Basic Assumptions
Before we can go much further, there are a few assumptions that must be made. Now don't jump before you hear me out and state "You see? They begin immediately with assumptions!" because there is nothing wrong with making assumptions. Lacking absolute knowledge, we must always assume certain things.
If you needed to find your way to a place you had never been and someone gave you a map, you would have to make certain assumptions: that the map was an accurate representation of the real world, for example, that the person had given you the correct map, that you know where you are on the map now, and that you had sufficient faculties to find your way.
In our search for the beginning of everything, we must make similar assumptions or else everything is meaningless. We must believe that we truly exist, that our environment holds an equal existence, and that we can interact and know things concerning our environment.
The first thing that must be done, according to the scientific process, is to choose a problem. Our problem is determining whether or not there is something more than just our universe out there. Along the way, we would also like to come to know something about it. It would be nice to know for the sake of knowledge, but it would also be nice to know who among us came the closest with their hypothesis. After all, besides the atheists, there are many other religions and ideas as to what must be out there. Wouldn't you like to know who is right or at least who comes the closest?
However, to follow the scientific process, we must keep this as simple as possible in order to eliminate variables and to establish fact from fantasy. Our primary objective must then be to determine whether there is or is not a god.
To do so will require considerable thought and we may not go at it from the Scriptures. To do so would be circular reasoning, proving ourselves by ourselves. “Circular reasoning” is the use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion. It is a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this."
Imagine, if you would, this conversation.
A: I'm right.
B: How do you know you are right?
A: Well, I'm right, therefore what I'm saying is right, and I'm saying that I'm right so that must be right.
B: Huh?
Sounds stupid, doesn't it? Yet, that is precisely what many of us sound like to those we are so strenuously trying to bring to Christ. They don't believe in the Scriptures and we keep trying to use the Scriptures to convince them of the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. It's meaningless.
What we have to do is bring the battle to them; to their country if you will. At first, you may think that if you fight your battles on the battlefield or terrain of your opponents’ choosing you are going to lose. Not if you already know that terrain and would have chosen it anyway. If you know the area better than he does himself, you have the advantage, not he. He cannot complain about your fighting on the field of his choosing and so you have a more receptive audience. You are leading him into a false sense of security and in his overconfidence he may accidentally learn something!
In any argument it is possible to have "peripheral" damage; bad associations or a collapse of faith. This is something that is known by all politicians. In a campaign where mud is slung everyone suffers damage, including the "slinger". That is why it is so devastating, because even if you refute the allegations, some residual doubt of your integrity remains in the minds of the listeners.
The Jehovah Witnesses are famous for this style of attack. They keep circling back to a few irrelevant points and pounding away at them even though they have nothing to do with the main issue at hand and in the end leave you so exhausted with frustration that you quit the battlefield in disgust, or if you are a weaker person, develop cracks in your belief system.
No, what we want to do is carry the battle to them. We want to discuss their authors, their theories. In the case of our primary question, which is determining the existence of a god, we want to use what most atheists believe is their strong, quasi-invulnerable point, which is science. They believe that to be a Christian you must throw away all reason and belief in scientific research in favor of an unreasoning faith in unprovable theories. So, we take them by surprise: we study beforehand the theories and laws of science while keeping in mind that everything we do must be compared to and measured by the Scriptures.
This is in keeping with the two overriding points apologists must keep in mind: We must be biblically faithful while remaining scientifically responsible. While we will deal with science we must remember that we are first and foremost talmidim. Everything we do must be compared to and measured by the Scriptures. We don't neglect our study of the Scriptures or put them on a secondary level. The Scriptures must come first and if it is possible to witness using only the Scriptures than we do so. They are the only essential thing we have. If it does not fit the Scriptures, then it is wrong.
Yet, our opponents cannot complain because we are discussing apologetics on their terms, on their turf. They cannot honestly consider us bigots because we are bending over backwards to speak in their language and follow their frame of mind.
After choosing our problem, we must research it to the best of our abilities. We must find out everything that everyone else has either discovered or thought about our chosen subject. We may, in the end, be forced to throw it all overboard, but it could save us years of following false trails and it may give us perspectives that we would not have normally thought of ourselves. To be complete, our research cannot be limited to merely one field (in this case theology or metaphysics) but must include, as much as possible, all the sciences of Man because, if our theory is correct, everything we encounter will fit our theory. If at some point something does not fit our theory, it is possible that it is our understanding of the phenomena that is lacking, but it is far more probable that it is our theory that is incorrect.
Many people fear this. They fear researching widely and exposing their worldview to many conflicting opinions. They feel threatened or that their view will come up short. I acknowledge that fear. It is an honest one and it is one that I often feel myself. However, it is critical that we pursue this step anyway. Discovered gaps or weaknesses in our theory are either opportunities to increase our understanding of our world view or a chance to quit wasting our time, throw our old useless view overboard and start afresh.
If you needed to find your way to a place you had never been and someone gave you a map, you would have to make certain assumptions: that the map was an accurate representation of the real world, for example, that the person had given you the correct map, that you know where you are on the map now, and that you had sufficient faculties to find your way.
In our search for the beginning of everything, we must make similar assumptions or else everything is meaningless. We must believe that we truly exist, that our environment holds an equal existence, and that we can interact and know things concerning our environment.
The first thing that must be done, according to the scientific process, is to choose a problem. Our problem is determining whether or not there is something more than just our universe out there. Along the way, we would also like to come to know something about it. It would be nice to know for the sake of knowledge, but it would also be nice to know who among us came the closest with their hypothesis. After all, besides the atheists, there are many other religions and ideas as to what must be out there. Wouldn't you like to know who is right or at least who comes the closest?
However, to follow the scientific process, we must keep this as simple as possible in order to eliminate variables and to establish fact from fantasy. Our primary objective must then be to determine whether there is or is not a god.
To do so will require considerable thought and we may not go at it from the Scriptures. To do so would be circular reasoning, proving ourselves by ourselves. “Circular reasoning” is the use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion. It is a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this."
Imagine, if you would, this conversation.
A: I'm right.
B: How do you know you are right?
A: Well, I'm right, therefore what I'm saying is right, and I'm saying that I'm right so that must be right.
B: Huh?
Sounds stupid, doesn't it? Yet, that is precisely what many of us sound like to those we are so strenuously trying to bring to Christ. They don't believe in the Scriptures and we keep trying to use the Scriptures to convince them of the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. It's meaningless.
What we have to do is bring the battle to them; to their country if you will. At first, you may think that if you fight your battles on the battlefield or terrain of your opponents’ choosing you are going to lose. Not if you already know that terrain and would have chosen it anyway. If you know the area better than he does himself, you have the advantage, not he. He cannot complain about your fighting on the field of his choosing and so you have a more receptive audience. You are leading him into a false sense of security and in his overconfidence he may accidentally learn something!
In any argument it is possible to have "peripheral" damage; bad associations or a collapse of faith. This is something that is known by all politicians. In a campaign where mud is slung everyone suffers damage, including the "slinger". That is why it is so devastating, because even if you refute the allegations, some residual doubt of your integrity remains in the minds of the listeners.
