What is outside the Universe revisited: “There is no God” is now a scientific fact
One of the side effects of trying to write thought provoking blog posts is that often they provoke a lot of thoughts, expressed in the form of comments. And unfortunately I often do not or cannot take the time to address them all properly. Hell, I could write a book on my responses to the comments to the Dyatlov Pass Incident alone, and if someone offers me a pile of money, maybe I will. Anyhow, I digress.
So, someone left this comment on my “What is Outside the Universe” post:
“Perhaps our existence is only the thinking of another.
Perhaps our dimensions being time, space, sound, gravity, light or energy, mass and speed or rate of expansion are the only ones the Creator chooses to contemplate. On the other hand,
If you go back to the idea that existing is a reality painted on a canvas that could be a variety of shapes including a sphere in or outside a parabola and flat or undulating surface that meets itself but always our existence is someplace. bigger, smaller but where?
I think that we are in the imagination of the Grand thinker and where is He? or She or It. Are we being crapped on a stump, floating in beer or piss or in a soap bubble. Will we ever be able to see or know?”
Well, um, yes. That’s the whole point I am trying to make. 400 years ago the idea that science could explain and explore the fundamental nature of reality was laughable. 50 years ago the idea that science could understand the nature and origin of the Big Bang was science fiction. Today scientists are using scientific instruments to peer outside our universe and see what is actually going on. And amazingly enough, what they are seeing is similar to what some philosophers have been saying all long. Our entire universe is a tiny fleck of foam on a storm tossed sea that extends infinitely in all directions, a sea that has been storming forever and will be storming forever.
And this sea contains energy such that we can’t comprehend it. Our entire universe was but a tiny speck of this underlying reality, that’s how “dense” the energy is in the underlying reality “outside” our universe. And our universe is one of an infinite number of universes, in the past and it the future. (Although “past” and “future” have very little meaning outside our universe.) I’m having trouble grasping the idea of infinite myself, but it means that for every decision point in my life, there is a universe where I made a different decision. Doesn’t it? And when one looks about at all the decision points in people’s lives, that’s a lot of universes. Infinite is more than a lot though, right?
The point I am making is that our universe doesn’t appear to have been created by God, it appears to have been a natural consequence of events in the underlying reality. A reality so vast and energetic it has created and will create an infinite number of universes. And science is on the verge of proving this. And no God or other supernatural being is needed to explain any of this. I mean, if God exists, he created a reality that has infinite energy and will create all possible universes and has always been here and always will be here. Clever trick, but there’s no longer anything to explain. “Reality contains infinite energy, exists forever, and creates all possibilities” pretty much covers all possible contingencies.
It may sound mean, but claiming a God is required to explain reality and/or the Big Bang is now logically akin to saying God is required to explain the sunrise. Scientists are probing the nature of reality itself and the origin of our universe, the very same way they learned about the Earth orbiting the Sun and everything since, by logical application of the scientific method and using increasingly sophisticated scientific instruments. Some evidence for this and the existence of other universes is illustrated above. Some cosmologists have detected patterns in the CMB radiation that they claim may be “bruises” caused when our universe impacted other “nearby” universes before the Big Bang. This particular line of inquiry may may not pan out, but it’s only one of many ways scientists are now exploring the very fabric of reality.
We are at a historical junction akin to when Galileo showed the Pope that Jupiter has moons. Some people started to understand it then, that’s one of the reasons they called the Renaissance the “Age of Reason.” And we are coming to the inevitable end of the journey Galileo started with his little telescope. Humans invented God to explain things we couldn’t understand. Well, scientists have now shown that there isn’t anything left that requires a supernatural being to explain. I can’t prove there’s no God, but when someone like the esteemed commenter above says “We can never ultimately know whether we are foam in an infinite stormy sea or bubbles in an infinite glass of beer,” no disrespect intended, but they are talking metaphysics, not cosmology or science.
As far as reality goes, the reality we live in, there is no God. That appears to be a scientific fact now, whether people like it or not.
(The above image is claimed as Fair Use under US copyright law. It’s not being used for profit and is central to illustrating the post. Credit and Copyright: Feeny et. al. And then of course there’s the whole situation where as soon as people came up with a hypothetical supernatural being to explain why the sun shines and the grass grows, some people realized this was a great avenue to manipulate other people, but that’s a topic for another day.)
