This Is How The Universe Happened. It’s Not Magic

Many people think the Universe was created by God. Of those, a few believe the Earth is just a few thousand years old and created it in 6 days. I get into this debate a bit, and routinely the defense of the other party is that they can’t imagine it happening any other way. Somehow ignorance became knowledge of God. Anyway, even though I know most of those people won’t read this, I’m going to explain how it happened anyway. An exercise in futility if you will…

But before I begin, a short rant. Just because you don’t know where something came from doesn’t mean it was invented. There are those who hold onto a belief in God because they see a Universe that seems designed. A world so perfect (even though it isn’t, our technology just makes it seem so) for us to live on that it couldn’t have just happened by itself, of course they neglect to remember (or just don’t know) it is amiable to us because we evolved to adapt to it, not the other way around, and 99.99% of all species of animals that have ever roamed the earth, went extinct over the eons, so God created an imperfect world for them for…what? Why did he create them in the first place? There’s also the small notion that the rest of the Universe, so far remains inhospitable to human life. Hmm. On the scale of the cosmos, we don’t register at all, not even a blip. Of course, if you still want to believe God did it, then all by means, knock yourself out. No one is going to force you to believe anything you don’t want too. Just remember, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan so succinctly put it.

With that out-of-the-way, let’s get started!

13.72 billion years ago, a singularity exploded creating space and time. In the first few seconds, inflation occurred (exponential increase in size beyond what is occurring today), and during this inflation, little quantum jitters were magnified, creating tiny imperfections in the fabric of spacetime. Before the Big Bang, neither space nor time existed so the question of what came before the big bang isn’t a question. During the big bang, three gaseous elements were created in descending quantities; hydrogen (77%), helium (23%), and trace amounts of lithium. As the Universe expanded, it cooled down, naturally dissipating its heat. This all happened in just the first few minutes.

Then, matter started attracting other matter gravitationally, due to those tiny imperfections (otherwise everything would’ve been pulling equally on everything else and would remain formless). After lots of time, there were clumps of matter around the place swirling around and forming into spheres generating heat (friction). The bigger a clump of gas got, the more pull it exerted on other gas floating around, and other gas clumps nearby. As these clumps got bigger, the swirling gas within them start moving faster around each other and generating ever more heat. The bigger the clumps became, the faster the gas moved, and the more gas that was attracted, and the more heat was generated. Eventually, this heat reached a critical temperature and nuclear fusion began. At this juncture, the clump of gas turns into a star. Nuclear fusion is the process of smashing two elements together so violently, thereby forming a new element in the process, with 1% of the energy released as electromagnetic radiation; a small sliver of which we perceive as heat, and see as light.

Here, Hydrogen fused into helium, which is eventually fused into Carbon, in turn fused into Oxygen, and so on until Iron and other heavy metals are made. Once heavy metals like Iron are made, the star has reached the end of its life (as it can’t use iron as fuel), and the gravitational inward pull of the star’s mass begins to outweigh the outward push of its weakening nuclear reaction, and it rapidly collapses on itself, breaking the balance that kept the star in equilibrium. If the star is big enough, then the rapidly collapsing frictional-kaleidoscope heats the star’s interior so quickly, so energetically, that it explodes outwards, seeding the Universe with its matter, in what is known as a supernova. It is in supernova that elements heavier than Iron are made. This process repeats ad infinitum until the 92 natural elements are created and flying across the Universe every which way creating other stars, planets, and seeding galaxies. Everything that you are made of came from an exploding star. Side note: If the star is even bigger (about four solar masses), then the gravity is so strong, that it creates a black hole, where the current laws of physics break down.

