The other day one of my friends, Tor Constantine wrote a wonderful piece (Believing in God is Tough – Not Believing is Tougher…) about belief in a Supreme Being (SB). (This is not my term- I am just trying to be non-partisan, since this is not a religion piece- whether you know this SB as Hashem, G0d, Allah, whatever—the name is immaterial.) In that piece, he wrote “Anyone who has ever wrestled with this issue ultimately realizes that you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of G0d.”
I disagreed with that basic premise. (I also want to state that I lack the qualifications of either a philosopher or a cosmologist.) Not that one person can ever convince everyone of the existence of SB- some people can’t be convinced that the earth is older than 5000 years, that climate change is real, that pollution is dangerous to children and other living things… you get the point.
But, really, most scientists understand that a supreme force is clearly involved in the universe. I will explain that line of thinking, after I provide a little background. And, I’m sorry-I have to rely upon science. But, I’m pretty sure I can explain it using the words of the eminent British scientist, C.P. Snow. I learned this explanation of thermodynamics some four decades ago. The problem is that I (and many, many others) cannot find the actual source of this manifold-told quote.
C.P. Snow explained the three laws of thermodynamics suchly:
- You cannot win (that is, you cannot get something for nothing, because matter and energy are conserved).
- You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).
- You cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is unattainable).
It’s the second law of thermodynamics that I really want to discuss. Entropy- the measurement of disorder in the universe- is the key to understanding my premise. (C.P. Snow, in 1959, stated that a knowledgeable soul not knowing the second law of thermodynamics was akin to his (sorry about his sexism) not having read Shakespeare.)
The key consideration is that everything in this universe tends towards disorder. Entropy always increases. So, what does that mean in the context of this discussion?
Since disarray is the natural state of things, since disarray is where everything wants to go, means that an outside force (or forces) must be imposed to preclude the disarray. That meant that something, some force had to be applied to this Earth to keep things in order. If you believe the bible (which I am deliberately not quoting as a source, since that is begging the argument), this planet was ‘tohu vavohu’- devoid of form and organization. That’s exactly what entropy would want.
And, science has labored (Dr. Harold Urey, the 1934 Nobel Prize winner started this) to develop organic material from inorganic matter- and had done so in a rudimentary fashion. Dr. Urey speculated that the early terrestrial atmosphere was probably composed of ammonia, methane and hydrogen; his graduate student, Dr. Stanley Miller, (recognizing that the atmosphere contained hydrogen sulphide and sulphur dioxide) demonstrated that electrical sparks and water can produce amino acids. Others have shown that the atmosphere may have contained 40% hydrogen. Where the water arose requires more carbon dioxide than has been postulated. And, without water, not only is life not produced- there is little likelihood of electrical sparks.
What supplied this ‘driving’ force? I don’t know. But, whether that force is the Big Bang or a SB- either way, some outside force- outside of nature (as we know it) supplied it. So, whether it’s what I call Hashem, you call G0d, others call Allah, there IS some outside force that guides this world towards order- in total contravention to the natural forces that drive it to disorder.
You did a good job presenting these scientifc explanations and theories, Roy. I believe that God brought order to the world and He is still actively working in the world today.
I would be interested in your explanation of C.P. Snow’s point #3, “You can not get out of the game (because absolute zero is unatainable).
Thanks!
Janette:
The question is whether or what “actively” is. I believe that the SB created us to be the partner in the perfection of this world. The tools have been provided. It is up to us to achieve that perfection.
Roy
Roy – outstanding piece and reasoning – tweeted! While I agree with you, I think skeptics would try to poke holes in the “entropy” argument. For example, I wasn’t able to paste it here, but I responded to your link over on my site with an abstract description about the undirected self assemblage of non-living magnetic colloids. Skeptics would point to that.
While I think that abstract is fascinating, it’s a far cry from amino acids forming themselves into proteins necessary for life function. Additionally, that completely precludes the even larger issue of DNA – how did THAT information-packed cookbook of life come into being??? That question drove Dean Kenyon (the father of evolutionary organic chemistry) to admit that the complex information contained in DNA was evidence enough of an SB!
Thanks again for the insight and perspective!
I have answered your first statement on your blog. (http://torconsblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/sometimes-evidence-is-not-enough.html)
The second is exactly the point!
Thanks for starting this discussion.
Roy
This is certainly food for thought. I would like to see it pursued in more depth.
Thanks for dropping in and leaving your comment.
That was the entire purpose. To get people to think about what matters, to discern from where the energy they want and need derives.
Roy
Controversial subject and your view was eloquently given. Not being a scientist, but have read many other’s opinions including Gregg Braden, I tend towards the notion that the universe leads towards balance, and the “disorder” is the universe trying to get back into balance. And yet, I honor your view.
Thanks for dropping in, Nancy.
Gregg Braden employs philosophy, which is one approach. The only way the universe can be in balance is if we humans work and supply energy to counteract entropy and maintain equilibrium- or move it in yet another direction. I am all for that approach!
Roy
A big subject there Roy – and I think my feeling around this, is to paraphrase (ironically) Shakespeare himself – that there are more things of heaven and earth than we’ll ever know!
regards, and great to have connected with you through the blog challenge 🙂
Tanya
Nice to meet you, too, Tanya!
Yes, I know this was probably something left alone, but too many folks asked me for my reasoning, during the discussion of Tor’s post.
You’ve got a gem here, Roy! And the Snow analogy of the three laws of thermodynamic is brilliant.
One point of discussion, though: the second law states that entropy always increases or remains constant but it applies to an isolated system (like the typical example of the ice cube in a glass of water – entropy explains why the molecular activity makes the ice cube melt). So, if it has to be an isolated system, how can you apply it to the universe?
For the record: I profoundly believe in SB. I am just feeding the discussion.
Gustavo:
The universe can be the system. And, the only thing that can work on the system to keep the entropy from changing is an outside force. That is exactly what the Big Bang was- but who gave the Big Bank???
Roy