God vs Gibbs

God vs Gibbs
An illustration of the God vs Gibbs debate (see: Rossini debate), the illustration—labeled with the names “God” and “Gibbs”, respectively—from the 2013 article “Chemical Formula of a Human”, on the independent human molecular formula work of American scientists Robert Sterner and James Elser (2000) and Libb Thims (2002), pointing out the inherent conflict in regards to the origin of life issue, as to whether power or energy of God created life (see: clay creation myth) or alternatively whether “life” is something that does not exist (see: defunct theory of life and life terminology upgrades), a religio-mythology ingrained fiction of the mind so-to-say, and that concordantly scientifically-defined "power" or "energy" synthesized humans from the elements, via the cyclical action of heat, according to the nebular hypothesis, according to which Gibbs energy, NOT God’s energy , is the governing faction, or rather driving force, behind the goings on behind human social processes and evolution. [1]
In hmolscience, God vs Gibbs, or “Gibbs vs God”, depending, i.e. depending on whom one considers to be on trial, i.e. God (or belief in the existence of God) or American engineer Willard Gibbs (or belief that chemical thermodynamics has the power to explain the human condition), refers, generally, to the debate about whether or not the thermodynamics-based science of work, heat, energy, and power is or is not going to be able to replace the age-old religious-based notions of "divine" (or spiritual) work, energy, and power believed colloquially, in deeply-held convictions, to underlie and direct human nature, and, more recently, to the underlying tension of the Rossini debate (2006-present).

Overview
Historically, the God vs Gibbs debate has its precursors in the various and numerous 19th and 20th century energy and entropy vs religion debates (see: religious thermodynamics); as are well documented by historian Helge Kragh, in his 2008 Entropy Creation: Religious Contexts of Thermodynamics and Cosmology.

In 1987, Pakistani organometallic chemist Mirza Beg, in his New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physio-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior, was selling a "God's will IN Gibbs energy" model of sociology.

In 2006, the first semblance of the God vs Gibbs debate, i.e. a “Gibbs energy usurping Gods energy” implicit debate, erupted in the Journal of Chemical Education, aka the Rossini debate, following American chemist Harold Leonard’s Journal of Chemical Education suggestion that American physical chemist Frederick Rossini's 1971 “Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real” reasoning, i.e. human chemical thermodynamics (or physicochemical humanities) formulations, might help us “find a formula for fighting terrorism, while preserving civil liberties”, in a post 9/11 world. The a proposition was vehemently objected to specifically by American Christianity-believing physical chemist John Wojcik (Dec 2006), who inflamed the debate into subsidence.

In 2013, the Spanish journal Triple≡Bond Chemistry (triplenlace.com), in their “Chemical Formula of a Human” (SpanishEnglish), published a discussion on the religious-overthrowing implications of human molecular formulas, citing the Sterner-Elser molecular formula (2000) and Thims human molecular formula (2002), with an image, shown adjacent, of a Michelangelo-inspired rendition of the hand of God (or Gods energy) reaching down and giving “life” to DNA, or some type of enzyme or protein molecule, shown opposed to the hand of Willard Gibbs (or Gibbs energy) reaching up and taking away the concept of life (or theory of life) from the domains of morality, meaning, and sense of purpose (see: defunct theory of life and life terminology upgrades).

In short, the trend seems to have occurred that, despite Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous 1882 aphorism, god certainly is not yet completely dead, certainly not amid the general populous, percentages varying per country (see: existence of god), nor among the minds of elite scientists (see: belief in the existence of god by scientists), and that the battleground for the “war on god” is something occurring between physical scientists and or physicochemical scientists, found amid the equations of chemical thermodynamics applied to the humanities, and the formulas derived therefrom, applied to the deeper questions of freedom, security, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In 2014, American electrochemical engineer and extreme atheist Libb Thims, author if Human Chemistry (2007) and Pakistani organometallic chemist and theist Mirza Beg, author of New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physio-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior (1987), engaged into public debate (see: Beg-Thims dialogue) on the physicochemical reformulation of religion; at the end of which Beg would not recant in his belief that the will of Allah underlies the the driving force of Gibbs energy behind all chemical reactions, atomic reactions to human chemical reactions.