Then, about nine-billion-years after the Big Bang, in a quiet corner of an ordinary galaxy, untold amounts of dust, ice, rock and even gas begin co-mingling in the aforementioned gravitational process, around a newly forming yellow star, which we would eventually call the Sun, and begin their tumultuous journey to becoming our Solar System. Asteroids and meteors zip around the place seeding these new planets with new elements, and eventually with the building blocks of life, amino acids. In at least our case, one of the commonly accepted theories is that a meteor with amino acids (the building block of proteins: we are made of protein) landed here on Earth. In the ensuing, millions of years. These amino acids mixed with lightning and volcanic activity, becoming organic matter, and then somehow, in a process known as abiogenesis, transformed into single-celled life, of which we believe the first life was an archaea and bacteria. Evolution begins at this point, and within two-billion years, the first multi-celled life appeared as a result, of what we believe was an archaea organism swallowing a bacteria, thereby absorbing its energy allowing it to grow. From here random mutations routinely appear in each successive generation, and those that are conducive to the organisms survival live to pass on their genes. This is known as natural selection via random mutation. It took several hundreds of millions of years from the creation of the Earth to single-celled life, then another couple of billion years to multi-celled life, and then five-hundred million years to hominids, then five-million-years to us, Homo sapiens.

That’s how it all started. Not that hard is it? Of course, I’ve left out a few things such as Dark Energy & Dark Matter, some finer points of planetary formation, and the genetic evidence that links us to that first single-celled archaea, but the core of it is the gist of it. Those extra details I just mentioned fill in the blanks in-between some of the events just told, but the story told without them is easier to digest. It’s easier to first build a foundation, then start building your home, or in this case, your knowledge.


Fourat Janabi is the author of Random Rationality: A Rational Guide to an Irrational World, available for $1.99 on Kindle, and $7.99 on Paperback. Subscribe to this blog (with your email), and receive Random Rationality free…

74 thoughts on “This Is How The Universe Happened. It’s Not Magic”

  1. Your logic is flawed: what caused the point of singularity prior to the big bank? If it was at rest, as Newton pronounced, it would stay at rest. If all energy and matter were condensed into a single point, and at equilibrium, then what caused it to move from a point of stability (i.e. 2nd law of thermo) to the big bank? Where did the energy and matter come from in the first place? The whole concept here has been studied by philosophere: Aristotle, St. Thomas Aguinas, Saint Augustine, John Locke, and recently R.C. Sproul. If there ever was a time when nothing existed, then nothing would still exist today. If something does exist, then there are only 3 options: 1) Reality is an illusion; 2) Reality was self-created: or 3) reality was created by a self-existent being. On the first point, Descartes ruled this out, beacause we doubt, we exist. Second point cannot be, because things cannot create themselves from nothing. On the third point, either energy and matter are eternal and have always existed (which is not rational); or the self-existent being that created things was God, which is a logical conclusion. It is especially logical given the revelatiion of God to mankind throughout history.

    The logic behind the big-bang does not pan out, and scientists cannot provide any adequate explanations to most basic philosophiocal arguments against the big-bang being a “natural” phenomena.

    1. Well, let me explain. Your first mistake is assuming that people, philosophers or not, from between 200 to 2,000 years ago (where very little was objectively known), knew what they were talking about. They didn’t, they were guessing using the best data available to them, which wasn’t much, and rationalizing outcomes based on logic and reason. Many times, it come out exactly as science eventually found out (i.e. the atom), many other times, it didn’t.

      You then make the logical inference that because inside the universe, something cannot create itself (true), then the universe cannot either (which is a guess, some would say a reasonable one). Let me tell you why this is probably not the case by using an example. Inside the universe, everything is subject to a universal speed-limit, the speed of light, known as c. Nothing, under any circumstances, theoretical or otherwise, can travel faster than this speed. But, the universe is expanding, and the rate of expansion is getting faster. There will be a time, far in the future, when all other galaxies outside of our local cluster, will disappear into nothing, because the rate of expansion of the universe will exceed that of the light emanating from their galaxies (i.e. the light will not be able to travel fast enough to overcome the expansion). So while nothing can travel faster than light INSIDE the universe, the universe itself is not subject to this limit as it can expand faster than the speed of light (this is not a theoretical observation, it is fact).

      So let’s move onto your argument. Yes, everything inside the universe has to follow the laws of Thermodynamics. But you make an assumption that the instant of the Big Bang, follows the same laws as after the Big Bang. Again, we know that what occurs inside the Universe, does not necessarily occur outside the Universe. So your option 3 is not logical. It makes inferences, and then pretends the inference are logical, rational points that cannot be refuted. I refute it thus!

