Entropy, life and teleology

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neithan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Freddy said:
The possibility is entirely random.
Click to expand...
The emergence of an attribute like sight or even the ability to avoid a predator is random, but the relationship between those attributes and their environment is not since they presuppose the existence of each other. Those relationships already exist as possibility as nature unfolds. The question is how do we explain those relationships. Since we cannot explain those relations via a process we have no choice but to conclude that those relations require foreknowledge precisely because they presuppose each-other.
 
Neithan said:
Materialists accept both entropy and evolution, but they deny teleology — any end or purpose in the universe of space, time, energy, and matter.

So how do we account for life? If everything is random chance, there is an evident distinction: Life is basically an ordered process to negative entropy. Evolution, in toto , is a constant demonstration of natural teleology: an organizing principle that continues to operate despite entropy.

Can this be metaphysically reconciled? Or does it force the materialist to be eliminativist about the theory of evolution? Or even “life” as a distinction generally? In other words, is evolution a “useful fiction” — or is life truly distinct from non-life — or is it evidence of teleology in the universe?
Click to expand...
Materialism is a particular form of denial. Denial is a form of wishful thinking. I wish that there is no God (to whom I would be accountable and to whom I would give thanks for existence and everthing in existence) and no afterlife.

If everything is random chance, then our brains and logical thinking processes are random and how do we know that they work and reason correctly? Only if we know that we are “created in the image and likeness of God” can we hope that our brains and human reasoning work properly.
 
Neithan said:
Life is basically an ordered process to negative entropy.
Click to expand...
If you mean that the physical processes of life result in a negative generation of entropy, that’s not true. No real physical process can result in a generation of entropy less than zero. That’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
1Lord1Faith said:
Is an immortal soul a different kind of life, one that isn’t subject to entropy?
Click to expand...
If you’re referring to thermodynamic entropy, then the immortal soul is absolutely not subject to it, because thermodynamic entropy is a property of matter and the immortal soul is immaterial.
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
Freddy:
The possibility is entirely random.
Click to expand...
The emergence of an attribute like sight or even the ability to avoid a predator is random, but the relationship between those attributes and their environment is not since they presuppose the existence of each other.
Click to expand...
I’ve been trying to explain that we did not develop sight because there were things to see. Your teleology breaks down right there. There was no reason for an organism to recognise a light source.

As I said, it’s like saying that there is a reason for rain. That literally anything has a use does NOT mean it was designed for that purpose.
 
neophyte said:
40.png
Neithan:
Life is basically an ordered process to negative entropy.
Click to expand...
If you mean that the physical processes of life result in a negative generation of entropy, that’s not true. No real physical process can result in a generation of entropy less than zero. That’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Click to expand...
You need to take into account whether the system is open or closed. The second law is dependant on it.
 
Freddy said:
You need to take into account whether the system is open or closed. The second law is dependant on it.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken. The law applies to all thermodynamic processes in all systems, both open and closed.
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
Freddy:
As I said, it’s like saying that there is a reason for rain. That literally anything has a use does NOT mean it was designed for that purpose.
Click to expand...
I am not making that argument.
Click to expand...
What else is your definition of teleology but an explanation of purpose? You say there is a teleological connection between, for example, sight and light. That sight came into being because there are things to see. That is not correct.
 
Freddy said:
What else is your definition of teleology but an explanation of purpose? You say there is a teleological connection between, for example, sight and light. That sight came into being because there are things to see. That is not correct.
Click to expand...
IWantGod said:
Accept i never made that argument.
Click to expand...
I think there may be an equivocation in the definition of the term “presupposes”, as you two use it. Perhaps you should define the term.
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
40.png
Freddy:
You need to take into account whether the system is open or closed. The second law is dependant on it.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken. The law applies to all thermodynamic processes in all systems, both open and closed.
Click to expand...
“The second law of thermodynamics states that, in a closed system , no processes will tend to occur that increase the net organization (or decrease the net entropy) of the system”. Second law of thermodynamics | Britannica

"A plant, for example, absorbs extremely energetic sunlight, uses it to build sugars, and ejects infrared light, a much less concentrated form of energy. The overall entropy of the universe increases during photosynthesis as the sunlight dissipates, even as the plant prevents itself from decaying by maintaining an orderly internal structure.

Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics…" https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/
 
Last edited:
Neithan said:
Materialists accept both entropy and evolution, but they deny teleology — any end or purpose in the universe of space, time, energy, and matter.
Click to expand...
To accept only the material is to deny the spiritual or forms or reality other than the material. But, do materialists really reject the non-material? I think that materialists are generally open to opportunities to become like God but are averse to requirements to acknowledge a God external to themselves.

In the Garden of Eden, the cunning snake tempted Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit so that she and Adam might become “like God” (Genesis 3).

It is still a very cunning offer to people to say that they don’t need to submit to Almighty God but that they can become part of the Godhead themselves.

Note: We should not believe every word that we hear. We should test and discern what we hear. In Genesis, the word of the cunning snake was believed and followed. The Word of Almighty God, Creator of everything, was disbelieved and disobeyed.

In his speech at the Aereopagus in Athens, the Apostle Paul declared that God created humanity so that people might seek God, even perhaps grope for him and find him. (Acts 17:27) We can seek for God (and find Him).
 
Last edited:
And here’s some previous comments that suggest purpose:
IWantGod said:
You can’t have life without teleological relationships.

There is a relationship involved there that cannot be explained by physical processes alone.

…a relationship between the key and the door that is not accidental…

…that a complete explanation of these relationships would require foreknowledge of an environment.
Click to expand...
Especially the key and the door. Why else use that example unless it was to indicate purpose?

And it’s already been explained that these processes do NOT require foreknowledge. You don’t require it to win the lottery but someone will. And it wasn’t designed so that person would win it. It’s sheer luck.
 
neophyte said:
40.png
Freddy:
“The second law of thermodynamics states that, in a closed system , no processes will tend to occur that increase the net organization (or decrease the net entropy) of the system ”. Second law of thermodynamics | Britannica
Click to expand...
That’s a workable layman’s definition, but it’s not the general form and it causes much confusion among those who haven’t formally studied the subject.
Click to expand...
We’re laymen. It’ll do for us. And more to the point, it has been explained that life doesn’t violate the second law.
 
Freddy said:
Then what is your definition of teleology except there being a purpose for everything?
Click to expand...
If God exist then there is a purpose for everything, just not in the way you want to imply. When i say there is a teleological relationship between particular attributes and their environment i mean that those relations cannot exist as a possibility without the knowledge and intent of a creator because those relations cannot be considered natural even though they emerge naturally. I used the example of the key and the door because that is an example of a relationship that requires knowledge. The key and the door did not create that possible relationship because they are blind to their function. An intelligence did.

I arrive at this conclusion about nature because things like sight, nervous systems, brains, hearing, even the fight or flight response all presuppose the existence of something that nature has no knowledge of, and yet they are a direct reference to an environment. They meaningfully relate to an environment. These are examples of relationships that could only exist as a possibility if a creator intended for those possibilities to exist because a creator has knowledge and nature does not…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top