The Jehovah Witnesses are famous for this style of attack. They keep circling back to a few irrelevant points and pounding away at them even though they have nothing to do with the main issue at hand and in the end leave you so exhausted with frustration that you quit the battlefield in disgust, or if you are a weaker person, develop cracks in your belief system.
No, what we want to do is carry the battle to them. We want to discuss their authors, their theories. In the case of our primary question, which is determining the existence of a god, we want to use what most atheists believe is their strong, quasi-invulnerable point, which is science. They believe that to be a Christian you must throw away all reason and belief in scientific research in favor of an unreasoning faith in unprovable theories. So, we take them by surprise: we study beforehand the theories and laws of science while keeping in mind that everything we do must be compared to and measured by the Scriptures.
This is in keeping with the two overriding points apologists must keep in mind: We must be biblically faithful while remaining scientifically responsible. While we will deal with science we must remember that we are first and foremost talmidim. Everything we do must be compared to and measured by the Scriptures. We don't neglect our study of the Scriptures or put them on a secondary level. The Scriptures must come first and if it is possible to witness using only the Scriptures than we do so. They are the only essential thing we have. If it does not fit the Scriptures, then it is wrong.
Yet, our opponents cannot complain because we are discussing apologetics on their terms, on their turf. They cannot honestly consider us bigots because we are bending over backwards to speak in their language and follow their frame of mind.
After choosing our problem, we must research it to the best of our abilities. We must find out everything that everyone else has either discovered or thought about our chosen subject. We may, in the end, be forced to throw it all overboard, but it could save us years of following false trails and it may give us perspectives that we would not have normally thought of ourselves. To be complete, our research cannot be limited to merely one field (in this case theology or metaphysics) but must include, as much as possible, all the sciences of Man because, if our theory is correct, everything we encounter will fit our theory. If at some point something does not fit our theory, it is possible that it is our understanding of the phenomena that is lacking, but it is far more probable that it is our theory that is incorrect.
Many people fear this. They fear researching widely and exposing their worldview to many conflicting opinions. They feel threatened or that their view will come up short. I acknowledge that fear. It is an honest one and it is one that I often feel myself. However, it is critical that we pursue this step anyway. Discovered gaps or weaknesses in our theory are either opportunities to increase our understanding of our world view or a chance to quit wasting our time, throw our old useless view overboard and start afresh.
Generalists and Specialists
In all intellectual endeavors there are two major categories of people: generalists and specialists. A generalist is a person whose knowledge, aptitudes, and skills are applied to a field as a whole or to a variety of different fields. They know a little about a lot.
Strengths: Generalists can often approach a new issue with a perspective that is fresh and not overly influenced by a particular faction, and are usually informed by wide knowledge and experience. They are often flexible, have a good attitude, and are willing to learn. They are more likely to have a broader framework for understanding how things work. Because of this, they are used to having ideas balance against each other and are more adapted to living at the balancing point in the tension between to apparently opposing ideas.
Weaknesses: Many of the fields we deal in are highly developed and often complex. It may take years to get sufficiently up to speed to deal with a true specialist.
They will shy from any argument that involves heavy intellectual lifting or focused concentration over long periods of time.
A specialist is a person who devotes himself or herself to one subject or to one particular branch of a subject or pursuit. They know a lot about a little.
Strengths: The specialist is often an expert in his field and is thus something of a leader. Their educational level is usually higher and so a higher level of conception and language can usually be used.
Weaknesses: However, a specialist may not have a sufficiently broad view or large enough context to truly grasp the full implications of his discoveries. Because they are used to dealing with a very limited field of view, they are not particularly flexible, intellectually speaking. They are prone to hyper-conservatism. They may be too close to the field to have an independent perspective. They are apt to “follow the herd”. They will tend to ignore any matter that cannot be quickly and directly linked to their chosen field. Specialists are usually not as apt to be “people people”, to have the requisite people skills to communicate their understanding well.
If you remember my advice at the beginning, I said that because of the size of the field of apologetics, it would be better to choose one approach and focus on that rather than trying to be a “jack of all trades and master of none.” That is true, but this limited specialization must be balanced by an overarching curiosity; a willingness if not an eagerness to read widely and to be exposed to new ideas. As the book of Proverbs teaches, intelligent people are open to new ideas; in fact they go looking for them![1]
We must, in our pursuit of intellectual integrity, be willing to admit to being wrong and start over again. None of us would say that we fully understand God or even the Bible. There may come a time in our studies when our conclusions may contradict what we have always felt to be truth. We expect those to whom we are witnessing to have the honesty and integrity to admit they are wrong and convert to our way of thinking once faced with the facts. Should we not demand at least as much of ourselves?
Do we or do we not believe that God created Physics? Did He or did He not establish the various Laws that seem to run our universe? If the answer is yes, then we do not need to fear studying them because they will not contradict our belief system. If they did, wouldn't you rather know and change theories than go through your life thinking you were correct only to realize your error at death? A critical passage that sheds light on this very issue for the believer is:
[1] Proverbs 18:15
[2] 2 Corinthians 10:12
Strengths: Generalists can often approach a new issue with a perspective that is fresh and not overly influenced by a particular faction, and are usually informed by wide knowledge and experience. They are often flexible, have a good attitude, and are willing to learn. They are more likely to have a broader framework for understanding how things work. Because of this, they are used to having ideas balance against each other and are more adapted to living at the balancing point in the tension between to apparently opposing ideas.
Weaknesses: Many of the fields we deal in are highly developed and often complex. It may take years to get sufficiently up to speed to deal with a true specialist.
They will shy from any argument that involves heavy intellectual lifting or focused concentration over long periods of time.
A specialist is a person who devotes himself or herself to one subject or to one particular branch of a subject or pursuit. They know a lot about a little.
Strengths: The specialist is often an expert in his field and is thus something of a leader. Their educational level is usually higher and so a higher level of conception and language can usually be used.
Weaknesses: However, a specialist may not have a sufficiently broad view or large enough context to truly grasp the full implications of his discoveries. Because they are used to dealing with a very limited field of view, they are not particularly flexible, intellectually speaking. They are prone to hyper-conservatism. They may be too close to the field to have an independent perspective. They are apt to “follow the herd”. They will tend to ignore any matter that cannot be quickly and directly linked to their chosen field. Specialists are usually not as apt to be “people people”, to have the requisite people skills to communicate their understanding well.
If you remember my advice at the beginning, I said that because of the size of the field of apologetics, it would be better to choose one approach and focus on that rather than trying to be a “jack of all trades and master of none.” That is true, but this limited specialization must be balanced by an overarching curiosity; a willingness if not an eagerness to read widely and to be exposed to new ideas. As the book of Proverbs teaches, intelligent people are open to new ideas; in fact they go looking for them![1]
We must, in our pursuit of intellectual integrity, be willing to admit to being wrong and start over again. None of us would say that we fully understand God or even the Bible. There may come a time in our studies when our conclusions may contradict what we have always felt to be truth. We expect those to whom we are witnessing to have the honesty and integrity to admit they are wrong and convert to our way of thinking once faced with the facts. Should we not demand at least as much of ourselves?
