Can you prove that God exists?

"I would like for you to explain (and I am not being a smart-ass) how entropy and gravity or electric charge relate. I do remember a bit of my thermodynamics - I recall entropy definition requires a closed system and is contigent upon no action by outside forces and it can be seen in heat tranfer and other simple examples."

Quite correct. The Universe is a closed system- the only one there is. Even if it is opened ended, it is nevertheless a closed system, as it carries it's "boundry" with it.

So on a complete scale, Entropy reigns, although local anamolies are relatively common. Look! Someone just concieved a baby!

Physical "laws" are actually net statistical propositions; like a slot machine with a 99% payout, that 1% loss eventually takes all the money

"In this definition is gravity or charge an outside force?"

What gravity is- to put it simply, Entropy or Energy, I cannot theorise at this point. I await the discovery or dis-proving of the graviton.

Lacking unified field theory, I sometimes wonder if gravity is indeed a more basic force then EM. The EM force itself is clearly a part of our Universe- by definition.

In any case, the existence of Gravity is the, perhaps, overall "Entropic sponge" that keeps the Universe from being over run with energy. All movement against a gravatic background requires energy and increases Entropy.


"Bodies which have mass exert gravity and therefore attract more mass which will increase gravity, etc. etc. Does this conform to rules on entropy? How can mass-attraction and building be related to a system's innate tendency to spread it's energy?
Here are two definitons on the web:
1) entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity
2) Systems tend to go from a state of order (low entropy) to a state of
maximum disorder (high entropy).

How can inert uniformity = maximum disorder."

I think I addressed the gravity issue.

The Paradox of Chaos:
At the point of Total Chaos, an all pervasive disorientation (confusion) prevails.

Differences are not and distinctions are moot. All aspects are Precisely Equal

(Perfect Symmetry).

"If high entropy is inert unifomity then... by theory at the singularity directly before the bing bang all know energy and matter were one. Isn't this perfect entropy? Complete uniformity... How do we measure 'inert'? How can a system based on entropy proceed from that? If we are to beleive the thoughts on the big bang the first trillions of a second (or whatever) was pure energy spreading perfectly (pure entropy, right?) Since that time energy has slowed cycles have become longer, mass has collected, systems have spiraled into existence and the whole universe seems coiled into countless circular collection of increasingly complex atoms, molecules, compounds, and now life forms. If this is occurring, then where is the entropy counter-balance?"

From the moment of the BB, the universe has been moving and cooling off. The "energy density" of the universe has decreased as the expansion proceeds, and Entropy naturally increases as the "work" of movement against the gravatic bakground continues.

This entails that the rate of entropy increase is slowing as the Universe expands. This is exactly in line with BB theory.

Equiotics requires that "eddys" be formed in the general flow toward entropy. These eddys are the formation of life (probably among other things)- which immediately requires a constant input of energy (increasing Enthropy).

Someone on this forum once said "The Universe is organized toward chaos" and I believe that to be an accurate statement.

"How can entropy supercede the other forces at work when it appears it clearly isn't winning the battle to randomize, disperse and unify the universe we know?"

Ah, but it is winning.

Matter collects and fusses, dispersing itself as energy, warming-up the Universe.

Matter moves against gravitation, using energy. The Gravity tides which slow our orbit.

Gathering matter to fuse and fussion itself contribute to the overall increaes in entropy.

"That's why the definiton of increasing disorder appeals to me more. Disorder does not mean 'as spread apart as possible.. it means as many parts as possible. A glass of distilled water has little disorder it has lower entropy (randomness). A glass of pond water is full of disorder from particulates, pollen, and millions upon millions of life froms and therefore has more randomness or higher entropy."

Hence the Paradox.

" would say that entropy tells us that ENERGY disperses. As energy is 'lost' (or diluted over space) the cyclicle nature of the universe increases. Energy cycles create subatomic particles and more cycles create atoms and more cycles create planets and star systems and galaxies and the like. So then what is ultimate entropy. No energy? If entropy tells us that thing will get more random... more complex... then what is of ultimate complexity? Is it the same as ultimate disorder? It certainly isn't the same as inert uniformity."

Thought leads to the Paradox.

E=MC2 so uniform energy dispertion means no matter.

I hypothesize it means the existence of a truly Unified Energy Field- a Single Quanta of Existence.

All this leads to the question why? Why did that primordial nothing/everything destabilize?

For that, I turn to the Uncertainty Principle.

 

Ok, ok.. I think I am understanding it correctly. The paradox is what I keep ramming my head against.

