The Heat Death of the Universe – Part 1
In this article, we will talk about scientific evidence and continue our discussion of the book God, Science, and Evidence, beginning with what is known as the heat death of the universe and the historical proof of the universe’s beginning and end. Of course, this is chapter four of the book. It’s important to remember that real science is relative, as we previously stated—no matter what the result is, its truth in actual existence is never absolute, because we don’t know what variables were not taken into account, or what we may discover in the future. The absence of a single factor can change all conclusions.
The heat death of the universe is one theory among several that emerge when thermodynamics is applied to cosmology. This area falls under cosmological science and, according to the author, belongs to the third category of evidence as we discussed in a previous article. It is also considered a strong piece of evidence.
Now, let us try to assign percentages to these seven categories to better understand them. The first group, based on abstract mathematical theory with absolute evidence, gets 100%. The second group, which involves actual experiments, gets 90%. The third group receives 80%, the fourth 70%, the fifth 60%, the sixth about 10% (close to zero), and the seventh group—which I introduced in the previous article and which involves imagination and myth—gets 10% or even less.
So, the heat death of the universe belongs to cosmology and falls into the third group: a theory that is tested against reality. A mathematical abstraction is created and its results are compared with what we observe in reality. Based on this, we classify it as there is enough evidence to consider the theory. However, this must be done according to thermodynamics, not based on the heat of the universe per se. Applying thermodynamics led to several possibilities, but the author only presented one—the one that supports his belief.
Let us move to the second point in this book. I want to state three important things that must be considered. First, I am not a scientist; I rely on recognized experts in the field and convey what they have said. So, if I make a mistake, please correct me. I’m not a scientist.
The second point is that the author starts from a theory that has an 80% success rate and tries to apply it to something absolute—that is, God. In reality, this is an insult and a reduction of the God in whom he believes. He relies solely on one interpretation of the thermodynamic experiment: the heat death of the universe, ignoring other possibilities that I will discuss.
The third point is that the book uses this theory to prove that the universe has a beginning and an end, and from that reaches the conclusion that the universe must have a creator. As we said, this is not correct. Even if it were 1000% confirmed that the universe has a beginning or an end, it still would not prove the existence of a creator. A beginning and an end only indicate a starting point and a conclusion for the universe—not necessarily a god. This is a very clear point.
The author begins with an analogy from fire to stars to help us understand the death of the universe. He gives a childish example, saying that when we light a fire, we know it will eventually extinguish, and we also know it started at some point, meaning it is not eternal. He says the same applies to stars and the universe. He then claims that even if we question the Big Bang and the universe’s beginning, the theory of the heat death of the universe confirms that the universe had a beginning. From there, he raises the question: what is the fate of the universe?
He compares it to a fire: the sun will extinguish after 4.5 billion years, and it’s been burning for approximately the same duration already. The same applies to all stars in the universe. This, according to scientists, is true—stars are born and they die. However, what the author fails to mention is that every day new stars are born and others die. This applies to individual stars like fire, not the universe as a whole. The author wants us to believe that one day all stars will die and there will be no more universe. This is a theory, yes, but not the only one. There are other hypotheses the author does not mention.
The author then goes into the history of the thermodynamic theory. In 1824 in Paris, it began with someone named Sadi Carnot, whom the author credits as the first to discuss thermodynamics as a concept. I didn’t understand why the author mentioned this man, so I researched whether scientists actually consider him the first to discuss thermodynamics. I found that no, he was not the first to speak about thermodynamics. Nonetheless, the author talks about him. Carnot was a politician who was killed in France. He was religious and wrote a short paper at age 27 on combustion and energy—a basic experiment. The author cites him, and I don’t understand why. What I confirmed is that he was a politician, religious, and from a very wealthy family.
Scientifically, the first to formally discuss thermodynamics was William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), who gave it its name in 1850 and turned it into a theory. The author does mention that William Thomson named it, and then came Rudolf Clausius, who expanded the theory and demonstrated that fire goes through three stages: ignition, stability, and extinction. It cannot go backward.
He notes that without wood, fire extinguishes. Finally, in 1977, Ilya Prigogine added the final touches to the theory. The author mentions several scientists who confirm the theory of thermodynamics and its application to the universe. It was established as a theory, compared to reality, and the abstract model matched what we observe. Thus, it became an accepted theory in the early 1980s.
The universe has a beginning, therefore it must have a cause. This is logical reasoning. But of course, that cause is not necessarily God. The author uses this theory to prove that the universe has a beginning and end, and thus must have a creator. He then mentions the conflicts among scientists in the 19th and 20th centuries—between those who believed the universe is eternal and those who believed it had a beginning and end. He mocks scientists who believe in an eternal universe. He says the idea of the universe ending through heat death gained more weight starting in 1964 with the emergence of the Big Bang theory.
Then the author discusses matter and energy in the universe and admits that 4% of the universe is known matter and energy, while 26% is dark matter and 70% dark energy. He says that although 96% of the universe is unknown to us, this does not affect the 4% or the idea of heat death. Of course, this is his own conclusion, not that of scientists.
The idea of an eternal universe or one with a beginning and end is not new. It is a very old concept, not only in science but also in philosophy and religion. The Vedic and Hindu traditions, for instance, believe the universe has a beginning and an end in a cyclical pattern. Even religions, when they talk about the end of the universe, mention that God will recreate it anew. That means religion, including Christianity, never speaks of an absolute end to the universe. Rather, it speaks of cycles: every end has a beginning, and every beginning has a prelude that prepared the way for it.
