The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Finite Universe

[mralanv]

So if the universe is going to run out of gas and there won't be any light anymore. So, what's the point in colonizing other planets and making sure our race doesn't end when the sun blows up? unless there are other universes, even if there are, we won't be able to visit them any time soon. That's so depressing.

[dramlee01]

The infinite regress can equally be put at the existence of a creator to the universe. The fact that metaphysical arguments cannot persuasively argue for or against the existence of a god does not affect the way the vast majority of people (atheists included) conduct their lives. I would argue though that reliance on verificationism and evidentialism is absolutely necessary in how we conduct our lives despite your insistence that they don't work.

[dramlee01]

The speakers in the video have stated that atheists think that the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time. Most atheists if they expound on this will probably state what is thought in modern cosmology: the universe has been around for some 13 billion years, i.e. a finite amount of time. This appears to be a straw man argument.

Yes you can argue for the existence of a god on metaphysical grounds, but that is the point - you can't argue on physical grounds.

[drcraigvideos]

@dramlee01 Well, there are atheists who believe the universe is infinite and eternal so there's no strawman. And furthermore, you cannot put God into a test tube because he's not a physical being. The laws of logic are not physial so would you say that they don't exist at all?

[drcraigvideos]

@dramlee01 Well, evidence cannot answer everything. If so then you're in for an infinite regress. Think about it. If everything must have evidence prior to acceptance then you must evidence for that evidence and then evidence for that evidence of the evidence... ad infinitum. If this is how most atheists think then they're in deep trouble. At least for the Christian our faith has reason with it, because we already know that verificationism and evidentialism does NOT work.

[dramlee01]

@drcraigvideos Evidentiary support in science does not fall into an infinite regress, because we accept that certainty is beyond the realm of human knowledge. Scientists work in the realm of an acceptable level of uncertainty.

[dramlee01]

@drcraigvideos Believing in an infinite universe is not inconsistent with modern cosmology. We have a horizon to our universe that is defined by the fact that the universe began some 13 billion years ago and the speed of light is finite, but can say nothing about what is beyond the horizon or indeed if there is anything beyond the horizon. Atheists with a passing knowledge of science accept the Big Bang theory and so accept that the universe has been around for a finite period of time.

[motherfather2009]

@dramlee01 modern cosmology uses time as a dimension similiar to space, which under extreme conditions gets dilated (squeezed). since the big bang theory uses infinite massdensity (a singularity) you end up with an infinite length of time going back to the big bang. therefore one can say, the physical universe is infinite old, only the timelike tangent of todays timeflow would take 13billion years to reach back to the big bang. read books.

[gregrutz]

Just because the universe had a 'beginning' does not mean someone created it.

[nmbp1]

Could I simply prove the 2nd law buy simply lighting a match and letting it burn out?

[cathyvh06]

Come on guys! Just because, by the laws of thermodynamics, the universe must have a beginning does not mean that God was that beginning. Be rational!!! You are basically jumping to a conclusion just because the Bible states that God did it! This is only a crutch for atheists because they cannot disprove that it DID happen. Feel free to use it to shut up the obnoxious/arrogant atheists you meet, cuz they tend to go on seemingly endless rants sometimes, whether it came up in a convo or not!!

[drcraigvideos]

@cathyvh06 "Come on guys! Just because, by the laws of thermodynamics, the universe must have a beginning does not mean that God was that beginning. Be rational!!!" Be listening. You can deduce that God was the cause of the universe upon metaphysical grounds: watch?v=A89K9DFDiCU

[gregrutz]

@drcraigvideos Thank You for proving Allah made the universe.

[drcraigvideos]

@gregrutz Uh, yeah, I said "Allah" made the universe even though I didn't say it at all. Look, you moron, the God Craig speaks of is consistent with Christianity. At least, a Christian would narrow it down to Christ. You'd know that if you studied apologetics.

[ShinigamiSirius]

This would be valid if anyone actually believed that the universe is infinitely old. I'm an atheist and this never even crossed my mind. I've met a few others, none of which believe in the so-called 'viewpoints' in this video...

[drcraigvideos]

@ShinigamiSirius You know some atheists who don't think the universe is infinitely old? "Some" doesn't mean "one."

[nmbp1]

The first law of thermal dynamics if anything confirms the 2nd law-- 1st law, just matter changing states and using energy to do so. Therefore the 2 laws are related---I really am wlking out on a limb here wont lie, cause i did nt look at the 1st law in depth enough so plz forgive me if Im wrong and yet correct plz aswell.

[terrymorse]

@nmbp1 "1st law, just matter changing states and using energy to do so."

1st Law: energy is conserved.

2nd Law: heat flows one way from hotter body to cooler body.

[estragon9]

Few atheist I know argue that the universe is infinitely old. As far as we know, the universe is about 14 billion years old. The beginning of universe is the beginning of space and time itself and is the zero entropy point. Entropy is ever increasing and the universe is winding down. None of this is a proof of God. You can believe in God if you want to, just don't burn any heretics because you think you have absolute knowledge and you're OK with me.

[hejcoze]

Why are Christian apologists citing 2nd LoT, when dealing with universe, as is the universe was bound by some 'external' laws of physics?

[drcraigvideos]

@hejcoze The Second Law proves the universe is finite. It would be helpful if you actually watch the video.

[gregrutz]

@drcraigvideos The universe is finite, what does that have to do with God or evolution.

[drcraigvideos]

@gregrutz I didn't say anything about evolution. If the universe was finite it had a cause, genius. Upon metaphysical grounds we can deduce that cause to be from God.

[KaKaGaNu]

energy never gonna end. energy is conserved

[drcraigvideos]

@KaKaGaNu The first law of thermodynamics doesn't contradict the second law of thermodynamics, genius. Get your facts straight: watch?v=hf90iRas-Xk.

[ranoman]

@drcraigvideos I have one disagreeance with the second law. Essentially the second law is a law of probability. Things tend to go towards the more probable state. But there is still the probability of going in the reverse direction, very small though. But... lets say the universe does reach a point of equilibrium. And lets say 1x10^10000000000000000 years( as we count time) pass by. Would a large scale reversal not be possible ?

Personally i believe the universe is not finite.

[ragnarok297]

Are there actually atheists that say the universe was infinite in regards to time? I always see videos about theists arguing against an infinite universe but I don't think I've ever seen atheists say that the universe was infinite, as that would also entail a descent from the big bang theory. It would be cool if you could point some out to me, drcraigvideos.

[ragnarok297]

@ofreshartist2

"To believe everything just is utter foolishness and insanity."

I believe you meant to say "everything except god" instead of "everything" in that sentence.

[GaryLyons]

poor atheists,,,,I feel broken for them because of their hysterical insistence there is no God, they think they are so smart, so smart that they know there is no God....no wonder we see in His Word - "'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the intelligence of the intelligent, I will frustrate.' Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (1 Corinthians 1:19-20)

[estragon9]

@GaryLyons This argument is for the existence of a supreme being. You are making a big jump to Yahweh. How did you get from S = k log W to Corinthians. Boltzman's insight into the quality of energy was brilliant. Its part of the reason you can sit in front of a computer and whine. Humanity did not get this knowledge by revelation. The bible says absolutely nothing about S = k log W. It came from human reason and imagination. Don't complain about science and then use its fruits.

[estragon9]

@GaryLyons This argument is for the existence of a supreme being. You are making a big jump to Yahweh. How did you get from S = k log W to Corinthians. Boltzmann's insight into the quality of energy was brilliant. Its part of the reason you can sit in front of a computer and whine. Humanity did not get this knowledge by revelation. The bible says absolutely nothing about S = k log W. It came from human reason and imagination. Don't complain about science and then use its fruits.

[pmf8]

@ofreshartist2 I have no idea what that means.

[mutomeister]

Some apologists found a mistake in a great many cosmological theories they do not understand by using the second law of thermodynamics in a way that demonstrates they have no clue at all...

Seriously if it wasn't for the Poincare - recurrence theorem, the cosmologists would totaly loose their jobs and be replaced by christian evangelicals.

[pmf8]

@ofreshartist2 The video only presents evidence of a beginning of the universe - it does not say anything about a "creator" - or even the mechanism that began the universe on its present path. To call this mechanism "god", or worse to attribute it to a theistic god is to anthropomorphize a mechanism that you know nothing about.

[mtcanz]

@pmf8

The universe -- comprised of space, matter, and time-- began to exist. Since something cannot be its own cause (it would have had to already exist to cause itself, which is irrational), that means the cause of the universe is timeless, spaceless, and matterless. In other words ... a mind.

[pmf8]

@ofreshartist2 Based on what evidence?

[pmf8]

Using "god" as a euphemism for the cause of the big bang does not suddenly lend credibility to any holy book. Anyone who thinks that the big bang somehow proves the genesis creation story need to re-read that chapter. The genesis story reflects a profoundly primitive lack of understanding of the natural world. Anyone who thinks that genesis 1:1 is somehow prophetic has a lot of explaining to do for nonsense of the next 30 verses.

[bigspliffs]

@pmf8 "Using "god" as a euphemism for the cause of the big bang does not suddenly lend credibility to any holy book."

Who said it does?...i didn't hear anyone in this video making that statement...don't twist information for your benefit

[pmf8]

@bigspliffs Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the personalities in the video. Go read their mission statements, then try to tell me I'm misrepresenting their agendas.

[bigspliffs]

@pmf8 I am familiar with their beliefs, again i state, No-one mentioned the Bible. the Qur'an or any other religious books...so please don't twist information to suit your benefit

[pmf8]

@bigspliffs The first sentence of the video WLC puts the argument in context. I fail to see how my understanding processing of the material in its explicit context is "twisting information to suit [my] benefit". First, I don't know how you imagine I benefit. Second, what twisting? You are coming off as quite defensive - please explain.