However, if this isn't the only universe this paradox is less troublesome. I still assert that we do not know if this is a closed system. We could have a million big bangs screaming towards us from all directions, outside of our scope of perception. Besides, this possibility also gives us a scenario for how the big bang occured... (and an interesting theory on gravity which I will share at a later date.)

If all the matter/energy in the universe was concentrated into one point it is very hard to understand what could trigger this type of event. However, I propose that there is a magic mass number beyond which a big bang necessarily occurs. Like a mass number on a star, past which supernova is inevitable.

As you imagine the mass from our 'measurable universe' being slowly but surely combined into one place you can logically see the formation of a super-super-super black hole. The more the thing attracts, the more its mass. The more its mass, the more it gravitational pull and the more it attracts. This can not go on forever... Big bang theorists (on the great retraction side of the debate) want us to beleive it will continue until all known matter is collected in one spot. But then what is the incentive for self-anhilation? Instead, lets say, this super balck hole attracts everything within 200 billion light years (far bigger than our current expanding sphere). At some point the mass that this thing is grabbing is so far away that it has a 200 billion light year runway to accelerate on and the gravity to reach that far. Imagine grabbing a star and giving it this distance to accelerate as it approaches our new universal center. I don't know what this magic distance is, or the magic densisty of our super black hole is, but imagine ramming a star into a nearly completely solid brick of matter at nearly the speed of light.

I can imagine the biggest pool-break in history provided the balls are stacked close enough together and the speed of the cue ball is sufficient.

I kinda got this vision stepping into the shower while I was in college, and although I have no math to prove it, I also have had no luck finding anything to disprove it. Whatcha think?

Immediately after this event any and all remnants of previous mass would be destroyed within the sphere of influence and we would be left with nothing but what we see in our expanding bubble. It doesn't mean there aren't more bubbles, this is just the only one we can see.

 

I don't see the nessicity for all to end up in a super black hole the BB enthusist see
I'm still leaning toward the idea that blakholes evaporate. This fits in better with the concept of total entropy.

I have an unsubstantiated feeling that black holes may indeed open into whiteholes in the past. If so, this would greatly prolong the life of the Universe, but still conform to an Entropic demise.
---
If other universes are indeed speeding at us, at this point in time, they are a difference which makes no difference.

Perhaps thier distance exceeds the life span of the Universe.
------
The inherent theoretical instability in every thing from uranium atoms to the proton itself to my marriage can be attributed to the Uncertainty Principle. Uncertainty permeates.

Why not the "primordial egg" (a terrible name!) too?

That instability dictates change. From nothing to something, from non-life to life, from simplicity to complexity. From then to now.

Might not that all pervasive Uncertainty, (which applys to sub-atomic particle position and the rest of your day), Be the finger of God that writes our reality?

 

Lately it has occurred to me that black holes could possibly be "off ramps" leading to other universes. Is that crazy or plausible? I'm not a physicist.

 

I think that super black holes are a necessity just before a big bang. Besides I can not imagine how they evaporate. I know about the radiation the emit, but even a weak gravitational force like Earth takes on more energy than it radiates and increases in mass daily. Imagine a gravitational source that sucked in even light. I know this can be classified as an eddy in the scheme of entropy, but if everything with gravity (anything with mass) can only grow how can you ever reach a unified, indistinguishable field of energy/matter without it all being concentrated in one place?

I think this is a BIG difference. Even though they do not effect us now, instead of a closed system with only two options (big crunch or infinite expansion) it gives us a third model which is an open model. In this model our big bang is like a bubble of water bursting in space. The parts and pieces spread apart until they begin to breach the cusps of other bursting and building bubbles. Parts of our universe are sucked into other big collapses, parts of our universe join up with other bangs. Expansion and contraction everywhere all the time, not one isolated event. The super black holes we witness today may be the start of the next big bang. In addition, we can then look at gravity as at outside force in the entropy system. It seems to condradict the notion of ultimate entropy in my opinion.

Uncertainty does permeate. So why is our Big Bang view so certain? One start.. One end.

Perhaps, or is the finger of God the smallest nudge that builds life systems from chaos as gravity builds planetary systems from dust?

Black holes as windows into other dimensions/universes? Who knows. It is pretty unclear EXACTLY what time does in a vortex like that. Time/gravity is the basic fabric of our reality in my opinion so if other realities exist I think places where time approaches undefinable terms is a good place to look. Now how we learn anything about that is another question... since the force in a black hole can smash a planet into the size of a quarter it is hard to contemplate how we would ever know...

 

Whoa, all this scientific talk is confusing!

Again I ask, what does all this have to do with proving God's existence?

You either believe the universe is random, or God made it. Of what relevance is it how the universe works?

