III. Philosophical and Reasoning Attempts to define God
A. Introduction
Humans have been trying to define and understand God since they could think. It might also be noted that the Bible does not attempt to define God. For the Biblical authors, no proof was necessary, God was assumed to exist from the very beginning. It might also be worthwhile to observe that it might be to the benefit of human beings to be unable to define God in a way that is acceptable to all humans. Such a universal definition would bind all humans to the same vision of God and would preclude human personal autonomy in relation to God and might even interfere with free will. There seems to be three main routes that have been taken in this endeavor: reason, revelation and religious experience[1].
At the outset of this discussion, it should be noted that all attempts to define God, or God’s existence based on human reasoning or on human experiences have, and will, fail because these attempts are based on the wrong level of analysis and on the wrong criteria. We live in the here and now and are sensitive to the stimuli of the here and now. God and what lies beyond our universe, are outside of our here and now, hence on a level that we do not and cannot know. Thus, any conclusion we reach about the existence or non-existence of God will be in error because it will be based on the wrong level of analysis. Furthermore, since God and what lies beyond our universe are subject to criteria that are unknown to us and which we cannot know because it is outside our ability to sense it. As such, by definition, any criteria we use to define God will be wrong, and hence any definition we form based on our level of analysis and our criteria will be wrong.
Furthermore, if the creator of the universe is outside our time and space (and hence outside the laws of our universe), then, by definition, no natural science (which depends on sensing an object or element in order to formulate a hypothesis and then to confirm or refute that hypothesis) can discover God or confirm or deny that an entity is “God”. Further, if thre is no objective way to discover or confirm God, then philosophical reasoning is a futile exercise. Thus, God will always be a mystery when approached in this manner. If God can be discovered and confirmed by our science, or by philosophical reasoning, He woud not be the infinite entity envisioned by many. Thus, another approach must be taken in this inquiry. Such new approach will be discussed below.
With regard to philosophers and God, Yehuda Halevi in his book Kuzari, or The Book of the Khazars: The Book of Proof and Demonstration in Defense of the Despised Faith, discusses (the book is written as a conversation with the Khazar king regarding why that king should convert to Judaism and not Islam or Christianity) how a philosopher understands God. The philosopher is not a skeptic or an atheist because he does not doubt the existence of God. Instead, the philosopher views God as the first cause (in the manner of Aristotle). The philosopher views God as perfect. And because God is perfect, God does not desire anything (including our allegiance and worship). For one to desire something implies that one lacks what one desires, and if God lacked something, He would not be perfect.
Furthermore, the philosopher, according to Halevi, does not know what happens to humanity n a day-to-day basis because our world is subject to change and since God is perfect, He is not subject to change. Since God is not subject to change, His knowledge cannot change. Since we are subject to change, and God’s knowledge cannot change, God cannot know us. Since God does not know us, God does not listen to our prayers nor is He even aware of our movements or actions. Organized religion under this view is useless (therefore, it does not matter what religion the king chooses, they are all equally useless)[2].
B. Revelation
Revelation has included Devine encounters, prophecy, mysticism and miracle. The Bible is replete with examples of each of these instances. Once a person truly believes that God has revealed Himself to human beings, there would seem to be no room for discussion or analysis. It is a sensory experience and such experiences should be examined and analyzed on a case-by-case basis. However, such an exhaustive analysis is fraught with difficulty and is well beyond the scope of this essay. Hence, revelation will not be discussed in this essay.
Reason and religious experience seek to define and place boundaries on God based on human understanding which is a dead end because that means the God depends on our understanding. We defined God, but God is, and should be, greater than that. Therefore, these routes to understanding God have led to highly disputable conclusions.
However, this impediment has not deterred people from trying to identify God and/or argue for His existence. The reasonings about God are innumerable. To start this discussion, a quick review of some of the more prominent arguments for the existence of God will be presented. Some scholars have broken these approaches down into a few categories with the various arguments concerning the existence and nature of God being variations of these categories[3].