Do we or do we not believe that God created Physics? Did He or did He not establish the various Laws that seem to run our universe? If the answer is yes, then we do not need to fear studying them because they will not contradict our belief system. If they did, wouldn't you rather know and change theories than go through your life thinking you were correct only to realize your error at death? A critical passage that sheds light on this very issue for the believer is:
- Matthew 7:21-23 HCSB "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of My Father in heaven. (22) On that day many will say to Me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?' (23) Then I will announce to them, 'I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!'
[1] Proverbs 18:15
[2] 2 Corinthians 10:12
Following the Scientific Method
Once we have chosen our problem and researched it, we must develop a hypothesis. Our working hypothesis is that there is a God out there. We believe that the best answer to the question “Why is there something rather than nothing” is that a transcendent, immortal Prime Mover made it so. The next step is to write out the parameters we plan on following. We must establish the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA), delineate the battlefield and the limitations we will impose upon ourselves. This is what you and I are doing right now. We are determining what intellectual weapons we have at hand and how we can use them to help in our battle for the mind of our friend, the unbeliever. We've decided that first we cannot use circular reasoning and prove ourselves by ourselves. Secondly we cannot, must not, use the Scriptures until he is convinced that there is such a thing as a God and that it is reasonable to think that this God communicated to Man and that the Bible is that Communication. We use the existence of God to demonstrate the authority of the Word, not the other way around.
The third limitation we must impose upon ourselves is that we cannot get hot under the collar about this thing. We have to keep a calm, cool, frosty head. Fourth, we will discuss rather than quarrel with our friend. I'm not saying that he will remain reasonable. He may feel intimidated, threatened by what you are saying. You are not just threatening his metaphysical outlook, you are very literally attacking his inner self, demanding surrender of his will to God's. It is unconditional surrender we seek and he knows that so don't feel so hurt when he rejects your most calmly reasoned arguments out of hand and even rejects you! Your job is not mental conquest. Your job is to demonstrate by your demeanor and selflessness the power of the God you are trying to introduce to him. More than all your arguments, your candor, soft speech, and humility will strike him as truth. As Christians, we do not seek to propagate words but demonstrate the power of a living, breathing, inspiring and compelling God.
Finally, we will test our hypothesis. If there is a Supreme Architect, then we should be able to see some kind of imprint or reflection of Him. When we study the laws of Nature they should all fit our model of a young universe on a steady decline from a perfect state.
If we believe that the Bible is a direct communication from an omniscient Being, then it should be possible to demonstrate that it would have been impossible for mere man to have written them. There should be some trace of Deity in the Scriptural words.
If we do not find these "fingerprints" we must be willing to reconsider our stand. I don't believe that will be necessary, but in order to maintain some modicum of intellectual integrity, that must be our attitude. This is not just some mind game we're playing, we're betting our eternal souls on what we find. If we want to present that possibility to our friend we must also be willing to stare Death in the face. We cannot compel him to do something we are unwilling to do. We must lead him there.
Please remember that we will not prove the existence of God within the confines of this little book. Indeed, we would find it difficult to do so if we spent our entire lives at it. There is no way to conclusively demonstrate the existence of what is called a Transcendental (something outside the usual realm of our universe). Because it is outside and beyond this universe, there is no physical law that can touch it, no way to reach it from our universe except by the use of our minds. No, our goal is to demonstrate the high probability of the existence of a God and show that a theistic model of the universe is every bit as feasible as the atheistic model.
Once you have read this book and determined for yourself what you believe, you are only half way there. If after spending a little time listening to me ramble you decide that there is a God and the Bible is His communication I will be thrilled. However, there is a principle known to all teachers. If the student cannot verbalize the concept, the student does not know the concept. If you cannot communicate the truth, you don't really understand it. You need to take the time and reread these lines, study them, reorganize them, make them better, add to them. Make this truth a part of you so that you can communicate it to others. If you truly believe it, you will understand that compulsion.
Now that we have established the parameters, let's begin the study in earnest.
The third limitation we must impose upon ourselves is that we cannot get hot under the collar about this thing. We have to keep a calm, cool, frosty head. Fourth, we will discuss rather than quarrel with our friend. I'm not saying that he will remain reasonable. He may feel intimidated, threatened by what you are saying. You are not just threatening his metaphysical outlook, you are very literally attacking his inner self, demanding surrender of his will to God's. It is unconditional surrender we seek and he knows that so don't feel so hurt when he rejects your most calmly reasoned arguments out of hand and even rejects you! Your job is not mental conquest. Your job is to demonstrate by your demeanor and selflessness the power of the God you are trying to introduce to him. More than all your arguments, your candor, soft speech, and humility will strike him as truth. As Christians, we do not seek to propagate words but demonstrate the power of a living, breathing, inspiring and compelling God.
Finally, we will test our hypothesis. If there is a Supreme Architect, then we should be able to see some kind of imprint or reflection of Him. When we study the laws of Nature they should all fit our model of a young universe on a steady decline from a perfect state.
If we believe that the Bible is a direct communication from an omniscient Being, then it should be possible to demonstrate that it would have been impossible for mere man to have written them. There should be some trace of Deity in the Scriptural words.
If we do not find these "fingerprints" we must be willing to reconsider our stand. I don't believe that will be necessary, but in order to maintain some modicum of intellectual integrity, that must be our attitude. This is not just some mind game we're playing, we're betting our eternal souls on what we find. If we want to present that possibility to our friend we must also be willing to stare Death in the face. We cannot compel him to do something we are unwilling to do. We must lead him there.
Please remember that we will not prove the existence of God within the confines of this little book. Indeed, we would find it difficult to do so if we spent our entire lives at it. There is no way to conclusively demonstrate the existence of what is called a Transcendental (something outside the usual realm of our universe). Because it is outside and beyond this universe, there is no physical law that can touch it, no way to reach it from our universe except by the use of our minds. No, our goal is to demonstrate the high probability of the existence of a God and show that a theistic model of the universe is every bit as feasible as the atheistic model.
Once you have read this book and determined for yourself what you believe, you are only half way there. If after spending a little time listening to me ramble you decide that there is a God and the Bible is His communication I will be thrilled. However, there is a principle known to all teachers. If the student cannot verbalize the concept, the student does not know the concept. If you cannot communicate the truth, you don't really understand it. You need to take the time and reread these lines, study them, reorganize them, make them better, add to them. Make this truth a part of you so that you can communicate it to others. If you truly believe it, you will understand that compulsion.
Now that we have established the parameters, let's begin the study in earnest.
Proposition 1
Prop. 1 -If all spatial points were ever simultaneously empty, they could never be filled. Therefore there is an eternal existant, α.
Though I was raised in a Christian home, it was not until my sixteenth birthday that I chose to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. Conversion was not an easy decision for me. I am particularly gifted in stubborn pride. Besides, I had already been exposed to many world views and I frankly found the lives (and intellects) of most Christians I had personally known to be seriously wanting.
Though I considered myself to be agnostic (unable to determine whether or not a god or gods exists) practically speaking I was atheistic (declaring there to be no god).
However, I loved science, philosophy and logic. Beginning at the age of thirteen I devoured every book on astrophysics, cosmology and quantum cosmology I could find. Interestingly, it was rather like drinking salt water. The more I drank, the more dissatisfied I became. I found that the most atheistic writers still presumed certain fundamentally complex principles were in play from the very beginning – principles that statistically should not have existed.
