The Laws of Thermodynamics Do Not apply to the Universe

“The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!”

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Many in the atheistic community have realized various problems with their theories in light of what we know about the laws of thermodynamics. In order for atheism to be a plausible explanation for the origin of the Universe, matter must either be eternal or have the capability of creating itself (i.e., spontaneous generation). Yet the Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the first option is impossible, and the First Law implies that the second option is impossible (see Miller, 2007 for a more in depth discussion of the laws of thermodynamics and their application to the origin of the Universe). Upon grudgingly coming to this conclusion, but being unwilling to yield to the obvious alternative (i.e., Someone outside of the Universe put matter here), some have tried to find loopholes in the laws that will allow for their flawed atheistic ideologies to survive.

A common assertion being raised today by some is that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to the Universe as a whole, and therefore cannot be used to prove that God played a role in the origin of the Universe. More specifically, some question whether our Universe can be considered an “isolated system” (i.e., a system in which mass and energy are not allowed to cross the system boundary; Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 9). In their well-known thermodynamics textbook, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, Van Wylen and Sonntag note concerning the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “[W]e of course do not know if the universe can be considered as an isolated system” (1985, p. 233). Dr. Robert Alberty, author of Thermodynamics of Biochemical Reactions, is quoted as saying, “I do not agree that the universe is an isolated system in the thermodynamic sense” (as quoted in Holloway, 2010).

What if the Universe is not an isolated system? How would that fact impact the creation/evolution controversy? First of all, the creationist has always argued that the Universe is not an isolated system, or at least has not always been one. According to the creationist, in the beginning, God created the Universe’s system barrier, then crossed it and placed energy and matter within the system—thus making the Universe non-isolated. So, recognizing that the Universe is, in fact, not an isolated system would really mean that some evolutionists are starting to move in the right direction in their understanding of the Universe! Acquiescence of this truth by atheists in no way disproves the existence of God. In fact, quite the contrary is true. Admission that the Universe is not isolated does not help the case for atheism, but rather tacitly acknowledges a creator of sorts. [More on this point later.]

What this admission would do, however, is make some of the creationists’ arguments against atheism less applicable to the discussion about the existence of God—specifically some of the uses of the laws of thermodynamics and their application to the Universe as a whole. For instance, if the Universe is not an isolated system, it means that something or someone outside of the Universe can open the proverbial box that encloses the Universe and put matter and energy into it. Therefore, the Universe could be eternal, as long as something/someone is putting more usable energy into the box to compensate for the energy loss and counter entropy. Thus, the argument against the eternality of matter by way of the Second Law of Thermodynamics could potentially be null and void. Also, with a non-isolated system, it could be argued that the original, imaginary pre-Big Bang ball (which never actually existed—since the Big Bang is flawed [see May, et al., 2003) was not eternal in its existence. Further, it could be contended that it did not have to spontaneously generate in order to explain its existence. Rather, energy and matter could have been put here from a source outside of this Universe other than God.

From a purely scientific perspective, one of the problems with claiming that the Universe is not isolated is that such an assertion presupposes the existence of physical sources outside of this Universe (e.g., multiple universes outside of our own). And yet, how can such a claim be made scientifically, since there is no verifiable evidence to support such a contention? Stephen Hawking has advanced such an idea, but he, himself, recognizes the idea to be merely theoretical (Shukman, 2010). Speculation, conjecture, assertion—not evidence. As Gregory Benford wrote: “This ‘multiverse’ view represents the failure of our grand agenda and seems to me contrary to the prescribed simplicity of Occam’s Razor, solving our lack of understanding by multiplying unseen entities into infinity” (Benford, 2006, p. 226). Belief in the multiverse model is like proclaiming the existence of fairies just because you can imagine one. But such speculation is hardly scientific evidence—and that is the problem.

What does the scientific evidence actually convey today? We live in the only known Universe, and it had to come from somewhere. That is a fact. If the Big Bang occurred, and all matter and energy in the Universe—everything that exists—was initially in that little imaginary sphere the size of the period at the end of this sentence (or much smaller, depending on which “expert” cosmologist you ask), by implication, the evolutionist admits that the Universe is of a finite size. That is a fact. A finite Universe is an isolated system. Since the Universe as a whole is the only true isolated system, the laws of thermodynamics apply perfectly. That is why some reputable scientists examine the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and articulate statements in reputable textbooks like the following:

• “Isolated system: It is the system which exchange [sic] neither matter nor energy with the surroundings. For such a system, the matter and energy remain constant. There is no such perfectly isolated system, but our universe can be considered as an isolated system since by definition it does not have any surroundings” (Senapati, 2006, p. 64, emp. added).
• “A spontaneous process in an isolated system increases the system’s entropy. Because the universe—our entire surroundings—is in contact with no other system, we say that irreversible processes increase the entropy of the universe” (Fishbane, et.al., 1996, p. 551, italics in original).

