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 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, 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 it about.
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 exist not 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 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 where
fixed in place far beyond on silently moving crystal spheres. Then, we believed we inhabited a 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 number 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 or not 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, and God, 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,
● ● ●
Unfathomable subject neatly and understandably expressed. Well done😊
ReplyDelete