I used to be quite a big fan of the arguments for and against God: Christian Apologetics.
I always thought that the arguments that involved physics were among the most interesting because, at the time, they seemed so air-tight. Are they really though?
Like so many other things in life, these sorts of arguments go both ways. But I’d like to hear your take on them.
On the side for the existence of God:
If the First law of thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, how could the initial energy for the universe come about?
On the side against the existence of God:
If the First law of thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, how can God act in this universe without the input (creation) of additional energy?
Blam!
(image by ToniVC via Flickr)
[tags]physics, thermodynamics, religion, apologetics, culture[/tags]
Subscribe via RSS
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
I don’t understand the argument against the existence of God. Is it saying that God acting in the universe today, tomorrow or 20 years ago requires the input of additional energy, or that God could not have provided the initial energy because energy can not be created?
Frankly, I don’t see a way out of this either way. It’s as tough as the heap paradox (how many stones in a heap?).
Yes to both (mostly the first one though), theoretically the First Law is unbreakable so how is God acting (today) if He is not inputting additional energy?
You are assuming that universe used to “not exist.” It is meaningless to talk of such things, because the universe simply exists, and that is all we can say. Talking about time BEFORE spacetime existed is meaningless. Physics does not describe anything beyond how the universe behaves, and anyone who says otherwise needs to re-examine what science is.
Personally, as much as I like science and understand that it and religion do not have to be seen as conflicting ideologies, I usually abhor the desire to reconcile one’s religious beliefs with modern scientific findings or theories. Speculating on energy isn’t a problem, but then there are ideas like the one where Moses struck his staff on the rocks and caused a tsunami… you get the drift.
Why would God acting in the universe require more energy?
Time for some Devil’s advocacy.
@John Jones: What does it mean then to say the universe started with the Big Bang? If there is no input of energy to get things going, what could have started it?
@Shan: I don’t really see why you abhor reconciling religious beliefs with modern science. Rather, I don’t see how your example follows.
@Adeel: I guess the question is how do you (or how does one) believe God acts in the universe? If God acts in the physical world, how would a change in say the motion of wind be manifested? If in the minds of people, is there some sort of action on neurons?
(Yeah this last argument is starting to run away from me. But let’s see where this goes.)
That’s a good question. I think an orthodox theology would hold that God is entirely non-physical. If God causes me to run fast, let’s say, the only energy involved is my own. God’s actions don’t involve energy at all would be the response, I think, having not studied much theology.
Personal tangent: I hate the use of ‘one’ as a pronoun. It’s almost always used to make one sound smarter than one actually is, or to dress up an argument or phrase that is otherwise lacking. I usually solve the problem you had up there by making the question objective, not relative or subjective. You can ask “how does God act in the universe” instead of “how do you believe God act in the universe?” If you ask the second question, I’m really allowed to give any stupid answer and back it up with “well, that’s just what I believe.”
Adeel, I thought people use “one” as a pronoun often because they find themselves getting stuck using “he or she” or “himself or herself”.
Josh, what I meant was the need to try to make everything “agree” and be able to offer a scientific explanation for everything that religion holds. The example I was offering was in reference to that one National Geographic article about how a series of natural phenomena might have allowed Moses to split the Red Sea (unfortunately I can’t find the article now). It’s okay if it’s just conjecture for fun, but I think it’s dumb if a person wants to believe in everything that a holy scripture reveals and yet can’t simply accept something is just a miracle.
Returning to the original topic:
I would also say that God is outside of the physical universe, and I’ve often proposed that God may be outside of spacetime entirely. That might explain God’s omniscience and omnipotence. After all, the Big Bang was an explosion of space itself. One other crazy idea is that spacetime is a component or attribute of God. Islam teaches that no one has seen God and that even the Prophets only spoke to him with a veil of light keeping them from seeing him and that we could not, at present, comprehend his form.
What reasons do you have to believe that God exists? If you just respond “faith,” then it is an irrational reason, because one could have “faith” in anything.
John, the argument in Josh’s post is one reason.
Shan, the word “one” instead of “he”, “she” or nothing just sounds clumsy and pompous.
If God is a supernatural being then He operates super naturally… above natural… inherently above nature’s laws. If the first law is indeed a law of our world then God is not bound by it. If the creation of the universe is subject to the laws that govern it… which I don’t see how it could otherwise and no one else has come up with a plausible explanation that doesn’t require more faith than belief in God. So, if the creation of the universe is a supernatural event(which it clearly is) then a being that operates above the natural laws of this universe is a very reasonable and responsible explanation for initial creation.