Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In Forums

Quote# 8011

Now, the reason why I believe that an infinite God exists is because it is necessary logically. The world had to have had a beginning, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics says, and that fact demands that it have a Creator. If this Creator were less than infinite, He would have to have been created Himself, and so it would go on and on infinitely. But such an infinite regress is impossible with finite beings, so to avoid irrationality we must assume that there was an infinite Creator. [emphasis added]

Fatih and Reason, Evolution Fairytale Forum 17 Comments [9/30/2005 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1
#2180
Darth Wang

I really need to make a ytmnd for people who use the second law incorrectly like this.

Maybe use one of those MC Hawking songs for the audio.

10/1/2005 2:06:11 AM

#5298
Gadren

I swear, if I hear one more person ramble about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I'm going to eat that person's face.

11/30/2005 2:16:39 AM

#5326
Crosis

Why does an infinite being need a cause any less than a finite one does?

11/30/2005 6:01:57 AM

#328982
cyborgtroy

I don't think the Second Law of Thermodynamics says anything has to be created. And how the crap are you defining infinite???

11/6/2007 5:09:38 PM

#329001
approximate

bullshit + buzzwords = bullshit

Now STFU.

11/6/2007 5:40:38 PM

#329023
agentCDE

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

11/6/2007 6:29:00 PM

#329025
Alena

I'm sorry, I just can't wrap my head around the concept of an infinite living being.

Every living thing has a beginning. Everything. So where did your Creator come from?

11/6/2007 6:30:33 PM

#329032
anti-nonsense

Thermodynamics, it doesn't work that way, bitch!

11/6/2007 6:48:22 PM

#329038
BurntBush

Because you can't figure out how to change your own oil does not logically mean cars don't exist.

11/6/2007 7:00:12 PM

#465930
Tom S. Fox

Why do fundies always deny any Science except for the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

4/15/2008 5:21:04 AM

#466033
heh

If thermodynamics apply and God created the universe then wouldn't it follow that the universe is the burnt remains of God's corpse?

4/15/2008 9:21:13 AM

#1060588
Trask

To paraphrase the late, great Carl Sagan: If you are going to posit that the universe had a creator who was infinite and needed no beginning, why not save that extra step, and say that the universe always existed?

11/21/2009 2:37:01 PM

#1060594
Quantum Mechanic

Great. Another dumbfuck invokes equilibrium thermo.

11/21/2009 3:10:20 PM

#1060827
Angua

A Simple Guide to the Second Law of Thermodynamics

What the Second Law of Thermodynamics Actually Says:
In a closed system, entropy tends to increase.
. . . or, if you prefer . . .
Heat can spontaneously flow from hotter areas to colder areas, but not the other way around.

What Creationists Think the Second Law of Thermodyamics Says:
Nothing can get more complex no matter what. Evolution is impossible because it means that things have to get more complex. The fact that the earth recieves plenty of energy from the sun is irrelevant!

What "Faith and Reason" Thinks the Second Law of Thermodyamics Says:
The world had to have a beginning. Therefore, Goddidit!

11/22/2009 2:31:49 PM

#1428913
Quantum Mechanic

Another F in everything.

7/29/2012 5:09:15 AM

#1428916


Assume and make an ass out of you and me. But mostly of you...

7/29/2012 5:20:42 AM

#1428923
Canadiest

This is the Lane Craig gambit, turning science into a philisophical question then demanding his conclusion is irrefutable. It's not, it's nonsense. Philophosies are often built up over the years and the best ones are based on knowledge of many over time however Craigs is a half-assed assertion peppered with power-words to appear logical.

There is just no valid way to jump to a supreme deity creator scientifically or logically.

The post above boils down Craigs just enough that the assertion becomes more obvious then Craigs more disguised monolouges but it can all be reduced further: God of the gaps. Nothing better than that even with Craigs full five minute version.

This is why Hitchens was his best advesary in debates. Hitchens knew when philisophical trickery was being applied and could often name it's source, he could also pick out that unfounded assertion underpinning the premise and expose it.

7/29/2012 6:41:39 AM
1