The truth is, if one is unwilling to accept the existence of God, yet desires to accept the laws of science, one must conjure up other options for how the Universal box could have been legally opened and its contents altered. Envision several atheists sitting around a table speculating options, no matter how wild, in order to avoid conceding the existence of God, and you will have a clear picture of how many in the scientific community operate today. “Okay, people. How did we get here? Think!” “Other universes?” “Maybe.” “Nothing put us here?” “Not bad.” “Aliens?” “Why not?” “The God of the Bible?” “Shut your mouth. You are unscientific. Leave the room.” How can evolutionists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking safely postulate the existence of alien creators without being laughed out of the spotlight, while creationists get expelled from the scientific community for recognizing the reasonable answer to the matter of origins (Stein and Miller, 2008; BBC News, 2010)?

Ironically, when the atheistic community asserts alleged creative agents outside the Universe, they tacitly acknowledge a creator of some sort. What is the difference between these concessions and the true Creator? Why not accept the God of the Bible? The answer is obvious. Their brand of designer comes packaged without the demands and expectations that come with belief in God. Very convenient—but sad and most certainly unscientific.

Note also that accepting the possibility of alternative creative causes leaves atheists with the same problem with which they started. They claim to use the laws of physics to arrive at the multiverse conclusion (Shukman, 2010). But if the laws of physics apply to their conclusion about multiple universes, why would the laws of physics not apply to those universes? If the laws of science apply to those hypothetical universes (and it would be reasonable to conclude that they would since, according to atheists, the universes interact), then the matter of origins has merely shifted to those other universes. How did they come into being? There are still only three options—they always existed (in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics); they created themselves (in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); or they were created. The laws of thermodynamics still echo the truth from the remotest parts of the created order: “You cannot explain it all without God in the equation!”

The truth is, the scientific evidence leads unbiased truth-seekers to the conclusion that there simply must be a Creator. How do we know that the laws of thermodynamics are true on Earth? No one has ever been able to document an exception to them (except when divine miracles have occurred). They always hold true. Why does the same principle not hold when observing the rest of the Universe? As Borgnakke and Sonntag articulate in Fundamentals of Thermodynamics concerning the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics:

The basis of every law of nature is experimental evidence, and this is true also of the first law of thermodynamics. Many different experiments have been conducted on the first law, and every one thus far has verified it either directly or indirectly. The first law has never been disproved.... [W]e can say that the second law of thermodynamics (like every other law of nature) rests on experimental evidence. Every relevant experiment that has been conducted, either directly or indirectly, verifies the second law, and no experiment has ever been conducted that contradicts the second law. The basis of the second law is therefore experimental evidence (2009, p. 116-220, emp. added).

There has been no verifiable evidence that the laws of thermodynamics have been violated throughout the Universe. Sure, there has been speculation, conjecture, and theory that it “could” happen. Yet, through it all, the laws still stand unscathed. Granted, atheists may cloud the air when they blow forth their unreasonable, unproven, jargon-filled, imaginary fairy-dust theories, but when the fairy-dust settles, the laws of thermodynamics still declare the truth to all who will listen (Psalm 19:1). The scientific evidence shows that there is unmistakable order and design in the Universe. Design implies a Designer. The God of the Bible. Now that’s scientific.

REFERENCES

BBC News (2010), “Hawking Warns Over Alien Beings,” April 25, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/8642558.stm.

Benford, Gregory (2006), What We Believe But Cannot Prove, ed. John Brockman (New York: Harper Perennial).

Borgnakke, Claus and Richard E. Sonntag (2009), Fundamentals of Thermodynamics (Asia: John Wiley and Sons), seventh edition.

Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.

Fishbane, Paul M., Stephen Gasiorowicz, and Stephen T. Thornton (1996), Physics for Scientists and Engineers (New Jersey: Prentice Hall), second edition.

Holloway, Robert (2010), “Experts on Thermodynamics Refute Creationist Claims,” http://www.ntanet.net/Thermo-Internet.htm.

May, Branyon, et al. (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique,” Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:32-34,36-47, May, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2635.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Senapati, M.R. (2006), Advanced Engineering Chemistry (New Delhi: Laxmi Publications), second edition.

Shukman, David (2010), “Professor Stephen Hawking Says No God Created Universe,” BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11172158.

Stein, Ben and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media).

Van Wylen, Gordon J. and Richard Sonntag (1985), Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley and Sons), third edition.

---

Copyright © 2010 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

God's Judgement and These United States

     "God is judging these United States."  This statement seems to be gaining ground within and without the Brotherhood.  I have heard it proclaimed from pulpits, in Bible classes, on internet blogs, and social media.  This claim that is being made is what is called in philosophical terms as a "Positive Knowledge Statement".  This means that the person who is affirming the statement has knowledge that the claim is true and can backup the claim with evidence in support of said claim from the Scriptures (this is a Biblical topic so the evidence must come from the Bible).  If the claim cannot be supported by the use of Scripture then the claim is arbitrary meaning that it is just the opinion of the one stating the claim.  In fact this type of claim would be irrational and unreasonable.   If the claim is an arbitrary claim should it be preached from the pulpit as truth?  Of course the answer would be no.  This does not mean that it cannot be discusses in a class setting in which others can inquire as to the reason-ability of their claim.  Is this an arbitrary claim?  Can it be backed up with evidence from the Scriptures?  This is the aim of this blog post.  To answer these questions.  

     As I examine this claim, I believe that there is a hidden logical fallacy involved.  Sometimes in our quest for the truth it is helpful to "rearrange" the statement into a question.  This type of "rearranging" is common in  other fields such as physics.  It is known that those who try to solve some of the most difficult equations sometimes make use of imaginary numbers such a negative 3.  In doing this It provides insight to assist them in solving the problem.  Of course in the end they must revert back to real numbers but this "rearranging" helps.  So it can be with logical fallacies as well.  If we "rearrange the statement "God is judging these United States" into a question format we can see the fallacy.  "Is God judging these United States".  When presented this way we see the fallacy of a Complex Question being made.   

  The complex question fallacy is committed when a question is asked (a) that rests on a questionable assumption, and (b) to which all answers appear to endorse that assumption.

Examples
     “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
     This is a complex question because it presupposes that you used to beat your wife, a presupposition that either answer to the question appears to endorse.
     “Are you going to admit that you’re wrong?”
     Answering yes to this question is an admission of guilt. Answering no to the question implies that the accused accepts that he is in the wrong, but will not admit it. No room is left to protest one’s innocence. This is therefore a complex question, and a subtle false dilemma.

     The proper way to ask is to divide the question into it's two parts.  1) Do you beat your wife?  2) Have you stopped beating her?  1) Are you wrong?  2) Are you going to admit it?  This is the proper way to ask and to find out the truth.  In these two examples when properly asked the one being asked the question has the opportunity to express the truth without implying any quilt.  As is the case with the above claim.  If we answer the question in the negative then it can be implied that we do not believe that God judges nations.  If we answer in the affirmative then it can be implied that we believe that all the horrible things that happen in this nation is the result of God's judgement which may not be the case.  The question can also be broken down into two parts.  1) Does God judge nations?  2) When does God judge nations?

     The answer to the first question can be answered in the affirmative.  Many times in scripture we find God either judging the nations as with the nation of Israel, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Great flood of Noah, the Edomites,  the nation of Rome,  etc...  In fact several of the OT prophets spoke of this.  The answer to the first question is undeniable by anyone who reads the OT.  It is yes, God does judge nations.

     The answer to the second question "When does God judge nations", cannot be so easily answered if it can be answered at all.

     To start our investigation, let us look at Ezekiel 14:13-20;
 
     " Eze 14:13  Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously, then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it:
Eze 14:14  Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.
Eze 14:15  If I cause noisome beasts to pass through the land, and they spoil it, so that it be desolate, that no man may pass through because of the beasts:
Eze 14:16  Though these three men were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters; they only shall be delivered, but the land shall be desolate.
Eze 14:17  Or if I bring a sword upon that land, and say, Sword, go through the land; so that I cut off man and beast from it:
Eze 14:18  Though these three men were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters, but they only shall be delivered themselves.
Eze 14:19  Or if I send a pestilence into that land, and pour out my fury upon it in blood, to cut off from it man and beast:
Eze 14:20  Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness."

