and this is why we are done. It is not testable. You will say he created that. I will say how do you know? Why can't things just exist? you have no answer, and admit it is incomprehensible. therefore the definition fails.A definition must define what is and what is not.

Perhsps Alisa Rosenbaum 's (pen name Ayn Rand) atheism (and any "disagreement" she may have had with Christianity) was more likely the result of being able to reason as well as having been born into a non-practicing Jewish family than her geographic location.

She was born in early 1905 and the Russian Revolution did not occur until 1917 when she was twelve. I seriously doubt she became an Atheist after reading the Communist Manifesto or being exposed to communist propaganda prior to her departure from th Soviet Union in 1926..

I grew up in the US Bible Belt (in a city on the circumference of Project X) and was raised by very religious (Christian) parents who, ironically, also taught me to think for myself. My transformation to Atheism occurred after reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time at age seventeen.

Am I to understand you fully reject the infinite time theory but fully accept the infinite immortal all powerful all knowing supernatural being(s) theory?

For now, let's discuss God as defined in the Bible. In a future debate, we should discuss the concept of a god who simply set the Big Bang into motion.

At some later point, we will discuss the issue of faith. There is no reason why anyone would have faith in a god who simply set the Big Bang into motion. There is nothing to be gained in such a pursuit. As for faith in a god who interacts very rarely in human events, there can be some discussion as to whether or not this is reasonable, but we will save that for a later time.

comments alluding to afterlife said in a conspiratorial way do nothing to advance the argument for truth

1) The tests of faith are all control mechanisms. I can't disagree with that.

2) It is timely that you should bring up the doctrine of the trinity, as this is the time of year for it to be discussed traditionally. Even if there were a father god, Jesus, and a holy spirit, that does not necessarily mean that they are all godlike in their abilities. The trinitarian concept is either the least or second least defensible position within Christianity. +1 for khalling.

Regarding the giving up of one's own consciousness to follow a set of rules not derived from a logic, I will argue that the commandments that only involve human-human interaction are utterly logical. I can see Objectivists complaining about one or two of the human-human interaction commandments, particularly with regard to adultery, but even adultery has its own consequences.
The basis for the Sabbath is also logical in that one who works too hard without at least some rest will eventually wear him/herself out.

Getting theologians to agree has always been challenging, and is why the Catholic Church sought to control Biblical interpretation for as long as it could. Such disagreement has been the reason for as many denominations existing as there are. The existence of so many denominations is a fair knock on Christianity.

With regard to the image and likeness question, you make some fair points about the Biblical God's abilities far surpassing human abilities. Here is something to think about, however. If one looks at the degree of commonality of the DNA code for humans vs. most animals, one sees remarkable similarities. From that perspective, we aren't as different from single cell organisms as we would like to think of ourselves being.

j,
please define God.
Actually, in my debates with religious people, they dance around definitions so it's extremely difficult to stick to logic and reason. If you do not want to define God, then we can just have a discussion about faith. Most often in these discussions, things get heated because the participants are using different definitions for concepts.
Objectivists will reject contradictory reasoning. Atheists are all over the map

I am not eavesdropping on a public post. that is absurd.
I am not in the least offended by the exchange. I understand your frustration. you miss my point

"concepts of existence in that Christians believe that they are in made in God's image and likeness."
ok, let's start here. somehow man is made in God's likeness. However, without God's knowledge. He is at once everything and all knowing-you are not. therefore, how can you be made in his likeness?
The 10 Commandments and in particular following the Bible. There are so many anti- concepts in the Bible you can't get two theologians to agree. Hence Aquinas coming up with the false doctrine of the trinity to purposely confuse in order to resolve a dispute. To assume the Deuteromonists were not politically motivated in writing down the first texts would be naive. Yet, Man is asked to give up his own consciousness to follow a set of rules derived not from logic but from a mystical all-power he cannot know fully yet has to accept in order to ensure himself a place in the afterlife.
I am ot saying there are not universal truths in the Bible, but the tests of faith are all control mechanisms. and have been used as such throughout history.

Alisa Rosenbaum (pen name Ayn Rand) was born into a middle class Jewish family in the midst of tsarist Russia. If she rejected religion as a child it may not have been because she was "exposed" to the Russian Orthodox church. It may have been due to her ability to reason. Even if she had not rejected religion entirely, it would not have been at all surprising for her to reject Christianity simply on the basis of being Jewish (albeit with no involvement in Jewish religious life).

The number of specific ways in which a thermodynamic system may be arranged is an accurate definition; this concept is the number of degrees of freedom. Note that this gentleman's readers had to correct him on, with regard to the integral of the heat capacity divided by temperature with respect to temperature from absolute zero up to temperature T. One can calculate such the entropy from first principle statistical mechanics. A system that is orderly on a macroscale and not on a microscale is not at all close to equilibrium. Neither is a system that is nanoscopically orderly such as the ice cubes but is macroscopically disorderly. The latter case is much more common, even though it is harder to calculate.

Neither of these mean that such situations cannot exist in that state; it does mean that such conditions are metastable. Life itself is metastable. Your equilibrium condition is the dead corpse described in that web site, and indeed that dead corpse has fewer degrees of freedom and thus has a lower entropy. Another common example of a metastable condition is a huge pile of snow in a parking lot at several degrees Celsius. Eventually it will melt, but not until the atoms rearrange themselves. Often such conditions are diffusion-limited. Diffusion becomes significant at about 1/3 of the melting point.

Regarding the term "disorder" to define entropy, that isn't a great definition. The number of degrees of freedom definition, however, is sound.

Boltzmann's "degrees of freedom" definition has been proven adequate to describe the physical chemistry of a wide variety of atoms, molecules, and solids. The biggest reason why "order" has been associated with entropy is that a well-ordered crystal requires a very high energy to disrupt the symmetry of the crystal. Crystals are typically at energetic minima, with any impurities phase segregating to surfaces and grain boundaries.

See below.

Yes, and it is mistake. See http://www.science20.com/train_thought/b..., which clearly explains why order is not the right term.

"But is disorder really the best word to use to define entropy? I don't think so. There are several problems with using disorder to define entropy. The first problem has to do with systems having multiple levels of organization. A system might be more or less "orderly" on one level and not at all on another. Take the example of the ice cubes flying around in space. On the level of the ice cubes, the system is disorderly, but on the molecular level, the ice molecules are locked in place, neatly in order."

Indeed, it is such a trap, and it cannot be done because there is no way to test such a hypothesis.

Thank you, j_IR1776wg.