C. Arguments for the existence of God
(1) Religious experiences
Some people profess to have experienced God and this basis of the argument for God will be referred to as the religious experience. There is a great variety of such experiences. Most of these experiences have not been publicly observable, indeterminate, subject to personal interpretation, not subject to testing with known means or methods and hence are difficult to disprove or believe on anything other than faith. Mere numbers of such experiences alone is not sufficient proof since there are a large number of counter experiences as well – one religion’s experience is not another religion’s experience. The differences in experiences may or may not be due to differences in interpretations (see the discussion below directed to differing views of God). The religious experience can be affected, indeed controlled, by the prevailing view of God at the time the person had the experience. That is, if the experience occurred during a time when it was a personal God, the experience would be of one type, if the experience occurred when the god was the god of a tribe or a family, the experience would be of another type, and if the experience occurred when the god was omnipotent and the god of all, the experience would be of yet another type. Thus, sheer number of experiences does not seem to make a solid argument for the existence of God. It is also possible that the religious experience is a projection of human experiences. Thus, the religious experience argument for the existence of God seems to be fraught with difficulties that are too great to unravel beyond the concept of faith alone.
(2) Ontological Arguments[4]
These include arguments that arrive at the conclusion of God’s existence using reason alone without using evidence: the idea of God is the idea of that than which nothing greater can be conceived[5]; a being that exists is greater than a being that does not exist; therefore God exists[6]. “Greater” means “more perfect”. Anselem applied this test to both reality and in our minds by saying that there cannot be anythinhggreater than that which no greater can be conceived. After an objection that this same argument could be applied to an island (“the most excellent island”), Anselem amended this argument to require that the most perfect conceivable being must have necessary existence. An island does not have necessary existence because it must exist as part of the overall universe and thus its existence is contingent upon other elements of the universe. Hence, this argument applies only to the unique case of the most perfect conceivable thing. Descartes, Kant and Bertrand Russell furthered this argument.
As applied in recent times, an ontoloccally necessary being is one that exists withoug beginning or end and without depending for its existence upon anything other than itself. If there is such a being, it cannot cease to exist but exists necessarily, and if ther is no such being none can come into existence. Thus, its existence is either necessary or impossible.
(3) Cosmological Arguments[7]
These are a group of arguments which use an empirical premise and are: the world exists contingently[8] and the world in all its aspects shows it dependence on a self-existent Being. The argument seeks to show that the world can be as it is only on the assumption that a God exists in addition to the world. The Cosmological arguments have included the following approaches.
(a) First Cause
This argument begins with the fact that we are here, then reasons that if one traces existence or movement back far enough a first cause, albeit unknown, will have initiated a chain which is linked to us. The concept of a first cause will be further discussed later in this essay[9].
(b) Degrees of perfection
This argument reasons that since finite things differ from each other in their degree of perfection, there must be some, albeit unknown, standard of perfection against which all other things are measured[10].
(4) Teleological Arguments
The world exhibits teleological order (design, adaptation)[11] ; therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer[12]. This argument uses “valuable” results as opposed to aesthetic order or causal order. One of the by-products of the Teleological Argument approach is to question if the universe has meaning[13]The various arguments which can be classified as being Teleological include the following.
(a) Order of nature – nature is so ordered that there must have been a mind behind it.
(b) Great watchmaker – the structure of the universe is so complex and intricate it must have originated by a great, albeit unknown, mind.
