God vs no God

Like most things in the world, existence of God (and I will use that phrase quite loosely here) is a much debtaed topic..with proponents from each side feeling sorry for those from the other. From petty fights to major riots to big wars, it's all done in the name of God.

Truth is absolute. But in this case, it is irrelevant. What matters at the end of the day is equilibrium - of mind, body, nations, and the world. Being a typical engineer, I will use a simple law of thermodynamics to make my point. At equilibrium, change in entropy is zero. In other words, whichever belief leads to a minimum entropy change should be the "optimum" way to go.

Hypothesis 1: There is a sudden 'unravelling' of truth that God exists (for the purpose of clarity, lets define God as an entity that can brutally violate any laws of physics and put Newton to shame and do things that cannot always be explained by scientific theories)

Pros:
- Existence of God (EoG) can provide a good 'recourse' for people to attain inner peace. Peace is nothing but a state of mind (in other words, a purely psychological concept)..and for some people, just visiting a temple/church/mosque can be peaceful.

- EoG can give people a sense of good and bad, right and wrong. Though this is not always a pro, but that's another point.


Overall dS (change in entropy) = very low.

Cons:
- One of the most obvious cons is religious fanaticism. However, most of these fundamentalists are either politically motivated or exploiting people's misery (poverty) by coupling it with their distorted version of religion. People *using* religion is not always the same as religion being directly responsible. 

Overall dS = somewhat high.


Hypothesis 2: Sudden 'unravelling' of truth that God doesn't exist

Pros: There wouldn't be any fight over whose "God" is great and whose "God" wanted who to not have the right to live and such.
ds = low

Cons: While it would be business as usual for truly rational people, for those who now depend heavily on 'faith' to provide them with a sense of good and bad, could start questioning the very basis of good and bad.. They could potentially have questions for which they would have no answers. This, imho, could lead to a world with people having more mental unrest than before. Think of it this way, for every problem, these people had a readymade solution (in their minds).. "God". Now there would be blank. That would have a significant, even though gradual, impact on a country like India (or even US). Whereas, for a country like China, it will hardly have any impact.

ds (over a long term) = high

To know the optimum solution, one would have to know which particular ds is lower. Unfortunately, like most things, the answer is "it depends". In short term, I think the first hypothesis would look optimum, whereas long term, it would be the either would work just fine. Purely on my intrepretation of which option would provide how much equilibrium (or the lack of it).

Sidenote: here is what Newton thought: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion."