A fundamental argument for Creationist is done by the process of using the extensive research of science and searching for examples of irreducible complexity which would seem out of reach for science and could only be plausible by a superior deity. These missing links are sought out in present-day knowledge or understanding by Creationist and are called (by many philosophers and theologians) ‘gaps’. “If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it. What worries thoughtful theologians… is that gaps shrink as science advances, and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide.”[Richard Dawkins] The misunderstanding of gaps and other mysteries of science, such as quantum- or meta- physics, that brings forth a misrepresented idea that God, by default, is the only possible explanation.

            God is easily represented as a simple way to explain the universes and there is no arguing that in many cases that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. Nonetheless, it is needless to say that God is far more complex than what he’s made out to be. The idea that an all powerful, all knowing super being creating the universe is raising a far greater question that philosophers have been asking for hundreds of years, “How was God (a ridiculously complex deity) created?” This question later allowed science to ask that same question but using the Scientific Method.

            I like to refer to the Scientific Method like a game of Sudoku (a logic-based number placement puzzle. The objective is to fill a 9×9 grid so that each column, each row, and each of the nine 3×3 boxes contain the digits from 1 to 9, only one time each). When beginning this game of Sudoku, you are given a series of numbers to start the game (as displayed in the picture below).

These given numbers are what I refer to as facts in science, this would include anything that we know as laws of the universe or anything we can see touch or measure (all things that cannot be disputed). Given that information you are able to make assumptions, based on the facts that you have, that a particular box is more than likely a certain number.

(this example shows the logic used to indicate why it makes sense that this is write)

That particular show of logic is what science would call a theory, something that would go through all the rules of Sudoku (the Scientific Method) and find no evidence that contradicted the theory. After that there are many situations in the game where only a particular few numbers will properly fit into a given box.

In scientific view, these would be hypothesis, which are any hints or educated guesses that potentially hold through the discovered evidence, although does not have enough evidence to be though without a doubt.

            By this Sudoku terminology, completing the grid is the scientific goal. Steven Hawkings (one of the most prestigious scientist in the world) has many times over said that “one day I have hopes that we will discover all the mysteries of the universe and be able to simplify them in ways that can be taught to children.” However, until that we are left with a series of hypothesis and a multitude of theory that all cannot become fact until the puzzle is filled. Until then, these empty boxes get used by Creationist to help persuade a deity. The largest of these gaps today are still in retrospect the largest to ever exist; the probability of the cosmos, universe and life itself.

            The Anthropic Principle is widely introduced philosophical viewpoint of how the cosmos, universe and life itself were able to be produced under such high improbability. By definition, the anthropic principle states that humans should take into account the constraints that human existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that could be observed. In other words, the only universe we can see is one that supports life. If it were a different type of universe, we would not exist to see it. Inconclusively, we are figuratively a needle in a stack of 100 billion haystacks. So from the needles perspective, it’s easily comprehensible to believe that the chances of it being the needle seems imposable, but from every other part of the 100 billion haystacks, the needle seems to have to be somewhere.

In a planetary sense, our planet is in perfect track to what a planet needs to support life, thus being able to support life. Now under the concept that these conditions are rare, it seems entirely possible considering how many unsuccessful tries the cosmos was given. It is estimated that the cosmos as we can see consists of over a billion different galaxies each consisting of over 100 billion planets. That would be in total, there are 100 billion billion (or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000) planets in the universe. So even if the chances of all the building blocks required to produce life are 1 in 100 billion, there would be billions of planets producing life.

(Take a note how big a billion actually is; A billion credit cards combined would weigh the same as 1562 hippopotamuses, 52 blue whales, or 78 brachiosaurus. If a billion credit cards stacked up they would be as high as: 120 Mt. Everests or 7,219 Great Pyramids)

            Getting past that it is easy to say that even if we are the ONLY planet in the universe with life, it is statically very possible that it would happen, and if it wasn’t we wouldn’t be around to justify its existence.

