In a letter to the Collegian, Professor John M. Cimbala, challenged anyone to provide a refutation to a proof he offers of God's existence. I'm happy to take a stab at it.

He asserts, "someone not bound by the second law of thermodynamics has to create this available energy; that someone is God."

Not only does such a claim come with unfounded assumptions, but also it proves nothing significant if it is indeed correct.

The greatest of these assumptions is that it is someone, not something, which is unbound by the law.

If we can reasonably assume that an external being can exist outside of this law, why could we not just as easily assume the same for the universe as a whole?

In fact, the second law of thermodynamics does not even apply to the universe as a whole, for how could we say that energy becomes unavailable to the universe when its energy total never diminishes?

In such matters of speculation, a belief that the universe is self-created is just as valid as one that holds God as the creator.

Finally, even if we were to accept the claim that we require some being external to the universe to create it, this tells us nothing significant about the being.

It need not be the Supreme Being that the Bible describes; it need not even be a conscious force.

Quite possibly, it was a one-shot event, which is now effectively "dead." Perhaps Nietzsche was right, after all.