My definition of god is not one of a deliberate creator, nor that of a life force, rather, my belief is that 'god' is the single atom - the point of singularity - that forged this universe in the big bang at the beginning of time.
I think that many people have become caught up in thinking about god as commensurate with the omnipotent designer model, that construct which our primitive human brains have come up with in order to make us less afraid of the dark. I don't think that there is any design, any plan or moral directive for us from on high, however I think that forces like time, energy, life; forces of physics and chemistry all arose out of this one event.
Despite my belief that everything is random, that there is no great 'plan', and, in fact, that nobody and nothing can influence the events in the universe, the fact that a single point spawned everything that we see - and much that we don't - means that it is god enough for me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
If you think about it... It takes a lot more "faith" to believe your "theory" than it does to believe in one of the major religions that credits a "creator" rather than some atom that just decided to blow up one day.
Easy question... What came first... the chicken or the egg?
Logical answer... the chicken.
Why? Because simple observation will tell you that chickens routinely lay (or create) eggs, but no one has ever observed an egg just pop into being or create itself.
In science, lesser things are never observed creating greater things. An atom is certainly a lesser thing than the universe as we know it.
I will agree with you that We humans have rather "primitive human brains". So even if you think of it in strictly scientific terms, it is more logical that "something" greater and with more cognitive powers than Man, and indeed the whole of the universe, "Created" (for lack of a better term that won't make you cringe) something "less" than itself.
Even strictly as a theory, Creation makes a lot more sense than... "Nothing, Something, BANG... Everything"
Hey John, thanks for commenting.
The way that I see it 'faith' is not something that is required in science. All that is required is hypothesis, and then proof. The astronomy books and magazines that I've read over the last ten years seem to be undergoing that process to a greater and greater extent.
In the case of the major religions it seems that all there has ever been is hypothesis with no proof being put forward to bring their claims into reality. In essence, what they're asking you to have is 'faith', so I think that word rightly attaches itself to religion.
At the root of it I don't think that an atom simply decided to blow up one day. I think that the universe, since the explosion, is in a period of expansion - this is confirmed by the studies of astronomers - however I think that expansion is slowing and eventually will reverse into a period of contraction. The contraction, in my theory, is caused by the gravitational pull of black holes, and this contraction will eventually cause everything to contract to a singular point: our initial atom. The 'big bang' will occur at the exact moment all of the universe's matter occupies the one space.
In regards to the chicken and egg: I don't think that has been the model under which life has continued itself throughout the ages. My belief is that the modern form of reproduction has come about through a process of refinement. What scientists know is that originally cells simply divided in order to continue - in that sense neither chicken nor egg came first, and a greater thing is not creating a simpler thing. Hawking's description about how primitive cells may have come seems quite plausible, and I recommend that you read it if you're interested in the topic.
I also don’t think that a point of singularity is necessarily more simple than the universe. This is because I think that it is a compacted form of the universe.
On the creator issue; as you pointed out, our belief is that a creator would create something less than itself. But, why? What purpose would there be in creating something lesser - and we are talking significantly lesser here, if we're talking about something that can create the known universe contrasted against man - other than to watch your creation scuttle around like so many ants in an ant farm. It doesn't seem logical that such an awesome force would find any entertainment or interest in something so simple. This seems to me to be the point at which the faithful say something to the effect of ‘who are we to divine God’s will?’
What I'm saying, I guess, is that I don't think that it went "nothing, something, BANG", rather, I think that it went "something, BANG, something", and that that process has been repeating itself throughout infinity.
don wrote: "In the case of the major religions it seems that all there has ever been is hypothesis with no proof being put forward to bring their claims into reality. In essence, what they're asking you to have is 'faith', so I think that word rightly attaches itself to religion."
I can not speak for all major religions, only Christianity which is based on the writings found in the Old and New Testament or the Holy Bible.
First, you must realize that the main thrust of the Bible is not God trying to "prove" his own existence. The main thrust of the bible is God instructing man, one of His own creations, on how to live.
However it is wrong to say that the Bible is all hypothesis and no proof. God continually proves his existence through the prophets time and time again. He tells a prophet what is going to happen in the future... they write it down... it happens... people write about the fulfilled prophecy and repent for not believing... lots of time passes... people start to doubt what was written... soon only those with "faith" that the past writings are true, still believe... God tells another prophet some future event(s) and it starts over again.
Even though the Bibles main purpose seems to be to instruct man on how to live, it stands to reason that if there is a God and He did create all things, that a little nugget of scientific information might be thrown into some of these ancient writings now and again.
I will give you a small "hypothesis" written in the Bible which does contain a little scientific nugget; One that you will no doubt agree has been "proven" true in more recent times.
Around 700 B.C. the prophet Isaiah wrote some verses of "comfort" to God's people. Here is a small part of that text...
"Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded? He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and it's people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in..."
Did you miss it? "He sits enthroned above the 'circle' of the earth..." So encased in this outrageous hypothesis that God is up there pulling the strings, is an equally outrageous hypothesis that the earth is actually 'round' and not flat. Or perhaps it is saying that the earth actually 'orbits' the sun rather than the sun and stars orbiting it. Either hypothesis would be considered ridiculous in 700 B.C. but each is eventually proven true beyond a doubt over 1000 years later.
Post a Comment