Doug's Darkworld 
i STILL THINK THERE IS SOME INTELLIGENCE BEHIND ALL OF THIS, sorry for the caps, it wasn’t intentional. Maybe we are light beings, simply having a dream ? Many seem to see a beautiful light at the time of death. .
Chris@Apple Roof Cleaning
January 26, 2011 at 8:10 am
To say that the “brane” concept proves that there is no God is to read more into the idea than is actually there. The branes, if they exist, may account for the big bang, but what is their origin? Were they just always there, floating in the bulk? That leaves one’s mind asking for more. Even if there is no God, science cannot prove that and we mustn’t expect it to. We should let physics do its job and leave theological issues to metaphysics.
I applaud your description of bane theory. Nicely done!
Philomath
February 3, 2011 at 10:05 pm
I’m pretty sure I agree with everything you’ve written here, Doug. Shame I’m in a minority.
Your line, “Our entire universe is a tiny fleck of foam on a storm tossed sea that extends infinitely in all directions, a sea that has been storming forever and will be storming forever,” is absolute poetry. Are you aware of how much your writing has improved over the years? Pat yourself on the back and buy yourself a beer. Then contemplate what the hell is happening in those bubbles.
Zandoren
January 26, 2011 at 8:55 am
Doug i think you might like this, its a book called “God in Greek Philosophy to the time of Socrates” its written by Roy Kenneth Hack, and it explains how Greeks in the time of Homer used god(s) as an explanation to things they knew they could not yet understand(these gods not having personalities, or being considered divine). to when man personified the gods and gave them background stories leading up to the time of socrates, by then god had morphed from being a simple space-filler explanation, to a divine being that people believed in literally. very good book.
Ryan
January 26, 2011 at 11:30 am
Percy Byshe Shelley was right then!
Worlds on worlds are rolling ever
From creation to decay,
Like the bubbles on a river
Sparkling, bursting, borne away.
Jill Briggs
January 26, 2011 at 6:59 pm
fantastic stuff. Only problem I have is;
1. there is evidence that there may be as many as 11 to 13 or more dimensions in this reality. There is a condition some stroke victims have called ‘spacial ineptitude’ or somthing like that, where they simply CANNOT see anything in the right or left field of vision– they arent blind, their brains wiring simply does not allow them to visualize what is there, right in front of them… What if we as a species suffer from some sort of same condition? only seeing glances and glimpses of something divine in times of excitement? im not ruling out hallucionations, but some of these visions could be considered collective experiences or Archtypes, as Jung defined them.
2. The smartest dog in the world cannot concieve language, (relative to us) simple written words, etc… Could it be that we humans– only biologically a few steps up on the food chain– have the arrogance to believe that all we see is all that exists? Maybe we are simply unable to concieve divinity…
steve
January 27, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Good comment, I wonder sometimes if all the “divine” experiences that people have had are just bleed through from other dimensions, parallel versions of yourself sending out brainwaves or something that you pick up. Possibly other beings(Angels?Demons?Gods?) that are not tangible in this dimension, doing things that have some slight effect here, could explain a lot of things, psychics, reincarnation, telling the future, talking to “God”,the Dirac sea, random inspirations, and weird experiences in general.
Peace
Pyrodin
January 28, 2011 at 11:25 am
and maybe, just maybe this thing we cannot concieve, but only feel in times of great stress, great joy, excitement or disaster– maybe it made us this way on purpose…
I hate to get into theological arguments because I believe we are nothing more than apes with a remarkable ability for tinkering and invention. We have a collective arrogance because we are the dominant species ( well, insects may disagree) on the planet. we have some really neat tools we have invented, like radio, computers, vehicles and nuclear weapons… but at their core all of these inventions are merely simple machines set up to do complex things. if and when we ever replace binary code (btw there are 11 types of people in this world- those that understand binary, and those that dont haha) with neutron based computers, well then we might be able to extend ourselves by an order of magnitude or two. until then, we are akin to dogs that CAN read or understand “complex” ideas. My job is to shed light but not to master. Et in Arcadia Ego
steve
January 27, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Excellent replies, Steve. And I appreciate your inquiry into this topic, Doug, though I must concur with Steve on the point that we humans may have blinders on and not be able to see a fuller picture of life. In fact, I’ll state that in the affirmative as I accept it as a given that we remain limited. Indeed, we are sophisticated apes capable of probing the scientific realm to remarkable extents. But then, what else exists to compare human accomplishments against? Being the most advanced species on the planet, it’s not unfathomable that this has allowed our collective ego to balloon to magnificent proportions.