(c) The Intelligent Designer argument is at the heart of the Teleological Argument approach: the claim that adaptation can be explained only in terms of a designer. The concept of Intelligent Design as it has been used in recent times will be discussed below[14], but one wonders where did the mind of the intelligent designer come from? Furthermore, this argument seems to be at odds with Darwinism (see below) which traces the ways in which nature itself brings about adaptations, even ones we identify as “miraculous”. See The Existence of God by Richard Swinburne (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979) for a restatement of the design argument, see also, John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, and London: Macmillan), 1989, chap. 6, see also Darwin’s Blackbox: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael J. Behe, and More than Meets the Eye, by Richard A. Swenson, M.D. . But given the probabilities of natural development associated with extremely complex elements such as the human eye, one might wonder if there is a greater probability of an intelligent designer, such as God, than the probability that the human eye evolved.
(d) Darwinism
In addition to the above, another argument for the existence of God draws upon the teachings of Charles Darwin concerning the development of a species which holds that the entire evolution of living creatures can be explained by a series of random mechanical errors in copying genetic code from one generation to the next. Mutations[15] and overpopulation[16] play the dominant role in the Darwin Theory of Evolution. Darwinism suggests that the kind of order we see today in nature evolved solely due to natural selection[17] and chance. The Darwinist-based approach to reasoning for the existence of God is based on the idea that such series of errors is so improbable that for all practical purposes we may dismiss it as an impossibility. This seems to be a variation of the Great Watchmaker theory. This approach has been iterated into the Intelligent Design concept.
(5) First Cause
In the essay “Free Will versus Predestination,” the concept of probability as it applies to the issue of free will versus predestination is discussed. In that essay, the concept of probability as discussed by Steven Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their book The Grand Design[18], recognize that the probabilities in quantum physics[19] are not like probabilities in Newtonian physics, or in everyday life[20]. However, according to the theory proposed by Hawking and Mlodinow, all eventualities are possible, just not to the same degree. As stated by Hawking and Mlodinow:
In fact, according to quantum physics, each particle has some probability of being found anywhere in the universe. So even if the chances of finding a given electron within the double-slit apparatus are very high, there will always be some chance that it could be found instead on the far side of the star Alpha Centauri, or in the shepherd’s pie at your office cafeteria.
Applying this concept to the creation of the universe allows for the spontaneous appearance of our universe in space without any “First Cause”. Our universe was, and is, formed of subatomic particles which combine together to make atomic particles which combine together to form molecules which combine together to form the objects of our universe. Thus, our universe was at the very beginning, merely a conglomeration of subatomic particles. In that regard, quantum mechanics will govern the actions of those subatomic particles. Again, in that regard, quantum mechanics views the action of a subatomic particle as being governed by probability. In quantum mechnics, there is some probability that a particular subatomic particle will be anywhere at a particular time. It can simply pop up from nothing.That is, in empty space[21] there is a probability, albeit an extremely low probability, that subatomic particles will all be in a particular location to combine to form a universe[22]. Thus, a universe will simply appear (in the same manner that there is a probability, albeit an extremely low probability, that the object you are reading this on will suddenly levitate and disappear[23]).
It should be observed that the fact that the spontaneous appearance of our universe in empty space[24] has an extremely low probability of happening does not preclude it from happening. It just might take an extremely long period of time before it happens. However, that allows for the possibility of it happening at some time, just given enough time. Since time is infinite, it appears that the spontaneous appearance of our universe is a near certainty[25].
Extending the just-stated conclusion that since there is an infinite amount of time, even a minute probability of a universe-containing particle will simply pop up and become a universe such as our universe[26], and given the infinite nature of space, it would seem logical to conclude that somewhere in the infinite vastness of space, even beyond our cosmic boundary (as discussed later in this essay, the cosmic boundary of our universe is the location of the farthest point we can observe, which is the age of the universe multiplied by the speed of light, or 1026 meters from earth) beyond which it is impossible for us to see or sense, there is at least one universe similar to ours with life that might even be similar to ours[27]. Perhaps, given the infinite time and the infinite space, there are many such universes, and there may be many universes in various stages of development from infancy (Big Bang) all the way to death. All of these universes can be expanding and/or contracting, but with the infinite nature of space, we will never encounter them or even be aware of their existence. Given that each universe will have its own cosmic boundary, those universes will not be aware of our universe. This could mean that we are not alone, we just don’t know, and can’t know, of other intelligent life.
