The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not evidence of God

[Magical Wand]

Interesting thoughts, Alex. Thanks for sharing with us.

 

[firedragon]

Apologist William Lane Craig argues the 2nd law of thermodynamics is evidence the universe had an absolute beginning. And whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. This cause must be non-spatio-temporal and non-material since all that is material had a beginning. Ergo, this cause is how God is described, or as Aquinas liked to say, "This is what people call God."

So, let me explain how it is supposed to be evidence of an absolute beginning.

This is because of the tendency of particles to approach equilibrium in closed systems. As a consequence the universe would evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and would therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy and may no longer be exploited to perform work (since work is obtained from ordered molecular motion). As a result, an infinitely-old universe should therefore have reached equilibrium (i.e., maximum entropy) long ago, but it did not, so the universe began at some finite time in the past.

View attachment 52492

In the book "Atheism: The Case Against God", George H. Smith replied as follows:

"Reconciling the Second Law of Thermodynamics with the present state of the universe is not as hopeless as theists like to pretend. To begin with, the Second Law is a statement of statistical probability, and there is nothing inherently contradictory in supposing that a closed system can decrease in entropy or fluctuate between increasing and decreasing entropy states. But this probability, while metaphysically possible, is extremely unlikely, so it is usually ignored in practical applications.

More importantly, however, the Second Law pertains only to closed systems, which, according to many physicists, renders it inapplicable to the universe as a whole. Professor Grunbaum, a physicist, writes:

'An inherent limitation on the applicability of the ... entropy concept to the entire universe lies in the fact that it has no applicability at all to a spatially infinite universe.'

Professor E. A. Milne, commenting on another physicist’s acceptance of the heat-death thesis, writes: 'Jeans’s own studies in the realm of the second law of thermodynamics were all concerned with the kinetic theory of gases, in which the specimen under discussion is supposed walled around in a finite vessel; and to such systems the notion of a heat-death is applicable. But by no means is the same result to be predicted of the whole universe.'

Finally, according to Landau and Lif****z, authors of Statistical Physics: '... in the general theory of relativity the universe as a whole must be regarded not as a closed system, but as one which is in a variable gravitational field. In this case the application of the law of increase of entropy does not imply the necessity of statistical equilibrium.'

Since the concept of entropy can be defined only with reference to closed systems, it cannot legitimately be applied to the universe as a whole. The theist takes a scientific principle derived from a specific context, and attempts to shift this context in order to manufacture a need for god. In the name of science, the theist posits a “god of the gaps,” a god who allegedly fills in the gaps of human knowledge. But gaps of knowledge eventually close, leaving god without a home. The entropy argument is a cosmological argument draped in scientific jargon—but an invalid argument, even when presented in scientific terms, is still invalid."

Smith's rebuttal seems robust to me (although I don't like the way he speaks of theists, i.e., "theists like to pretend". Just because some theists -- viz., apologists -- do it doesn't mean all or most theists do it).

Anyway, I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this.

Well, the atheistic evangelists are wrong in trying to make the theist a hypocrite at large. The atheist who writes this is an evangelist who is not sure if the universe is a closed system or not, or/and if the universe is infinite or finite, but in order to do his apologetic bit he is making the other a hypocrite who is illegitimately trying to use scientific principle to prove God. No. Thats not what the so called theist is doing. He is taking an old philosophical argument and applying modern science to align with it but the main argument is a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument of a premise. "In the name of science, the theist posits a "god of the gaps" he says. Well this is a script, taught and repeated in the dogmatic seminary of the atheistic evangelist, very similar to the dogmatic religious missionary who repeat scripts in their missionary work to gather converts. Its the same thing.

I didnt say that to you, I said that to the references you used in the OP.

 

[epronovost]

Well, I agree with numbers (1) and (2), but (3) is incomplete.

The Christian God is generally defined (by theologians) as a being who exists outside of space. And that would fit the definition obtained by this cosmological argument. Non-material is also standard. Now, "non-temporal" is more controversial. There are many books out there in the literature in which it was argued God is temporal. For example, Ryan Mullins' recent book "The end of the timeless God." But it is still fairly standard.

Finally, being a "personable creature with interest and interactions toward humans" also defines God, but the Kalam argument only tries to get some features of God. It doesn't have to give all features in order to provide empirical evidence of his existence. Anyway, I know you didn't explicitly say that, but that's what it seems to me.

Correct me if I didn't accurately represent your comment, though.

No I think you added some very good points.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, the atheistic evangelists are wrong in trying to make the theist a hypocrite at large. The atheist who writes this is an evangelist who is not sure if the universe is a closed system or not, or/and if the universe is infinite or finite, but in order to do his apologetic bit he is making the other a hypocrite who is illegitimately trying to use scientific principle to prove God. No. Thats not what the so called theist is doing. He is taking an old philosophical argument and applying modern science to align with it but the main argument is a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument of a premise. "In the name of science, the theist posits a "god of the gaps" he says. Well this is a script, taught and repeated in the dogmatic seminary of the atheistic evangelist, very similar to the dogmatic religious missionary who repeat scripts in their missionary work to gather converts. Its the same thing.