For instance, evolution is described as being driven by the life form’s environment. One life form is better adapted to its environment so it thrives, reproduces and passes its unique ability on to its progeny. Another life form is less successful, and either does not successfully mate or its weaker genetic heritage causes its progeny to also die more quickly than others. Soon its line dies out while the more successful life form begins to dominate. However, where did the algorithms that produce these mutations come from? It’s like a game in which some players win and others lose, but my question was – who or what made the rules?
Though I was raised in a Christian home, it was not until my sixteenth birthday that I chose to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. Conversion was not an easy decision for me. I am particularly gifted in stubborn pride. Besides, I had already been exposed to many world views and I frankly found the lives (and intellects) of most Christians I had personally known to be seriously wanting.
Though I considered myself to be agnostic (unable to determine whether or not a god or gods exists) practically speaking I was atheistic (declaring there to be no god).
However, I loved science, philosophy and logic. Beginning at the age of thirteen I devoured every book on astrophysics, cosmology and quantum cosmology I could find. Interestingly, it was rather like drinking salt water. The more I drank, the more dissatisfied I became. I found that the most atheistic writers still presumed certain fundamentally complex principles were in play from the very beginning – principles that statistically should not have existed.
For instance, evolution is described as being driven by the life form’s environment. One life form is better adapted to its environment so it thrives, reproduces and passes its unique ability on to its progeny. Another life form is less successful, and either does not successfully mate or its weaker genetic heritage causes its progeny to also die more quickly than others. Soon its line dies out while the more successful life form begins to dominate. However, where did the algorithms that produce these mutations come from? It’s like a game in which some players win and others lose, but my question was – who or what made the rules?
The Cosmic Egg
I would like you to consider the following symbol:
I know it's not much to look at, but it is a tool used in philosophy and logic and it has the unfortunate name of "cosmic egg". The cosmic egg represents nothing less than the entire universe: matter and energy, mass and vacuum, known and unknown, undiscovered and possible; everything. There is nothing outside of this circle because this circle is everything. Now the circle itself does not exist, it is merely a tool to allow us to imagine certain things. You see, the universe is so vast that we must use such symbols in order to understand even the slightest bit.
You may say, “you’re assumption is that the universe is limited.” You’d be right and it is very likely a good assumption, based on scientific evidence. Remember the night sky? If there were an infinite number of stars, everywhere you’d look there would be a point of light. The night sky would not be particularly “nightish”. It would be awash with light!
You may say “maybe some of the stars are so far that their light has not reached us yet.” Granted, but usually the arguments for an infinite universe also include infinite or near-infinite time past. If the universe had always existed, all light would have had plenty of time to reach us. Again, the fact that it has not argues for a limited universe.
You may say, “perhaps there are other universes.” First, we can’t argue from nothing. We can dream of superstrings all day long, but we have to remember that there is absolutely no evidence for other universes. Not yet. I’m hoping there will be. I’m something of a fan of the whole “multiverse” concept but the unfortunate fact remains the original “brane collision” or “mutliverse” from which our universe was squeezed remains as elusive as Sasquatch and Nessie. Besides, even if other universes existed they would also be included in the “everything that exists, known and unknown” set. We’re not saying that it’s not a BIG set! We’re just saying that no matter how we look at it, there is not an infinite amount of “stuff.”
Imagine with me what would happen if in, say 1950, there was a colossal explosion involving some super star that started a chain reaction. Worlds began spinning out of their orbit, solar systems lost their orbital paths and collided, galaxies exploded, matter and antimatter met and destroyed each other in some mind-boggling orgy of destruction. There is nothing left; not dust, not smoke, the tiniest subatomic particle. All has been replaced by nothing; cold, hard vacuum without even the modest comfort of some electromagnetic pulse. Nothing. There is nothing inside the cosmic egg and there is nothing outside the cosmic egg.
Give it ten years. Give it a million years. Give it however many years you could possibly imagine. You would still have nothing.
I know, I know – obvious isn’t it? What do you expect of a thirteen year old? But the implications are enormous. This means that there has, for all time and eternity past, always been something. There was never a point when there was absolutely nothing because if that condition ever occurred, it would be irreversible.
I know it's not much to look at, but it is a tool used in philosophy and logic and it has the unfortunate name of "cosmic egg". The cosmic egg represents nothing less than the entire universe: matter and energy, mass and vacuum, known and unknown, undiscovered and possible; everything. There is nothing outside of this circle because this circle is everything. Now the circle itself does not exist, it is merely a tool to allow us to imagine certain things. You see, the universe is so vast that we must use such symbols in order to understand even the slightest bit.
You may say, “you’re assumption is that the universe is limited.” You’d be right and it is very likely a good assumption, based on scientific evidence. Remember the night sky? If there were an infinite number of stars, everywhere you’d look there would be a point of light. The night sky would not be particularly “nightish”. It would be awash with light!
You may say “maybe some of the stars are so far that their light has not reached us yet.” Granted, but usually the arguments for an infinite universe also include infinite or near-infinite time past. If the universe had always existed, all light would have had plenty of time to reach us. Again, the fact that it has not argues for a limited universe.
You may say, “perhaps there are other universes.” First, we can’t argue from nothing. We can dream of superstrings all day long, but we have to remember that there is absolutely no evidence for other universes. Not yet. I’m hoping there will be. I’m something of a fan of the whole “multiverse” concept but the unfortunate fact remains the original “brane collision” or “mutliverse” from which our universe was squeezed remains as elusive as Sasquatch and Nessie. Besides, even if other universes existed they would also be included in the “everything that exists, known and unknown” set. We’re not saying that it’s not a BIG set! We’re just saying that no matter how we look at it, there is not an infinite amount of “stuff.”
Imagine with me what would happen if in, say 1950, there was a colossal explosion involving some super star that started a chain reaction. Worlds began spinning out of their orbit, solar systems lost their orbital paths and collided, galaxies exploded, matter and antimatter met and destroyed each other in some mind-boggling orgy of destruction. There is nothing left; not dust, not smoke, the tiniest subatomic particle. All has been replaced by nothing; cold, hard vacuum without even the modest comfort of some electromagnetic pulse. Nothing. There is nothing inside the cosmic egg and there is nothing outside the cosmic egg.
Give it ten years. Give it a million years. Give it however many years you could possibly imagine. You would still have nothing.
I know, I know – obvious isn’t it? What do you expect of a thirteen year old? But the implications are enormous. This means that there has, for all time and eternity past, always been something. There was never a point when there was absolutely nothing because if that condition ever occurred, it would be irreversible.
The Empty Set
It's rather like an empty set in math.
Nothing in the set, nothing outside of the set, the set will remain eternally empty. On this point everyone agrees. After all, it seems pretty straight forward, doesn't it? Ah, but it has incredible implications.
For one thing, that means that forever and forever, for all time and eternity past, there has always been something. There had to have always been something because if there was ever the slightest amount of time when there was absolutely nothing, there would still be nothing. From this foundation we can go a long way in our search for truth. This is not such a revolutionary concept because everyone, Christian, atheist, creationist, evolutionist, everyone believes that there has always been something. The real question is what that something actually is!
We don't know if there was only one thing that has existed all those eons or if it was a series of things. For the sake of brevity in communication, let's label this "something which has always existed" as Alpha (α). So Alpha has always existed.