      Before we continue to the next phase, it is helpful to know that in recent experiments, physicists were able to weigh the entire universe, and calculate the net total energy of the universe. The result was zero! i.e., all the positive energy (matter) plus the negative energy (gravity) resulted in the number, 0.00.

      We need to now understand the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The basic principle is that you cannot (accurately) know all the different attributes of a given thing simultaneously. The easiest example with which to show this is an electron spinning around an atomic nucleus. It is impossible to know both the velocity (direction & speed) of the electron, and its position. The more you know one, the less you know the other. Under no circumstances is it ever possible to accurately know both. So when you take a region of empty space, remove all the matter, energy, particles, and spacetime. What remains is a quantum field and gravity (neither of which can be removed). This is as close to nothing as it is possible to get. If we measure that region of nothingness, we can definitively know the amount of time over which we are measuring it, therefore we cannot know how much energy there exists in it, and since it can’t be zero (otherwise that would be definitively knowing), therefore, energy exists and it came out of nothing. Alluding to the previous net energy of zero, because gravity exerts a net negative energy, and we can’t break the 1st law of thermodynamics (i.e. you can’t create or destroy energy), and since we removed the positive energy (matter) before the experiment, the ‘universe’ recreated positive energy (matter) out of nothing so that the 1st law of thermodynamics isn’t broken. It’s very counter-intuitive I know, but thats the science, i.e., with no logical or illogical inferences, but rather logical extrapolations of scientific theory, experiment, and fact.

      Ergo, the universe can create itself. Your macro-viewpoint of cause-and-effect cannot be applied to the Universe as a whole. God does not explain anything, because then you have to ask the question, what created God. And you can’t just say he is uncaused, because then I will say, why cant the Universe be uncaused?? And as I’ve just shown you, the picture of the Universe we have today, tells us it is uncaused. This is not a philosophical opinion, but a result of the latest scientific research performed by scientists such as Stephen Hawkings, Lawrence Krauss, Laura Mersini and thousands of others.

      Therefore, giving the evidence, option (2) is the logically correct one. Reality created itself.

      1. Reality creates itself…. that’s basically what you are left with if you deny a creator. Can Stephen Hawkings, Lawrence Krauss, Laura Mersini and thousands of others do some reasearch to prove that reality caused itself. I don’t believe that for a second. I am more willing to bet that the fish in the bowl don’t really have the capacity to explain what is going on outside the fish tank. “Reality creates itself” is stepping out into the realm of faith, and an eternal universe or infinite sequence of them should not even be mentioned for serious thought by now. On the other hand for something to exist eternally in “being” is not illogical though not possible to fully grasp. As it is written in a certain book, God’s eternal power and divine nature can be clearly seen by what has been made.

        1. Whatever your reservations about the current theory, which is supported by theory, observation, and mathematics (that accurately describe the rest of the universe), postulating that an infinite God did it, is far worse in terms of logical reasoning. What caused God? What made God intelligence? Did he just appear, or did he evolve to his intelligence also? The theory of God all by itself implies infinite regression. The current theories do not imply infinite regression, rather a finite regression. Doesn’t matter how you dress it up, or what philosophical “disposition” you invent, and believe me, it’s just inventing, cannot remove that fact. It logically follows from the assertion that god did, even if you yourself (or any other philosopher or theologian) fail to see it. You don’t even realize that you are swapping some that is elegant, possible, and probable, with something that is inelegant, improbable, and begets yet more questions as to the nature of the “being” itself.
          If you wish to respond to this, then feel free, but I won’t be responding again. To do so is a waste of my time…

          1. *sigh*

            Ideas of god don’t have an infinte regression problem, because the entire concept doesn’t need spacetime at all to exist.

            Ok, I am an atheist. I agree with you that there is no god, and that ideas of god aren’t necessary to formulate any theory about the existence of the universe. I am also of the opinion, no doubt shared by you, that young earth creationism is an exercise in scientific illiteracy, if not outright stupidity.

