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 Problem

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. 

Thought experiment 

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.

Complexity Theory

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?

Views: 406

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It is nearly universally accepted that the universe began in a much more compact and ordered state than it does now. If the Big Bang hypothesis is right then the universe began in a state of zero entropy. We can observe the matter in the universe spreading out and cooling down (i.e. cosmic microwave background) even now. If we apply the second law of thermodynamics to this then we can see that the universe will continue to spread out and become less ordered and if it survives for long enough will eventually end in the 'Heat Death' when all of the matter has reached equilibrium and the entropy is at its highest. There may well be almost infinitesimal fluctuations but other than that the universe as we know it will be dead. (source)

In other words, everything you wrote above is horseshit. 

Anwar, you do realise that matter in space is accelerating away from 'Central Point'? To achieve your maximum entropy point, then matter would have to be decelerating.  When we can explain why satisfactorily, we can start projections based on more solid fact.

I'm just pointing out anthro-centric thinking where I see it.

Very good insight. Also, as in how man invents and paints God in his own image.

Stories/descriptions of Big Bang and God are just models, invented by humans. The difference is, scientific stories/descriptions of the Big Bang are open to question, as we learn more and more over time based on ideas and observations. But stories/descriptions of God(s) are "just so" stories, to be accepted without skepticism or (heaven forbid!) editing of the primary text.

Different religions leave little room for coming together on what God really is or wants. Religionists generally just continue to believe what's been historically taugh by their local culture. But science is subject to universal criticism and testing, every day, with the object of approaching agreement on methods and techniques that will attain well known, predictable outcomes.

Science learns with skepticism and tinkering, on purpose and by accident, not stuck eternally to an enforced scripture or dogma. Science and Religion neither try nor need to agree with each other, but different sciences eventually agree with each other because of their intent to accurately and consistently describe shared reality.

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?

That was a large post, some of it non-sequitor, if not ambiguous. If taken seriously, I see dozens of pages coming that provide more useless arguments and questions than answers. A couple quick answers to your questions, anyway:

Question 2) which definition are you asking about? My atheistic definition of science is that it doesn't need or seek God to explain what can be discovered about the universe. Even if God laid down fossils and created microwave background radiation, science's questions answers are like "what physical processes caused these artifacts" and more importantly, what can we learn about energy, matter, genetics, life, medicine, and so on.

Question 4) Science's first answer to any question is always "I don't know, but how do we find out?". Religion's first (non) answer is often "Who knows, God works in mysterious ways."

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.

This statement is useless, and fatalistic. Zero chance of understanding what? Everything? Science admits what it doesn't know, what it's speculating about, but continues to seek and learn learn as much as it can about reality, even if only a portion of it. So far, it's only a portion large enough to engineer nuclear energy, air and space travel, television, reproductive science and medicine (which now saves more babies than God used to let die)... and too much more to mention here. Where would we be, if everyone in the world just sat back and said "Wow, we'll never comprehend all that God has created, so why even try, and why should science ever even attempted to understand anything?".

The difference between science and religion regarding the inception of the universe is that science is ready to live with the mystery of not knowing whereas religion must have an explanation, even if it's the rather obviously made-up and silly idea that some magical sorcerer made the universe.

I would put it more as:

Science may one day give us the answers, if we ask the right questions.

Religion thinks it has all the answers and allows for no questions.

Science continuously accrues new discoveries, new answers to questions, and new questions to answer. The books get updated, a few course corrections are made, the knowledge-base and possibilities grow larger, and the power of science grows... hopefully first in the hands of good people in a society that keeps themselves fully informed, and ready to vote.

Different sciences eventually come to complement each other over time, in harmony, because they are all trying to explain the same, real world, and universe.

But religious books never change, nor do the disagreements of those who dedicate themselves to reading only those books. Each religion might just as well exist on a separate planet, each playing their unique tune, never having to harmonize with each other's "reality".

The way I see it, it boils down to choice. Agnostics choose to keep their options open, should evidence arise, and then make the decision. Atheists, even though we don't know if there is a god, choose to go ahead and live life as if there is no god, seeing as how it actually works better without a god in the model than with it.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service