Sin, chaos, and entropy

[Josheb]

Absolutely not true. Entropy is applicable to the physical universe. It is just that the entropy of a closed system is always nonnegative. The entropy of an open system can negative, zero or positive.

That is true only when the entropy is able to exchange energy/mass (usually in the form of heat) with its surrounding system. Attempts to apply that to sin creates very real and substantive problems because sin is not an "exchange," sin does not interact with God, and God is constantly pouring into the "system" that is creation (or the "physical universe").

Given adequate information of the system it can be calculated.

Then it abides by the laws of creation/scientific "laws"/math, and it is neither confused or chaotic.

I think connecting entropy to sin is a fool's endeavor. Entropy is a physical entity having nothing whatsoever to do with sin.

I completely agree.

Which means most of the posts here are discussing/debating a red herring.

 

[Josheb]

By saying, "creation is not a closed system", do you mean by "creation", "universe" or, "the act of creating"?

Secular scientists reject the premise of a "creation." Since the practice of science is, by definition, designed to ask how something occurred without resorting to "God did it," even the theistic scientist is limited in his scientific methodology to providing objectively observable explanations. Therefore, while a Christian may see "creation," and "universe" as synonymous terms, that is not how science uses the latter term. Whether the universe is created or not is irrelevant to the scientific method and the scientific explanation. Even if God is the cause, the scientist wants to know how "He" did it.

Creation is not a closed system because God is an infinite source of energy that exists outside the system. A commonly used scientific analogy would be the earth's sun. The sun is a near-infinite source of energy that is constantly inputting heat and other forms of energy/mass into the earth's "system." The chief difference is that there is some natural interaction between earth and the sun, but sin does not have a natural interaction with God. If sin were left to its own devices there would be nothing left of creation. The fact that each CCAM member here draws breath sufficient to write a forum post is the antithesis of entropy... because if God hadn't asserted His grace we'd all be dead and long-ago decayed.


As folks consider this op, they might consider how the Bible defines sin. Sin is unrighteousness (1 John 5:17). Sin is a lack of faith (Rom. 14:23). Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). These are some of the ways scripture defines sin. So, when this op asks, "Is relating entropy to sin and chaos justified?" what is being asked is, "Is entropy unrighteousness, a lack of faith, and/or lawlessness?" Since physics is neither righteous or unrighteous, believing or not believing, and it necessarily follows the laws of the universe/creation/God's design, the answer is "No!" The comparison is a false equivalence.

 

[JIM]

Secular scientists reject the premise of a "creation." Since the practice of science is, by definition, designed to ask how something occurred without resorting to "God did it," even the theistic scientist is limited in his scientific methodology to providing objectively observable explanations.

That is not true. Some secular scientists may reject the premise of a "creation", science does not. There is no scientific evidence that "God did it". Those of us who point to God as the creator do so only by faith; we cannot do that factually. Again, that is obviously God's intent since He, being God, could with no problem whatsoever, provide the absolute proof if He chose to do that.

Therefore, while a Christian may see "creation," and "universe" as synonymous terms, that is not how science uses the latter term.

I am a Christian. I do not see "creation" and "universe" as synonymous terms, which in fact they are not.

Whether the universe is created or not is irrelevant to the scientific method and the scientific explanation. Even if God is the cause, the scientist wants to know how "He" did it.

Again, that is really not true. It is not irrelevant to the scientific method. It simply is not observable through any physical means.

Creation is not a closed system because God is an infinite source of energy that exists outside the system.

Physically, unless God is adding mass and energy to the universe currently, it is a closed system. And from Genesis 2:2, I believe that He is not doing that and has not done that since He "finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done".

A commonly used scientific analogy would be the earth's sun.

It turns out that even though our solar system is not a perfect 100% closed system, it is very close to being a closed system. At least at the present time all indications are that the energy and mass entering our solar system from the outside is very small relative to the system itself. That could change.

The fact that each CCAM member here draws breath sufficient to write a forum post is the antithesis of entropy.

Again, not true. Our breathing capability, once established as a part of the creation is in perfect harmony with the scientific concept of entropy.

As folks consider this op, they might consider how the Bible defines sin. Sin is unrighteousness (1 John 5:17). Sin is a lack of faith (Rom. 14:23). Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). These are some of the ways scripture defines sin. So, when this op asks, "Is relating entropy to sin and chaos justified?" what is being asked is, "Is entropy unrighteousness, a lack of faith, and/or lawlessness?" Since physics is neither righteous or unrighteous, believing or not believing, and it necessarily follows the laws of the universe/creation/God's design, the answer is "No!" The comparison is a false equivalence.

At least there is some truth to that given that entropy and sin are not really related in any sense. Trying to tie the two together in any sense whatsoever is sheer foolishness and worse.

 

[Mr GLee]

What has any of that to do with sin, chaos or entropy?

What has any of that to do with sin, chaos or entropy?

It leads to death the end of the matter.

 

[JIM]

It leads to death the end of the matter.

What leads to death the end of the matter? What is death? What matter?

 

[Mr GLee]

What leads to death the end of the matter? What is death? What matter?

In the matter of keeping the appointment (die once) The curse. . in dying you will come to the end with no hope of being raised to new born again spirit life

Flesh returns to dust the temporal spirit given under the letter of the law. Death that spirit returns to The father of all Holy Spirit life

Yoked with him he can make our daily suffering of hell lighter with a living future hope beyond the grave

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

 

[JIM]

In the matter of keeping the appointment (die once) The curse. . in dying you will come to the end with no hope of being raised to new born again spirit life

Flesh returns to dust the temporal spirit given under the letter of the law. Death that spirit returns to The father of all Holy Spirit life

Yoked with him he can make our daily suffering of hell lighter with a living future hope beyond the grave

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

I am sorry, but I never can understand what you post. It never seems to have anything to do with either the topic, generally, or what has been posted. If it is just me, then I must apologize and perhaps I shouldn't even have responded.

 

[CrowCross]

I'm not sure why this is not correctly grasped and understood but "entropy" is a condition of closed systems, not open ones. It is, therefore, completely is guided to relate entropy to sin and chaos! The premise is a red herring and most of the resulting explanations in this thread are straw men. They are also, therefore, a misuse of both scripture and science (God's revelation through the methodical observation of creation).

There is also another problem because entropy is not chaos. Entropy is observable and it occurs according to preset design, or according to prescribed "scientific laws." Unless a poster is using the word "chaos" within the concept of Chaos Theory (an oxymoronically named theory), there is no such thing as chaos. The word "chaos" means "complete disorder and confusion." Anyone and everyone who asserts God is sovereign, or God is in control, has self-contradicted any dictionary-defined use of "chaos". I would argue the same condition exists with sin because sin is not confused or disordered; it means to corrupt everything in every way it can. It is the antithesis to the Thesis and there is no third alternative or "synthesis" in creation (dialectically speaking).

Fundamentally, the problem discussing entropy as sin or (sin-induced) chaos is the same problem applying time to God. It's a created temporal condition that does not apply to God. Similarly, entropy is a scientific construct that does not apply to creation.... because creation is not a closed system. and entropy is not synonymous with chaos or the scriptural definitions of sin. Apologetically, the premise of "entropy" is bait! Any non-Christian broaching the subject should instantly be reminded entropy us a condition of closed systems and creation is not a closed system. Likewise, any Christian teacher (mis)using the scientific concept to describe sin has also committed the same error. Again, our immediate and unequivocal response should be to remind them entropy is a condition of closed systems and creation is not a closed system and sin is not confused or completely disordered. Furthermore, "entropy" is a concept in secularism. The concept is atheistic in the sense it gives no regard to God as explanatory.

Not quite sure what your beef is.
What I did was present a situation where cloths and sandals didn't wear out..

Deut 29:5 I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn off your feet....God is in control of entropy.

 

[Josheb]

There is no scientific evidence that "God did it".

That is incorrect!

All creation testifies to the power of God. Science itself is a witness to "God did it." Theists and non-theists look at exactly the same information. We simply reach different conclusions.

Again, not true. Our breathing capability, once established as a part of the creation is in perfect harmony with the scientific concept of entropy.