I don't see any way we can find out whether it's God or randomness by studying physics. Unless God's put us a message in the periodic table!

 

Dizzy, human's understanding of the universe is written in physics. The periodic table is just a map of the elements, but by studying them too you can have an understanding of what has happened to get us where we are.

So if God created the universe the only clues to proving that he did will lie in physics.

"You either believe the universe is random, or God made it."

That doesn't help us PROVE the existence of God eother. Beleif has absolutely nothing to do with proof.

 

To prove god is within our existence , we must share a physical experience that is of us/not of us . We would witness a motion in the elements , like of wind , and it will have a singular meaning for our togetherness .

 

Popthree13,

We cannot treat the universe as anything but a closed system and get meaningful implications.

I submit that if two Universes collide, they become one by definition.

Even a system of billions of universes would add to the net Universal entropy. And eventual end- now prolonged trillion of years.

And, of course you're aware that the production of particles appers to require an anti-particle be simultaneously produced.
It may be that universe are created in a logical sequence, +,-,+,-,+,-,+,-,+,-, thereby never allowing two universes of matter (or anti) to meet without first being annilalated.

All in all, way to many "maybes" and "perhaps".

For now, better to play with the pieces we have and obtain the answers we can. The alternative is pure speculation- and that's where we started 4000 years ago.

"Gravity opposes uncertainty."

Although a local gravity field may be stong, if space were divided into an infinite number of points, the average strenght at all points would be far less than the points localized on the surface of the earth.
So overall, it dosen't matter weather it does or not, Entropy is a statistical proposition.

"Similarly protons and electrons are only unpredictable in an environment which allows it. As atoms approach absolute zero (as science has gotten us DAMN close now) they become very predicatable. Stagnant it would seem."

But none of this applies to individual leptons and hadrons, and what after that? And quantum mechanics come in to play.


A begining and an ending? Yes, altough as The Dust Mote puts it:

"Since beginnings begin endings and endings end beginnings, than naturally the end of the ending is the beginning of the beginning."

Dizzyman,

we have a puzzle- maybe from god- and sooner or later, we're going to figure it out. Do you really think your god doesn't want us too?
If he doesn't, he would have made me a lot dumber and a WHOLE lot less curious.

God or no, I (and others) follow the path I am compelled to follow.
I want to KNOW- and back up what I know with facts.

 

Alrighty then... how about this for an idea....

Ultimate entropy can be described as one of two things:
1) A universe of indivisible particles spread evenly throughout space.
2) OR a single mass of indivisible particles collected into one place.

So we really have expanding entropy (based on basic thermodynamics) and fueled by 'free' energy (Particles with no mass and no fixed position).
And we also have collapsing entropy (based on gravity - warp in space/time) and fuled by 'captured' energy (particles with mass and fixed location in space.)

In a 'stable' system the balance between expanding and collapsing entropy is always constant. You have stars radiating light, heat and bursts of matter and massive structures sucking in light, heat and matter. All approaching entropy on two sides of an equation.

In an expanding system (like our current universe) expanding entropy slowly builds (black holes dissolve, stars burn themselves out, etc.) as the ambient energy in the universe becomes spread out and weaker.

If the universe were to begin to contract, collapsing entropy would begin to build (black holes grow, star systems collapse, etc.) as the ambient energy in the universe becomes more concentrated.

Gravity does apply to the basic elements of atoms if we are to draw a correlary between reducing speed through temperature and reducing speed through gravity. As scientist have used pressure, temperature and magnets to compress atoms they have almost stopped electrons. In keeping with quantum rules though, the electrons appeared to be in all positions in the shell at once! If you know the position you can not know the speed... if you know the speed you can not know the position.

I agree that every ending is a beginnign and every ending is a beginning, but that doesn't have to make it a clean system. I have read a number of papers which presuppose that our universe is not a closed system and that is exactly why a grand unified theory has not emerged. It is messy to think about, but without considering it we may never be able to rectify the differences in micro and macro physics.

 

PS: How do you explain the fact that our universe exists at all if this is truly a closed system. If we are to beleive that the entire universe erupted in a massive explosion of anti-matter/matter pairs then where did this imbalance come from? To create matter from energy you must make 1 antiquark for every 1 quark.

I know the discrepency is small something like 5 billion anti quarks to 5 billion + 1 quarks, but where does this plus 1 come from? Any ideas?

 

I think to prove God exists we must find life on other planets. I do not see God as a force beyond physics - I think it plays by the same rules we do.