To an extent the self-praise is deserved, but we should be cautious about letting our our worship of human achievements blind us from accepting that there’s MUCH more to life than what we currently believe we know. Lots of information has been gathered, not all of it correct and/or complete, but the real question becomes what we do with it. But I digress…
When thinking about God, I find it most helpful to try to cleanse the mind of religious associations, because religions were essentially historic attempts to comprehend that which we call God. Humans anthropomorphized God. They spoke on His behalf, even specifically made Him a he. People’s perception of that which we call God has evolved throughout history. Religions and churches, by their very design, attempt to ‘trap’ a particular conceptualization of God, thereby limiting people’s imaginations and making it cumbersome to meld the notion of God with the discoveries made in the time since major religions were formed. This, as we know, gives the impression of an antagonistic climate where the scientific and religious/spiritual communities are diametrically opposed. But this needn’t be the case.
Asinine arguments tossed from both ‘sides’ of the aisle have become tiring for this agnostic.
When you say “supernatural,” Doug, it speaks to that old and commonly-accepted conceptualization of that which we call God. I personally have come to believe that God represents all living beings, all of nature and outerspace, and all knowledge (including sciences and beyond). God needn’t be thought of as a first creator but instead as an awe-inspiring harmony and interconnectedness that is the rhythm of life. This does not discount the tumultuous and savage side of life, but incorporates it as well. The major point about God is that it/thou/? represents that which, almost by definition, is beyond our comprehension and thence is not easily explained with words (hence why metaphor is often used). But magic need not be inferred here, though, yes, some do choose to buy into Disney and Copperfield fantasies — but how is that which we call God’s fault? How can a non-entity be assigned fault in the first place? ~shrugs~
Anyway, I can’t stay on any one vein of thought, as this subject is hugely expansive and all-encompassing, and likely cannot be done justice by a simpleton like me. I just request that we try to keep open minds and not be quick to assume certainty. While much probing into biology and physics has broadened our worldviews, we’re becoming alienated in social relations and are actively abusing findings in the psychology field. Even with neuroscience, the human complexities extend beyond synapses and chemicals and that which can be measured by neuroimaging technology. There’s more to life and living that science can tell us. We have a long way to go.
prophetbob
January 29, 2011 at 1:34 am
Typo correction: There’s more to life and living THAN science can tell us.
prophetbob
January 29, 2011 at 1:36 am
I’m sorry, but this is all so very trite. We can all speculate about the existence of a god until the cows come home, but we won’t be any closer to an answer. There is no evidence of such an entity. Even if there were, I doubt much would change. Simply put, it doesn’t matter. Let’s all grow up and use our intellects to ponder things that can actually improve humanity’s overall condition, in the real world, here and now.
Zandoren
February 2, 2011 at 10:45 am
It’s trite to step back and allow oneself to re-examine the notion of “God” and our role as people in an age where our technological/scientific capabilities have outrun our moral sense to apply them wisely? I’m arguing for a fresh perspective that takes into account more than evidence found in laboratory studies.
It’s not a matter of childishness to take into consideration human social evolution and historical understandings of life that have led up to where we are now. We are very arrogant to believe we have all the answers needed today, with no need to examine the past or to come to terms with human follies repeated time and time again. It does require intellectual pursuit, but intellectualism is only one aspect of the equation.
The world won’t change necessarily, but people do change through expanding one’s worldview and questioning the reality set before us. Change begins, first and foremost, in the individual. Humanity’s overall condition is hinged on the development of the individuals within any given society.
I’m not interested in prescribing some big idea to the masses — no, just the opposite. If individuals take an initiative themselves to ponder outside of the box and to question what’s claimed as reality, and to engage in learning about human history, I think we have a better chance of envisioning a practical approach to living as we move into the future.
Religions have been with us all throughout our time as Homo sapiens and remains important for millions of people across the globe. Should we discount that entirely and blind ourselves to their perspectives on life? Or would it be more fruitful to encourage the broadening of spiritual perceptivity? I’d prefer that more people come to understandings with one another versus factioning off and settling our disputes with warfare.
wakemenow
February 2, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Sure, intellect matters, and we’d do well to develop our critical thinking skills. It’s not really a question of the existence of God, but rather a question of how to live, and different people use different means to guide their behaviors and choices. The key isn’t God, but rather exploring morality and determining how we might live together in relative peace, accepting that people do embrace different beliefs and ways of life. The question is how to best govern oneself.
Too many seem to assume because religions aren’t accurate in their claims that this means all their moral teachings deserve to be tossed out as well. And I personally believe this to be false and folly. Intellectual pursuits are important, absolutely, but we possess other senses that can help guide us as well, and those shouldn’t be neglected just because ample supporting evidence isn’t yet available.
There does appear to be much to life beyond what we see and believe ourselves to “know.” Why limit ourselves, whether it be in the name of science or in the name of religion? That is my point in a nutshell.
ProphetBob
February 8, 2011 at 3:30 pm
You’re right! The real problem lies not with the truth itself, but in our ‘need’ (which is the biggest feature of the humans: their ego) to know about the truth. We behave so desperately, as though we have the responsibility of saving the Universe . . . while the truth remains that it doesn’t matter one way or other. What has to happen, happens; and regardless of what we know, everything continues to flow in a divine manner.
I mean, do animals, or plants, or microbes care about the Universe, and other such stuff? They don’t because they know they don’t need to; and in reality, we, too, are unlikely to find the truth (which is purely experiential and beyond one’s comprehension) until we give up our ‘need’ and just mind our own businesses!
Rohit
July 11, 2011 at 11:37 am
Not to speak for Bob, just sayin’ is all.
wakemenow
February 2, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Some very thoughtful comments and inspiration for thought. I will no doubt be writing a follow up post.
Thanks —Doug
unitedcats
February 8, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Can you imagine listening to a great symphony or admiring a brilliant painting or marveling at an achievement of technology and then insisting that these works had no maker? Out of all life on earth humans were created in the image of God. Fittingly, only humans on earth are capable of reflecting God’s creative drive, at times producing impressive works of music, art and technology. Should it surprise us that God is far better at creating than we are?
Salty
March 20, 2011 at 12:36 pm
As far back as the 60s, computers have been able to generate music–randomly, without conscious thought. Should it surprise us that what appears to be the work of a god is truly random, or that randomness can be at least as beautiful and precious as intent?
Crediting things to a higher power is too easy; embracing randomness requires bravery and imagination.
Zandoren
March 20, 2011 at 7:40 pm
“computers have been able to generate music–randomly, without conscious thought.”
^^^Ok but who generated computers? Randomness and spontaneity just does not agree with the practical world that we are living in. Embracing randomness is just not logical or sensical. Flowers don’t spring up out of the ground out of some random magic event, seeds are planted first. Why is it so hard to believe that our Creator planted the seeds that started this life? I guess it is because we can’t physically see Him, it makes it hard for some to grasp. It is very possible that what & how we were designed to see includes a limit to our conscious awareness; for instance we, the human species, can only see the visible light part of the spectrum whereas other species get to physically see other parts of the spectrum. Is that a total coincidence? I highly doubt it. I find it interesting how believing in God our creator and also in scientific facts have to be mutually exclusive. If anything, scientific facts just reinforce how creatively amazing God is and how we can’t and should not put a limit on the things that He is capable of.
Salty
March 21, 2011 at 6:59 am
The idea that randomness underlies everything is not a new idea. It is the back bone of hesoid’s theogeny and many ancient near-eastern creation myths. I don’t see how shrugging ones shoulders and saying “everything that can happen, does happen somewhere, because everything already exists” is imaginitive, creative, or any less of a cop out than invoking a higher power.
Randomness is used in all aspects of life. It characterises the quantum world, the bed rock of reality. It is used in computers, chemistry, physics, even finance. Randomness is a creative optimser, but only if the the randomness has rules that govern it, which is the case in all of what we call randomness. What we call “random” is contingency. This happened rather than that. When we say humans evolved randomly, it is not meant to be understood in the absolute sense of the word. What we do see in the world is a dynamic interaction between chance and law. Neither chance nor law has a better claim to being a more fundamental aspect of the cosmos. If randomness had no framework whatsoever, no structured matter (what we see) would be forthcoming, even if you were given an infinite amount of matter and eternity to work with.
Randomness and God are also not mutually exclusive. In fact, the two concepts have quite a lot in common. Both are in some aspect fundamental, and both are said to be creative and dynamic. There is no reason to suppose that if God exists, he would exorcise any and all randomness from creation. For if he did so, we would live in an incredibly dull, rigid, and boring universe.
Mark
August 14, 2011 at 10:04 am
Give me some hard, irrefutable evidence of the existence of a higher power, something that can be tested and re-tested and always offer the same result, and I will convert right then and there. You know where to find me.
Zandoren
March 21, 2011 at 9:44 am
I completely and thoroughly agree with you.
Rohit
July 11, 2011 at 11:41 am
I think the comment above “why limit yourself” says it for me. Why indeed? To embrace the myth of God is to be a slave, it’s to surrender oneself to a higher authority that not only watches every moment of your life, it also judges you on your thoughts! Religion is ultimately about being powerless and bowing to authority, it’s no wonder that throughout history people have used it to enable dictatorial powers and actual slavery! I choose to be a free man and reject the idea that I am anyone’s slave. —Doug
unitedcats
March 21, 2011 at 9:20 am
AMEN!!
Zandoren
March 21, 2011 at 9:39 am
Religion apparently is about alot of things these days. Scientology is a religion!
Whether we all accept it or not we are all subject to something that is far greater than us and our creator supplies the gravitational pull that is keeping us suspended in space. Whether we decide to surrender ourselves to a higher authority or not we did not get here by ourselves, we did not ask to be here, we actually had no say in the matter. So if you’re not a slave to some authority then you’re a slave to this life.
God is not a tyrant or a dictator He gave us some power to have dominion over the earth yet some things beyond our control lest we become too arrogant, But that happens either way I guess.
Salty
March 21, 2011 at 11:20 am
Even with the power that we do have we manage to turn our world upside down with wars, violence, crime, hatred and manipulation, including the manipulation of religion to enable dictatorships and slavery. Maybe God’s biggest mistake was giving us freedom.
Salty
March 21, 2011 at 11:29 am
Did we make a recent jump in the development of technology? There are robots in this thread.
Zandoren
March 21, 2011 at 1:42 pm
hello guys……..i will explain all this ……..our universe exploded like a fire cracker with and expanded with immense speeds, greater than speed of light……and it slowed down later due to its own interbody attractions………….and later now again speeding up after expanding upto certain distance …….if some body is saying we got the light from 13.5 billion years ago….its the light we r getting from the other end of the ball…..so the distance to center of the universe would be half of it,,,…that is 6.7 billion light years approx…..and thats the reason we cant even see further than 13.5 billions years……as the mass didnt reach further…..as it is still expanding in the opposite direction….and thats the reason for redshifts and redshifts between bodies is due to distancing of bodies between each others…..thats due to attractions by other multiverse or bodies present out side our bigbang bubble…….and dark energy is bull shit…….and there are some things which constantly change in our universe….like the speed of light,the direction of light, the mass, the weight, the inertia, and directions of travel by bodies …….depending on the local gravitaional pulls and bodies surrounding them,,,,,,so it is like a mixture and it exhibits different features at different conditions….and at the end not all the big bang mass if not…..atleast some of the mass of big bang will be sucked by our neiburing masses and the rest will simply expand and loose their mass, gravitation to perish for ever…………accidentally if they happened to get in touch with any other body after millions of years they collide with them, forming new stars or masses………..so there are basically multiple verses and bodies…..but the laws of physics will be the same across all multiverses…….and its not surprising to find some hundreds of universes like ours……..and dark energy is a big lie to cover the holes in physics….. and regarding dimensions………there might some other dimensions which are existing ……….which may give a chance to travel short cuts to other universes……and time travel is bullshit………..may be what ever the amount of speed u travel(the speed of light)……..even…u will never travel in time….either to the past or present…..other wise u would have contacted by futurists long back……time is just an experience which a constant to everybody……whether u do single work in 60 mins or 60 works in 60 mins…..the amount of time is the same…..only experience varies……..we arent able to find another universe with telescopes like hubble…….becoz………..there are vast distances between universes…..and takes lotta time to reach………so at the end what ever might be the amount of mass or universes that may present…..somebody have to create it….all….and its the GOD…….stephen hawking says…GOD isnt necessary for creation……..may be he is wrong ….its the same person who tells the opposite in his nover”the brief hsitory of time”……stephen has got mad now a days……
And about aliens….their presence is a reality….and intelligence beings are out there………its just huge distance and existence of two civiliasations at the same time and survival to billions of years are the hurdles………and the chances of we finding an intelligent alien is almost zero……but we may find non-intelligent E.T in next 10 years…….