[bigspliffs]

@pmf8 U think u are benefitting because u think u have made a valid point. You are twisting the information to suit u because just as John Warwick Montgomery states "This is not an argument developed by Bible school teachers, this follows from one of the most fundemental laws of Contemporary Physics and engineering." Therefore, for you to make the narrow assumption that your point on the chapters of Genesis could dilute the main argument..is twisting to suit your mind...

[bigspliffs]

@pmf8 Why are you even watching a video such as this? Have you nothing better to do with your time? If you were in a position to argue with the men, such as in this video, you would not be sitting behind your computer throwing shit through the cage like a monkey...

Go in Peace

God Bless

[aaronshaf2006]

Thanks for posting these videos

[theDracoIX]

I can't believe I use to be an atheist.

[KevZen2000]

God is a pointless answer, because we know nothing about God. The only answer about the universe is, that we do not know how or when it will end, and what created the universe. Since we can see the universe, its more probable that the universe has existed forever, maybe in another form, since energy cannot be created or destroyed, which makes God a less likely answer for the origin of the universe. Until God shows itself to us, then the universe always existing is a better answer.

[lockdown260]

@KevZen2000 'but according to science, the universe could not have existed forever. That theory in itself involves the universe creating its own matter and energy which is impossible.

[SLBS1234]

@KevZen2000 Your argument has many logical and empirical errors. First off, in order for an explanation to be the best, we do not need to have an explanation of that explanation. This just creates an unsatisfiable infinite regress. Furthermore, most cosmologists reject the idea that the universe existed forever (see Hawking's lecture "The Beginning of Time") So, god's existence is a much more plausible answer than the universe existing forever.

[KevZen2000]

@SLBS1234. There is an issue with, God,till we encountered God in an observable method, and God is not even defined yet. The universe, we can see, but God on the other hand, there is no evidence for it, other then anecdotal evidence. Some stuff like emotions, are not proven with science, but the effects are observed, Until God is observed in a testable model, via science or some other method, then its not an answer,but anything regarding God's involvement is an assumption.

[SLBS1234]

@KevZen2000 Thats the whole point of the supernatural. It exists outside the natural world, so it is by definition not empirically observable. That being said, things like logic, reason, and philosophy can be used for the purposes of demonstrating and understanding this supernatural. Therefore, through philosophy and logic, invoking god can be more than an assumption.

[KevZen2000]

@SLBS123. I made a speculation,but to replace the origin of the universe, with a bigger unknown, God, answers nothing, and its not even a viable answer. The only logical thing to do is to say we do not know where the universe came from, and when or why it will end. Thanks for the comments about, but until either more science, or more ways to test God are available, we must not use that argument.

[SLBS1234]

@KevZen2000 Part 2: Explanations are not entirely judged on increasing simplicity, but also on explanatory power and scope. Furthermore, god (an unembodied mind) is an incredibly simple entity. While a mind may form complex thoughts, but a mind itself is much simpler than the universe.

Also, i think it is logical to attempt to explain these things. I agree that we cant know, but at the same time, i cant know that you exist either. Nonetheless, i can rationally assume you exist, based on logic.

[chert95]

@KevZen2000 You're free to plug your ears and pontificate your own alternatives, but science is clear on the end of the universe.

[KevZen2000]

There is multiple models of the universe, from the cyclic model, to the infinite universe.The biggest issue with God, is that we have never seen God, and there is nothing, the proves God does exist, all you can do is to assume. Since we do not know the cause of the universe, its not possible to make a conclusive decision. If God shows itself to us, then we can say,but God is not defined yet, and there is nothing that says God is necessary for existence.

[bigspliffs]

@KevZen2000 Can you see love? Does that mean it doesn't exist??

[retnuHDJ]

"For an atheist, the universe has always been around" - Obviously I don't agree with that, but this has been a very interesting video.

Thanks for uploading!

[Birdieupon]

@retnuHDJ

""For an atheist, the universe has always been around" - Obviously I don't agree with that, but this has been a very interesting video."

If you don't hold to eternal materialism, then isn't your only alternative to assert that the universe began from nothing?

[drcraigvideos]

@Birdieupon Some atheists actually believe the universe popped into existence out of nothing. Quentin Smith and Michael Martin are but a few of them. I'm sure there's more.

[retnuHDJ]

Actually no, something could have existed before, and could even exist now, outside of the universe (The most obvious example would be God).

However, I am not inclined to believe in God (at least no a God that would be anything like the God(s) described in any of the big religions).

However, I am not going to pretend I even have a belief in what existed before the universe, because the fact is nobody knows. I am happy to accept that for the time being, I just don't know :D

[drcraigvideos]

@retnuHDJ Yeah, there are some atheists who believe the universe to be finite. I know that atheist Quentin Smith actually used the Kalam Cosmological argument (the same one by Dr. Craig!) for atheism. Instead of God creating the universe though, Smith believed the universe came about by no means really. However, unlike some youtube atheists, he believes the universe to be finite. But the Kalam Cosmological argument is technically secular. I wished more atheists realized that.

[retnuHDJ]

@drcraigvideos I was under the impression most atheists agreed with the Big Bang Theory. I don't know anyone who thinks the universe has always existed :P

Of course you could argue the Big Bang was created by God...