I didnt say that to you, I said that to the references you used in the OP.

Yes, it is an old philosophical argument that has been shown to have many faults. It is dressed up in new language, but has all of the same old faults and a few new ones. The new ones stem from attempting to use modern science to bolster the philosophical argument.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, it is an old philosophical argument that has been shown to have many faults. It is dressed up in new language, but has all of the same old faults and a few new ones. The new ones stem from attempting to use modern science to bolster the philosophical argument.

Faults, faults everywhere. But please expose those faults in a philosophical argument philosophically. Its nice to watch.

And just like you said, these atheists in the OP are also attempting to use modern science to prove God doesnt exist for some reason. Its like a battle between missionaries.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Energy is neither created nor destroyed, thus eternity. Ha zah

 

[Brian2]

Apologist William Lane Craig argues the 2nd law of thermodynamics is evidence the universe had an absolute beginning. And whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. This cause must be non-spatio-temporal and non-material since all that is material had a beginning. Ergo, this cause is how God is described, or as Aquinas liked to say, "This is what people call God."

So, let me explain how it is supposed to be evidence of an absolute beginning.

This is because of the tendency of particles to approach equilibrium in closed systems. As a consequence the universe would evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and would therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy and may no longer be exploited to perform work (since work is obtained from ordered molecular motion). As a result, an infinitely-old universe should therefore have reached equilibrium (i.e., maximum entropy) long ago, but it did not, so the universe began at some finite time in the past.

View attachment 52492

In the book "Atheism: The Case Against God", George H. Smith replied as follows:



Smith's rebuttal seems robust to me (although I don't like the way he speaks of theists, i.e., "theists like to pretend". Just because some theists -- viz., apologists -- do it doesn't mean all or most theists do it).

Anyway, I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this.

Nevertheless science has discovered that the universe is expanding and so probably had a beginning at the beginning of that expansion.

 

[Magical Wand]

Nevertheless science has discovered that the universe is expanding and so probably had a beginning at the beginning of that expansion.

I addressed this in some of my comments in this post. I recommend you to check it out.

 

[Brian2]

Not necessarily so. The law of causation, like the second law of thermodynamics, did not begin to resolve until some short time after the BB so it is possible there was no cause.

The laws of physics disappear when we get closed to the BB, I am told.
Then scientists want the universe to have started because the laws of physics were in place "before" the BB.
Interesting speculations going on.
The law of cause and effect I imagine is a philosophical concept which applies to science also. The scientific part of it might have dissolved close to the BB but the philosophical part would still be in place.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not necessarily so. The law of causation, like the second law of thermodynamics, did not begin to resolve until some short time after the BB so it is possible there was no cause.

What do you mean those things did not begin to resolve until a short time after the Big Bang?

At some point there must be something without a cause, right? I mean, if you keep having causes, all of those causes are gonna need causes. At the very tip of the ice berg, mustn't there come a point where something exists just because it does? I believe that could be energy.

It will take considerably longer than the universe has already existed to reach heat death/maximum entropy, around 15 trillion years.

But if the universe had no beginning then it would already be infinitely old.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Energy is neither created nor destroyed, thus eternity. Ha zah

In a closed (finite) system. Ba dum tish.

 

[ratiocinator]

Energy is neither created nor destroyed, thus eternity. Ha zah

It really isn't that simple. Energy is not some kind of eternal 'stuff'...

The conservation of energy is a common feature in many physical theories. From a mathematical point of view it is understood as a consequence of Noether's theorem, developed by Emmy Noether in 1915 and first published in 1918. The theorem states every continuous symmetry of a physical theory has an associated conserved quantity; if the theory's symmetry is time invariance then the conserved quantity is called "energy". The energy conservation law is a consequence of the shift symmetry of time; energy conservation is implied by the empirical fact that the laws of physics do not change with time itself. Philosophically this can be stated as "nothing depends on time per se". In other words, if the physical system is invariant under the continuous symmetry of time translation then its energy (which is canonical conjugate quantity to time) is conserved. Conversely, systems which are not invariant under shifts in time (an example, systems with time dependent potential energy) do not exhibit conservation of energy – unless we consider them to exchange energy with another, external system so that the theory of the enlarged system becomes time invariant again. Conservation of energy for finite systems is valid in such physical theories as special relativity and quantum theory (including QED) in the flat space-time.
...
With the discovery of special relativity by Henri Poincaré and Albert Einstein, energy was proposed to be one component of an energy-momentum 4-vector.
...
Thus, the rule of conservation of energy over time in special relativity continues to hold, so long as the reference frame of the observer is unchanged. This applies to the total energy of systems, although different observers disagree as to the energy value.
...
In general relativity, energy–momentum conservation is not well-defined except in certain special cases. Energy-momentum is typically expressed with the aid of a stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor. However, since pseudotensors are not tensors, they do not transform cleanly between reference frames. If the metric under consideration is static (that is, does not change with time) or asymptotically flat (that is, at an infinite distance away spacetime looks empty), then energy conservation holds without major pitfalls. In practice, some metrics such as the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric do not satisfy these constraints and energy conservation is not well defined. The theory of general relativity leaves open the question of whether there is a conservation of energy for the entire universe.​

