I'd like to hear someone other than a creationist's (I know their interpretation) view on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, & can it be argued against the resurrection ?

Erm, how do you mean? When people die, they lose the ability to reverse their own entropy increase. The only way to be resurrected is for somebody ro reverse the entropy increase for you in order to bring you back to a state when you can reverse your own entropy again.

.. I guess...

Is it possible to put your answer in more layman terms as I would like to understand what this is about...

Thanks :)

Basically, the most basic definition of life is a form of matter that regulates it's own entropy. That is that while entropy is always increasing, life postpones this process by increasing the entropy of other low entropy matter (food).

Deist is asking whether the 2nd law of thermodynamics (that entropy always increases) disproves resurrection.

I don't think that it does. As an outside force (with enough knowledge) can freely transfer entropy from a dead high-entropy person into some other place, thus decreasing the entropy (and increasing the entropy elsewhere) and thus allowing it to live longer. I think that it's highly unlikely, but not against the laws of physics.

I'm not sure that this is in any more laymans terms than what I originally said, though. :)

Thanks
I think I understand this answer a bit more than the first... :)

I will try reading on entropy a bit more,maybe that will help.

However, it's a bit of a folly to apply the laws of physics to things that don't happen. Physics only describes things that do happen.

Deist - I'm curious about what a creationist's view is on the 2nd law and the resurection? I've seen plenty of inaccurate "arguments" by creationists that the 2nd law of thermodynamics somehow disproves the possibility of evolution, but what does it have to do with the resurrection?

ebaines, this is kind of exactly what I thought when I first read the thread. I did the best I could though.

Ebaines, the creationists say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics means that things do not go from disorder to order, yet they say a dead body which is in a state of increasing entropy, can be reversed to live again. Case in point, jesus.

With God, anything is possible.

Characterizing life in terms of thermodynamics is a gross oversimplification. Its useful for biochemical analysis but there's a whole lot more to biology than just the chemistry.

You are not a 'soul'. You are your brain, whether you like it or not. You are neuron networks, synapses, proteins. The development of your consciousness is the growth of connections between networks. They develop using DNA blueprint in reaction to life experience.This has been proven repeatedly. Look up 'phineas gage' for a classic example.

When these connections are all destroyed, its over. You are gone. Thermodynamics has nothing to do with it. There is no supernatural template/soul we could use to recreate your brain networks. Once you are dead, you are dead.

This is an old, old thread, but I would like to add that there is a common misunderstanding that thermodynamics prohibits decrease in entropy. This incorrect interpretation is sometimes used to argue that life must have been divinely created, as the organization of basic chemical elements into a life form results in reduced entropy of the constituent materials. What this argument neglects to take into account is that entropy must only increase in closed systems, meaning a system with no external source of energy from outside the system. But if there is an external source of energy (such as from the sun, or geothermal heat) then entropy of a system may in fact decrease. Example: turn on your air conditioner on a hot day and your cool house will get colder while the outdoors gets warmer - that's a separation of temperature which means a decrease in entropy is happening. Likewise, the decrease in entropy that occurs when a plant grows and combines carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen from the environment into green leaves is fueled by the external energy from the sun.

With respect to the resurrection - purely from a thermodynamics point of view I see nothing that violates the laws of thermodynamics. It would simply require some source of energy - perhaps heat from the environment, or perhaps energy from Jesus' own fat cells.

Yes its an old thread, but I stumpled upon it and its too absurd for me to let go.

Describing processes in terms of systems is a technique for analyzing reactions. They are arbitrary and do not characterize what's really going on.

It is more accurate to say that entropy always increases for spontaneous reactions. This does not mean negative entropy is impossible... ice cubes freeze all the time, don't they? It does mean however that entropy only decreases for NONspontaneous reactions, that is, where an external process is involved. This is where creationists start to get lost: wherever entropy decreases, its must happen at the expense of the surroundings. This is simple conservation of energy. The net entropy of the universe is always increasing. Overall it's a 1-way ticket. There is only so much free energy to go around. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

Yes, life decreases entropy within itself, but it does so by increasing the entropy of the resources it requires. This is true from ecology to biochemistry. Our biology depends on it. It is the driving force behind evolution. Furthermore, even life's most efficient processes (like photosynthesis) aren't perfectly efficient, energy is always lost somewhere.

As for 'resurrection', why are you trying to justify the supernatural with science? If someone is going to believe that rubbish, they have to selectively ignore a whooole lot of science to preserve their little cognitive dissonance bubble. That's their choice, but giving them the facts is simply the right thing to do. There's a million biological reasons 'resurrection' is ridiculous... Genetics through all off biology is built on thermo... how else would it be applied? A biology reason includes thermo. Science is cohesive, you can't pick a part of a theory you like and neglect the rest.

Hi galiusbaltar


You have provided a pretty good physicalist explanation. As this is the science section that's fair enough. Naturally, there is no physical evidence of a soul so science is not interested in any metaphysical substance or entity that might exist over and above the physical processes of the brain.

As you probably have guessed I am not happy with physical explanations so consider this thought experiment.

Mary is a brilliant scientist she knows everything to know about the science of sound. It also happens she is a brilliant biologist so she knows everything about the hearing process. She knows how sound waves are picked up by the eardrum and transmitted to the small bones next to the drum. She also understands the neurological processes involved and how the brain interprets sound.

As previously mentioned she is equally brilliant when it comes to the science of sound. Not surprisingly, when it comes to a particular type of sound she can represent it in a large number of mathematical ways. There is nothing she doesn't know about the science of sound.

There is however, one small problem. Mary is as deaf as a stone. She was born deaf and as a result she has never actually heard a sound in her life

Let us also imagine that one morning a miracle happens. She wakes up and hears sound for the first time. She hears birds singing. She also hears her husband rattling around in the kitchen preparing breakfast. She jumps to her feet and rushes into the kitchen to tell him the news. Her husband turns around and knocks a glass off the bench and it smashes on the floor. Upon seeing the glass smash Mary immediately visualizes the appropriate mathematics ( as she has always done). The big difference this time is that she actually hears the glass smash.

The question becomes. Does Mary learn anything new about sound that she didn't know before? Or, as the physicalist would contend. She already knew everything to know about sound prior to her being able to hear?

Tut

Gaius - good scientific explanation of how entropy is increasing for the universe as a whole. But I think you misunderstood the intent of my response. I have not tried to "justify the supernatural with science." The question was very direct: is there anything in the 2nd law that can be used to arge against thermodynamics, and I believe the answer is "no." From your response I gather that you would agree with that. I understand that there are lots of other science-based objections to the idea of resurreced life - but that wasn't the question.