The suggestion that there might be life in some other universe, and this life might be similar to ours raises the question how is “life” defined? As an entity that has a set of instructions that tell it how to keep going and how to reproduce itself and a mechanism to carry out the instructions (in biology, these two parts are called genes and metabolism)? Given this definition, a computer virus might be considered “life” or an Artificial Intelligence might be considered “life”. This raises the question of what form the alien life might take.
It should also be noted that this theory of probability controlling the creation of our universe is consistent with the theory stated in the essay titled “ Free Will Versus Predestination“ that it is probability that allows men to have free will but also to allow God to have some control (since God created probability when he brought order from chaos in Genesis). As discussed in that essay, it is probability which explains how “bad” things can happen to “good” people and explain earthquakes and other natural phenomena that kill innocent human beings.
Of course, the corollary to this is that if the universe spontaneously appeared, there is a probability, albeit an extremely low probability, that the universe will spontaneously disappear. However, as before, since time is infinite, the possibility of our universe spontaneously disappearing, is, like the possibility of it spontaneously appearing, a near certainty. In the event that our universe disappears back to nothing, then the question of how our universe came from nothing is answered. It is only a temporary aberration, and ultimately nothing will still be nothing. The laws of physics will remain satisfied by a proper summing of values[28].
As discussed elsewhere, since nobody was present at the creation of our universe, there can be no first-hand knowledge and thus everything is speculation. Viewed in this manner, it might be said that the spontaneous creation theory is science’s version of religion’s first cause theory.
If the universe spontaneously appeared out of nothing, then the concept of first cause is invalidated. If there is no first cause, and none of the other arguments for the existence of God apply, does this mean that there is no god? If there is no god, then there is no higher power which we can look to for guidance[29]. We must rely upon ourselves. If this is the case, we must, ourselves, devise some guideline for living as there is no higher power to provide one for us. As discussed in the essay “Imagination and moral responsibility,” a moral code can be devised which uses societal-benefits as the guide for human actions. As defined in that essay, societal-beneficial actions are those occurrences, results, consequences, or events which are beneficial to society, or at least to the greatest number of people in the overall society as well as best for the future of that society.
(6) First Cause Revisited
However, one might raise the following question: “If the particle that contained all the matter and energy of our universe suddenly appeared at random as predicted by quantum mechanics, was the particle, itself, created by some “First Cause” before it appeared?” As discussed in the essay “God” it is possible that God is in the intersticies of time. This discussion will be presented here for the sake of convenience.
Space is discontinuous (see, “Is Space Digital?”, by Michael Moyer, Scientific American, Feb. 2012, Volume 306, number 2 pages 30-37 ), with the smallest distance being the smallest spacing between the smallest subatomic particles, which could be the Plank Distance of 1.6 x 10-35 meters . The Planck length is about 10-20 times the diameter of a proton, and is considered the smallest length possible. Time and space are interrelated. The interrelating constant might be viewed as the speed of light. Therefore, it might be argued that since space is discontinuous, time also will be discontinuous, with the smallest quantum of time being the Plank Distance divided by the speed of light, which will be 3×10-45 seconds (10-39 meters/(3×105 meters/second) = 3×10-45 seconds) . God could exist in these interstices.
Since God can exist in such
intersticies, God could actually be in the particle that spontaneiously
occurred according to quantum theory and such a particle could contain all the
matter and energy in our universe. In such a view, since our entire universe
was created from the matter and energy in that single particle, it could be
said that our entire universe was created from God and by God. Hence, we, and
all of the matter and energy in our universe, are made up of God, and hence God
is us[30].
Hence, this view would return us to the First Cause argument, but one which is
accounted for and by quantum theory. Science and Religion are in agreement.
