Negative Proof of God through Thermondynamics

dmar198
Theist
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
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:

Part 1

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.

Part 2

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.

Part 3

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.

Part 4

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!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
No, the first and second

No, the first and second laws do not run in conflict.

First, the multiverse theory is plausiable and and can get around the first law, since it could of 'budded' off a Big Bang.

 

Another is ex-nihlo, which I'm not a fan of, but it is one possibilty, in which space tunneled and through quantum flucuations, birthed the universe.

 

 

Now, these Quantum flucuations whether from tunneled space, or another universe transverse in and out of existance. No laws are broken since they appear for 10^-45 seconds, and the Heinsburg uncertainty principle allows that. So yes, you can have classical laws broken for that short of a timespan. 

Remember, the net energy of the universe is zero, so this would tell us either A) multiverse or B) ex-nihlo.

 I prefer A.

 


davidnay2007
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-10-13
User is offlineOffline
That's a bit of a reach. I

That's a bit of a reach. I see where you're going though. The problem with your conclusion is that you're applying intelligence to the 'big banger'. There's no way you can know for sure if there was any intelligence behind that. The problem with the big bang theory(in my opinion) is that it portrays itself as the beginning of everything which is ridiculous. I'm no expert in thermo-whatever or quantum-say what? but I can tell you that the big bang was definately not the beginning. As a matter of fact there was no beginning, as time is just an illusion. I guess my point is that the big bang theory isn't even scratching the surface of how deep the rabbit hole goes and is way too shallow to be used as a base point for proving God.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
davidnay2007 wrote:  As a

davidnay2007 wrote:

 As a matter of fact there was no beginning, as time is just an illusion. 

Just stop right there. No, really. 


dmar198
Theist
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: the

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
the multiverse theory is plausiable and and can get around the first law, since it could of 'budded' off a Big Bang.

Firstly, the multiverse theory does not explain the formation of time in the Big Bang. Because time is a product of the Big Bang, whatever caused it must have caused it independent of time. But a "budding" from another universe, or another universe itself, requires the existence of time for such an occurance.

In fact, the only way our universe could have "budded off" another universe would be if the cause of our universe somehow escaped from the first universe into atemporality and then caused our universe.

Even if that were true, it does not explain the existence of that primary universe, or (if the logic is followed) the one that "budded" that one, etc. 

In the end, there still has to be a "first cause", as the Thermodynamic Argument (as I have termed this) proves. 

 Secondly, Ockam's Razor requires that the simplest explanation be taken. The multiverse theory introduces more complications which cannot by their nature be explained, while the uncaused Cause is irreducibly simple by its nature because it need not be explained. It only need exist.

Quote:
Another is ex-nihlo, which I'm not a fan of, but it is one possibilty, in which space tunneled and through quantum flucuations, birthed the universe.

Quantum fluctuations would be impossible outside of time, because time is required for any kind of change. Therefore, they do not explain the existence of the Big Bang.

I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!


dmar198
Theist
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
davidnay2007 wrote: The

davidnay2007 wrote:
The problem with your conclusion is that you're applying intelligence to the 'big banger'. There's no way you can know for sure if there was any intelligence behind that.

Universal Laws had to be imposed opon our universe, if my argument follows. The underlying implication is that something intelligent imposed it, but an intelligent Being is not required for this argument. Only a Creator-Being. And that is what I proved.

Quote:
the big bang was definately not the beginning. ...time is just an illusion.

You assertion assumes too much. Please prove your thesis before you draw such conclusions.

And time is not an illusion. I believe you are confusing the measurement of time, which is in some sense illusory, with the time dimension itself. 

Your statement is similar to the statement that "Length is just an illusion." If length/time does not exist, then what dimension are we really moving through in those respective cases?

I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
dmar198 wrote:   Firstly,

dmar198 wrote:

 

Firstly, the multiverse theory does not explain the formation of time in the Big Bang. Because time is a product of the Big Bang, whatever caused it must have caused it independent of time. But a "budding" from another universe, or another universe itself, requires the existence of time for such an occurance.

 

Yes, but time is inseperable from space. So another universe would have space, hence time.

 

This budding can be replicated through negative energy generation from the Casmir effect.

 

 

Since this is negative energy. This could distort space, such that the space 'buds' off the other universe.

 

This produces a low entropy state. The universe is acheieved by symmetry breaking.

 

 

Quote:
 

In fact, the only way our universe could have "budded off" another universe would be if the cause of our universe somehow escaped from the first universe into atemporality and then caused our universe.

 

No, see above.

 

 

Quote:
 

Even if that were true, it does not explain the existence of that primary universe, or (if the logic is followed) the one that "budded" that one, etc.

That primary is eternal, or came through quantum tunneling. 

 

 

Quote:

In the end, there still has to be a "first cause", as the Thermodynamic Argument (as I have termed this) proves.

 

The first universe was the first cause. Or the laws of that universe were. 

 

 

Quote:

Secondly, Ockam's Razor requires that the simplest explanation be taken. The multiverse theory introduces more complications which cannot by their nature be explained, while the uncaused Cause is irreducibly simple by its nature because it need not be explained. It only need exist.

Quote:
Another is ex-nihlo, which I'm not a fan of, but it is one possibilty, in which space tunneled and through quantum flucuations, birthed the universe.

Quantum fluctuations would be impossible outside of time, because time is required for any kind of change. Therefore, they do not explain the existence of the Big Bang.

 

Yes, but if we wind the clock back to beyond the Planck second, the laws of physics break down, and it's possible that time was distorted before the Planck second. 


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
dmar198 wrote: Ockam's

dmar198 wrote:

Ockam's Razor requires that the simplest explanation be taken. The multiverse theory introduces more complications which cannot by their nature be explained, while the uncaused Cause is irreducibly simple by its nature because it need not be explained. It only need exist.

Ockam's Razor does not require anything. It merely suggests that, all else being equal, the simplest solution is most likely correct.

Also, god is certainly a very complex concept. Just because you say it requires no explanation does not make it so. "It only need exist"? How could it exist? How could it cause something?  Did it act?  In what way?  If you think that god has a mind or a will, then things become even more complicated.

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
must i be burdened

Careful. You are fallaciously misrepresenting SLOT and FLOT. See the following (I was the writer of the links I am about to give, FYI):

 All a posteriori Arguments For the Existence of God Are Intellectually Bankrupt

 

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism