by G. Jack Urso
Artist conception of bubble universes within a larger universal reality (public domain).
Having attended
an Evangelical Christian college as a young man, I quickly became acquainted
with efforts by those claiming faith in a creator using various scientific or
mathematical means to prove the existence of God — for example, using
archaeological and geological “evidence” to find Noah’s Ark, or prove Moses could
have separated the Red Sea, or to disprove the age of the Earth or evolution.
Quite frankly, even before I explored my basic agnostic nature, I found these
efforts incredulous.
If God could be “proven” then what is the point of faith? As
defined in Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen.” If the existence of God could be proven, then the
qualities that faith imparts to believers — strength of character, vision
beyond what we see with our eyes, and a belief that something better can be
reached — would vanish, for better or for worse.
Nevertheless,
the religious faithful latch onto such things as the circumstellar habitable
zone around the stars where the unique qualities that foster life can only be
found, believing that to be proof of God. Yet we know that life can exist in
very inhospitable areas, such as in the oceans depths where anaerobic bacteria
thrive around volcanic vents.
That the desolate and apparent lifeless red
planet Mars also lay within the habitable zone seems to negate its magical
life-giving powers makes little impact on those who latch onto the concept as
proof of God. Europa, the water-covered satellite of Jupiter could very well
host life at the bottom of its vast oceans, nurtured by volcanic vents probably
not very different than those on Earth, and it is far outside the habitable
zone. Though I think it likely, it may be some time before that particular hypothesis
is proven.
Theoretical
Probability Formula
One mathematical
formula being used to prove God is the theoretical probability formula, which
calculates the probability of a favorable outcome. When applied to in this
scenario, there are two possibilities: the conditions for life will exist or
they will not exist. While the number of solar systems in the universe is vast,
those using theoretical probability formula assume that it is a theoretically
quantifiable, if immensely large number. When dividing a finite number by a
very large number the answer will be very small, almost zero. Yet, life does exist,
so the faithful therefore infer that an external force must be responsible:
i.e. God. All this presumes that time is also quantifiable as the age of our
universe is estimated at approximately 13.8 billion years old since the Big
Bang.
However, that
may not be true.
Current theory
suggests that what we know as our universe occupies only a small part of a
larger universal reality. All the matter that comprises our universe may be
just a small local group that is part of an infinite reality where multiple
“Big Bangs” have occurred, creating other universes so far and distant from our
own, or operating under different physical laws, that we can never observe nor
interact with them — bubbles of individual universes in a quantum reality.
Further, this universal reality, and therefore time itself, may be infinite.
This larger universal reality may have always existed with no beginning and no
end.
If the larger universal
reality is infinite, it has had an infinite amount of time to create a specific
local universal region where the qualities of life can thrive. This is akin to
the Infinite Monkey Theorem which postulates that given enough time, a single
monkey, or many monkeys, hitting random keys on a typewriter will produce a
work of Shakespeare. The probability is extremely low but considering that time
may be infinite it cannot be zero.
Though given my
experience with human primates I think it more likely they will end up flinging
their feces at each other, but I digress.
In this sense, with
an infinite amount of time, the conditions for life will eventually emerge without
a deus ex machina causality. That
being said, the proponents of using the theoretical probability formula to
prove the existence of God assert the opposite — that a God is necessary to
compel feces-flinging monkeys to produce a work of Shakespeare. Well, on one hand,
they may have a point, but when applying it beyond hyperbolic theoretical
thought experiments we run into a problem. Primarily, the theoretical
probability formula fails to produce an accurate result when infinity gets
involved.
A passage from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
illustrates the problem inherent in applying theoretical probability formula to
the question of the odds of life developing in our universe: “Any finite number
divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average
population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero.” Meaning the answer will always be essentially
zero no matter how you figure it. While a humorous bit by author, Douglas
Adams, an atheist, it nonetheless shows that the math is rigged to result in
zero, despite what we see. Since we do
exist, the only reasonable explanation is that the math is flawed, not that a
supernatural being brought us into being.
Further, the theoretical
probability formula presumes an event either will happen or will not happen;
however, given the quantum nature of the universe an event can also be said to
be happening and not happening at the same time until there is an observer. A
binary option, that the universe can either exist or not, is an inherently
fallacious assumption in a quantum reality. Whether it does or does not exist depends
on whether it is being observed and, given an infinite amount of time, random
chance. This illustrates the erroneous assumption of applying a theoretical
probability formula to the question of proving the existence of God.
The
Leap of Faith
Given that our
understanding of the true nature of the universe, and the laws under which it
operates, is so small, coming to the conclusion that a deity is responsible
seems to be a leap of faith, not a mathematical conclusion. I’m not an atheist
like Douglas Adams, but using math to prove something that is a matter of faith
only proves there is a lack of faith, not a deity.
While I concede
I am agnostic, it is very specific to questions taken for granted by those in
the Abrahamic faiths — divine creation, the virgin birth, resurrection, etc.
What I have learned in my study of cosmology, however, is that there is indeed
a reality much larger than we can possibly conceive. The absolute truth of the
structure of the universe may be the God that everyone is seeking. I believe it
is, but I only have faith to go by.
At one point in
history, our conception of the universe included just our planet, which was at
the center of a solar system around which the Sun orbited. Then, we lived in a
universe where the Sun was at the center and the Earth, Moon, and other planets
orbited it, and the stars were fixed in place somewhere far beyond on silently
moving crystal spheres. Then, we believed our universe was a single galaxy of
stars until about a hundred years ago when we learned our galaxy was just one
of innumerable others. Now, our universe of galaxies may be just one local
universal group in an infinite reality of other universes.
Ironically, it took
a leap of faith from such scientists like Copernicus and Galileo to further our
understanding of the true nature of the universe — faith in math and the
scientific method, not God.
Those of faith
have a quantifiable God who created a single universe at some point in the
past. However, the possibility is that we may inhabit a reality that has always
existed, and the existence of what we call our universe has been relatively
short in comparison to the larger, timeless reality we inhabit.
As previously
noted, when dividing a finite amount of time by infinity the result is so close
to zero that we can hardly be said to have existed at all. That we do exist may
be the result of infinite chances in an infinite universe. So, with all due
respect to Mr. Einstein, maybe God does play dice after all. Ultimately, it
underscores just how insignificant we are in the greater scheme of things.
In a quantum
universe, I don’t feel constrained by the binary options that the odds for life
may be small or large or that there is or is not a universal intelligence we
call God. In each case, both options may very well have an equal chance of
being or not being depending on whether it is being observed. If there was no
life at all to observe the universe, would either the universe or what we call God
exist? Maybe our existence is simply the universe hedging its bet that it does
indeed exist — or it may be all just a crap shoot, or it may be both, or it may
be neither.
But don’t quote
me on that. I may have to check my math.
Related Content
Some of my further thoughts on the nature of the universe,
● ● ●