-- Conservation of energy - Wikipedia [my emphasis]​

 

[exchemist]

Well, Big Bang cosmology opens up a whole new can of worms. It is a very complex subject. But I can quote more than 20 recent books and articles by prominent cosmologists where it was argued the Big Bang doesn't provide evidence of an absolute beginning. As Polymath257 pointed out, classical theory (e.g., general relativity) doesn't apply at the Big Bang since extremely high energies are outside of its domain. However, an absolute beginning is only obtained if you apply classical theory. Thus, this result has no value to physicists.

But let me just say that some cosmologists disagree with that as well. I've talked to a cosmologist who wrote a very long and extensive paper arguing that even General Relativity can get rid of the initial curvature singularity by replacing it with a coordinate singularity (a coordinate singularity is not a real hole in the space-time manifold; it merely represents a bad choice of coordinates). And he told me this result shows that space-time can be extended prior to the expansion of the universe.

Much much much more can be said about this, but I'll stop here for the sake of space and time.

This is certainly interesting, in that one constantly reads the age of the universe as being 13.8bn years, with the surface of last scattering occurring 380,000yrs after the Big Bang. So I suppose I need to be more careful in how I interpret such numbers and make sure I qualify them as times since the Big Bang expansion, rather than any supposed "start" to the universe.

 

[ChristineM]

What do you mean those things did not begin to resolve until a short time after the Big Bang?

At some point there must be something without a cause, right? I mean, if you keep having causes, all of those causes are gonna need causes. At the very tip of the ice berg, mustn't there come a point where something exists just because it does? I believe that could be energy.



But if the universe had no beginning then it would already be infinitely old.

What i mean is the fundimental laws of this universe did not begin to resolve until 10e-43 of a second after the bb and were not set in stone until 10e-23 of a second after the bb.

Assuming there was no such thing as causation prior to the completion of the fundimental laws It is possible that the bb was uncaused.

Our universe seems to have has a beginning 13.8 billion years ago. Whether there is anything beyond that goes back infinitely into the past is unknown

 

[ChristineM]

Then scientists want the universe to have started because the laws of physics were in place "before" the BB.

Where did you pick up this nonsense? It is already know and accepted that the fundimental laws of this universe did not coalesce until after the bb.

The scientific part of it might have dissolved close to the BB but the philosophical part would still be in place.

Would it? Philosophy is a human concept and humans didn't turn up until much later in the game

 

[syo]

the universe had an absolute beginning.

Nope.

 

[Brian2]

2) causality is a feature of the universe just like spacetime.

Since causality is a feature of the universe just like spacetime how could the universe be caused. That would imply that something can cause causality and that something could be prior to time which is of course contradictory.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that causality is a feature of the universe.
Causality in the universe is a feature of the universe but causality apart from the universe cannot be determined by science.
If spacetime is a feature of the universe then what came first, the universe or space time?
Both seem to have come at the same instant.
Was spacetime created and expanded from there? Or did spacetime just pop into existence with no cause?
All these things seem to be no more than speculations and will never be known through science or mathematics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Apologist William Lane Craig argues the 2nd law of thermodynamics is evidence the universe had an absolute beginning. And whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. This cause must be non-spatio-temporal and non-material since all that is material had a beginning. Ergo, this cause is how God is described, or as Aquinas liked to say, "This is what people call God."

Funny - I didn't take Craig for a deist.

I mean, that's what he's arguing: that the universe has been a closed system ever since one initial creation event.

 

[Brian2]

I addressed this in some of my comments in this post. I recommend you to check it out.

Any addressing of that issue goes beyond what the evidence points to, that this universe had a beginning.
Speculation is interesting but that is all it is, speculation and will never be scientific knowledge.

 

[Brian2]

Where did you pick up this nonsense? It is already know and accepted that the fundimental laws of this universe did not coalesce until after the bb.

Stephen Hawking said the universe could have come into existence all be itself if the laws of physics were there before the BB. Does that mean that without those laws there is a need for a God.
I don't know. There is a lot of speculation around about what might have been, and when you say, "known and accepted" that is probably part of that speculation.

Would it? Philosophy is a human concept and humans didn't turn up until much later in the game

I don't think that has anything to do with it.