            Unfortunately your comments here are an exercise in philosophical ignorance which perfectly mirrors those aforementioned outright stupid people. The smug and self-superior arrogance doesn’t help either.

            Asking questions such as “What caused God?”, or “What made God intelligence?” demonstrate that you are not using logical reasoning, as you are applying the laws of physics to the field of metaphysics. The two fields are logically incompatible. What you’ve just done is show that you can not think outside of your self-imposed views, and will dismiss any opposing viewpoints because you can’t imagine how they might work, and they don’t fit with the model of the universe you’ve chosen to believe.

            It’s this sort of philosophical sciolism that gives us reasonable and considered atheists a bad name. We all (rightly) despise the idiots who deny evolution or try to have it labeled as “just a theory”, chiefly because they are preaching about matters which they demonstrate ignorance about every time they speak. I take it you dislike hypocrisy? Please stop, and allow people who actually understand the god debate to engage in said debate.

            1. I’m confusing metaphysics with physics am I? Then I guess us evolutionists are confusing the theory of evolution with intelligent design, or chemistry with alchemy. You can’t disprove ID or alchemy, only offer alternatives that explain reality, just like you can’t disprove a unicorn somewhere, only offer an explanation as to why one wouldn’t occur by any natural process we know of.

              The idea of God does imply infinite regression whether or not one understand it, and that includes you. God cannot spontaneously appear out of nothing, because as theists are want to say, ‘out of nothing, nothing comes’, so from whence came his instantiation? And what bought forth that process or being (God’s God) etc etc so on so forth. The laws of physics today theorize the universe could have created itself (emphasis on could have), and though there are other theories, it is the most probable because it does not beget yet more questions except perhaps, for that of a multi-verse, which more than likely, is not bounded by space and time, and likely existed eternally.

              That is a finite regression. Now if people want to call that process God, as I believe some do, then nor I nor any other, could find issue with it, its still physics. But to speculate an intelligent designer is ponderous nonsense, even to which some atheists, such as yourself, give credence too, because your false logical equivalence does not bother to rule it out, even though it jumps an obnoxious number of logical gaps.

              Oh, another fallacy that many people choose to level at me, as you have just done. I don’t choose to believe in physics. It exists whether or not I believe in it or not. Metaphysics is grasping at straws that aren’t there. Everything boils down to physics whether we see it, understand it, or not.

              Your points amount to little and fails to grasp the message I was writing. If you’d like, we could have a nice talk, perhaps an exchange of emails to discuss these points, but employing the same self-satisfying, smug attitude you accuse me of to detract my points is pretty silly… if you ‘d like that exchange, let me know.

      2. but there is energy, where does it come from.change the concept of god,it is nothing but a supernatural is can not imagine it.

  2. Why have we all got different fingerprints??
    If it only takes a human 9 months to form how is it that evolutionary changes take millions – ooooops! billions of years. ??

    1. DNA and genetic diversity (which controls how you grow) is different from person to person. You take the genes from both your parents, and they are mixed together, producing a slightly different result (about 1 in every 1000 base pairs out of 3,000,000,000), and voila, slightly different human-being with a slightly different fingerprint. 🙂

      1. So Mr. Fourat, do you know what dark energy is? Do you have any clue what dark matter is? Do you have any clue of what is inside a black hole? Does inflation theory make any sense to you? Science shows that they exist but you and your fellow scientists have no clue whatsoever of what they are. Couldn’t they just be a sign of the existence of something we can not as humans understand or comprehend; something we can call God, for example?
        As much as I disagree with the traditional view of religion, which shows God as a king watching us from above, I believe that most scientists these days have “Dark” minds in the sense that they prefer to explain what they can not perceive as something dark rather than admitting that this is beyond their brains to understand.