Etymology
The term "God vs Gibbs" and labeled God's hand vs. Gibbs' hand diagram were first used in the 9 Sep 2014 editing changes of the Rossini debate article as a way to state, in simple terms, the inherent or rather underlying nature of the debate, specifically the supposed "dangers" existive in premise of “chemical thermodynamics having the power to explain the human condition”, and the concordant effort to use this logic to help “find a formula for fighting terrorism, while preserving civil liberties”, as suppositioned by American chemist Harold Leonard (Jan 2006).

God vs Clausius
An alternative title, for this article, might very well be “God vs Clausius” or “God vs Carnot”, the following quotes being evidence to this:

“He was a practical electrician fond of whiskey, a heavy, red-haired brute with irregular teeth. He doubted the existence of a Deity but accepted Carnot’s cycle, and he had read Shakespeare and found him weak in chemistry.”
H.G. Wells (1906), The Door in the Wall, and Other Stories, Lord of the Dynamos [2]

Clausius and Darwin cannot both be right.”
Roger Caillois (1973), Coherences Aventureuses [3]

These, to note, are both akin to the more common “God vs Darwin”, felt commonly or rather over abundantly in the popular debate forums (Ѻ), i.e. Clausius underlies Darwin, but the ramifications and details of this have not yet completely been worked out, being that, to the less-informed populous, i.e. less-informed in respect to knowledge of physical chemistry and chemical thermodynamics, the state function formulation of “heat” differentials, known colloquially as “entropy”, has played center stage in most thermodynamics vs religion debates in the last century and a half; much of which, during the years 1860 to 1920, is well-documented in Helge Kragh’s 2008 Entropy Creation: Religious Contexts of Thermodynamics and Cosmology. [5]

Entropy, however, is not the thermodynamic potential of social systems, but rather Gibbs free energy is. Subsequently, the Gibbs vs God debate is more subtle, something tending to be "felt" by the trained physicist, chemist, and or engineer. The question of whether the Gibbs energy, e.g., in the form of bond energy, say in a marriage bond, the birth of one’s first child often times being the best memory of one’s existence, is God-derived or simply a product of fermion-boson interactions, leads many hardened scientists into deep questions about their underlying belief systems (see: Moriaity-Thims debate, as a case in point).

Quotes
The following are related quotes:

“Turning now to the proposed booklet you have sent me, correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to make the assertion that the new ‘God’ or purpose of mankind is a form of the Gibbs function, i.e. that science has disproved the God of old as envisaged so far by humankind.”
John Bryant (2011), review commentary on Libb Thims’ draft manuscript Purpose? (in a Godless universe) [4]

See also
Turnover rate | Religious section

References
1. (a) Sterner, Robert W. and Elser, James J. (2002). Ecological Stoichiometry: the Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere (chapter one) (human molecule, empirical formula, pg. 3; discussion, pgs. 47, 135). Princeton University Press.
(b) Thims, Libb. (2008). The Human Molecule, (preview) (Google Books). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
(c) Vallejo, Jose. (2013). “Fórmula química del ser humano” (“Chemical Formula of a Human”) (SpanishEnglish), Triplenlace Quimica, i.e. Triple≡Bond Chemistry (triplenlace.com), Sep 4.
2. (a) Wells, H.G. (1906). The Door in the Wall, and Other Stories, Lord of the Dynamos, Chapter 7; The Daily Chronicle, Summer No. July 14th.
(b) Gaither, Carl C. and Cavazos-Gaither, Alma E. (2002). Chemically Speaking: a Dictionary of Quotations (pg. 125). CRC Press.
3. (a) Caillois, Roger. (1976). Coherences Aventureuses. Paris: Gallimard.
(b) Thaxton, Charles B., Bradley, Walter L., Olsen, Roger L. (1992). The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, (ch. 7: “Thermodynamics of Living Systems”, ch. 8: “Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life”). Lewis and Stanley.
(c) Bushev, Michael. (1994). Synergetics: Chaos, Order, Self-organization (pg. 130). World Scientific.
(d) Prigogine Ilya, (1981). From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co.

4. (a) Bryant, John. (2011). “Review of Libb Thims’ draft manuscript Purpose? In a Godless Universe” (pdf) (quote, pg. 2), email communication, Jun 7.
(b) Thims, Libb. (2011). Purpose? (in a Godless universe). (94-pg manuscript) (unfinished) (quote, pg. vii); Online as 105-page unfinished manuscript (14 Apr 2013). IoHT publications.

TDics icon ns

More pages