Nothing in the set, nothing outside of the set, the set will remain eternally empty. On this point everyone agrees. After all, it seems pretty straight forward, doesn't it? Ah, but it has incredible implications.
For one thing, that means that forever and forever, for all time and eternity past, there has always been something. There had to have always been something because if there was ever the slightest amount of time when there was absolutely nothing, there would still be nothing. From this foundation we can go a long way in our search for truth. This is not such a revolutionary concept because everyone, Christian, atheist, creationist, evolutionist, everyone believes that there has always been something. The real question is what that something actually is!
We don't know if there was only one thing that has existed all those eons or if it was a series of things. For the sake of brevity in communication, let's label this "something which has always existed" as Alpha (α). So Alpha has always existed.
Alpha's line
So moving on from the circle over the course of the next couple weeks I progressed in my doodling to a line!
|
I am many things – an artist is not one of them. That line in my mind represented Alpha’s life line. It extended apparently into the infinite past and it did not seem likely that anything that has been around that long would stop any time soon so I extended the line and its arrow into the infinite future.
|
|
The next step should be to determine if this Alpha is something that is around us. Even if we discover that it is not it can be just as enlightening to know what Alpha is not as to discover what it is. The thing that we have the most around us and comes readily to mind is matter. Matter is the organized, structured, usable energy of which the visible universe is made.
However, another one of those things that everyone seemed to agree on was the fact that matter is not what Alpha is. The physical universe (the structured energy we refer to as matter) has not always existed. Let me explain why.
However, another one of those things that everyone seemed to agree on was the fact that matter is not what Alpha is. The physical universe (the structured energy we refer to as matter) has not always existed. Let me explain why.
Proposition 2
Prop. 2 -Because matter is decreasing in order and complexity, the material universe will not only have a definite end, but it must have had a definite beginning. Therefore, matter could not have been α, but came from α.
Matter is so pervasive that you would be easily led to the conclusion that Alpha must also be matter. In fact that is the main thesis of materialism. Some Materialists have a theory that they call the “Big Bounce.” Those who hold to this opinion state that matter has always existed in various states and that our present universe was one of a series of universes that extend into infinity past. Many of them believe that huge explosions begin and huge “crunches” end each "session" of structured matter. They also believe that space/time is so curved during these explosions and crunches that physical laws no longer apply. This is how they avoid the ticklish problem of not being able to answer "What exactly is Alpha?" When faced by the dread question “What was at the beginning, they simply respond “There never was one.”
According to them, the time line would look rather like a fiery string of pearls going back into the infinite past.
At every intersection of two circles there would be a Crunch/Bang. Apparently the argument is that as the matter/energy compresses the energy released triggers the following Bang. Uh…but I thought that at that moment of singularity no physical laws apply? How then are we using physical laws to describe what is essentially a lawless state?
There are a few other problems with this line of reasoning. First there is the logical fallacy called “Begging the Question.” Begging The Question (aka Assuming the Answer, Tautology) is reasoning in a circle. The thing to be proved is used as one of your assumptions. For example:
Matter is so pervasive that you would be easily led to the conclusion that Alpha must also be matter. In fact that is the main thesis of materialism. Some Materialists have a theory that they call the “Big Bounce.” Those who hold to this opinion state that matter has always existed in various states and that our present universe was one of a series of universes that extend into infinity past. Many of them believe that huge explosions begin and huge “crunches” end each "session" of structured matter. They also believe that space/time is so curved during these explosions and crunches that physical laws no longer apply. This is how they avoid the ticklish problem of not being able to answer "What exactly is Alpha?" When faced by the dread question “What was at the beginning, they simply respond “There never was one.”
According to them, the time line would look rather like a fiery string of pearls going back into the infinite past.
At every intersection of two circles there would be a Crunch/Bang. Apparently the argument is that as the matter/energy compresses the energy released triggers the following Bang. Uh…but I thought that at that moment of singularity no physical laws apply? How then are we using physical laws to describe what is essentially a lawless state?
There are a few other problems with this line of reasoning. First there is the logical fallacy called “Begging the Question.” Begging The Question (aka Assuming the Answer, Tautology) is reasoning in a circle. The thing to be proved is used as one of your assumptions. For example:
- "The stock market fell because of a technical adjustment."
Richard Dawkins' solution
I recently watched a video interview of Richard Dawkins, a very famous atheist. When Mr. Dawkins was asked where life on earth came from he answered “aliens”...seriously…aliens. The interviewer very politely refrained from asking where those aliens came from. Mr. Dawkins didn’t actually answer the ultimate, implied question “from whence did life originate”. He simply pushed it further back.
Second, there is no evidence for this idea (cycling universes, not aliens – well not them either but we have to get back on track now). So far it looks as if there is not enough mass in the universe to cause a collapse, even if one factors in “dark matter”. Every bit of scientific evidence we have indicates that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating!
Third, even if there were enough mass to cause (barely) a collapse, entropy would prevent a rebound. We live in a universe of entropy (chaos or disorder). Entropy on the whole is increasing in our universe. There can, of course, be a local increase in complexity (a decrease in entropy) but at a cost of increased chaos elsewhere.
Second, there is no evidence for this idea (cycling universes, not aliens – well not them either but we have to get back on track now). So far it looks as if there is not enough mass in the universe to cause a collapse, even if one factors in “dark matter”. Every bit of scientific evidence we have indicates that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating!
Third, even if there were enough mass to cause (barely) a collapse, entropy would prevent a rebound. We live in a universe of entropy (chaos or disorder). Entropy on the whole is increasing in our universe. There can, of course, be a local increase in complexity (a decrease in entropy) but at a cost of increased chaos elsewhere.
Entropy
Before we go much further, we need to be very clear on the nature of entropy. Entropy is disorder or chaos. Entropy is usually described in the context of the Second law of thermodynamics (sometimes called the Entropic Law or the Law of Entropy). It states that large dynamic systems evolve irreversibly towards a state with higher entropy. In a closed system with no outside intervention, the heat in that system seeks equilibrium.
At the time the local high school was doing its very best to pound the principles of Thermodynamics into my reluctant teenage brain. They said that in any closed system entropy will eventually increase.
For instance, when a child is born, it becomes a multicellular organism. It develops organs, bones, teeth and skin. Its brain develops, it accretes cells by eating and drinking. It would seem to be going against entropy. But that child is growing at a cost to the environment. Plants and animals had to die so that this child could eat. Forests were cut down for paper so that this child could read and learn. Damage was done to the environment so that this individual could eat, sleep, have shelter, learn and be entertained. So even though there was a local decrease in entropy, on the whole entropy rules. Because this is a rule in our universe, matter can only have been so ordered, so organized, have only existed so long.
For another instance, if one puts a Volkswagen Bug out in the field and leaves it alone, it does not over time transform itself into an eighteen-wheeler. Its fabric rots, its paint peels, its metal parts rust, and given enough time even all its plastic parts break down or are subsumed into the earth, melted and transformed into something else. It is gradually absorbed into the environment until achieves what every good Buddhist has been seeking since, well – Buddha! It will achieve (drum roll please) “oneness with the universe.” Of course that oneness bears a strange similarity to annihilation but let’s not get picky.