[1] According to Maimonides, there can be only one truth. As such reason and religion and science and religion cannot be in conflict. According to Maimonides, if there seems to be a conflict it is because either science or reason does not properly understand religion. The apparent conflict could cause one to be “perplexed,” and thus be tempted to either reject belief in Torah (which seemed to be full of scientific errors) or reject the faith of his fathers; thus Maimonides wrote The Guide for the Perplexed to settle this conflict.
[2] After this initial conversation, the king decides to listen to the underpinnings of the two other religions he is considering: Islam and Christianity. He rejects both as being inconsistent with reason and each making claims to miracles that he cannot accept. Further, these two religions had their beginnings in Judaism. As such, the king is forced to return to Judaism.
[3] See, Religion If There Is No God… by Leszek Kolakowski, published by St. Augustine’s Press of South Bend, IN in 2001 and Philosophy of Religion volume 1, by James Hall, published by The Teaching Company of Chantilly, VA in 2003.
[4] First proposed by St. Anselem.
[5] St. Anselem in Reply
[6] Descartes
[7] The list of thinkers who defend this approach includes Plato (motion as we observe it presupposed an ultimate spontaneous source of motion that must be of the nature of soul), Aristotle (the fact of motion points to an ultimate originating unmoved Mover, i.e., a “First Cause”), Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz and Locke. On the other hand, thinkers such as Hume, Kant and Mill have attacked this approach. The name is generally assigned to the third of Aquinas’s Five Ways.
[8] So far as humans can observe, everything in our universe is contingent upon the existence of something else in our universe. If we trace this contingency chain all the way back, either the chain is infinite or there is, ultimately, a reality that does exist. Again, this seems to be another form of the “First Cause” argument. The First Cause argument answers the objection raised by the infinite chain which would, if followed, never explain anything which is not acceptable to rational beings. But merely because we, as reational beings, cannot accept an argument does not seem to be a suffient reason to reject an argument. Science begins many investigations with a seemingly inexplicable phenomenon and ultimately finds an answer. And scientists are eminently rational.
[9] Plato and Aristotle both used the concept of motion to apply this argument to reach the existence of God: motion of an element is either derived from another source or is self generated. Both philosophers reached the conclusion that the only entity which can have self-generating motion is the Deity (for Plato, it was the soul, and for Aristotle it was the Unmoved Mover). Descartes applied a first cause type argument, “from whom could I….derive my existence were there no God?” In other words, Descartes’s argument is based on the idea that there must at least be as much reality in the cause as in its effect. Locke also applied a first cause-type argument.
[10] Note that the cosmological argument does not argue that because there are particular manifestations of orderliness that there must be a Devine designer.
[11] Teleological order implies a process with structures being fitted together in a definite pattern to bring about a certain result which we deem to be valuable. A teleology is any philosophical account which holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature. For example, animals are constructed and act in ways that bring about a survival result (certain poisonous insects are brightly colored so potential predators know to avoid them while other insects are colored to blend into their environment so potential predators will overlook them). Since “valuable” is a subjective assessment, “teleological order” will not be objective.
[12] The term “design” is used to mean that when things are so ordered that they tend to perform together to produce a valuable function, this avoids using the thing we are trying to prove in the definition.
[13] See the essay titled “Does the Universe Have Meaning?”
[14] For example, it has been argued that the human eye is so complex and has so many different parts that all co-operate with each other to produce sight, it must have been designed by a supernatural designer. William Paley used this approach to prove intelligent design by viewing the human eye as being so complex and without precedent (to Paley in the eighteenth century) that it had to be the result of intelligent design and not evolution. This assumption has been challenged and shown to be faulty by recent studies of the human eye, see, for example, Davide Castelvecchi, “The Eye”, Scientific American 301, 86 (2009). The Watchmaker argument has been used to conclude that “the astonishing complexity of subcellular organic structure support the conclusion that intelligent design had to be at work in the design of human beings (“Darwin’s Black Box, The biochemical Challenge to Evolution” by Michael Behe, New York, Free Press, 1996). The response to this argument seems to be the same as the response to the Darwinism approach in that, looking backwards, nearly any specific event or thing may appear to be totally improbable when, in fact, it is entirely within the rules of probability. See also, “The Surprising Origins of Life’s Complexity” by Carl Zimmer, Scientific American, August 2012, volume 309, Nnumber 2, pages 84-89.
[15] A mutation occurs when an offspring differs from it parent in an inheritable way – a genetic change that can be passed down.
[16] Most organisms reproduce to fill the available space, and then any further organisms must compete with each other and with the existing organisms for food, living space and survival. Any feature which gives an organism an advantage in this competition will make it more likely to survive than its fellow organisms. Survival of an organism with a special trait will allow that organism to pass on that trait to its progeny. Thus, a survival trait may occur as a mutation and may arise due to the competition created by overpopulation. If the surviving organism then moves to a new geographic location, it will develop on its own, separate from the parent. In time, the two organisms will be totally different species which may not even be recognizable to each other, especially if a geographic boundary is located between the two developing organisms.
[17] The concept of natural selection has undergone refinement in recent times, especially as it applies to human development and the development of humans vis á vis the other species on earth. There is now a theory of multilevel selection which includes individual selection among individual members of a group and group selection which includes competition among groups.
[18] Published by Bantam Books of New York in 2010. See also, A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence M. Krauss, Atria Paperback (New York, 2012).
[19]Quantum mechanics was proposed as a set of rules describing the behavior of light and matter at the smallest states. Such particles act differently from the macroscopic particles we are used to. For example, if we know all of the forces acting on a coin, we can predict how that coin will land after it has been flipped. On the other hand, the subatomic particles act entirely randomly. We can only calculate and predict the probability the properties (such as spin of an electron) that define a subatomic particle.
However, see Einstein’s “elements of reality” in a paper published by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen discussing entanglement whereby two subatomic particles act together to have a predictable outcome for the pair. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle would not apply to the entangled pair, but would apply to each member of the pair.
[20] A major question arises because the quantum world and the classical macroscopic world are so very different. We understand the classical world, but view the quantum world as weird. According to classical physics, we can know with certainty where an item is; however, according to quantum physics particles do not exist in definite states but rather take on all possible states and positions (thus, a quantum particle has a possibility of being anywhere at any time, in front of the observer is one possibility, but on Neptune is also a possibility; this was discussed in other essays, see for example: The God Essay, Philosophical and Reasoning Attempts to define God, Arguments for the existence of God, First Cause). Quantum theory describes particles with equations, called wave functions, which are combinations, or “superpositions,” of multiple waves. The amplitude of each peak in a wave function denotes the probability of a particle being found in any specific circumstance. There are several theories which seek to explain why there is uncertainty regarding the position of a quantum particle. On the other hand, we know with a high degree of certainty the position of an element in the classical macroscopic world.
There are several theories trying to explain why there is uncertainty regarding the position of quantum particles. These theories are based on the quantum particle reacting to human observation. Why observation causes the quantum particles to act the way they do has not been answered.
One theory of why the quantum particles act as they do includes a concept called “superposition.” Quantum particles can linger in quantum superpositions as long as no one looks too closely. Once humans make a measurement, the particle “chooses” a specific state. As mentioned above, how this happens and why human measurement should so influential has been, and remains, an unanswered question.
Another approach avoids the problem of trying to explain why observation causes quantum uncertainty by positing that the collapse of a wave function to a single possibility is a random event not caused by human or environmental interference. In addition to avoiding the problem associated with considering that human observation is the cause of the quantum particle position uncertainty, this theory has the advantage of being applicable to both the quantum world and the classical macroscopic world. The theory considers that the chances of any one particle collapsing at any given time are extremely small, but in macroscopic objects containing multitudes of atoms, the collapse of at least one is inevitable which then causes the entire structure to collapse.
These “observational” theories seek to explain why we cannot know the exact position of a quantum particle, but they do not explain how or when a particle crosses the divide between the classical macroscopic world and the quantum world and vice versa. One would hope that a thorough explanation of why the quantum particles act as they do will be a starting point for determining when a particle passes the divide.
The reason for uncertainty of quantum particle position and the divide between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics remains enigmas. Additionally, the “whys” and “hows” continue to vex and intrigue scientists. Some scientists simply ignore the “why” and/or “how” issue and carry on in practical applications using the theories that are known and leave the “why” and “how” questions to others who may have a more philosophical bent. For a thorough discussion of this divide, see “Crossing the Quantum Divide” by Tim Folger, Scientific American, July 2018, volume 319, Number 1, pages 29-35. This discussion is based on this article.
[21] However, in fact, “empty space” is not “empty” at all (and “nothing” is really composed of “something,” and that “something” is unstable and “empty” space has non-zero energy associated with it and there will be some regions with various levels of energy, with the regions constantly expanding and contracting while exchanging energy, which energy could ultimately result in a Big Bang in one region). It contains a witch’s brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in a time so short that we cannot see them (with the time being set by the boundaries of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) thus giving the impression that nothing is there. It is noted that virtual particles are related to a basic property of quantum systems which continuously move between all states in quantum fluctuations. Sometimes, these states drain energy which is returned when the state moves into another state, which could lead to the “Big Bang”. The spontaneous appearance of our universe might be related to these fluctuations and activity of the virtual particles of “empty” space. The concept of “empty space” and a universe from “nothing” is far beyond the scope of this inquiry and is explored in great depth by Lawrence Krauss in his book A Universe From Nothing (see above footnote). The reader is directed to this book for a detailed description of this concept and its related phenomena. Again, however, one might inquire as to how these particles, albeit virtual, and even the “space” itself, and the rules of physics which govern them and their movements, got there in the first place, which gets us back into the circle (although Stephen Hawking suggests that space can be created by gravity, but one again wonders where the gravity came from).
[22] In this regard, it should be noted that since we are all formed of the same subatomic particles, the particles emitted by stars as they explode are the particles and matter which form us. Hence, it could be said that we are all formed of stardust, and when we die our atoms will not disappear, but will return to stardust.
[23] Of course, one may inquire as to the definition of “empty space” and query how that got there. But, this spontaneous appearance idea is suggested in an effort to keep the discussion complete.
[24] This, of course, raises the question of the definition of “empty space” and begs the question of how did that “empty space” get there? Responding to such a question gets back into the circle of logic and this is not the object of this discussion, which is merely to present all views on the creation of our universe. For example, these calculations predict that a particle might be her, or it might be there, then in one universe, it is here, and an another it is there.
[25] Along this line, the point raised by Douglas Adams in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe is brought to mind: if anything is possible given sufficient time, then somewhere in the universe at some time, socket wrenches will grow from a tree.
[26] This suggestion seems to be consistent with the theory of George Lemaître who in 1923 suggested that the universe began as a timy spec of astounding density, a “primeval atom” which swelled over the vastness of time to become the observable cosmos. Einstein at first rejected this theory, but later accepted it six years later. Lemaître has been known as the father of the Big Bang.
[27] In fact, the mathematics underlyuing quantum mechanics suggest that all possible outcomes happen with each inhabiting its own specific universe and it was just a matter of time until this happened in our universe.
[28] This view raises a question as to whether the universe has a purpose. This question is pursued in the essay “Does the universe have a purpose?”
[29] For example, see psalm 27 which is directed to living one’s life as being totally dedicated to God and totally guided and controlled by God.
[30] This will also be consistent with the statement in Genisis 1:26 “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” In fact, we are actually made up of the matter and energy that was God in the original particle.