Atheism is a growing trend. More people are atheists now than ever before in recorded history. Atheism is the belief that there is no deity or intelligent designer and there never was.
There is hard science to support this belief.
What follows is an explanation of how the universe formed by accident. However, we are still left with a number of unique problems which are examined through the science of complexity theory and complexification.
The Big Bang
The event that formed the universe is referred to as the Big Bang. Matter exploded from a singular point. There were only a few elements in the beginning. Gravity came with the Big Bang, along with three other fundamental forces. electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear. The Big Bang continued to expand. Over time, matter interacted in unpredictable ways resulting in the formation of stars, galaxies and the elements.
Everything began with a spherical shape, just like the explosion itself. A sphere is the only shape on which every point on the surface is equidistant from the center of gravity. Some objects began as round but collided with other objects and became spirals. This random nature resulted in a complex, dynamic system where matter could clump together. Huge clumps of matter weighed more and influenced the gravity of other objects near them.
Electromagnetism also came with the Big Bang, and is the force that binds electrons to nuclei, allowing for the formation of atoms. Everything we see around us is the result of a partnership between electromagnetism and gravity.
Life occurred on earth much in the same way the universe did. Except that it took place on a smaller scale, and instead of enormous stellar entities colliding, it was small chains of molecules. It took billions of years for the molecular matter in the universe to become complex enough to cause enough accidents that eventually a functional molecule acquired the ability to make copies of itself.
The molecule achieved this by attaching to itself a blueprint, or having one by accident. Essentially, a self-replicating machine. The attached data eventually became more complex and evolved into DNA.Radiation from the sun and weak-nuclear radiation from surrounding elements produced mutations in the DNA.
About this time, complex, functional molecules were undergoing mutations while competing for resources with other similar molecules. Complexity continued to increase until molecules developed sensors and special functions, for instance, the detection of another type of molecule in its environment. Early molecules could make more accurate copies of themselves if they protected their blueprint information better. This was the beginning of protection and competition. Molecules with different sets of blueprints needed to isolate themselves from molecules with other kinds of blueprints.
These conditions combined to create the concept of survival. Molecules acquired additional functions that enabled them to survive better in their environment. The environment then changed due to interstellar events, solar events, geological events, magnetic, chemical or planetary processes or because of the activities of other molecules. Molecules began to develop adaptive functions so they could protect their blueprints from these sudden or gradual environmental changes.
Meteors bombarded the earth. Some were the result of distant explosions and introduced new elements or compounds which also accelerated the complexification of functional molecules. Functional molecules became complex enough to be called life. Life continued to increase in complexity according to what it knew about its environment. This 'knowledge' was stored in DNA, and also increased in complexity.
Catastrophic events in the earth's history have wiped out almost all of the life on earth that has ever previously existed. The result was a killing off of the least responsive members of a species. Also species considered to be 'old models' that were not as well adapted to the environment did not survive the events. This made room for more complexity and diversity and also accelerated complexification.
The life-span of a species is approximately 5-10 million years. There are exceptions such as horseshoe crabs, cockroaches and hagfish, which have remained relatively unchanged and are still present after hundreds of millions of years. The complexity continued, until one species Homo Sapien emerged, primarily as a result of carnivorous activity which accelerated the complexity and capacity of the Homo Sapien brain.
The Homo Sapien species is distinct from all others on earth in that they rapidly developed an intellect that resulted in advanced techniques for manipulating the environment. They are physically inferior compared to other species, except in long-distance running. But their intellect led them to the development of agriculture which was the starting point for a highly complex civilization that has now dominated the planet.
Homo Sapiens are unique in that they have accelerated their complexification by isolating themselves from the environment and imposing a completely specific, artificial environment of shelters, transport routes and information exchange. They have also built permanent information storage repositories. They have altered the process of natural selection within their own species and other species on earth.