Let’s just say that we put the Volkswagen in a high-tech garage and employ an entire team of mechanics to not only maintain it but to actually add on to it. Eventually, they might possibly turn it into an eighteen-wheeler. However it would come at a price of increased entropy elsewhere. Mines will have been dug to get at the earth’s ore. Potentially whole mountains may be destroyed to get coal to produce electricity. I could go on but you get the picture. The Second law states that the total entropy of any system cannot decrease other than by increasing the entropy of some other system. If the system is isolated (closed and finite) it is IMPOSSIBLE for the entropy in that system to be reversed.
This physical law is what precludes the invention of perpetual motion machines. Any machine, no matter how efficient will lose some of its energy to friction and will eventually slow down and stop. It may be super-efficient and take a long time, but eventually, if no one interferes with it, it will stop.
At the time the local high school was doing its very best to pound the principles of Thermodynamics into my reluctant teenage brain. They said that in any closed system entropy will eventually increase.
For instance, when a child is born, it becomes a multicellular organism. It develops organs, bones, teeth and skin. Its brain develops, it accretes cells by eating and drinking. It would seem to be going against entropy. But that child is growing at a cost to the environment. Plants and animals had to die so that this child could eat. Forests were cut down for paper so that this child could read and learn. Damage was done to the environment so that this individual could eat, sleep, have shelter, learn and be entertained. So even though there was a local decrease in entropy, on the whole entropy rules. Because this is a rule in our universe, matter can only have been so ordered, so organized, have only existed so long.
For another instance, if one puts a Volkswagen Bug out in the field and leaves it alone, it does not over time transform itself into an eighteen-wheeler. Its fabric rots, its paint peels, its metal parts rust, and given enough time even all its plastic parts break down or are subsumed into the earth, melted and transformed into something else. It is gradually absorbed into the environment until achieves what every good Buddhist has been seeking since, well – Buddha! It will achieve (drum roll please) “oneness with the universe.” Of course that oneness bears a strange similarity to annihilation but let’s not get picky.
Let’s just say that we put the Volkswagen in a high-tech garage and employ an entire team of mechanics to not only maintain it but to actually add on to it. Eventually, they might possibly turn it into an eighteen-wheeler. However it would come at a price of increased entropy elsewhere. Mines will have been dug to get at the earth’s ore. Potentially whole mountains may be destroyed to get coal to produce electricity. I could go on but you get the picture. The Second law states that the total entropy of any system cannot decrease other than by increasing the entropy of some other system. If the system is isolated (closed and finite) it is IMPOSSIBLE for the entropy in that system to be reversed.
This physical law is what precludes the invention of perpetual motion machines. Any machine, no matter how efficient will lose some of its energy to friction and will eventually slow down and stop. It may be super-efficient and take a long time, but eventually, if no one interferes with it, it will stop.
Perpetual Motion Machines
The machine you see here will eventually stop if no one replenishes the water which will evaporate or greases the cogs which will eventually rust.
Let’s just say that we invented a machine that got its energy from vacuum! You’d think that would be a true perpetual motion machine wouldn’t you? Yet as the universe drew to a close and matter became more and more disorganized, eventually the parts of the machine would break down and the machine would stop – even if the energy continued. After a while the universe would collapse upon itself into on final fiery conflagration and even the energy would no longer be available in that last great singularity.
Chaos is king in our universe. It doesn’t matter how big the closed system is, entropy will gradually increase until all the energy finds equilibrium in one undifferentiated chaotic soup. It doesn’t matter if it’s a coffee cup gradually cooling and then eventually evaporating in the middle of an otherwise empty, sealed room or if the closed system is as large as the entire universe. The same principle applies. Everything eventually dies.
How does this argue against a cyclic universe? Well “oneness with the universe might be fine for VW Bugs and Buddhists but to me what we’ve been talking about has cosmological ramifications. Let’s examine the proposed process.
Let’s just say that we invented a machine that got its energy from vacuum! You’d think that would be a true perpetual motion machine wouldn’t you? Yet as the universe drew to a close and matter became more and more disorganized, eventually the parts of the machine would break down and the machine would stop – even if the energy continued. After a while the universe would collapse upon itself into on final fiery conflagration and even the energy would no longer be available in that last great singularity.
Chaos is king in our universe. It doesn’t matter how big the closed system is, entropy will gradually increase until all the energy finds equilibrium in one undifferentiated chaotic soup. It doesn’t matter if it’s a coffee cup gradually cooling and then eventually evaporating in the middle of an otherwise empty, sealed room or if the closed system is as large as the entire universe. The same principle applies. Everything eventually dies.
How does this argue against a cyclic universe? Well “oneness with the universe might be fine for VW Bugs and Buddhists but to me what we’ve been talking about has cosmological ramifications. Let’s examine the proposed process.
Cyclic Universes
How does this argue against a cyclic universe? Well “oneness with the universe might be fine for VW Bugs and Buddhists but to me what we’ve been talking about has cosmological ramifications. Let’s examine the proposed process.
The way it’s supposed to go is that the universe began with a Big Bang, developed a certain order after a time, then life occurred on a small planet in the backwaters of an average galaxy. Locally entropy decreased while on the whole entropy increased. After a few trillion years the universe will die by either heat death (sometimes called the Big Freeze) or a Big Crunch, only to be reborn through yet another Big Bang.
By the way, may I indulge in an intellectual drive-by proposition? The theory that is usually referred to in this regard is called the Poincaré recurrence theorem. In brief, it states that certain systems will, after a sufficiently long time, return to a state very close to the initial state. The Recurrence theorem is the pseudoscientific foundation for reincarnation. This will be important in a little while but for now just park that little bit of profundity in some dark recess of your brain – right next to the price of tea in China. On its face the Recurrence theorem contradicts the Second law of thermodynamics and so far no one has been able to come up with a truly convincing system to get around that contradiction.
The problem with this is that each time this happens, not all the energy goes into the production of matter. A certain amount is lost to heat. If this cycle were infinite then each time there would be more and more heat produced until matter and life were impossible. Because we do not see an infinite amount of heat in our universe, then one of two things must be true:
First, maybe there is such a thing as an infinite cycle into the future, but this cycle does not extend into eternity past and we are at the beginning of such a cycle. Even if you accept this, then the universe still could not have existed forever and had a definite beginning, removing it as a candidate for eternal existent.
The second possibility is that the universe does not show an infinite amount of heat simply because it has not always existed. As far as we can tell, this is the only universe and it has a definite lifespan.
So, something has always existed. We know this something is not the material universe in which we presently exist. On this most everyone agrees including those with a theistic bent and even most of those with an atheistic bent. Theists claim that God or gods created it all. Atheists claim that it simply exploded into being when a universal singularity flexed its muscle with a quantum fluctuation and became known as the Big Bang.
You say “tomayto” I say “tomahto”. Either way, the universe in which you and I live has not always existed so we can remove the universe and its contents from the set of possible candidates for the elusive Alpha.
Now let’s just say I am carrying a glass filled with an orange liquid as I’m running through your house. Perverse, I know, but that’s the kind of guy I am. Then let’s just imagine that I trip on the edge of that old area rug of yours (did I happen to mention I’m also a klutz?) and I spill the cold sticky contents of that very large glass onto you. Now, out of a shocked sense of disbelief, you reach down with your finger, touch a bit of that liquid, bring it to you mouth and you hesitantly taste it. If it tasted like orange juice – what would you assume had been in the glass? Orange juice of course! How brilliant of you!
