I always been thinking about that. God i mean. I started from the atheism, I was somehow convinced that couldn't have been any biblical God, any super-natural entity, any trascendental power in the Universe.
I talked for many times with believers of different religions, and I always tried to counter their arguments. Many times I succeed.
After years of researches, I totally changed my mind, as much that I'm a strong believer while writing.
There have been several different episodes whose helped this process, there have been too many curious discoveries in too many different both scientific and religious matters, and due to those episodes, I slowly begun to believe in something. I always tried, and still trying, to falsify what i think, but there is an argumentation that I pose to you, which I guess to be accorded to science's laws and logically flawless.
I spare others prologues and start with the demonstration.
It is agreed that :
1. "God", I mean a trascendental being (either abstract or concrete, can't determine) that made the Universe, "tuned" all the Nature's rules and that now is somehow detached, not anymore involved IN the Universe's facts. It doesn't matter of what it is made, because either he's trascendental, and because here I can't and I don't want demonstrate his (its?) qualities, but just his existence.
2. the consequence of Second Law of Thermodynamics, which, as you may know, is that an isolated system, with the maximum disposal of time, shall reach the thermic perfect equilibrium.
Accordingly on what I said, we have to deduce that our Universe had necessary a start. It has been generated by a Principe, a Force, a God, call it as you prefer, but there are two options:
first : our Universe has been generated.
Second : our Universe hasn't been generated.
Let's analyze the second one.
If our Universe hasn't been generated, it necessary means that it exists since an endless amount of time.
By putting this, we contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because this law mentions that having a sufficient amount of time, we will have a thermic equilibrium as well, and I definitely held that an "endless amount of time" it's a kind of sufficient.
But our Universe isn't evidently so, because my body is not in thermic equilibrium, I can move, I can transfer heat to the chair where i'm sitting, the Sun is giving heat to our planet, and as long as my body and the Sun are a part of the Universe, this is sufficient to demonstrate that the Universe isn't in thermic equilibrium. This, brings logically to the conclusion that our Universe exists from a determined time, and so it has been generated from nothing.
Let's analyze the first one, instead.
Here we can have two options:
a. It has been generated from God
b. It has been generated from another Universe, or from another non-trascendental thing.
In a, we don't have any contradiction, our Universe is just like it is.
In b we have the same contradiction of before, because if our universe has been generated from another Universe (it'd be also another concrete thing, let's put an universe just to semplify the reading), then, the question is once again posed : it has born from where? And so, if we assume our Universe has been created from another, this question is automatically posed again and again ab infinitum.
So, at this point, we have two options :
First : there is an end to the universes' chain, a Creator, no matter how long the chain is.
Second : the universes' chain goes endlessly backward.
In the first case we don't have any contradictions.
In the second case, we have the same thermodynamic problem as before.
Because, assuming that the "chain" exists from and endless amount of time, it'd be in perfect thermic equilibrium, but our universe isn't in that status, and then this position is unbearable.
POSSIBLE CRITIC :
A critic that has been moved to this theory is : "you can't assume that there aren't extra-universal laws whose changes somehow the energy's total quantity, allowing the RE-generation of universes". This doesn't contradict the Conservation of Energy Law, because the critics are moved from true believer, so we're not talking about physics and logic.
No, I didn't, because i'm basing my theory on scientific and logical arguments, and admitting this would mean to admit arbitrarily the existence of an extra-universal force that can't be explained, that can't be controlled, and can't be determined, in a word : God (due to what we said at point 1).
But IT WAS ME the believer! Nice paradigm shift :)
SECOND CRITIC :
Defining equilibrium. I do not take count of Brownian motions, because for "equilibrium" is meant a complete stop in a portion of matter, but I don't take count about motions IN the
particles for the following reason.
For equilibrium it is agreed the meaning : uniformly-distributed particles in space and heat.
As far as we see, the Universe is so big that if there'd be an equilibrium, each single particle should stay at light-years of distance from another one. So, even if the Thermodynamic Laws don't count in micro-distances, it doesn't concern this theory.
Just to be precise : it's OBVIOUS that there must be motion in the particles, and so we are not having a perfect stasis, simply each particle in the Universe will continue to exist, having it's own particle's motions, otherwise, it there'd been a complete stasis the temperature would be the absolute zero, and this means automatically masses' absence, so no matter and energy at all, and this contradict the Principe of energy's conservation.
