“Everything Happened all by Itself”?

“Atheists believe everything happened by itself” is not an uncommon accusation to be fired at atheists. I recently watched a video on how internet memes spread, so I have a vague concept of how that sort of considerable misinformation spreads so rapidly. But how about getting under what the problem with this accusation is. To an extent it is understandable: the religious person making the accusation sees reality as having two monolithic layers, the natural and the supernatural. The natural is finite and began at some absolute point in time; the supernatural is eternal and created the natural. The religious person then assumes that atheists have the exact same model, but cut out the supernatural side, leaving everything to simply emerge by itself.

This is poor thinking. If you don’t engage in the religious debate, it is permissible; you don’t spread your ideas so I don’t expect your ideas to be moderately researched and you probably acknowledge that you don’t fully understand the oppositions. However, if you do engage in debates about the existence of God or the creation of the universe, perhaps your view should be a little better researched.

Implicitly assumed in the accusation that “atheists believe everything happened by itself” is that “everything” is some sort of a monolith without nuance or hierarchy. Again, if one doesn’t do their research this is an understandable mistake. For linguistic ease we talk of the universe as coming from ‘nothing’. It is therefore assumed (by laypeople) that the state the universe came from is the same as the philosophical concept of nothing. The philosophical concept of nothing is the complete negation of all things and properties; no nouns or adjectives could possibly apply to this philosophical nothing. But to make the state the universe came from and the philosophical nothing synonymous is a mistake.

Michio Kaku, in the BBC’s Horizon documentary What Happened before the Big Bang? explained that “the universe did not come from absolute nothing… It came from a preexisting state–also a state of nothing–that our universe did in fact come from this infinitesimal, tiny, little explosion that took place, giving us the Big Bang”. Kaku’s non-absolute nothing is a nothing in which equations still function. It follows that if equations still function, phenomena like the uncertainty principle apply, as they are solely mathematical phenomena, but the result of that is actual and tangible ephemera. Lawrence Krauss defines “nothing” in a similar way; nothing becomes a state devoid of all stuff, except equations and rules and those rules give way to energy and material. Kaku and Krauss are talking about a sort of hierarchy of things, and once you are low enough down the hierarchy they use the word “nothing” for simplicity, but it will never share a resemblance to the absolute or philosophical nothing non-physicist philosophers want.

For those who are left with a bad taste in their mouth when it comes to a physics-based definition of nothing, there are bigger problems yet. Lee Smolin, in the same documentary as Michio Kaku, believes there was a very real phase before the Big Bang, only ever full of stuff. He believes there is one giant expanse of universe that is going through hyperinflation. Hyperinflation means that the expanse of universe is growing at a rate faster than the speed of light, making it entirely unintelligible and stopping all sorts of physics and causal relationships from happening. This unintelligibility and highly limited causality is due to the fact that the speed of information through the universe is limited to the speed of light, so if the universe itself is moving faster than that, there can be no interaction and there can be no moments or information that travel through it. Our universe is simply a pocket of the greater expanse of universe where inflation has slowed down (and it would follow that there are many more pockets like this. Smolin compares it to Swiss cheese, lots of bubbles that cannot communicate through the actual cheese/intelligence-blocking regions of hyperinflation). Before our universe, there was still a greater expanse of universe, quite plausibly eternal, with all sorts of things in it. If Lee Smolin is correct, it’s more than a linguistic game to call what came before our universe “nothing”, it would be outright wrong.

The thing that began 13.8 billion years ago was not “everything”, it was the intelligibility of our pocket of spacetime. 13.8 billion years ago was not necessarily the start of time and matter and things, it was simply the start of discoverability. Einstein’s theory of Relativity suggests there was no Big Bang singularity from which all things came and such a singularity has only ever been speculative. Markus Pössel, in his essay The Tale of Two Big Bangs, talks of the very early stages of inflation in our universe (the Big Bang phase) as the element of the Big Bang confirmed by observation, and the pinpoint it all supposedly came from (the Big Bang singularity) being speculative, unknowable with current physics (Relativity doesn’t allow it) and superseded by singularity-free hypotheses like the ones mentioned above.

To have been told this and still bandy around the accusation that ‘atheists believe everything happened by itself’ is to have muted your own thinking, a sort of silence of mind.

Advertisements

22 thoughts on ““Everything Happened all by Itself”?”