Goodday
Dr.kishore
krishna kishore........the truth
May 26, 2011 at 3:28 am
The title of your article is outrageous. No thinking person in science or philosophy (even the most die-hard atheists) would claim that the “proof” of a multiverse is proof of God’s nonexistence. If any scientist or philosopher argued that they would instantly lose all intellectual and philisophical credibility. The title and your absolute beleif in a multiverse is far too ambitious in light of the facts we see in front of us, and pushes the boundaries of science so far that the original scientific method is all but unrecognizable. God, or an ultimate reality, is a metaphysical issue. Science has no recourse to explain it, or to explain it away. In a similar vein, multiverse theories are at the present moment a combination of metaphysics and scientifically based philosophy. The cornerstone of scientific inquiry, the very reason for its success as well as its existence, is experimental data. Even in principle, we will never see experimental data from any other universe but our own. It will remain a theoretical concept. The only way to validate the concept is if a theory is discovered that explains most or all of the physical features of our universe that absolutely (and I emphasise that word) requires these unobservable entities (other universes). No such theory exists, and we have no good reason to believe that we are on the cusp of developing such a theory either. Any way you look at it, the obstacles to obtaining proof of a multiverse concept are enormous. An infinite multiverse, followed to its logical conclusions, is absurd. Science would have no meaning in such a “world”. Instead of explaining things, we end up saying “oh well, the reason this phenomena is like that is because all other possibilities have already been actualized somewhere else.” I personally don’t see how using everything to explain one thing is sound or scientific. It is not at all better than saying “God did it”.
The idea that the underlying absolute reality is an eternal and infinite chaos is not new, nor is it brave or imaginative. The ancient greeks championed this view, yet, they still believed in anthropomorphic gods that came out of this chaos. If you believe that at the most fundamental level that the universe is absolute chaos, you have no hope to understand it. Which is why science did not arise in Pagan Greece. Any multiverse we find must be structured in someway. It too must have laws and rules of order. So we would at the least have to posit an organizing principle, along with a host of other unfalsifiable theories. There is absolutely no reason to give precedence to what we call “randomness”. Because everything the human race has ever called random, (and this especially applies to the quantum world) is governed by rules. Absolute randomness is a chimera. It has never been observed, and probably never will be.
As for your suggestion that an infinite multiverse would be inconsistent with religion or concept of God, well, that is patently false. In fact, it would fit in quite nicely with the widespread theological view of God as an eternal and infinite bastion of creativity. The infinite multiverse may just be the contingent mechanism of its Creator which in turn infinitely transcends it.
Mark
August 14, 2011 at 9:44 am
My title was deliberately chosen for its rhetorical impact, I meant to stimulate thought and discussion. And judging from your considered comments, it did just that, nu?
In some ways I think you are reading too much into my essay, or not reading what I was trying to convey.
If one wants to talk about God as some sort of metaphysical concept interwoven with the fabric of reality, no problem. I am merely stating that the “first cause” argument for the Abrahamaaic and similar anthropomorphic Gods is now dead scientifically and logically.
And I certainly don’t claim there is anything “new” about modern cosmology, it is very interesting that ancient philosophers appear to have divined something similar to what we are now discovering. We’re all part of the same reality.