            “The anthropic principle is usually applied not to planets but to universes. Physicists have suggested that the laws and constants of physics are too good - as if the universe were set up to favour our eventual evolution. It is as though there were, say, half a dozen dials representing the major constants of physics. Each of the dials could in principle be tuned to any of a wide range of values. Almost all of these knob-twiddlings would yield a universe in which life would be impossible. Some universes would fizzle out within the first picosecond. Others would contain no elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. In yet others, matter would never condense into stars (and you need stars in order to forge the elements of chemistry and hence life). You can estimate the very low odds against the six knobs all just happening to be correctly tuned, and conclude that a divine knob-twiddler must have been at work. But, as we have already seen, that explanation is vacuous because it begs the biggest question of all. The divine knob twiddler would himself have to have been at least as improbable as the settings of his knobs.” [Richard Dawkins] Although, as far as scientist know, it’s possible that these knobs were never able to be readjusted and that physics works under the laws that it does because it has to in order to work at all. Even if that is not the case, understanding the planetary anthropic principle it works the same way when it comes to the universe(s). If there are a series of different universes, with an unknown number or infinite number of them, it would seem unlikely that we of all universes would be the ones that could produce life, although the fact that we are able to observe that scenario guarantees that we are a universe that can produce life. In other words, if there were only universes that could not produce life, there would be no life to question how it would. “As physicists have said, it is no accident that we see stars in our sky, for a universe without stars would also lack the chemical elements necessary for life. There may be universes whose skies have no stars: but they also have no inhabitants to notice the lack.” [as quoted in The God Delusion]

The atheist belief of how the cosmos’s fundamentally functions can be seen, tested, and evaluated by abundant amounts of people and offer information that is normally out of reach of the everyday view. For instance, Daniel Dennett mentioned in his book Breaking the Spell that “you are normally oblivious of your own blind spot, and people are typically amazed to discover that we don’t see colors in our peripheral vision. It seems as if we do, but we don’t, as you can prove to yourself by wiggling colored cards at the edge of your vision—you’ll see motion just fine but not be able to identify the color of the moving thing.” Science has been able to find answers that are visible to the world, with proof, ideas that an everyday person would not even consider. Undoubtedly, religion does offer a well structured argument that really throws people off perspective and to the average person seems to be lost to think there is no other answer. The complex universe has numerous variables that, if changed in the slightest, would make the universe inhabitable. Our loss of ability to view this blind spot leaves the norm to believe that all these misleading blind spots are subject of a deity. This however is not the case.

In contrast with intelligent design theory, Anthropic Principle implies that the creation (or lack-there-of) of the cosmos is a statistical guarantee along with the question of the universe and our inhabitable planet; and from the perspective of observers of this, we are subject to a bias to think the opposite. This is all in spite seeing that out of the entire cosmos, we are justifiably the sole purpose of it all; not just earth, but the human race alone.

Religion is often thought to be out-of-play to scientific study and it is often taught that science could not explain how the cosmos began. However, is this all entirely true? In regards to disproving a particular religious experience, beliefs, texts, and history, science would be seen as out of bounds to play an argument against. Although science can explain an alternative solution to how the universe works and how it began. (Or if it began at all) In this sense no religious text or believe could disprove the science suggesting the alternative. So it is safe to say that the argument that science can’t disprove religion can also be turned around on itself. Although the atheist belief of how everything works can be seen, tested, and reviewed by multiple people in its results offering information that is normally out of reach of the everyday view. For instance, Daniel Dennett mentioned in his book Breaking the Spell that “you are normally oblivious of your own blind spot, and people are typically amazed to discover that we don’t see colors in our peripheral vision. It seems as if we do, but we don’t, as you can prove to yourself by wiggling colored cards at the edge of your vision—you’ll see motion just fine but not be able to identify the color of the moving thing.” Science has been able to find answers that are visible to the world, with proof, ideas that an everyday person would not even consider. Undoubtedly, religion does offer a well structured argument that really throws people off perspective and to the average person seems to be lost to think there is no other answer. As complex as the universe is given that it has numerous variables that, if changed in the slightest, would make the universe inhabitable. Noting this, it seems nearly imposable for an instance like this to work out so perfectly to our advantage. This is known as the anthropic principle.