Incorrect. If God had not altered the system, we would not be having this debate.

At least there is some truth to that given that entropy and sin are not really related in any sense. Trying to tie the two together in any sense whatsoever is sheer foolishness and worse.

Yep.

And if your posts were consistent with that fact the previous quoted statement would never have been posted. It cannot be said our post-disobedient, post-sinning breathing is consistent with entropy and while also saying entropy and sin are not related in any sense. To do so is self-contradictory.

 

[Josheb]

Not quite sure what your beef is.

Then re-read the post again. And re-read it as many times as it takes to understand it.

What I did was present a situation where cloths and sandals didn't wear out...

Deut 29:5 I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn off your feet....

That verse is not entropy. It is the antithesis of entropy. It is a miracle, which by definition, is a divine suspension or interruption of the otherwise normal, ordinary conditions of creation. Clothes ordinarily wearing out is also not sin. It's not chaos, either. The attempt is a misuse of Dt. 29:5.

God is in control of entropy.

Of course He is. His being in charge of entropy has nothing to do with the fact it is inappropriate to relate sin and chaos to entropy. Sin and entropy are two completely different paradigms and entropy is not chaos.

 

[JIM]

That is incorrect!

It is correct.

All creation testifies to the power of God. Science itself is a witness to "God did it." Theists and non-theists look at exactly the same information. We simply reach different conclusions.

But the theist reaches his conclusions based upon faith, not upon physical evidence. There is physical evidence that there was a beginning, but there is no physical evidence that says what caused it to begin. You cannot prove that God even exists, let alone prove that He has done something.

Incorrect. If God had not altered the system, we would not be having this debate.

That is only your conjecture, based upon your faith that there is a God and that He altered something.

And if your posts were consistent with that fact the previous quoted statement would never have been posted. It cannot be said our post-disobedient, post-sinning breathing is consistent with entropy and while also saying entropy and sin are not related in any sense. To do so is self-contradictory.

My posts are consistent with the fact that sin has nothing to do with entropy and entropy has nothing to do with sin. I have not the foggiest idea what you mean by "post-disobedient, post-sinning breathing".

 

[CrowCross]

Then re-read the post again. And re-read it as many times as it takes to understand it.

I just lost interest.

 

[Josheb]

It is correct.

But the theist reaches his conclusions based upon faith, not upon physical evidence.

That is incorrect. Two landmark studies were done polling scientists. One was done in the 1940s and the other was done fifty years latter. They both showed identical results: 40% of all scientists are theists of one kind of another and their being theists does not in any way obstruct or otherwise interfere with their practice of science. Their use of the scientific method is identical. Historically, some of the greatest discoveries in science were made by theists, and in western societies there was a time when the majority of scientists were theists. We look at the exact same information. We simply reach different conclusions when it comes to the existence of God. There are not two different sets of information. There are not two different ways of doing science.

And science also requires an element of faith. In that regard there is no difference between religion and science. A scientist believes and trust the universe is knowable, that s/he can know the knowable, that there is some correlation between fact and truth, that certain "laws" exist bby which his/her observation can be made, verified, trusted. There's a whole pile of faith in science (secularists often don't acknowledge that fact, or they try to argue it is different, but their arguments do not change the facts).

And we're beginning to digress from the op. If you'd like to do some reading on what I just said then I recommend Cornelius Van Til, Francis Schaeffer's trilogy, or Nancy Pearcey's "The Soul of Science.", because I won't be digressing further.

There is physical evidence that there was a beginning, but there is no physical evidence that says what caused it to begin. You cannot prove that God even exists, let alone prove that He has done something.

LOL!

There is in both science and Christianity the belief in the uncaused cause. It is an article of faith. God's existence can be proven, but not using the scientific method. The reason the scientific method cannot prove the existence of God is because the scientific method is not designed to prove the existence of God. It would be like using a telescope to observe an amoeba, or a microscope to observe Alpha Centauri. It's the wrong tool for the job.

That is only your conjecture, based upon your faith that there is a God and that He altered something.