Order can most definitely arise from chaos, snowflakes being a good example. I don’t have a problem with reality generating great order from chaos, anymore than I have a problem with the idea that reality may be both infinitely large and infinitely small. Reality ultimately by definition is going to be outside any definitions we can come up for it.
Or more simply stated, scientists now are exploring the origins of the Big Bang experimentally. The idea that divine intervention is necessary to explain the Big Bang is now dead both logically and scientifically. (It as never logically a good argument, but there are no good logical arguments for Abrahamaaic Gods.)
Thanks for commenting!
Doug
unitedcats
August 14, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Wonderfully interesting thread!
Three questions:
1) Who are we to demand that God prove his existence to us? Shouldn’t humans have the burden of proving the contrary? After all, we are undeniably egocentric creatures who enjoy being at the top of the evolutionary pyramid. If God existed, we’d be dethroned.
2) What about all the scientific observations that contradict current cosmological models? Where is the rest of my Lithium-7? What’s causing the Dark Flow to violate gravity? Why aren’t my cosmic rays getting to earth as scheduled? What do we know about the 90% of our own universe that is supposedly made of “Dark Matter” (which is really just a made-up term to make our gravity calculations balance)? Why do we have tetraneutrons when they aren’t supposed to bond? Why don’t our space craft go where they’re supposed to go (eg. Pioneer 1 and 2) or as fast as they’re supposed to go (eg. earth slingshot effect speeds them up more than it “should”)? Why do observations indicate that the “Alpha Constant” isn’t actually constant at all? Do we really want to place our faith in these theories? After all, less than a century ago, the best science said the atom was the smallest thing and the universe was contracting instead of expanding, among other representations we now “know” to be folly.
3) What of the relationship I KNOW I have have with God? What is that worth? What do we KNOW about the universe? The speed of light is a cosmological constant. (Oops! Maybe not. CERN thinks neutrinos are faster. Science will eventually find out.) What is gravity? (Something that “leaked into” our universe from some other universe?) Doesn’t believing this stuff require a leap of faith somewhere? Please be honest. Aren’t these physics theories derived from applying mathematics to observed conditions? (What of the failings of our senses to make accurate observations? They deceive us as often as support us. And mathematics . . . created by humans, for humans, and employing meaningless concepts such as “infinity.” One “infinity” is bigger than another. Which one is used in all our mathematical contortions to “explain” black holes — where we reach “undefined” mathematical results? And what about “nothing” . . . where can I get me some of that? Nowhere?
In order to believe something, one needs to start with basics tenets to build upon. Some prefer the empirical (and occasionally whimsical) methodologies of science and mathematics. I’ll take the relationship I KNOW I have with God. I’m sorry that others don’t know God or they wouldn’t need to ask whether he exists.
My two cents.
Again . . . great discussion. You folks are obviously very intelligent. Seriously. Don’t let it get in your way of finding God.
John Betcher
October 16, 2011 at 1:10 pm
All is a form of one energy
Ashok
October 11, 2011 at 1:55 am
hmm
Jakki
October 11, 2011 at 1:56 am
Some scientists have shown that total energy of the universe is zero. If energy is zero, then its mass will also be zero due to mass-energy equivalence. Science has shown that mass will always occupy some space. So if anything fails to occupy any space for some reason or other, then it will not have any mass. Our universe perhaps fails to occupy any space, and that’s why its total mass is zero. But if multiverse theory is true, then definitely it will occupy some space within the multiverse, and thus in that case its mass cannot be zero. But as this mass is zero, therefore multiverse theory cannot be true.
Udaybhanu Chitrakar
October 24, 2011 at 9:31 am
This question as to what’s on the other Side of our universes most furthest barrier and what the first actual peice of matter or energy that began the existence of everything we know today will never be answered..ive questioned myself many times and have thought deeply about it all and there’s just no way to get any answers.. we will simply just never know so best thing to do is just live our short lives the best we can
pedro
November 13, 2011 at 12:55 am
Nowhere in this article is God proven or disproven. And He never will be. I believe in science and it’s discoveries, but once we’ve been able to prove everything, there will be infinitely more to prove. Trying to prove everything is great, but thinking we will prove everything through science is not logical. The truth is that time, space, existence does not make sense. And as soon as we think it does, more questions arise.
