Just kidding. I wanted to get your attention, that’s all.
I don’t write about religion much here. When I have in the past, it’s usually been to antagonize Muslims. Outside of LessGov, however, I kick around the subject of religion quite a bit. Maybe I should write about it more. I’m writing about it now, at least, but this won’t take long.
A Yahoo! Answers user named Bobert recently posted the following intellectual gem when asked for proof that God (presumably the Christian God) created the world:
The universe exists. [Therefore] God exists.
It is impossible for something to come into [existence] from absolute nothing with absolutely no cause. That would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Therefore there must be a Creator.
Brilliant, eh? No? Well, there’s no fooling you, apparently.
Really, it’s straightfoward nonsense, but this particular specimen is interesting due to the creative invoking of thermodynamics. Bobert starts off all wrong with his little syllogism — “The universe exists. [Therefore] God exists,” – because such a statement has no more meaning than, “The universe exists; therefore Zeus exists.” Sorry, buddy. That’s what we call a non sequitur.
The next line — “It is impossible for something to come into [existence] from absolute nothing with absolutely no cause,” — is no less than an appeal to Primum Movens, or more specifically the lauded cosmological argument. This necessitates remaining vague on identity and exempting the deity from the “first cause” by placing him/her/it outside of space and time, which by all definitions is nonexistence. The deeper implications hinge on metaphysical primacy (existence vs. consciousness), and I may take a notion in the near feature to explain why I think primacy of consciousness is a hopelessly pathetic notion.
Additionally, the “from absolutely nothing” portion demonstrates a staggering ignorance of prevailing scientific theories, as none that I’m aware of posit that anything came into existence from nothing. For that matter, if the theist can posit a god that is exempt from all known laws of nature and can exist without existing, who are they to object to a hypothesis centered on a singularity that might have expanded (ala Big Bang) by way of natural processes we simply have no knowledge of yet? That strikes me as far more plausible than magic.
Then we have Bobert’s … attempt at humor, perhaps? He claims, “That would violate the laws of thermodynamics.” He says “laws,” but I’m not sure from whence he derives that. Here I will assume that he is likely referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that a non-isolated system not in equilibrium will be subject to entropy over time. Since Bobert did not cite the law(s) in question or explain why they are violated, I am willing to bet he doesn’t even know the first thing about thermodynamics but simply regurgitated something from a Kent Hovind video. Predictably, his claim stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the second law, which is addressed concisely at TalkOrigins on their Index to Creationist Claims:
- The second law of thermodynamics applies universally, but, as everyone can see, that does not mean that everything everywhere is always breaking down. The second law allows local decreases in entropy offset by increases elsewhere. The second law does not say that order from disorder is impossible; in fact, as anyone can see, order from disorder happens all the time.
- The maximum entropy of a closed system of fixed volume is constant, but because the universe is expanding, its maximum entropy is ever increasing, giving ever more room for order to form (Stenger 1995, 228).
- Disorder and entropy are not the same (Styer 2000). The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy. There are no laws about things tending to “break down.”
So at last we reach Bobert’s awe-inspiring conclusion: “Therefore there must be a Creator.” However, his short path to this finale has been plagued by poor reasoning, crazy leaps of faith and simple bad information. Suffice it to say that he has not convinced me of anything, except that he would serve his cause better by finding a new argument.
Words to live by from the SHAGYA BLOG…