No, it is a statement of fact found in scripture. You can try to separate our Christianity (yours an mine) from science when it suits you but every time you do so I will simply point out your being inconsistent with your own posts. What we are discussing (or supposed to be discussing) in this thread is the premise entropy is "related" to sin and chaos and you and I both agree entropy is NOT related to sin and chaos. That fundamentally means every time you relate the two, you're contradicting yourself. Each of us must be consistent with our own posts. And you just happen to have chosen to have this conversation with the one guy in this forum you know will point out the contradictions.

Romans 1:19-20
...because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

This is one of the places where the scriptures state creation itself provides the information needed to know God exists, along with his "invisible attributes". Non-theists and non-Christians may not care what the Bible says but that does not change the fact the Bible does, in fact, state creation (and the universe, which is a subset of creation) makes evident God's existence. Science, by definition, is the study of the "natural" world. Science, by definition, is not the study of God. Science, by definition, is not the correct tool for knowing or explaining God... but that does not change the fact everything science studies provides evidence for God's existence.

And were that the topic of this thread I would continue to point this out every time your posts contradict themselves.

My posts are consistent with the fact that sin has nothing to do with entropy and entropy has nothing to do with sin.

Yes, and yet I have yet to read you say, "Yes, Josh, I completely agree with you. I am delighted we have agreement on the op-topic, and I hope others will give consideration to what we've said on the subject. This should have been a short conversation. You and I should be collaborating on the specified topic to help the others here understand the error of thinking entropy and sin are related.

I have not the foggiest idea what you mean by "post-disobedient, post-sinning breathing".

Then you've disqualified yourself from this conversation .

This op is about the premise entropy can be related to sin and chaos, and you and I both agree it cannot be thusly "related" because entropy has nothing to do with sin (and vice versa). How can anyone have that discussion not understanding when sin began, not understanding the nature of sin, and God's response thereof? I also suspect you do know what I am talking about but simply did not make the connections.

Genesis 3:6
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

Romans 5:12, 18-19
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men.... So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men.... For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners...

There was a time when sin did not exist in the world. There was a specific, fixed point at which disobedience occurred. As a consequence of that one act of disobedience sin entered the world. Entropy, on the other hand, has always existed in creation; it is a normal condition of creation that follows God's design whether sin ever existed or not.


The point being..... sin and chaos are not to be related to entropy.

 

[JIM]

The point being..... sin and chaos are not to be related to entropy.

Yes, you and I agree that sin is not to be related to entropy. Two things here; first, in a scientific concept of chaos, it may well be related to entropy, and second that chaos not related to sin.

As an added note here, I was never in disagreement about the fact that entropy is unrelated to sin. I took objection to your description of entropy. It clearly is wrong. And so, in the whole logical argument of a position, you can't prove that position is logically true or not true using incorrect premise.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, you and I agree that sin is not to be related to entropy.

Thanks. I expect future posts to be consistent with that statement.

Two things here; first, in a scientific concept of chaos, it may well be related to entropy, and second that chaos not related to sin.

Correct. And one of the reasons is because entropy is not chaotic; it follows prescribed "rules". Another reason, following from the fact just stated, is that (as you previously posted) when we have sufficient information, we can explain whatever happened in entropy. Another, third, reason is that "chaos" in the dictionary definition means "complete confusion and disorder," while in science "Chaos Theory" is the antithesis of that dictionary definition. A fourth reason entropy cannot be "related" to chaos is because nothing in creation (or the universe) is confusing, confused, or disordered for God. A fifth reason is that the aforementioned "rules" are prescribed by the Creator (whatever happens in any episode of entropy occurs by God's design). To suggest otherwise is to implicitly suggest there is a place in creation over which the Creator has no control.

As an added note here, I was never in disagreement about the fact that entropy is unrelated to sin.

I know.

I took objection to your description of entropy.

I know.

It clearly is wrong.

