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.

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.

Theory Of Atheism

I’ve talked to many people about this subject a lot. I am a heavy atheist, nothing to this day has made me even question if there was a god or not, and if something significant that cannot be explained by logic, chance, set up events, or questionable flaws happened, I would convert on the spot. Although after hearing many explanations on how other religions believed the earth was created and such and such and now I’m taking the time to a summarized but full explanation of how I believe everything came to be.

First off, I want to take a quick stab in Christianity, Christianity in my opinion is the least logical, most contradiction, most out of line religion there is. They have no voice of reason, and they implement there views on everyone and demand respect for them. Here are my inputs on why I firmly do not believe in the bible.

The seven day creation is not literal, there are illogical and unscientific errors that would not have been apparent to the authors but which are highlighted on this page and by science. The shape of the Earth is not flat. The Sun does not revolve around the Earth. The creation of light and the sun happened independent of each other, and there were ‘days’ before the sun was created for the Earth to rotate around. The order in which animals, plants and other elements of life appear in Genesis contradict the order that appears in the fossil record and the order of creation of the stars, the sun, etc, also contradict what we know scientifically. The logic is flawed behind the ‘day of rest’; an all-powerful God does not need rest. In short, the separation of creation into a seven day period is a useless and outdated creation story riddled with errors.

Genesis is written by fallible Human beings, not God, and is proven to be a false record of creation. It also shows many symptoms of being a piecemeal, fragmented myth that has been edited and rewritten over time so that it hardly even makes internal sense. It contains no moral teachings and nothing educational. It is an irredeemable anachronism that we ever teach our children its pointless myths and retain it as part of Christianity. It should be purged.

Due to the non viable offspring that result from incest, the Adam and Eve story cannot be the literal whole truth. When a Christian next time relies on the urban myth of “Christian Family Values” then wander how they would explain to someone the big question of “What happened after the Flood?” The only moral escape route is to admit that the Adam and Eve story is a metaphor. The only biologically correct explanation known is that we evolved slowly from lower animals so that incest was never a problem.

The Prophecy of the virgin birth appears in Matthew 1:22-23. Matthew wrote this seventy years after Jesus Christ was born (35-40 years after he died). Up until that point no other text mentions Jesus’ virgin birth. He quotes Isaiah 7:14 which was written 700 years before Jesus was born - thus claiming it was a sign, a prediction of the Messiah’s virgin birth.

Another flaw with the virgin birth of Jesus Christ was the simple logic of the penalties for premarital sex 2000 years ago. If a woman was found committing a sin of that extent, she would be killed. It is only rational to believe that Mary was simply found pregnant and denied telling who the father was, and instead call it a miracle, to avoid a death penalty.

The Bible, once again, contains three contradictory stories detailing how Jesus rose from the dead. It is more likely that his body was stolen by his disciples. He specifically told them at the last supper to eat his flesh and drink his blood and Jewish theology contains Zoroastrian elements, where the consuming of the blood of the Messiah, or a great bull killed by the Messiah, will earn you eternal life.

These are simply some of MANY reasons I believe that Christianity is not real, and is my least respected faith.

Now to more go along with the theory of an atheist. I will start off with explaining the in dept fundamentals of the idea and build on them as I go. Note that some parts may be left out due to the fact that it’s hard to over every end of the theory, so if there is any questionable idea, please ask and I will make sure to answer it the best I can.

To began, I must explain a few ideas in detail. Many people have heard of the big bang and, vaguely, understand how it works. Well I’ll go into full detail with that. The Big Bang theory is the idea that the entire universe is that the entire universe was able to condense into a super dense material, in which, would have absolutely no space in between it and contain every bit of matter there is. Since any form of mass has gravity which makes it attract all other forms of matter in the universe. Only problem is, when every bit of the universe is hyper condensed into a tiny ball with no more matter to pull or expend the mass amount of energy created by this tiny ball of matters gravitational pull, the structure would explode on itself and force the matter hurling through the universe again. Now in this event, there are 3 stages of events that happen within trillions of years afterward. The first stage is the acceleration stage, where all the matter is still accelerating rapidly throughout the universe. The second stage is where the accelerating matter stops accelerating and begins to slow down, due to the effect of gravity on all the separating matter, slowly pulling all the matter back in. The third stage is where the gravity of the matter has finally caught up to the force applied by the initial blast of the explosion and begins to pull the matter back into the center of the universe (there is no actual center, simply using this terminology to make it easier to understand). Once it reaches the center again, it will reform into a ball and explode again. This process will constantly repeat. [Tiny ball > Explodes > Universe Expands > Gravity Begins to Pull All the Matter Back In > Tiny Ball > Repeat]