By definition, the anthropic principle states that humans should take into account the constraints that human existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that could be observed. In other words, the only universe we can see is one that supports life. If it were a different type of universe, we would not exist to see it. Inconclusively, we are figuratively a needle in a stack of 100 billion haystacks. So from the needles perspective, it is easy to find itself, but from every other part of the 100 billion haystacks, the needle appears to be impossible to find. In a planetary sense, our planet is in perfect track to what a planet needs to support life, thus being able to support life. Now under the concept that these conditions are rare, it seems entirely possible considering how many unsuccessful tries the cosmos was given. It is estimated that the cosmos as we can see consists of over a billion different galaxies each consisting of over 100 billion planets. That would be in total, there are 100 billion billion (or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000) planets in the universe. So even if the chances of all the building blocks required to produce life are 1 in 100 billion, there would be billions of planets producing life. (Take a note how big a billion actually is; A billion credit cards combined would weigh the same as 1562 hippopotamuses, 52 blue whales, or 78 brachiosaurus. If a billion credit cards stacked up they would be as high as: 120 Mt. Everests or 7,219 Great Pyramids) Getting past that it is easy to say that even if we are the ONLY planet in the universe with life, it is statically very possible that it would happen.

“The anthropic principle is usually applied not to planets but to universes. Physicists have suggested that the laws and constants of physics are too good - as if the universe were set up to favour our eventual evolution. It is as though there were, say, half a dozen dials representing the major constants of physics. Each of the dials could in principle be tuned to any of a wide range of values. Almost all of these knob-twiddlings would yield a universe in which life would be impossible. Some universes would fizzle out within the first picosecond. Others would contain no elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. In yet others, matter would never condense into stars (and you need stars in order to forge the elements of chemistry and hence life). You can estimate the very low odds against the six knobs all just happening to be correctly tuned, and conclude that a divine knob-twiddler must have been at work. But, as we have already seen, that explanation is vacuous because it begs the biggest question of all. The divine knob twiddler would himself have to have been at least as improbable as the settings of his knobs.” (Richard Dawkins) Although as far as scientist know, its possible that these knobs were never able to be readjusted and that physics works under the laws that it does because it has to in order to work at all. Even if that is not the case, understanding the planetary anthropic principle it works the same way when it comes to the universe(s). If there are a series of different universes, with an unknown number or infinite number of them, it would seem unlikely that we of all universes would be the ones that could produce life, although the fact that we are able to observe that scenario guarantees that we are a universe that can produce life. In other words, if there were only universes that could not produce life, there would be no life to question how it would. “As physicists have said, it is no accident that we see stars in our sky, for a universe without stars would also lack the chemical elements necessary for life. There may be universes whose skies have no stars: but they also have no inhabitants to notice the lack.” (as quoted in The God Delusion)

….This passage will be added to later on with additional content including the anthropic principle regarding to life itself and much more.

As most of you know, I consider myself an atheist and in many ways like to express that view a lot. When I am concentrating on a particular subject that I haven’t quite had enough feedback with, I like to either discuss it or post about it on my website. I have to say right now. Although, I must say that I am a lot more educated about religious topics than I was a few months ago and probably will grow more educated as time goes on. Many of the posts that I have posted on my website, as of now, I do not claim to be true or completely accurate and I do not want people to think that the particular subjects I am posting about are 100% unless I say otherwise. (And even then, I would like people to raise questions) I do not want to give people a false impression on atheist or mis-educate people at the same time. I realize now that some of my earlier post such as “The Theory of Atheist” post has many flaws that need to be fixed in order to be conceived as a followable theory and I would recommend that people don’t think this as a tested theory or reliable at all. The reason I post theories like these is merely to see all the flaws in it after its been pointed out by more educated people and grow on the ideas to better educate myself. I like to think in the sense of a scientist in the fact that I believe that I can be wrong and I can learn off of that. So basically I am only asking for raw feedback when I post things on my site and this is my disclaimer to that.