When I suppose that God exists I base it on the complex, self-sustaining, self-changing nature of life. It MAY be true that life can ACCIDENTALLY happen, but I think the odds of that are quite beyond our ability to calculate (1 in a trillion maybe to pull a number outa-my-ass). If life existed on Mars, if life exists in many star systems (even 1 in 10,000) then I think that life can not be attributed to accident. The odds are just too great.

 

I guess I don't beleive Big Daddy God exists in the way you describe it. I think if a Judeo/Christian/Muslim came in contact with the force I imagine then they would instanly recognize it as God, but it doesn't fit into one of your nice packages.
Outside vs. Inside the universe?
All present I think, like gravity. Inside it all - everywhere. On the line of time. Try to point to Time, gravity... you can point to the effects, but you can't point to them. Still they exist in our universe.

My thinking in Physics is closer related than you might think. I am always looking for a place for God to live in this universe. Yes that mean he did not create it in the conventional sense of the word. Neither does a builder create a house he just borrows pre-created things and bends them to his will.

My other thinking in Physics realtes directly to your assertion that becasue some scientist named this uni-verse means there must be only one verse. I refute that and it has big implications for a non-homocentric view of where God may play in.

Perhaps the universe existed forever thus it had no creator. Does this mean there is no God? I don't think so...

 

Meagin,

Your reasoning is faulty, and we ARE speculating on reasonable, real-world answers to the question at hand.

One my build a house around one self and lock all the doors.
---
We already Know basic "wants" of this alledged god.

We call them the Laws of Physics.
The basis for the things we are disscussing are clearly, if it means anything, god's will.
---
God dosen't exist outside the universe- that's the tenative conclusion. "Outside" seems to have no ironclad meaning. Now we have a clue where he could (if he exist) be.
Now we have a basis to search for god and and the basis for an argument that god could exist within our reality.
----
Popthree13,

If +,-,+,-, etc. doesn't hold then
Uncertainty is my answer. That small but crucial discrepency is accounted for thusly:

At some level something "reacts" to create the positron and electron. If indeed it is 3 leptons, it is at this point the basic "quantum property level" changes from 2 to 3.
( hope that makes sense!)

This increses the complexity of the formation of higher particles and greatly raises the chance of large "clusters" occrring. Chaos therory says this must be so, and the three blackjacks that damn dealer got in a row with one deck last month agree!

So sudenly an excess of matter apears amid the shower of energy brought about by qudrillons of mutual annilation (on a most basic level). The high energy sends it flying- and a pocket of matter, virtually anti-matter free, heads of and becomes our-
Galactic cluster?
Universe?

This allows for other galactic clusters of anti-matter to exist in our universe (the next discrepency may go the anti way) or seperate Universes of - and +.

It's also a speculative answer to the apparent colliding galaxies and a possible accounting for high energy content (dark matter)that is suspected of inhabiting inter-galactic space.
---
There can be no argument that the Universe is geared to Life. You can see it in both telescope and microscope.

All natural processes move in that direction, so other than verify that, other-world life will add little to the question at hand UNLESS we find life based on something besides carbon- an event which would, in my opinion, tend to indicate no intelligent guidance.

On the other hand, if life exist nowhere but earth, well, -
I'll race you to the church!

 

AGAIN I ask: what does cosmology have to do with God?

Cosmology is no more relevant to God than geography, or sociology. God is external to the universe, so there can be no way to 'detect' God inside it!

I wasn't saying that our beliefs help to prove the existence of God. I was saying that physics is of no relevance to God's existence. If there were some hidden message in physics, that would be quite good evidence, but talking about chaos theory, cosmology and quantum physics is, as far as I can see, totally pointless and irrelevant.

 

That's highly unlikely. We've just discussed why.

An atheist and a believer- and both fear honest inquiry in to the nature of god!

God does not describe himself in the bible- instead he jokes:

I am what I am.

A riddle?
---
If this is god's universe, than he PERSONALLY wrote a whole lot more information into it's very fabric than into a few manuscripts WRITTEN by MEN.

No man was needed to bring forth the Book of the Universe we live in.

Perhaps he describes himself there.

Let's continue to read it and find out.

 

You can take the debate in any direction you wish, but I think Hegel is quite relevant. Your question is, "How can we know that God exists." This implies that God's existence or non-existence, if it is to have any meaning to us at all, is dependent upon our ability to know Him. Hegel does exactly that (a subject can only be known through its predicates). He begins his philosophy with epistemology and moves it into metaphysics - in that order.

Also remember that Hegel was a Christian and that his ideas, more or less, conform to the Christian faith. He also considered Chrstianity to be the high point of religion.

But, if you don't want to discuss Hegel, that's fine. It's your thread.