Oddly however, this basic ability to work backwards intellectually escapes many humans. If Alpha has always existed, and Alpha is not matter, then POOF! Matter suddenly appeared – where should we assume matter came from? Alpha of course. Within days of forming the previous postulations I had arrived at the following one.
The way it’s supposed to go is that the universe began with a Big Bang, developed a certain order after a time, then life occurred on a small planet in the backwaters of an average galaxy. Locally entropy decreased while on the whole entropy increased. After a few trillion years the universe will die by either heat death (sometimes called the Big Freeze) or a Big Crunch, only to be reborn through yet another Big Bang.
By the way, may I indulge in an intellectual drive-by proposition? The theory that is usually referred to in this regard is called the Poincaré recurrence theorem. In brief, it states that certain systems will, after a sufficiently long time, return to a state very close to the initial state. The Recurrence theorem is the pseudoscientific foundation for reincarnation. This will be important in a little while but for now just park that little bit of profundity in some dark recess of your brain – right next to the price of tea in China. On its face the Recurrence theorem contradicts the Second law of thermodynamics and so far no one has been able to come up with a truly convincing system to get around that contradiction.
The problem with this is that each time this happens, not all the energy goes into the production of matter. A certain amount is lost to heat. If this cycle were infinite then each time there would be more and more heat produced until matter and life were impossible. Because we do not see an infinite amount of heat in our universe, then one of two things must be true:
First, maybe there is such a thing as an infinite cycle into the future, but this cycle does not extend into eternity past and we are at the beginning of such a cycle. Even if you accept this, then the universe still could not have existed forever and had a definite beginning, removing it as a candidate for eternal existent.
The second possibility is that the universe does not show an infinite amount of heat simply because it has not always existed. As far as we can tell, this is the only universe and it has a definite lifespan.
So, something has always existed. We know this something is not the material universe in which we presently exist. On this most everyone agrees including those with a theistic bent and even most of those with an atheistic bent. Theists claim that God or gods created it all. Atheists claim that it simply exploded into being when a universal singularity flexed its muscle with a quantum fluctuation and became known as the Big Bang.
You say “tomayto” I say “tomahto”. Either way, the universe in which you and I live has not always existed so we can remove the universe and its contents from the set of possible candidates for the elusive Alpha.
Now let’s just say I am carrying a glass filled with an orange liquid as I’m running through your house. Perverse, I know, but that’s the kind of guy I am. Then let’s just imagine that I trip on the edge of that old area rug of yours (did I happen to mention I’m also a klutz?) and I spill the cold sticky contents of that very large glass onto you. Now, out of a shocked sense of disbelief, you reach down with your finger, touch a bit of that liquid, bring it to you mouth and you hesitantly taste it. If it tasted like orange juice – what would you assume had been in the glass? Orange juice of course! How brilliant of you!
Oddly however, this basic ability to work backwards intellectually escapes many humans. If Alpha has always existed, and Alpha is not matter, then POOF! Matter suddenly appeared – where should we assume matter came from? Alpha of course. Within days of forming the previous postulations I had arrived at the following one.
Proposition 3
Prop. 3 -Everything within the physical cosmos must have an adequate cause. The universe must also have a cause sufficient to produce it. Because α is an eternal existent, it must be that cause.
This intellectual baby step allows us to gain a tiny hold of what Alpha must be. Let me explain. By licking your finger and determining that the material all over your nice new shirt is orange juice, you were able to determine what had been in the glass – without having to take a single sip. Now of course you may have preferred sipping to licking but that’s beside the point. The exciting point of this little thought experiment is that if Alpha is the original source of everything in the universe, then by examining the universe, we should be able to make some discoveries as to the composition of Alpha.
Everything we look at in the universe has had an adequate cause. If there is heat on our planet, it is because there is a heat source whether solar or geological. If I see someone with a bloody nose, I conclude that they were just struck.
Let’s just say you are a mother. You walk into the room and you see what is depicted in the picture on the right. Do you assume aliens colored the baby? Did the markings happen spontaneously? I believe a reasonable mother would assume that big sister who has the marker in her hand, color all over her hand and arm, and is sitting next to the marked up baby is the likely culprit.
Even the evolutionary process holds to the basic tenet of cause and effect. If everything within the universe had to have had an adequate cause, then the universe in its totality must equally have had an adequate cause. If I am looking at something like Alpha, and Alpha has existed forever and the universe has not…then I must draw a conclusion.
This intellectual baby step allows us to gain a tiny hold of what Alpha must be. Let me explain. By licking your finger and determining that the material all over your nice new shirt is orange juice, you were able to determine what had been in the glass – without having to take a single sip. Now of course you may have preferred sipping to licking but that’s beside the point. The exciting point of this little thought experiment is that if Alpha is the original source of everything in the universe, then by examining the universe, we should be able to make some discoveries as to the composition of Alpha.
Everything we look at in the universe has had an adequate cause. If there is heat on our planet, it is because there is a heat source whether solar or geological. If I see someone with a bloody nose, I conclude that they were just struck.
Let’s just say you are a mother. You walk into the room and you see what is depicted in the picture on the right. Do you assume aliens colored the baby? Did the markings happen spontaneously? I believe a reasonable mother would assume that big sister who has the marker in her hand, color all over her hand and arm, and is sitting next to the marked up baby is the likely culprit.
Even the evolutionary process holds to the basic tenet of cause and effect. If everything within the universe had to have had an adequate cause, then the universe in its totality must equally have had an adequate cause. If I am looking at something like Alpha, and Alpha has existed forever and the universe has not…then I must draw a conclusion.
Alpha's Lifeline
Let’s say I draw an arrow representing eternity past (the existence of Alpha) and then poof! I strike a mark that indicates the birth of the universe. My most natural conclusion in looking at this diagram is that Alpha is the source of matter. The universe found its source, its genesis if you will, in Alpha because Alpha is the only thing that was around. The logic runs thus:
1. Alpha always existed, and
2. matter had a definite beginning, and
3. since it pre-existed matter, Alpha is immaterial, and
4. I know that everything in the universe had an adequate cause therefore the universe itself must also have an adequate cause.
Therefore, Alpha being the ONLY available candidate, must be that adequate cause.
Therefore everything that is in this universe found its beginnings, its source, however remote in Alpha. It should be possible then to study what is in the universe and draw some kind of conclusion as to the nature of Alpha. I may not be able to tell everything about Alpha, my findings may be skewed, but I should be able to make some kind of determination.
1. Alpha always existed, and
2. matter had a definite beginning, and
3. since it pre-existed matter, Alpha is immaterial, and
4. I know that everything in the universe had an adequate cause therefore the universe itself must also have an adequate cause.
Therefore, Alpha being the ONLY available candidate, must be that adequate cause.
Therefore everything that is in this universe found its beginnings, its source, however remote in Alpha. It should be possible then to study what is in the universe and draw some kind of conclusion as to the nature of Alpha. I may not be able to tell everything about Alpha, my findings may be skewed, but I should be able to make some kind of determination.