Complex Adaptive System
It should be evident by now that the universe steers all things towards increased complexity. And thus we come round to the point of the matter (no pun intended). To be clear, this argument is presented absent certain words which are commonly heard in their respective 'labels'. Creator falsely implies creationism proponent, designer falsely implies intelligent design proponent and other words such as architect, engineer, god, maker, lord and deity will be left out.
The universe, although accidental, demonstrates a number of tendencies that are indicative of a purpose, which as was established above, are the continuous complexity and enrichment of self-replicating things, both organic and inorganic, and both sentient and non-sentient. These principles can be observed at every order of magnitude, from the lives of stars to the lives of bacteria.
The Big Bang was the spontaneous emergence of a complex adaptive system insensitive to its initial conditions. It was an emergent phenomena, but, most importantly, came with a configuration. It came with the four fundamental forces. And using only those, and time, generated a billion trillion stars and an estimated sextillion species.
The casual existence of a system of such incomprehensible enormity in which we are both participant and observer is evidence of an existing source of energy of extraordinary magnitude. Evident also is the use of that energy to produce a contained or uncontained, complex adaptive system capable of generating an enormous volume of space over a 30 billion year period through a process of complexification.
The universe's purpose, as should be evident by its behavior, is to perpetually complexify and ultimately connect itself with itself. This is why humanity has an urge to go beyond earth into space. We are the universe observing itself. We want to connect everything with everything. This also explains globalization and the internet.
That we are alone in the universe is an anthrocentric point of view. To presume that the trillions of stars are all empty is the same as saying the sun revolves around the earth. The Drake equation Fermi and Rare Earth hypothesis fall victim to the same egocentric thinking. That some extraordinary, unfathomable set of circumstances were required for life to form on earth, and nowhere else. Given the size of the universe and the billion trillion star systems, it would be astonishing and completely egocentric to say we were all alone.
Given its extraordinary size and complexity, any given region of it, at any time, is engaged in the process of complexifying matter into millions of self-organizing systems. Not only should life be common, it is expected to exist wherever it can, and increase in volume as the universe ages.
Let us assume a correlation between intelligence and the size of an explosion or energy release that a civilization is capable of producing. For humans it would be the Hydrogen Bomb.
Imagine you are a tiny bacteria who wakes up one morning. Little do you know that your home is a nuclear testing site now. A hydrogen bomb is being detonated by some Homo Sapiens. They want to see it explode and test everything afterward. You are there to witness the explosion. But as a bacteria you only register that it happened. You stand no chance of ever understanding what it was. You would probably ask your other bacteria friends (who lived through the blast) and they would call it a Big Bang which came from nowhere.
Now imagine you are a bacteria and the Big Bang was a Hydrogen Bomb test conducted 13.5 billion years ago. We have no chance of understanding what circumstances resulted in the Big Bang. We are far, far far, too simple.
The Big Bang was by no means, a neutral, non-intelligent activity. Anything capable of producing that much energy with the guided purpose of a injecting a complex adaptive system that continuously self-complexifies until a critical mass or threshold of inter-connectivity is achieved - well, not only is demonstrative of intelligence, it's demonstrative of an intelligence that is so colossal and powerful that we stand zero chance of understanding it. Apart from that we lack the sufficient biology to perceive all of it.
The universe strives through a number of mechanisms to accelerate, in different phases, the complexity of matter. There is no apparent threshold to complexity. It simply 'turns the corner' as it were. It unfolds into something else. The universe is a complex adaptive system made up of multiple interconnected elements that can change and learn from experience. It has all the features of a complex adaptive system: Damping, amplifying, thermodynamic gradients, cascading failures, feedback loops, synergetics, hysteresis and chaos.
It can learn from its past and present environment. It is a non-equilibrium thermodynamic, self-organizing, open system, governed by the intricate of interplay of particles which, continually unfolds into new iterations and microcosmic systems.
The object of this post was to pose a number of questions, not excluding:
1. Is this compatible with atheistic viewpoints?
2. Is atheism defined as merely anti-dogmatic, anti-theocratic (essentially political)
3. Can the evidence presented be disproven?
4. Is the more scientific response I don't know as opposed to No?
All agnostics are atheists since they do not believe in god. I am a hard atheist since I have no doubt that god doesn't exist. Most atheists allow a slight probability that a "god" might exist. It all boils down to one's position on the possibility of god.