Before I move on I need to explain a few more things, starting with the theory behind E=MC^2. For those that do not know, this is the proven theory that Energy = Mass x (The Speed of Light multiplied by itself). Using this thorium, we are able to determine, since we have proven the universe is expanding (by measuring the distance between stars we have located and see how rapidly the spread apart), we are also able to determine the speed of light is moving at the same rate that the universe is expanding, which is interesting because we have found that the speed of light has slowed down slightly in the past ten years, which proves that we are currently in Stage 2 of the Big Bang Theory (if it does exist).

Also I need to explain the theory of time. Time is not an actual object or thing, it is simply a perception. Time does not literally exist. We only perceive it as being what it is because that’s the only way it makes sense in most minds. But in actuality there is no possible way to have a timeline that forever goes in two different directions, for if it was structured like that there would have to be a beginning and an end, which can’t be possible due to the fact that you need something to start something on a timeline, so simply it would raise the question “who created god?”. So the only logical way to view a timeline is to view it as a circle, in which would have no beginning and no end, just a continuous circle, over and over repeating itself over trillions of years.

Now back to the rest of the theory. Continuing from the Big Bang Theory of [Tiny ball > Explodes > Universe Expands > Gravity Begins to Pull All the Matter Back In > Tiny Ball > Repeat],

after it repeats for however many times, eventually, since there are only so many ways to arrange all the matter in the universe, it is bound to repeat. Although since we are looking at a circular timeline, after going thought this event however many times (lets say a gazillion) and it does structure the same exact way as it did before, its not as if that this is all going to happen a gazillion years from now again. It simply means that a gazillion years from now is now, since we are on a circular timeline. If it was a clock when the big hand is on the 12 and you circle through the entire clock and it gets back to 12, the 12 is not a 24 now that it cycled, it is still 12.

Now if the structure is replicated the exact same way as it did a gazillion years before hand, that would mean that, since we are in an isolated environment with no outside forces to change anything, the explosion would occur the same way as it did the time before, which would mean that every bit of matter would be hurled the same exact way it did before. Each solar system will develop the same way it did (or didn’t) before. Life would develop (if I did) the same exact way as it did before. And every event in history will happen the exact same way. [A lot of people get thrown off on that and question, "What about free will?". But my answer will remain the same, free will is based off what you have learned in the past and what is occurring now, analyzing what would happen if you one thing opposed to another and using ideas that you have learned from the past to determine a decision. If nothing is in this isolated environment (the universe) to change the outcome, your decision would still be the same] Well if that all happed the exact same way, that would be it would contract the same way as last time, and condense to the same shape structure as the time before, and create a new universe as it did before in the exact same manner.

This theory destroys the need for a start of the universe or an end, it simply means that we are in a cycle and have always been in this cycle; the cycle had no start and will continue to repeat. This is all based on our perception of time although, in actuality, it is moving in one simple flow of motion.

Once I get to this point in the conversation, normally I start getting responses normally saying “Well, how is it that it was so extremely complex of a system? Something had to have made it this complex to work this way.” My response to that is always the same. The reason that we think this is an extremely unlikely occurrence based on the fact that we are so complex, is because the fact that we are able to think of how complex it was. If this universe turned out to be extremely simple and no real intellect was created on the universe, this would not be questioned, but because we are able to question it, it seems improbable. So basically we are living in an extremely rare circumstance and because we are able to think about the complexity of the system, it makes us complex, which makes it seem too rare to ever happen on accident, but really it did.

If you want me to continue on any particular subject in the explanation, just leave a comment with a questions and I’ll do the best I can to explain it. I congratulate anyone that was able to read through this and understand the whole thing first time around. Some ideas and concepts in this theory takes time to understand, for certain ideas, it takes days, weeks or even years to fully understand. But everything I said is completely based on logical fact and should cover every end of our existence if you fully understand. Although, this does not rule out the idea that our universe could be a structure or building block to something much greater and complex than what we can see. Almost as if we are simply an electron to something else. Which in case could also be a huge cycle of material, but I won’t get into that one now.

Thanks for reading.