Negative Proof of God through Thermondynamics
For purposes of this article, when I use the term "God" I am referring to the Judeo-Christian deity as spoken of in the Christian Bible.
I recognize that my statements will never be satisfactory to all. Some of you may wonder why I do not take time to address a certain fact that you think is pertinent, and may want to bring this up in the comments section, but if it is not directly subordinate to my post then I would appreciate it if you wouldn't.
-Example: In my first sentence, I said that my reference to "God" is to the God of the Bible. Some of you who think there are contradictions in the Bible may think that that is impossible, because through the contradictions more than one definition of "God" can be seen in the Bible. If you point that or something similar out in the comments, you are being counter-intuitive because this post is not related to the Bible's alleged contradictions. So don't.
Can the existence of God be proved?
One wants to think so; if not, then these forums are essentially wasted for a majority of us. But there are lots of reasons to think that His existence can not be proved.
For example, for something to be positively "proven" (at least from the objective standpoint in the tradition of the Verifiability Principle), that thing must be reduced to a mathematical equation and solved. Either that, or it must be directly and empirically experienced through at least one of the 5 senses.
Because the Christian deity transcends mathematics and the senses, it follows that from the objective standpoint He cannot be positively proved. It would be impossible to reduce Him to the mathematical concept without contradicting the nature of His Being.
However, I believe God can be negatively proved, which is what I intend to do here.
A negative proof, as opposed to a positive proof, is a proof through inconsistency. I believe that, without a deity, certain fundamental concepts which are essential to our universe's existence are inconsitent.
In other words, if you reduced two fundamental scientific Laws (which I will identify in a moment) to mathematical statements, set them equal to each other, and solved them, you would get an inequality. They would say something like, "7=2". They would therefore not make sense in a closed system. There would have to be something outside the universe which imposed the universe into existence in order for these two fundamental scientific Laws to be consistent.
If I can do this, I think I have proven the existence of a deity. I shall attempt to do so now:
a) The first Law that I mentioned is the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLOT), restated as the Law of Entropy. This law states that the amount of entropy (the degradation of the matter and energy) in the universe will always tend to increase until it reaches equilibrium. A simpler way to state this Law is that the amount of order in the universe will always decrease; i.e., our universe is "wearing down". This law illustrates to us that, at some point, our universe had to have come into existence.
b) If the universe was infinite, or existing independent of time, this law shows that it would have been "wearing down" for eternity. Of course, this means it would not exist, because in eternity past it would have "died" (that is, reached "equilibrium", zero). So, this law demonstrates that our universe is finite.
However, many theories have been developed that explain how the universe could have developed independently, so these concerns must also be addressed. That's where the next Law come it.
a) The next Law is the First Law of Thermodynamics (FLOT), but restated in the two Laws of Conservation. (Those are the Law of Conservation of Mass and the Law of Conservation of Energy.) Simply stated, they reveal that "Neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed; they can only change form." Stated scientifically, they say, "The mass or energy of a closed system of substances will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system."
b) This shows us that the universe cannot have created itself, because "regardless of the processes acting inside the system" the mass and energy must remain constant.
SLOT and FLOT seem to conflict if no deity exists. SLOT says that matter and energy had to have been created; FLOT says that matter and energy cannot be created. The reason they do not conflict is because FLOT is speaking of a closed system. "The mass or energy of a closed system of substances will remain constant." The law shows that the matter and energy in our universe cannot have originated from the universe itself; they had to have been imposed opon our system from outside.
a) Whatever imposed matter and energy into our universe therefore exists outside of our universe.
b) Because matter and energy became a universe during the Big Bang, the Being outside our universe must have caused the Big Bang. I.e., there was a "Big Banger".
c) Because time only exists as a product of the Big Bang, the Big Banger exists independent of time.
d) Because change is only possible within the time dimension, the Big Banger cannot change.
e) Because an unchanging Being is the cause of our universe, we are dependant on It.
f) Because we depend on a higher Being for our existence, we should honor it.
g) A Creator-Being that we honor is a working definition of a deity.
A Deity similar in at least one way to God therefore exists.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!