A fair warning advisory: This post contains both scientific descriptions and philosophical argumentation. I don't mean just a little, but a pretty good bit. I've tried to be as reader friendly as possible, but I take no responsibility for dizziness, headaches, or cranial combustion if you proceed further.
I'm not an economist. I'm also not a chemist, a biologist, a physicist or any other professional scientist. However, I do understand basic laws and logic. For instance a popular saying among economists is, "There is no such thing as a free lunch." This saying also applies to every other branch of science also, including physics.
Okay, I'm sure that some people are lost, or bored, already, so let me try and explain myself. In physics you have some basic principles, laws, which govern what is and is not possible. For instance, you have the laws of thermodynamics. There are, basically, four laws of thermodynamics, going from the zeroth law to the third law. Those theories or arguments which violate these laws are necessarily false.
For instance, the zeroth law states basically that if system A is equal to system B, and system B is equal to system C, then system A is equal to system C. Just a basic application of logic to real world events. A quick example might be if I am as tall as Jon, and Jon is as tall as Jen, then I am as tall as Jen. This rule works in all places and at all times, because it is a logically necessary truth.
The first law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only alter forms. Here is where things begin to get a little chintzy, if you will. For instance, I have heard it argued (I haven't done any reading on the subject in years) that at a subatomic level (that means that we are measuring things smaller than atoms, usually smaller even than just protons and neutrons, little bitty tiny things that are beyond human imagining in their small size) this does not hold perpetually true. Okay, time to clarify what I mean: at a subatomic level, in theory, quarks and anti-quarks can spontaneously occur, thus something pops into existence for a very short time (once the two collide their respective state cancels the other, thus reducing them back to nothing) and then it is gone again. However, on the whole the law stands, because the something that comes into existence cannot stay in existence for any length of time, it must necessarily meet with its anti-partner and cease to be.
The second law works in much the same way. The second law states that entropy increases, or that energy flows from a state of higher concentration to a state of lower concentration. Again though, this law only holds true when we think of it in absolute terms. Because all things (things here being physical objects) have some form of particle existence, it is possible that for a short period there might actually be a decrease in entropy, or a gain in energy, for a system. Think of it this way: the second law is really a law of averages. Because air molecules bounce around they tend to disperse, bouncing off of one another and moving through "empty" space until they bounce off of something else. However, it is theoretically possible that if we waited long enough, all of the molecules could, from bouncing off of one another and the walls in the room, all move in the same direction at the same time and thus instead of spreading out group up in one section of the room. But, that situation wouldn't last long, the molecules would immediately start to spread back out again, thus proving the second law true, the energy of the molecules would move from a state of higher concentration to a state of lower concentration.
The third law helps us make sense of all this stuff. Basically the third law says that as the energy in a system spreads out it reaches a constant minimum. Really the law says that as the heat in a system reaches absolute zero, the entropy in the system reaches a constant minimum. In effect this means that absolute zero cannot be reached (as it would require an absolute cessation of all energy) and at the same time means that there is some optimal minimum that all the energy in the universe will necessarily continue toward, until all usable energy is gone.
Okay, that's a lot of science, and I know that it was probably a bit confusing, but I promise we're getting to a pay off. The pay off is this: if we start with absolutely nothing in the universe, then it is necessarily true that we would always have absolutely nothing in the universe. We know this because the laws of thermodynamics make it impossible, now that the universe exists, that it could come into existence currently. Moreover, if these laws are logical laws, that is they themselves are not governed by the existence of the universe, but govern the existence of the universe, then regardless of whether or not the universe exists, the laws still hold true.
On the other hand, if the laws of thermodynamics are in fact governed by the existence of the universe, then there is some higher law which governs them, or there is a necessary mutual dependence of the universe upon the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of thermodynamics upon the universe. If the second is true (trust me, by logical progression we eventually get there anyway, either with the laws of thermodynamics or whatever is behind them) then we are completely incapable of saying how the universe began anyway, because there is no law to which we can appeal to create the universe outside of the universe itself. Basically, if the only laws which exist in the universe are tied to the universe, then without the universe existing there is nothing to cause the universe to come into existence. Without time there is nothing to start time, because the moment prior to time beginning is not really an infinitely long nothing, it is just absolutely nothing, it is non-time. In non-time there cannot suddenly be the event of time, there can only be non-time.
What we are left with is the necessity of that law, whatever it was, that created the universe being independent of the universe. That is, something outside of space-time and all normal realms of causality just made the universe, all that there is, come into being suddenly and without any prior necessity. Logically and scientifically, this is impossible. The existence of the universe is itself a miracle without explanation. It is this inexplicable event that gives us a first reason for giving God the glory, for he alone is the one could create the entire universe from nothing.
Okay, now I know some people are thinking I just waived a mystical wand and got the conclusion I wanted, so I'm going to try and restate the argument above in brief, just for the sake of clarity. If the law that dictated the creation of the universe is interdependent with the universe for its existence, then it cannot explain the creation of the universe, because it could not have existed prior the universe itself. But, if the law that dictated the creation of the universe exists independent of the universe, then it would have been a one-time event law, dictating the creation of the universe and then dictating a universe wherein the laws of thermodynamics would prevent it from ever occurring again. Because the law is necessarily prevented from recurring by the laws of thermodynamics, there is simply no way to prove the law exists, because the events leading the creation of the universe cannot be tested or repeated in a lab. To argue that there is a scientific law that required the universe to come into existence is to state a philosophical position, not a scientifically provable position. To argue that God created the universe is just as much a philosophical argument, but at least seems more plausible to my mind than the alternative.
Why is the idea of God creating the universe more plausible to my mind? God is not bound by space-time, he is not necessarily constrained by the laws of creation, which he created. God is the only explanation that is sufficiently large, and sufficiently reasonable to explain why we have such an exquisitely ordered universe, and how that universe could come into existence from nothing. Can I understand how God could exist and make decisions in non-time? Can I comprehend how God could exist as a trinity, as a spirit, when literally nothing but him existed? Of course I can't explain or comprehend these things, but I know that without them being true I would be left with an illogical universe and the unexplainable mystery of existence. Instead of worrying about what I cannot explain though, I can instead give praise and glory to God, because he is just that wonderful, just that great, and he brings order to what would otherwise be pure insanity.
I bring all this up because Dr. Stephen Hawking has concluded that God is not necessary for the universe. He says, in the article linked above, "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second." Dr. Hawking appeals to some unknown law of science and says that it is scientific law that makes it necessary that we exist. There is no reason to assume this is true, there is simply no law we can point to that says we must exist, the whole argument is a matter of philosophy, and, in reality, it is a matter of theology. Dr. Hawking has turned science into a god, he has declared that the personal God of Scripture is not necessary, and is not real. This is theology, it is the heart of man worshiping an idol so that he does not have to worship the only true and living God. This is the fulfillment of Romans 1:20-23.
Let us not become darkened. Let us not be fools before God. If the world would call us fools, if the greatest scientific minds of our generation would say our God is unnecessary and unreal, let us rejoice in that. For what they worship cannot save them; but our God, the glorious Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, he is able to save. In the end, all else will prove futile, but those who love God will be vindicated and be with him forever.
No comments:
Post a Comment