I think we can agree that in the grand scheme of existence, we are specks of dust. Some believe that science will explain everything, others believe in God. Neither is logical or sensical, but existence was not created to be understood.
Babopans
December 14, 2011 at 12:56 pm
All of these arguments are quite interesting. Hubert Reeves in Cosmic Evolution states that our language and all human languages prevailing on Earth today were all conceived to be used on a scale that applies only to our day to day routines and lifes on this planet, and that we lack the ability to comprehend questions like ” What was there before the Big Bang, or If God exists, who created God? Has God always existed? ” because our language and of course the lack of information prevents us from doing so. We would eventually have to come to a new way of reasoning to be able to fully understand our universe as a whole.
dimitri
January 19, 2012 at 3:14 pm
FOLKS..I JUST CAME ACROSS THIS LINE AND REALLY ENJOY READING IT WHEN I AM SEARCHING
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE. NEITHER I AM A SCIENTIST NOR A RELIGIOUS PREACHER
BUT I USED ONLY SOME LOGIC PRINCIPLES. I DON’T NEED TO GO TO THE BIG BANG THEORY.IT IS VERY HARD TO COMPREHEND WITHOUT FORMAL EDUCATION OF COSMOLOGY OR ASTRONOMY.
YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE IS NO GOD. MY QUESTION IS “WHO IS THERE THEN ?
I BELIEVE YOU THINK GOD LIKE A CARPENTER WHO BUILDS HOUSES, MAY BE YOU ARE
ACADEMICALLY INTELLIGENT BUT KNOWS LITTLE.. SORRY FOLK.
YOU ARE SAYING THERE IS NO GOD BUT IT’S WITH YOU EVERY SECONDS.. EVERY MINUTES.. EVERY HOUR.. EVERY DAY ALL YEAR ROUND. IF I REMOVE GOD FROM YOU.. YOU WILL DIE IN LESS THAN
5 MINUTES. PLEASE RE DEFINE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OR DEFINITION OF GOD.
GUMANDEZ 2012
aurelio d. gumasing
April 4, 2012 at 5:00 am
Did/does God exist? I cannot prove I exist, let alone a supreme being. However, I can speculate that the concept of God (whether it was accurate or not) evolved from a bunch of scared, ignorant, hairless apes living in a world they did not understand. The bad hairless apes used the concept for control and power, and the good hairless apes used the concept to be controlled, to control themselves. It helped them understand why bad things happen continuously. The bad hairless apes didn’t need that help, they understood from the get-go that bad shit happens. Continuously.
Not much has changed.
If there is a God, I question his morals and ethics. Why the Holocaust, why Rwanda, why Jack-the-Ripper, or Kim Kardashian? He does nothing to stop the suffering. If God created the universe he must be viewed as a one-trick pony (or an infinite-trick pony) because there was very little, if any, follow-up. So I say, who cares? Who cares if he did exist or does exist?
God’s supposed existence is moot.
God is moot.
http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html
0penb00k
April 24, 2012 at 8:21 am
Do you really think that you have enough knowledge to claim that there is no God, just because you have some theories about beyond the Universe? First of all, what did you expected God to be? An old man sitting outside of the Universe with a long white beard and a wooden stick, sending thunders to the bad ones when he is bored? The definition of God is not as simple as you think. You are just trying to disprove your God imagination. You may be an Atheist or a Secularist but, it is my advice to you, don’t mess up with the terminology in Abrahamic religions, because I see that you have no knowledge about them.
Ahmed Han
May 27, 2012 at 4:11 am
Ur the out side and inside.
john emmons
June 20, 2012 at 1:21 pm
How can you say that there is no god? How can you say that our universe is infinite? It seemes infinite for us because we dont have advanced technology to travel in that part of universe. Nothing is created by its own and there is always some energy behind creating something. I cant prove you that there is god and you cant prove me that there is no god. We are just organic life on this universe and there are life (aliens and advanced aliens) in our whole universe but we dont have that technology in our current generation.
mark
June 13, 2015 at 10:48 pm