Actually, an agnostic is someone who suspends their belief (or lack thereof) because they don't think there's enough evidence for either side. In other words, they don't practice religion or claim to believe in god(s), but they're not going to say that god doesn't exist either. I was agnostic before I became atheist, because I figured, sure, you can't prove that god exists, but you can't prove that god doesn't exist either. So agnostics don't necessarily "not believe in god" as you say. They're basically just on the fence.
Doubting is not the same as believing.
I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe God exists (that's the atheist part) but I'm not going to stick my fingers in my ears and hum loudly when a theist tries to present his arguments (that's the agnostic part).
The mythical god of the bible (and all religions) can be dis-proven using science, history, archaeology and common sense. The bible mentions talking snakes for f*ck sake, is that not enough right there? The biblical god thought the world he created was flat and was at the centre of the universe. That, for me, thoroughly disproves the Christian god (and all the mono-theisms) As for a kind of deistic creating god, well, I leave open the possibility of its existence in the same way as I do for zebras on Mars. All gods are extremely improbable.
Co-worker: Something had to create all this. There has to be a God.
Me:Well then what created god?
Co-worker: God doesn't need to be created
Me: Well then why did "all this" have to be created
The universe isn't doing anything that matter can't do on its own,. The universe may be young, but it is already past any overall tendency to complexity. Things may be getting complex here and there, but on the whole the tendency is that the universe is slowly growing colder and tending toward entropy.
Is there an elephant in the bathroom of the house next door to you?
I don't know.
Do you believe there is an elephant in the bathroom of the house next door to you?
The only difference between agnosticism and Atheism, is belief. Scientifically, a lack of evidence both for and against something can only be answered with, "I don't know." Epistemologically, a lack of evidence both for and against something can only be answered with, "No."
There is an infinite amount of time before the big bang. But because everything, including time, was squeezed through a bottleneck, so to speak, it's irrelevant. It can be treated as not even being there. Many significant things must have happened before, but it's not significant after the big bang.
The Universe does not strive toward complexity. In fact the universe is relatively simple, as it can be explained with a series of mathematic calculations. Yes; we still have to figure out some of those equations but, once we do, we'll wonder why (like Relativity) no one thought of it before.
Quantum Mechanics has put out several Theories (like gravity) that explain how our universe formed from pure energy (NO elements in the beginning - matter formed as everything cooled) from Branes (not brains) and multiple (11) dimensions.
Life is complex, but only because evolution as a response to a changing environment & the need for energy (food) in varying atmospheres and temperatures created a more complex system.
Theist response is always "I know, because my book tells me"
Scientific response should always be "I think I know, but I'll test it & if I'm wrong, I'll adjust to what the evidence shows."
It would be difficult to prove that the universe does not strive toward complexity. Or that it does not by nature because more complex over time. Its very definition is the continual complexification of matter. This can be observed at any scale, microscopic, macroscopic. It the the same thing everywhere you look. Matter becoming more complex.
In other words, the universe never simplifies. Hence my theory (and it is a theory or thought experiment) that the universe can have only one destination, which is total interconnectedness.
Also consider the exponential curve from simplicity to complexity. The universe is already insanely more complicated than it was 10 billion years ago.
Human civilization is already insanely more complicated than it was 6,000 years ago. If the complexification (yes that is a word) is the 'direction' than it must be the tendency.
And what about of math can account for the spontaneous emergence of 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 star systems? That seems EXPENSIVE. That seems like what I've said before, that it is difficult to say with a straight face that there was no intelligence involved there.
It's like a flea (or something infintesimally smaller) assuming there was no intelligence behind the creation of the Hadron Collider. The flea just says, "Well, that's enormous. I don't know how it works. And therefore it came from nothing."
I'm just pointing out anthro-centric thinking where I see it.