continuously grows more and more complex?

gbrown 6y ago
That’s not a violation of thermodynamics at all, since the earth is not a closed system, and it’s also about averages. You can have local fluctuations.
- jtbayly 6y ago
  Well my fellow fluctuation of highly organized atoms, take luck. Let me know when somebody can explain how everything works without positing a magical thing we can't see, measure, or touch.
  - gbrown 6y ago
    Hmm, I’m not sure I understand your point. Scientists explicitly try to avoid positing magical things, and even when things get into the realm of untestability at our scale, it’s hedged: “Here’s a cosmological model that might be true given our current data” Vs “Here’s a magical anthropocentric religious explanation for anything I can’t immediately explain”
    - jtbayly 6y ago
      "Here’s a cosmological model that..." requires a magical explanation for anything I can't immediately explain. Let's call it... say... dark matter?
      - gbrown 6y ago
        You’re revealing your ignorance of modern physics, as well as some pretty astonishing hubris. You’d compare dark mater, which has numerous possible explanations all of which are in search of empirical tests, to the panoply of human religions?
        jtbayly 6y ago
        No. I'd compare faith to faith. One of which declares that there is something above this universe (God), while the other declares without proof that there isn't. (And then large numbers of proponents of the latter posit that we are living in a simulation, thus demonstrating that... they believe there is something above this universe. lol.) Either way it's faith.
wussboy 6y ago
Entropy must increase in a closed system (which is the bit that everyone conveniently forgets). Earth is not a closed system, receiving a significant daily energy input from a near-by star.

gbrown 6y ago

That’s not a violation of thermodynamics at all, since the earth is not a closed system, and it’s also about averages. You can have local fluctuations.

jtbayly 6y ago
Well my fellow fluctuation of highly organized atoms, take luck. Let me know when somebody can explain how everything works without positing a magical thing we can't see, measure, or touch.
- gbrown 6y ago
  Hmm, I’m not sure I understand your point. Scientists explicitly try to avoid positing magical things, and even when things get into the realm of untestability at our scale, it’s hedged: “Here’s a cosmological model that might be true given our current data” Vs “Here’s a magical anthropocentric religious explanation for anything I can’t immediately explain”
  - jtbayly 6y ago
    "Here’s a cosmological model that..." requires a magical explanation for anything I can't immediately explain. Let's call it... say... dark matter?
    - gbrown 6y ago
      You’re revealing your ignorance of modern physics, as well as some pretty astonishing hubris. You’d compare dark mater, which has numerous possible explanations all of which are in search of empirical tests, to the panoply of human religions?
      - jtbayly 6y ago
        No. I'd compare faith to faith. One of which declares that there is something above this universe (God), while the other declares without proof that there isn't. (And then large numbers of proponents of the latter posit that we are living in a simulation, thus demonstrating that... they believe there is something above this universe. lol.) Either way it's faith.

wussboy 6y ago

Entropy must increase in a closed system (which is the bit that everyone conveniently forgets). Earth is not a closed system, receiving a significant daily energy input from a near-by star.