DNA
For example: if I were to take a child and through a series of tests study its genes, I would be able to tell certain things about its parents. I may not be able to tell everything, my findings may be rough, but I could determine that the child was the product of a male and female, what its parents race was, perhaps that one of the parents had blue eyes or a predisposition to diabetes. I could not determine what their character was by only studying his genes. I could not tell what effect the circumstances of their lives had on their outlook, but I could make some general determinations by examining their child.
Nuclear energy
We are all very familiar with the infamous mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion. All that amazing energy comes from the splitting of an atom! Theoretically, any atom should do. It’s simply easier to split some atoms than others. This is a good thing seeing the state of terrorist affairs in the world. This little complication in the production of atom bombs has made the CIA’s job a lot easier! Anyway, if a single atom possesses that much destructive power, imagine how many atoms are in the end of your little finger!
Our particular star (a favorite of mine by the way) maintains a core temperature of around 16 million degrees Kelvin. The amount of energy necessary to maintain this temperature, prevent old Sol from collapsing, and to keep all its hydrogen in a gaseous state is equivalent to exploding 100 billion tons of TNT each second! I hate to burst your bubble but Sol is not particularly outstanding as far as stars go.
In a recent study whose purpose was determining the number of stars in our galaxy alone, G. R. Bell (Harvey Mudd/USNO Flagstaff), and S. E. Levine (USNO Flagstaff) said in technicalese:
Using radial velocities and the recently determined proper motions for the Magellanic Clouds and the dwarf spheroidal galaxies in Sculptor and Ursa Minor, we have modeled the satellite galaxies' orbits around the Milky Way. Assuming the orbits of the dwarf spheroidals are bound, have apogalacticon less than 300 kpc, and are of low eccentricity, then the minimum mass of our galaxy contained within a radius of 100 kpc is 590 billion solar masses, and the most likely mass is 700 billion. These mass estimates and the orbit models were used to place limits on the possible maximum tangential velocities and proper motions of the other known dwarf spheroidal galaxies and to assess the likelihood of membership of the dwarf galaxies in various streams.
Blah, blah, blah…basically the short answer is that we have absolutely no idea how many stars are even in our galaxy, much less the entire universe because we have no idea what the average size of a star is and frankly, some of the stars are shyly hiding behind interstellar clouds. However, we can assume that there are trillions of stars out there. Our star is unique – just like every other one out there.
Our particular star (a favorite of mine by the way) maintains a core temperature of around 16 million degrees Kelvin. The amount of energy necessary to maintain this temperature, prevent old Sol from collapsing, and to keep all its hydrogen in a gaseous state is equivalent to exploding 100 billion tons of TNT each second! I hate to burst your bubble but Sol is not particularly outstanding as far as stars go.
In a recent study whose purpose was determining the number of stars in our galaxy alone, G. R. Bell (Harvey Mudd/USNO Flagstaff), and S. E. Levine (USNO Flagstaff) said in technicalese:
Using radial velocities and the recently determined proper motions for the Magellanic Clouds and the dwarf spheroidal galaxies in Sculptor and Ursa Minor, we have modeled the satellite galaxies' orbits around the Milky Way. Assuming the orbits of the dwarf spheroidals are bound, have apogalacticon less than 300 kpc, and are of low eccentricity, then the minimum mass of our galaxy contained within a radius of 100 kpc is 590 billion solar masses, and the most likely mass is 700 billion. These mass estimates and the orbit models were used to place limits on the possible maximum tangential velocities and proper motions of the other known dwarf spheroidal galaxies and to assess the likelihood of membership of the dwarf galaxies in various streams.
Blah, blah, blah…basically the short answer is that we have absolutely no idea how many stars are even in our galaxy, much less the entire universe because we have no idea what the average size of a star is and frankly, some of the stars are shyly hiding behind interstellar clouds. However, we can assume that there are trillions of stars out there. Our star is unique – just like every other one out there.
Proposition 4
All this power, all this unfathomable, mind boggling, brain searing, knee knocking…well, you get the point…all this energy came from Alpha. At the age of fourteen, having carefully considered the energy contained in my pencil, I gingerly wrote:
Prop. 4 -If α is the universal existent and the source of the universe, then everything finds its existence in α. Therefore all the energy of the universe has α as its source. Therefore α may be defined as omnipotent.
So, there is something we have elected to call Alpha that has always existed. Alpha is not structured energy but is immaterial or incorporeal. This means Alpha does not have a body. It is not localized. Yet it is the source of all things and is thus the source of all energy, both structured and unstructured. Alpha is omnipotent.
Since Alpha has always existed, for time and eternity past, there is no cause to think that the creation of the universe brought about its demise. Anything that is the source of that much energy – who’s to say its energy is not infinite? If that is the case, then the arrival of the universe we know and love would simply be a tiny blip on Alpha’s radar. Unlike human parents Alpha’s energy would not be depleted by its progeny.
As a fourteen year old, that was an amazing concept to consider. How could something immaterial give birth to something material? How could something eternal give rise to something mortal and subject to entropy?
Then I began to look at my own body. I am more than an accumulation of cells. If I lose my arm, am I not still uniquely me? If I am paralyzed, has my basic personality, temperament or character changed? Even if I suffered brain damage, the self would continue; battered, broken and perhaps with sufficient damage barely recognizable, but there nevertheless. The software supersedes the hardware. The various algorithms, random memories and subjective feelings are not me. They are what I use to understand my environment.
I originally believed that perhaps just as I shed cells and hairs every day, perhaps this universe was something like Alpha’s sloughed off skin. In my more bitter and despairing moments I considered this universe Alpha’s defecation!
Nevertheless, there were a few more points I was able to derive from Alpha’s immaterial state.
Prop. 4 -If α is the universal existent and the source of the universe, then everything finds its existence in α. Therefore all the energy of the universe has α as its source. Therefore α may be defined as omnipotent.
So, there is something we have elected to call Alpha that has always existed. Alpha is not structured energy but is immaterial or incorporeal. This means Alpha does not have a body. It is not localized. Yet it is the source of all things and is thus the source of all energy, both structured and unstructured. Alpha is omnipotent.
Since Alpha has always existed, for time and eternity past, there is no cause to think that the creation of the universe brought about its demise. Anything that is the source of that much energy – who’s to say its energy is not infinite? If that is the case, then the arrival of the universe we know and love would simply be a tiny blip on Alpha’s radar. Unlike human parents Alpha’s energy would not be depleted by its progeny.
As a fourteen year old, that was an amazing concept to consider. How could something immaterial give birth to something material? How could something eternal give rise to something mortal and subject to entropy?
Then I began to look at my own body. I am more than an accumulation of cells. If I lose my arm, am I not still uniquely me? If I am paralyzed, has my basic personality, temperament or character changed? Even if I suffered brain damage, the self would continue; battered, broken and perhaps with sufficient damage barely recognizable, but there nevertheless. The software supersedes the hardware. The various algorithms, random memories and subjective feelings are not me. They are what I use to understand my environment.
I originally believed that perhaps just as I shed cells and hairs every day, perhaps this universe was something like Alpha’s sloughed off skin. In my more bitter and despairing moments I considered this universe Alpha’s defecation!
Nevertheless, there were a few more points I was able to derive from Alpha’s immaterial state.