A question of time has much baffled great scientist and norms alike. When did it start? When does it end? Is there a start? And how did it happen? Many will argue that a personal God is the answer to all these questions. God is the creator of the universe and he eternal. This leads to a question of “What created God?” to the popular mind. The only way out of this is to say that he has always been here, which is the common answer to hear by most theists. Although there appears to be lurking a new questions beyond this, and not even I really though about it before I heard someone ask it. If god has been here for all of eternity, why did he wait an infinite amount of years before creating the universe? This question is designed, not to have an answer but to address an issue, although the designer of the question did not realize that there is even a deeper issue beyond the underlining issue.

To understand my point in full I have to explain exactly what infinity is and how it does and does not work. Infinity is a notion that was grasped by most grade school students. Minimally it is describe to have no beginning and no end is to be infinite. People like Stephen Hawking and Einstein take this concept to the next level: they take it to the physical level of the universe, to a quantum level of matter, and to the level of the origin of the cosmos. Although, when you put in the idea of a personal god or creator of the universe, this whole idea changes completely. In order for the idea of infinity to work it must both have no beginning and no end, it can’t have one without the other or it defies the very laws of infinity.

I have talked about this topic before and I did find that there are some issues that people do not immediately understand. The phrasing of the question was one. “If god has been here for all of eternity, why did he wait an infinite amount of years before creating the universe?” This question implies some concepts that are not exactly understood by everyone. I was put for by the questions, who said he waited an infinite amount of years before creating the universe. In an infinite timeline, if you put the creation of the universe at any point on the timeline there will still be an infinite amount of time before and after that point, so no matter when it was created there was an infinite amount of time put forth before it, thus meaning that he waiting an infinite amount of time before creating it. However, this is not where the problem essentially lies, to be infinite would imply that there is no end and no beginning like I said before, this means for God to decide to wait for an infinite amount of time before creating the universe, he himself would have to be able to defy infinity itself. This is much like asking the question “could God create a stone so heavy that he could not lift it?” (Stephen Hawking) Could he break down the very principles that he himself exists in. In order to fully understand the problem I have to bring up Murphy’s Law, Murphy broadly proclaimed that in an infinite amount of time, if you give something a chance to happen, it will happen. This would entail that God being able to defy the laws of infinity itself, infinity could not exist because it will eventually be defied. This would mean that God could not be living in an infinite state of being and if he does, he would not be able to function in it or defy it.

As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe. This was first pointed out by St. Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn’t reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe.

[Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 8]

If time did not exist before the existence of the universe, this would break down the very process of anything, nothing could be manufactured without the mere perspective of time, so to be able to create a universe (in six days, ironically enough) would not be possible, it defies everything that has even been and has answers no real question. Simply saying that time was created by something that exists without time is unproven, un-cited, unapplied in any works of god or science and is less rational than the alternatives. It would be just as rational (if not more) to believe that our timeline is circular and over a period of time (an unimaginable amount of time) the universe would repeat itself, much like what’s implied by my article The Theory of Atheism. This would be an alternative solution that would not defy every bit of evidence that we do have and the very matter of being itself. Although there are perhaps other alternatives, a timeless dimension seems to be the least logical of which would be our creator.

This is an audio-book / novel / e-book that really come to surprise to me when I first listened to it. A Letter To A Christian Nation puts a full debate on Christianity and the flaws in its faith. Sam Harris showed great understanding of Christianity and Atheism equally and fights almost every controversial subject brought forth between Christians and Atheist. I highly recommend anyone who is interested in Christianity or Atheism or just curious on the topic to read this book or listen to the audiobook. Sam Harris goes over the good of god, stem cell research, abortion, the truth of god, the voice of god, economic vs. Christianity, and so on. All in which are argued for both sides and very factual and sighted. Short, sweat and to the point.

Here is a torrent to this e-book.

Here is a torrent to this audiobook.