  1. Yet again, the atheist begins with a false claim.

    The first claim being false means that everything coming after it is pure error.

    The above two sentences are an example of how logic is used to pursue the truth or in the case of this post, illuminate falsehood.

    Similarly, the fundamental dogma of atheism necessarily must be, “Everything just happened all by itself,” because that is the logical conclusion if God, the Creator, or First Cause does not exist.

    The atheist then goes on to blame logic on religion.

    The atheist then goes on, in the typical fit of unadulterated bias, to cite another atheist as an authority for the atheist’s own argument.

    This atheist, Michio Kako I affectionately nicknamed, Michio Koo Koo years ago when I heard him blubbering his New Age nonsense on the radio.

    Michio Koo Koo, like Carl Sagan before him is a proven disgrace to science.

    But that is precisely why atheists love them so much. Because:

    Atheism is a denial of science and reason.

    This post and every post by any atheist evangelist, must necessarily be a denial of science and reason because of the fundamental dogma of atheism:

    “Everything just happened all by itself.”

    Which is the logical conclusion of there being no God.

    1. Your comment begins with a false claim. So I just stopped reading.
      (But I would like to know how Michio Kaku is a “proven disgrace to science”. We get into this conversation a lot, but I’ll do it again: do you have a source for such a claim?)

      1. Alla,

        It is my intension when disposing of atheist fits of irrationality posing as argumentation, to leave at least a little thinking for the atheist to do himself.

        But since you have refused to do your own thinking, which is characteristic of the atheist, I will explain why your first claim is false.

        You began with the hallucination that the fundamental dogma of atheism is a mere meme.

        I explained in my comment why the atheist’s hallucination is just that, a hallucination:

        The fundamental dogma of atheism, that everything just happened all by itself, is in reality, neither hallucination nor meme, but the logical conclusion of God not existing.

        1. Alla,

          I have shown through simple logic that your entire post is an example of simple reasoning.

          A mistaken in reason cannot be shown by using another mistake in reason.

          Such circular thinking forms the basis for this post.

  2. Excellent viewpoint – thank you. If only everyone would take all sides into account without judging or bias we could have more peace.

  3. Unfortunately for the poor creationists, almost everything is still happening by itself. Mountains form and erode away, trees grow in the wilderness, insects are born, live, and die and man is nowhere involved (neither is a creator). Think of all of the beautiful crystals that have been found in nature … who created them? (It is a great puzzle.) And the spring flowers, so complex, so beautiful; I wonder who created them?

    The idea of a creator, not the idea of “things happening by themselves” is the bizzarre idea. The number of “created things” is actually very, very small compared to the number of things that just happened to come into existence.

    1. I’ve always had trouble wrapping my head around how so many people seem to miss why creationism is such a bizarre idea when there is so much evidence around us all the time that everything changes by process and forces we can and do harness. To believe that a magical agency can POOF! something into existence ex nihilo as if such an ‘explanation’ is a legitimate contender to model how things are currently the way they are has always struck me as the pinnacle of credulity enabled only by the dullest of minds… minds seemingly immune from experiencing the reality in which all of us are immersed. All it takes is a mirror to demonstrate this constant change. There is no moment for POOF!ism to be a requirement that is comparable, equivalent, or as honest as a good, old-fashioned, “I don’t know.”

    2. I’d always interpreted the ‘all happened by itself’ accusation as being about a first spark… Talking about it’s self-management (as it were, forgive the imprecision) is a good point.

  4. I really enjoyed this post and the line of reasoning taken. That someone like SoM has such difficulty in comprehension is in fact an outstanding demonstration of your thesis.

    Thanks for the excellent effort here. I will use this post as a reference.

  5. The thing that began 13.8 billion years ago was not “everything”, it was the intelligibility of our pocket of spacetime. 13.8 billion years ago was not necessarily the start of time and matter and things, it was simply the start of discoverability.

    Brilliant line! Saving that for future reference. I concur with Tildeb, great post.

    1. I thought the last sentence might be difficult to ignore. Glad you like it. I’m looking forward to the traffic driven here by you the using this as a reference.

  6. Great post. I think a good point here is that where some believers think their god is making everything happen (so it’s not happening by itself) they fail to credit their god with making AIDs, ebola, earthquakes and so on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s