Hello, so I've been reading on this forum for quite some time and decided to sign up. I come from a strict evangelical background. I left my faith 5 years ago. The main reason for that was that the more I learned to objectively grow in my work (math/physics), the less I could convince myself to believe in the God as depicted in the bible.
It was a scary experience as most of what I learned/worked with, I tried to desperately reconcile with faith, until the point where you can't deny the facts in front of you without becoming a total nutcase.
I eventually left my religion when something happened to me in my personal life. That was the wake up call for me.
Also I didn't want my son to be brought up with the same suppression of reality I faced.
The reason why I signed up is that I often see religious people trying to build their case by using science and its misrepresentation. I used to be like this and recognized it as I was constantly looking for ways to align my faith with my work. I hope to be able to talk to you and know your experience. As well as clear some of the many misunderstandings as regards scientific claims made.
What was it about physics that you could not reconcile with religion? The process of critical thought or specific facts?
Imagine a god living in a perfect universe which we can call heaven. This means that there is no entropy. It sounds perfect. Maybe you can think through the consequences of a universe without entropy. What would happen?
To answer your first question it was a mix of both.
As for the second one. I have heard this before in some different forms, mostly applied to our actual universe, and have debated on the topic quite some time.
If I look at your hypothetical universe. For this heaven to exist and zero-entropy to be there, the Laws of Thermodynamics must be applicable. You can’t utter this universe and zero-entropy in the same breath, without implicitly assuming that the underlying assumptions must apply. Even when zero-entropy is mentioned, the statement only makes sense within the framework of the Laws in which it is defined.
A perfect universe, with zero-entropy and a god living in it, commonly builds on the notion of such a universe being (in)finite and requires a cause outside of it, and this is argued by many. For example, in the finite case, the argument would be that for zero entropy to hold, this perfect universe should never reach a state where all usable energy is gone, throughout its finite existence.
Suppose we alter the hypothesis and assume it to be infinite. The argument that this perfect infinite universe would distinguish itself from our universe (which is also argued by some to be infinite), would not necessarily need to call upon zero entropy in the first place. If it still does, what do we have? An infinite, uncreated, undestroyable perfect universe, where the energy is efficiently infinitely available and can be used. Some physicists could actually argue that this is the description of the beginning of the Big Bang and thus we would drift from your perfect universe into our actual universe. Suppose this perfect universe does actually fit that description and remains to contain zero entropy infinitely. Thus the entropy change must always be zero, starting from zero and the entropy change of this universe must through reversible processes remain zero and constant. If in this universe reversible processes are actually possible and observable, we could also kick that god out and revert to the state of the perfect universe being there without him without any effects to it.
If we now go back to this perfect universe is, as you state, defined by its property of zero entropy, but now proceeding with it being finite, it couldn't have been there all the time as all energy would be dissipated and there would be no useful energy in the limit, thus violating the Second Law of TDs. Also, because it now must be finite, all events must have some cause, as every events can be finitely regressed back, to their origin. With this perfect universe then having zero-entropy, being finite and all events within this universe having a cause/origin, there must be a cause outside of this universe, which is also not subjected to and is responsible for its existence. Now we have two options. Either it was this god himself or something else.
A zero entropy state would imply that all available thermal energy in a system is efficiently available for expending and can be used. But within that same context, the First Law of TDs states that energy can’t be created nor destroyed. Thus this god can’t be the one that created this perfect universe in the first place to begin with. Let’s say he didn’t create it but is merely ‘living’ in this heaven, i.e. perfect universe, then he implicitly can’t be greater in size, dimension and duration than this perfect universe, which now is finite. Apart from these hypothetical limitations, when such arguments are applied to our
universe, that’s where the trouble for me begins. Especially when such a god is claimed to be our creator.