It's not clearly wrong. It was simply limited in scope. That was intentional. A similar point holds true for open systems, but the discussion is muddied by discussing open systems because the entropy of open systems is still limited to the immediately surrounding conditions. A lot more about the physics of entropy, or rather the concept of entropy in physics, and how other fields of study have (mis)appropriated the concept but that would serve only to obscure the discussion. Except for the limiting effects of God on sin, sin is not limited. It will devour everything and do so in a manner described in scripture (an orderly description of an ordered manner and effect).

God is not limited.


Therefore, it is not justified to relate entropy (whether in "closed" systems or "open" systems) to sin and chaos. We agree and because of that agreement we should be helping the others her understand the many mistakes made in this thread wherever entropy was mistakenly related to sin.

And so, in the whole logical argument of a position, you can't prove that position is logically true or not true using incorrect premise.

The posts, the facts of scripture, and the facts of science all prove that incorrect and that is a very poor use of the terms, "logic" and "proof." Centuries of Christian writings have explained this so if you have not already done so, I encourage you to read some of the sources I recommended.

 

[JIM]

It's not clearly wrong. It was simply limited in scope. That was intentional. A similar point holds true for open systems, but the discussion is muddied by discussing open systems because the entropy of open systems is still limited to the immediately surrounding conditions.

Yes, it was wrong. The refrigerator in my kitchen is an open thermodynamic system. It is a system in which entropy decreases.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, it was wrong. The refrigerator in my kitchen is an open thermodynamic system.

Incorrect. An open thermodynamic system is one that 1) interacts with its environment, 2) can exchange both energy and matter with its environment, and 3) strives to maintain equilibrium with its state of energy. A refrigerator has a constant external source of energy. Were the electricity to the refrigerator stopped the entire system would be altered and entropy would decrease to the point where the refrigerator would no longer refrigerator (and calling it a refrigerator would be only a label with no teleological meaning).

It is a system in which entropy decreases.

No. The only reason the refrigerator can and does have any exchange of energy is because of the constant input of electricity. The constant input of electricity (energy) creates a state of non-equilibrium in which energy is consumed, not exchanged. There is no exchange between the refrigerator's system and its source of energy. The exchange of energy the refrigerator does have is due solely to its design attributes and their limits. The fridge takes the energy input and transfers it to a cooling effect that also causes the simultaneous release of heat (in its motor). It cools contents as designed but it requires a constant external source because the design limits do not prevent the dissipation of heat (they only inhibit it). Absent the constant external energy source, the refrigerator would lose all its energy (negative entropy) and cease to refrigerate. Furthermore, entropy never really decreases. The sum exchange of energy or energy and matter is always zero. This is especially true in the more cosmological level of the universe (or creation). The entropy of the universe is always the sum of the entropy of the system and the entropy of the surroundings, and (from the scientific pov) that always remains constant.

The First Law of Thermodynamics is that within an isolated system, the total energy of the system is constant, even if energy has been converted from one form to another. It is also called the law of conservation of energy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy constantly increases in a closed system (decay is the norm).

 

[makesends]

Secular scientists reject the premise of a "creation." Since the practice of science is, by definition, designed to ask how something occurred without resorting to "God did it," even the theistic scientist is limited in his scientific methodology to providing objectively observable explanations. Therefore, while a Christian may see "creation," and "universe" as synonymous terms, that is not how science uses the latter term. Whether the universe is created or not is irrelevant to the scientific method and the scientific explanation. Even if God is the cause, the scientist wants to know how "He" did it.

Creation is not a closed system because God is an infinite source of energy that exists outside the system. A commonly used scientific analogy would be the earth's sun. The sun is a near-infinite source of energy that is constantly inputting heat and other forms of energy/mass into the earth's "system." The chief difference is that there is some natural interaction between earth and the sun, but sin does not have a natural interaction with God. If sin were left to its own devices there would be nothing left of creation. The fact that each CCAM member here draws breath sufficient to write a forum post is the antithesis of entropy... because if God hadn't asserted His grace we'd all be dead and long-ago decayed.


As folks consider this op, they might consider how the Bible defines sin. Sin is unrighteousness (1 John 5:17). Sin is a lack of faith (Rom. 14:23). Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). These are some of the ways scripture defines sin. So, when this op asks, "Is relating entropy to sin and chaos justified?" what is being asked is, "Is entropy unrighteousness, a lack of faith, and/or lawlessness?" Since physics is neither righteous or unrighteous, believing or not believing, and it necessarily follows the laws of the universe/creation/God's design, the answer is "No!" The comparison is a false equivalence.

