Good day evryone!
In my quest to turn the flaming contest you can mostly see in recents posts, into an actual discussion worth having, we are going to discuss the posibility of a creator here. Any by that, i mean the probability that our universe is the work of the hand ( Or tentacle – more on this later. ) of one or more sentient beings.
To make things easier, i am going to refer to this person or group as “The maker”, to prevent any further confusion i have to put emphasis one these:
- I am not talking about any god or gods from some religion. This is a serious post that should be folowed by a serious discussion, not a place for fairy tales, or to push your delusions on others.
- This is all speculation, and evry claim that is not following the pharse “the fact that” or something similar, is to be treated as such.
- This is a two parter, this part is about arguments for or against the idea of a universe that was made by someone. The second one will be for the nature of the maker. If you simply HAVE to push your gods into it, rather do it in the second, as in this one.
Now thats all clear, here are the arguments for the existence of the maker.
First, the most often heard, the logical hullaloop many people use:
“Someone had to make you, and the world ect. Things dont come out of nowhere.”
The rebuttal for that is simple, nobody said we came out of nowhere. And you cant apply this at all, without contradicting yourself. If evrything would need a maker, there would be nothing. If you say the maker is an excepcion, then why couldnt be the world be an excepcion as well?
That being said, that the world doesnt needs a maker, it doesnt necessarily means that it has none.
Next is a much more convincing argument. The fine tuning of the universe.
As you might know, if you had basic education in physics, our world as we know it, or rather the matter we are made of, mostly consists of molecules, wich consist of atoms, wich consist of subatomic particles. These things are all held togedher by various forces. You know of gravity, you know of magnetic forces, yes? Think of these subatomic forces, like something similar. Unlike gravity and magnetism however, if these forces would change only a bit, our universe would be a great nothingness.
If that wich keeps the nucleus of an atom in one piece was just a bit weaker, there would nothing but hydrogen and free neutrons in our world. If the force keeping the electrons in place would be just a bit weaker, or stronger, we wouldnt even have that, either electrons would go free, leaving us with nothing but aplha and beta rays (free protons and electrons), or they would dive into the nucleus leaving us with free neutrons with nothing better to do as flying around.
In other words, it looks like as if someone or something had really fine tuned the universe, so matter itself, stars, planets, back holes could come into existence.
While so far this is the most convincing argument for a Maker, keep in mind that there are other possible explanations for this. I could name at least tree.
- The Anthropic principle.: The fisher who wonders why he doesnt catch fish smaller as the holes in his net. The idea is that there might be infinate universes, and ours is the one where our existence is possible, othervise we woudlnt be here to discuss it, no?
- The idea of a “natural selection” of universes.: There might be a number of universes, and other universes spam from them, but only from those capable of sustaining black holes, and our kind of matter is needed for this. Thats closer a bit to science fiction, as there is nothing to indicate black holes spawn entire universes. The so called “white holes” that spill out the matter that a black hole sucked in somewhere are just a theory, we have yet to spot one.
- There might be an unseen constant in the equation of sumbatomic forces that our scientists missed so far, that would correct the other forces to match if one changed.
I know these were only two arguments for a maker, but it was the two most important ones i think. The one most often repeated, and the one i actually find convincing.
Now an argument against the Maker. The universe itself.
Yes, the Universe itself, why? Just look at it. Do you see any order in it, anything that might serve any kind of purpose, or goal, or at least looks like a bit as if it was planned?
And dont you point out things on our world, our planet is a piece of dust flying around a star that is actually in the light-weight league if it comes to stars. We are talking here about the Maker of the universe. Anybody thinking that compared to the universe we count for anything, has delusions of grandeur.
If you watch closely all you can see is nature going its way without any kind of direction or goal to it. Stars burning away their hydrogen, chunks of matter going their path. Evrything seems round, because gravity pulls them togedher that way, evrything is moving like its own inertia and nearby objects are pulling it. Comets, asteroids and planets run into each other, as well as stars sometimes, even entire galaxies are collapsing into another. It looks chaotic, it is chaotic. If any action spawned this, it was more like a giant sneeze, rather then an engeneer spending a night at the drawing table.
Maybe the lead engeneer sneezed on the drawing table and the construction team took their job too literal?
But seriously now, if this was planned in any way, dont tell me that you can make heads and tails of it. If there is any kind of goal, a hand directing it, i dont see it.
Then again, a sentience alien to my own might see some kind of order, and direction in where i only behold chaos and mindlessness. Wich will bring us to part two, the Nature of the hypothetical Maker.
For any further arguments for or against a hypothetical creator of the universe, i invite you to comment below. For anything else there will be the next post.