Meditation 797
Conclusive Proof of God? Yeah, right!
A challenge: Earn a doctorate from IUN by responding to the proof below.
A discussion has been opened on this Meditation. To contribute your own thoughts to this exchange of views, please use the Contact form.
I came across a website - http://www.conclusiveproofofgod.com/ which is selling a book by Dennis Marcellino which apparently contains "Conclusive Proofs from Science and Logic that God Exists and the Bible is True."
That's quite the claim isn't it! But is it true?
As an agnostic I should be interested in determining whether Dennis Marcellino has managed to do what so many great minds before him have failed at - that is prove the existence of a God. But still, do I want to pay $15 to download the book and end up disappointed?
Fortunately Mr. Marcellino has published the first part of Chapter 3 (titled Proof #1: Laws of science prove the existence of God) on his web page. At least we can assess how sound this element of his argument is. If it makes sense, then surely it is worth risking the small outlay on his entire book.
I'm just extracting one early part of the argument - Marcellino's proof that the universe has a beginning. So here's Marcellino's proof, unedited.
So let’s start with those laws of physics.
The First Law of Thermodynamics - also known as the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy - says that, “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.” That is, within a “closed system,” no new energy can be added. And the universe as a whole can be considered to be a closed system because energy has never been observed to enter it or leave it, only to be transformed within it.
Now, we live in a universe that has constant physical motion going on in it … from the largest stars (explosions and drift) down to how the atomic level is perceived (constant whirring of electrons at extremely high speeds). And just like it takes gas to run a car and food to run our bodies and electricity to run much of what’s in our homes (as a black out will quickly tell you), it takes energy to keep up all the visible (and even some of the invisible) motion in the universe.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that once the energy has been used, it - like gasoline with cars - is no longer available to be used as energy. Logic then tells us that if there is only a finite supply of energy in a closed system, and there is no cosmic equivalent of a gas station, at some point it will all be used up.
What important thing does that tell us? It tells us that the physical universe can’t have a past that stretches back to infinity. Because no matter how slow the rate of energy use, over the stretch of infinity, a finite amount of energy would have been used up by now because no new energy is being added in. Therefore the physical universe had to have a beginning....
To summarize, laws of physics tell us that the universe had to have a beginning because if the universe was always here, all the energy would have been used up by now.
Sorry, Mr. Marcellino, you fail. You are not collecting my $15.
The Challenge:
OK - I deliberately have not stated why I find Marcellino's proof of a finite Universe flawed. That's up to you.
I'm not saying the Universe did not have a beginning - it very well may have. What I am saying is Marcellino certainly did not prove it. (Neither does the "Big Bang" necessarily prove it either, but that's another issue.)
For a doctorate from IUN, (you don't have to accept it - you can put in your comments just for the sheer pleasure of writing an article and seeing it published,) just respond to one of the challenges below:
- Challenge 1: In a minimum of 150 words (not counting direct quotation), demonstrate clearly why Marcellino's proof of a finite universe fails; or
- Challenge 2: In a minimum of 150 words (not counting direct quotation), demonstrate clearly why Marcellino's proof of a finite universe is sound; or
- Challenge 3: After reading the entire portion of Chapter 3 that Marcellino has published on his website, select another section other than the one quoted above and either show why it fails, or why it is valid - again, in a minimum of 150 words (not counting direct quotation); or
- Challenge 4: Marcellino seems to feel that it is essential for the universe to have had a finite beginning for God to have created it. In a minimum of 150 words (not counting direct quotation), explain why that is - or why it is not - a necessary condition for a deity to have created the universe. Or phrased another way - "if the universe was always here," could it still have been created by a deity?
If you find these challenges so simple there is no way you can reasonably expand your response to 150 words (a distinct possibility for challenge 1) then submit your short article responding to the challenge together with a separate 150 (minimum) word response to any other essay on the site.
If you want a doctorate as a reward for your submission, then specify so in your response. You may choose one of the disciplines already offered at the Bachelor's or Master's level, you can suggest something original, or you can be surprised by relying on my judgement.
Doctorates will be awarded to submissions I consider:
- worthy of publication,
- original (resubmitting arguments already published as replies won't make the cut, unless you have made major improvements,)
- reasonably logical, and
- well enough written that only a minimal amount of editing is required.
- and, of course, which contain a request for a doctorate.
Logic can be ignored in the case of humorous submissions, but you'd better make me laugh - at least as much as I did for Marcellino's proof above..
This challenge will remain open as long as the well of original thought does not run dry.
Have your say...
Please take a moment to share your thoughts, pro and con, on this Meditation.
comments powered by Disqus