     Some would say that this would tell us our answer, it is when the land (people) sin against the Lord grievously.  They would tell us that these United States have reached that point.  Has it?  Based upon what scriptures?  Look at I Peter 3:18-22;

     "1Pe 3:18  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1Pe 3:19  By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1Pe 3:20  Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Pe 3:21  The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
1Pe 3:22  Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him. "

     One of the things that I believe we do not have the answer to is the longsuffering of God.  We can look at the longsuffering of God as a glass of water.  Exactly when does it reach the rim of the glass?  In order to make the "positive knowledge claim" that God is judging these United States would mean that we know for a fact when the glass becomes full.  This would require some kind of revelation from God.  He has chosen not to disclose this to us in His word (cannot be found).  The only way that this claim could be made is to also claim special revelation from God, which we know does not happen today.  Therefore to make such a statement would be arbitrary at best and therefore not in the realm of rationality.

     One item of interest while we are on this subject.  We do have Biblical examples of nations that God did judge which can help us to determine what Ezekiel meant by  "when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously,".  In Gen. 6:5 we read;

     " And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

     Does this describe the condition of the United States?  Are the thoughts of the people of the United States evil continually?  To be fair and honest, I would have to say no.  Does this mean that it cannot become so, no.  Yes, the United States does have its problems, but there is still good in her.  For example, I personally know of atheists whose morality (although not to God's standard) is to a level that I would argue is no where near that of those in the days of Noah.  In fact, some do oppose abortion for any reason.  These same atheists donate to worthy causes, give of their time, do not drink or curse for that matter. 

     Look at Gen. 19: 1-9

     " 19:1  And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
Gen 19:2  And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
Gen 19:3  And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
Gen 19:4  But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
Gen 19:5  And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Gen 19:6  And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
Gen 19:7  And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Gen 19:8  Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
Gen 19:9  And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door."

     The situation that existed in Sodom and Gomorrah is a horrific one indeed.  This was ACCEPTED PUBLIC RAPE.  Not only that but also homosexual in its nature.  Do we need to even ask the question as to whether or not this describes the United States?  No need for further discussion. 

     Another thing that Peter informs us is that sometimes God has a plan for certain nations.  In the days of Noah God waited until His plan for Noah had come to fruition.  It was only after the completion of the ark did God send forth His judgement upon the world.   This would not be the only time that God would act in such a manner.  Look in Hab. 1:6-10;

     " Hab 1:6  For, lo, I raise up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation, which shall march through the breadth of the land, to possess the dwellingplaces that are not theirs.
Hab 1:7  They are terrible and dreadful: their judgment and their dignity shall proceed of themselves.
Hab 1:8  Their horses also are swifter than the leopards, and are more fierce than the evening wolves: and their horsemen shall spread themselves, and their horsemen shall come from far; they shall fly as the eagle that hasteth to eat.
Hab 1:9  They shall come all for violence: their faces shall sup up as the east wind, and they shall gather the captivity as the sand.
Hab 1:10  And they shall scoff at the kings, and the princes shall be a scorn unto them: they shall deride every strong hold; for they shall heap dust, and take it."

     The message of Hab. is clear.  God will raise up a nation that is even more wicked then God's own people and have them deliver His judgement upon them.  God had a plan for a very wicked nation.  It was not until after this was accomplished that God sent forth His judgement upon them.  We could continue with Dan chapter 2 in which the four kingdoms are prophisized  to come and go due to God's providence.  The Babylonians, the Medes and Preds, the Greeks, and the Romans.  All would be raised up by God for a certain act and then suffer His judgement.  The acts were an accumulation of things to make ready our Lords arrival upon this earth in the form of Jesus Christ.  The bottom line is clear, sometimes God has a plan for a nation and judgement will not come upon it until God's purpose for it is fulfilled.  Question, does or did God have a plan for the United States?  If He does or did, What was it?  We need to determine these two questions in order that we may know if the act has been accomplished.  If the act has not been accomplished then God's judgement is not upon the United States.  These questions need to be answered before we can come to any solid conclusions about the judgement of God.  Again, the only way that man could answer any of these questions would be if God has given him some sort of special revelation apart from the scriptures (which again we know does not happen today).  Anything else is just opinion and should be left at that.

     So, Is God judging these United States?  No one knows.  There are simply to many unanswerable questions to make a clear statement about the topic.  Yes, God does judge nations, that is not the question.  Problem is, it is the only question that the Scriptures answer.  As to when God sends His judgement, that belongs to God and should remain there.  But, it does lead into a very interesting question, If the United States continues down the path that it is on, God will send His judgement upon it, then what should be the focus of the Brotherhood?????  We will examine this nest time.