I'm not sure that all participants took the OP to be asking "Is entropy unrighteousness, a lack of faith, and/or lawlessness?". Like me, they may have taken it to be asking if the curse is the cause of entropy. After all, it is obviously the cause of many physical empirical facts, such as hardship and frustrated efforts, neither of which is sin, a lack of faith, nor lawlessness.

 

[Josheb]

I'm not sure that all participants took the OP to be asking "Is entropy unrighteousness, a lack of faith, and/or lawlessness?".

I understand that may not be the case BUT any discussion of sin ought to use scriptural definitions of sin. Yes? Who here wants to have a hamartiological discussion relating entropy to sin with non=scriptural or extra-scriptural definitions of sin? Can I see some hands? Maybe get a head count?

Like me, they may have taken it to be asking if the curse is the cause of entropy.

Sure, but that is just as problematic for the reasons already posted. I noticed someone posted about entropy existing in Eden at the beginning. That poster is 100% correct. It should be obvious. If a cow or a gopher died in Eden did his/her corpse decay? If not then Eden fills up with never-rotting corpses. How about plants producing after their own kind? How does that happen without a seed dying? Or what happens to all the leftover leaves and stalks when the harvest is taken? No, entropy is a natural part of the created order, and it has nothing to do with sin.

After all, it is obviously the cause of many physical empirical facts, such as hardship and frustrated efforts, neither of which is sin, a lack of faith, nor lawlessness.

That is correct. None of it is sin. Therefore, it's not rational to think the curse is the cause of entropy. Think of entropy as an exchange. Sin offers no exchange. Sin is like ebola. Sin is like a nuclear explosion. Or perhaps a better analogy would be something like botulinum toxins. Those toxins are some of the most lethal bacteria known to exist. They do not ask permission to stop your nervous system or eat your flesh. The bacteria, like sin, is unyielding and seeks nothing in return but the antithesis of everything godly. It brings death, decay, rot, and destruction, not a merely compromised life. The only reason life persists after Genesis 3:6 is because God, in His grace, limited the effects of sin (and stayed His wrathful response to sin).

Sin and entropy are two completely different paradigms. "Relating" them is a false equivalence. It's like asking if a Polynesian amoeba is related to the solar cell of an orbiting satellite.

 

[JIM]

Incorrect. An open thermodynamic system is one that 1) interacts with its environment, 2) can exchange both energy and matter with its environment, and 3) strives to maintain equilibrium with its state of energy. A refrigerator has a constant external source of energy. Were the electricity to the refrigerator stopped the entire system would be altered and entropy would decrease to the point where the refrigerator would no longer refrigerator (and calling it a refrigerator would be only a label with no teleological meaning).

No. The only reason the refrigerator can and does have any exchange of energy is because of the constant input of electricity. The constant input of electricity (energy) creates a state of non-equilibrium in which energy is consumed, not exchanged. There is no exchange between the refrigerator's system and its source of energy. The exchange of energy the refrigerator does have is due solely to its design attributes and their limits. The fridge takes the energy input and transfers it to a cooling effect that also causes the simultaneous release of heat (in its motor). It cools contents as designed but it requires a constant external source because the design limits do not prevent the dissipation of heat (they only inhibit it). Absent the constant external energy source, the refrigerator would lose all its energy (negative entropy) and cease to refrigerate. Furthermore, entropy never really decreases. The sum exchange of energy or energy and matter is always zero. This is especially true in the more cosmological level of the universe (or creation). The entropy of the universe is always the sum of the entropy of the system and the entropy of the surroundings, and (from the scientific pov) that always remains constant.

The First Law of Thermodynamics is that within an isolated system, the total energy of the system is constant, even if energy has been converted from one form to another. It is also called the law of conservation of energy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy constantly increases in a closed system (decay is the norm).

You just got a D- in thermodynamics. And I will leave it at that.