If you enjoy what you read here you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May
Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

The Most Probable Thing in the Omniverse?

In many discussions and with greater regularity, I have heard theists suggest that the existence of god is proved by the laws of thermodynamics.
It bothered me since I first heard it, not because it directly opposed my world view (atheist you know) but because it sounded intrinsically 'shonky' to me, though I didn't know why. It was no more than a hunch until I started researching thermodynamics, nearly a month and many headaches later, I think I understand it enough explain what the science says and what the theists say about it, so brace yourselves,


1st Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation):

Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy):

All things inevitably decay; things tend to move toward a condition of disorder - called entropy. In any energy Conversion, some energy is lost in the form of heat Which cannot be Recovered.
Quote - Sir Arthur Eddington - '...if your pet theory about the universe is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope.'

Theists propose.

As there CANNOT be an infinite amount of energy in the universe (this would break the 2nd law) there must be a finite amount of energy in the universe. The definition of finite in this context would be a start and end point, but a start point (creation) would break the unbreakable 1st law. Because of this impossibility theist suggests there MUST be a 'creator' who converted the energy from himself into the universe.

Theists propose.

As evolution is the process of the single celled becoming multi-celled (opposite to decay), it goes against the 2nd Law.

Right, now we have a handle on what they think, Here's how I see it...
The anti-evolution argument seems to me to be a misappropriation of the 2nd Law, I think it's being improperly applied to 'evolution'.
Living things consume energy to grow and develop. Only after they stop consuming (death) does entropy apply to the individual. One could think of the generational line as a chain of entropy-defying bubbles; as the overlap of life between generations continues indefinitely, constantly adapting to it's environs, entropy is postponed until a species fails to adapt and begins to decline towards extinction.
The 'anti-evolution' stance is the only use of the 2nd law that I have heard theists state as evidence of the divine - this maybe because the 2nd law seems to outright deny the god posited in the tenets.
I'll try to explain...
ONLY a 'nothing' (non-existent entity) may have zero entropy (no energy loss) so
ONLY 'nothing' can be infinite.
Therefore, to abide by the 2nd law, it is only possible for God to be either, 'nothing' or, exist outside the laws of thermodynamics. But theists accept the 1st law, indeed they uphold it as proof of his existence, so they must also accept that
the 'energy that is God' cannot have popped into existence either
as this would also break the 1st law.

So, we have had the two major 'scientific' arguments for god up on the operating table for exploratory surgery and have found, god must be 'nothing';

thermodynamics is not their holy grail of proof.
Moreover, there are further pitfalls for the scientific theist; the whole use of physics to reveal god may be in question anyway.
This is what I think...

The universe is defined by it's physical properties, its physical laws - 'the laws of physics'(1) are the 'nature' of the universe.
BUT before the universe formed there was nothing, no galaxies, stars, planets, no physical elements of any kind. And as it is the interaction between physical elements that causes the laws of physics, that means there were no physical laws.
(1) My usage, here and hereafter in this post, of the phrase "laws of physics" is shorthand for "The actual parameters that exist, which the structures of the universe operate within or because of; the actual physical nature of the universe". I'm not attempting to imply that every condition or clause of "our" observations are identically perfect descriptors of the actual parameters but, rather, that there are unchanging, unchangeable, constants in the multiverse that we have identified and labelled "laws".
In that state where no laws of physics apply, there are no physical laws to defy, when there are no physical laws to defy all things are possible!
A first cause (defying the 1st law of thermodynamics) is thereby not impossible but merely improbable, matter could "pop into existence" or "emerge" from "nothing" because there are no laws of physics to prevent it happening. Highly improbable yes, astronomically so you might say (LOL) but that we are here, is proof that some sort of improbable event occurred.
It seems reasonable to conclude that it's much more likely that the highly improbable event was minuscule in nature, a primeval sub-atomic particle "popping into existence" or more properly "emerging from the quantum foam" and CAUSING, quite unexpectedly, a "Big-Bang" and the laws of physics, and much less likely that the first highly improbable emergence even brought forth a god
To believe that the fully formed 'all benevolent god', the 'omni-omni-omni-eterni' of the tenets, popped into existance first is, in my opinion, analogous to betting your nations wealth on a horse with an undisclosed number of legs that some bloke is attempting to flog back to life!
So there you go, that's what I think! Have at it, I'm going for a long lie down because my head really hurts!

But if you want to read more then check Entropy Explained by Richard Carrier

This is one of the Too many questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"


If you enjoy what you read here
you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May

Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

Too Many Questions - Headlines

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain

My new blog:
Left of Sinister
It's kind of political.


Lijit Ad Wijit