Leonardo Maria Miliacca
I would extend the first critic with a common theory amongst physicists: if the universe has a compression/death -> collapse -> expansion/explosion -> compression/death cycle then it can exist for infinite amounts of time without breaking any thermodynamic law.
RispondiEliminaSorry, but God doesn't "exist" as "existence" means that he's either mass, energy or both. And God is not present in any universe under any form (no tangible form).
The ONLY way to define God in a physical manner is this:
"God is our idea of him, that is the neural currents and elements that hold this idea." (came into mind just now :P)
With the first critic's extension : of course it does. Because of two arguments:
RispondiElimina1. This is a "perpetual motion", which simply can't exist at all.
2. Even if it'd be like you say, my question is : where the Universe take/absorbs/drains energy from in order to perpetuate its motion?
Anyway, this is a thing that isn't demonstrated, let's use only the theory we know. Otherwise, we could also take in consideration the legendary Russell's giant moka :)))) Too easy.
-That's exactly what i've said in point 1. I specified that is TRASCENDENTAL entity. >___>
-As said, it isn't proper to talk about God in physical ways, as already told several times, due to the point 1.
...and, moreover (i've been thinking about for a while), if the universe can generate by it's own the energy to perpetuate it's motion, then it CREATES the energy, then we can firmly assume that the Universe itself is a God................. accordingly to many religions :P
RispondiElimina"This is a perpetual motion, which simply can't exist at all."
RispondiEliminaFalse. Perpetual motion is allowed by thermodynamics. And not only is it possible but also PROBABLE: the universe, through the cycle, does not disperse energy. He loses none. He also creates none. It's not like the "heat" from the universe is lost to an "outside".
Perpetual motion has a COP (coefficient of performance) of 1. And that is possible, as I explained, because the Universe is the "whole system" and doesn't lose energy through it's natural laws. It's a perfect "design" :)
Ok, but you talked about "possible" and "probable".You are talking about mathematics speculations, in which, I agree, the perpetual motion might really exists.... as anything else.... xD
RispondiEliminaFirst : how can you say that the Universe, in the evolution that you mention, does not disperse energy? You're just supposing it. Anything proven.
Second : where did you read that the thermodynamics allows the perpetual motion? can you make me a detailed explanation?
Last but not least : bring me a single proven case of perpetual motion, then, I'll agree with your objection.
Otherwise, my friend, it'll be you who are doing theoretical speculations.
On the contrary, I just attained to known proven rules. Too easy to base theories on unproven suppositions.
I remember once again the legendary Russell's teapot.
It's really funny, cos it was actually invented to counter religion's theories...
Cheers
Thermodynamics are based on the principle saying that the UNIVERSE (as a theoretical place to say the SUM OF ALL SYSTEMS THAT HAVE ENERGY) does NOT lose energy and does NOT create energy (all energy transforms in another kind of energy/in mass or viceversa).
RispondiEliminaAs it stands the hypothetical "universe" in thermodynamics coincides with the "real" Universe according to the current physics model. That is if we agree there is no energy or mass outside our Universe.
If we're to say "it's just a theory" then there is NOTHING certain and you can't use ANYTHING to prove... whatever. Everything we know is based on dogmas or paradigms we cannot explain but only observe or "feel". And that doesn't give us the certainty we're seeing or feeling the TRUTH.
Nihilism is the truest of philosophies as it teaches us we're living on categories created by our minds, we formulate imperfect laws that will NEVER be perfect and thus will never be able to explain reality completely. And that means there is always room for more truth. And that also means EVERYTHING is !just! a theory.
Thermodynamics talks about SYSTEMS, and the universe could be considered a system too, related to other systems, because as far as we know, since it doesn't exists at all a proven perpetual motion, the universe yet may not accomplish a perpetual motion for itself.
RispondiEliminaAnyway, beyond this point we can base our suppositions only on our beliefs. We cannot determine if it's like you say or if it's like I do.
In fact, my post was just a provocation to the rationalist atheists whose religion is effectively science, somehow blinded by the effectiveness of some science's results. My goal is to demonstrate that God is a possible hypotesis, not only a dream of the Vatican (even if their God is hardly ever logically possible :))))