The Entropy Argument

I’m an atheist, but there was a time many years ago when I got into a long-running, online argument with a forum of fellow atheists. I was trying to prove by argument that even if there isn’t a God, life can be eternal. Big mistake on my part. Nothing can be proven by argument.

I finally gave up on those bastards. And they laughed me off as another casualty to their impeccable logic and rational thought.

They were engineers and self-proclaimed scientists, and apparently possessed some knowledge of physics. And their main argument against eternal life utilized several concepts of physics, involving entropy and the first two laws of thermodynamics.

If you want to risk permanently crossed eyes, or falling into a forever slumber, you can google these subjects and try to figure them out. That’s what I did, and with help from my eye doctor and sleep therapist, I managed to survive the research and emerge mostly unscathed.

I want to emphasize, though, that In spite of all my study, I don’t possess great confidence in my grasp of these concepts. And they’re kind of controversial, as different physicists seem to have different opinions about it. But here’s the best explanation I can come up with, as to why we can’t live forever (according to those damned atheists):

Entropy of our cosmos basically means that over time, the energy of our universe is slipping into equilibrium. As our universe expands, temperatures within the universe are equalizing. The theory posits that eventually there will be an even temperature spread throughout the universe, preventing any transfer of energy from taking place between any one point and any other point. Energy will be immobilized and unable to produce any activity. Nothing will be able to move. Everything will be dead.

Entropy is slowly killing our universe.

This wiki article, on the Heat Death of the Universe, can help explain it better, if you’re willing to risk crossed-eyes and coma.

Have you ever watched your kids bouncing off the walls, with energy in the early evening? And have you observed that as the evening wears on, they make less and less rational sense, and move more and more slowly? That’s kind of like entropy. By the time beddy-bye arrives, they’ve become comatose and you have to carry them to their blankets.

That’s where entropy is taking our universe.

The atheists I argued with cited entropy as proof that there can be no life after death. They pointed out that the nature of energy is to decay into random chaos until it loses all ability to function. And so they claimed that since life is energy, all life in this universe must eventually come to an eternal end.

They made a good point, in my view, because our long-running argument eventually died from entropy.

But I learned from this argument. And what I learned is that it’s a mistake to equate life with energy. I make the assumption that life is eternal. It’s an assumption, I admit, but I prefer assuming that life is eternal, than assuming the depressing alternative. But because of entropy, I can’t keep assuming life is eternal if I also assume that life is energy.

The entropy argument helped me realize that life cannot be assumed to be energy, if life is assumed to be eternal. So life has to be something different. Life can command and control energy when it occupies a physical body, and this can lead us to confuse life with energy. But if life is eternal, it cannot be energy.

Scientists have never discovered what life exactly is. They’ve never developed an unequivocal definition of life. So it would be inaccurate to say that science has proven that life is energy. That was the flaw in the argument of those atheists, and if only my lame brain had figured that out at the time, I would have really showed them a thing or two.

Once again, my esprit de l’escalier let me down.

Scientists have never discovered where life comes from or where it goes to. In fact, nobody really knows the answer to that question, although there are plenty of religions willing to supply an answer.

I don’t know either. I’ve defined life as change, in several of my books, which you can find in my Free Bookstore. But that’s a philosophical definition. As far as a biological definition for the soul that dwells within living creatures such as you and me, I’m as stumped as the scientists.

But with regard to a biological definition, I can say with all the hope in my heart and all the power of assumption that I can muster, that one thing is absolutely, positively, most probably true:

Life is not energy.


Go ahead, blurt it out:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.