        1. Hello ‘Science and creation’,

          Currently, as it stands, scientists have a theory on what dark energy is, they believe it is the repulsion of empty space, but the theory isn’t matching with the reality of the universal expasion (i.e. we can’t make the math work with what we see in the universe), but we do know 100% that it is happening.
          Dark matter, is observable, and we have several theories on what it is, scientists believe it is neutrinos, but this remains open to experimentation, and not proven yet. We can however see where it is, and map it’s locations and distribution throughout the universe to a high degree of accuracy, so just because we don’t know what it is, doesn’t mean its magic.
          Well, yes they could be things beyond our comprehension, but keep in mind, that people have said that about everything. They said it about the solar system, gravity, the other three forces, relativity, creation, etc. And in time, all of those facets of the cosmos was solved. So keeping with the trend, it seems obvious that we will find out what they are.
          By calling dark energy and mater, dark, scientists are showing us, telling us, of their ignorance. They gave it those names because they don’t know what it is. Far from being arrogant, it is humble, and we can explain the effects of these unknown substances, just that we don’t know what they are. Science is extremely humble, far from being arrogant like everybody thinks.
          Hope that helped.

          1. Dear Fourat,

            The only message that I wanted to relay from my previous comment is that with so many unknowns and uncertainties, as much as we can not prove the existence of a creator, we can not for sure negate its existence! Please understand, I am a scientist as you are and I understand that the traditional view of religion does not make any sense. However, I still believe that we are practically ignorant when it comes to our knowledge of the Universe, and as result, we should not speak of this matter with absolute certainty! Until then, I still personally believe that something beyond our understanding has caused this universe to exist and this is my definition of what God is!

  3. Yes, I know this is the conventional wisdom and I sign off on it I guess, but what formed the laws of causality that governed what would happen after the singularity exploded, i.e. why was there gravity?

    1. Even I think so about you too Frout.. See above the reply from “Science and creation October 15, 2012 at 23:23” He is looking like a real scientist. Science is to know and understand how things happen but not question the existence of super power (or GOD). Must remember that, not a single scientific model fit every where for every situation. At that time that scientific model either must be tweaked or find new one. This itself indicates how science is in front of some thing called GOD. If you still claim you are great then it is absolutely waste of time to talk to people like you. But we really appreciate some humans(called scientists) curiosity to know and understand the universe and its objects with sincere efforts, but definitely not like arrogant humans like you.

      1. haha.. You fail to realize that by postulating God, you are being arrogant yourself, and are committing the very same thing that you think makes me an arrogant human. At least,. You are so sure that your reasoning, or the reasoning of some middle eastern shepherds from a few thousand years ago is ironclad, that you refuse outside observational and theoretical evidence. Science is about explaining the entire universe, not just the how, but the entire picture. From the Big Bang to Relativistic Physics, to Germ Theory to Human health, and everything in-between… You are so caught up, and so blinded by your ‘faith’ that you tell science what it can and can’t do, without realizing that billions of people throughout history have said the same thing, and been wrong. Well you may or may not find it that you can’t, and your wishful fantasies will only result in eventual disappointment (though you may constantly rationalize those disappointments to come to substandard logical arguments for why you yourself are right over some of the most intelligent people in the world who all use a process by which their conclusions are attacked and tried to be proven wrong, yet still withhold under that scrutiny).

        1. Two points I would like to share, I will not comment again as I firmly believe in the phrase, “walk softly and carry a big stick”. I have read many of the comments and here is what I think on this topic. God is real. I do not believe the Bible explains everything as it was written by men. There is hypocrisy on both sides of this argument. Anything that is touched by created men is flawed, and I mean EVERYTHING. I am also a man of science. I do not believe in absolutes. As I mentioned before, EVERYTHING touched my men is flawed, to include science. As you said in your first post Mr. Fourat, if after the big bang matter began to attract to other matter via gravity, the universe would be shrinking, not expanding. Mars would have crashed into Earth, or would soon (relatively) or something to that effect, and everything would be shrinking as it attracted to the next largest matter. The universe is expanding by all accounts. Secondly, your theory leaves as many questions as creationism. If there was nothing before the big bang, then what banged? Nothing into nothing = nothing. As you would argue, then nothing into nothing = no God. I read above, who created what and whom and where/how BLAH! There are questions from both. One is as equally bold as the other. Creationism is easier, not wrong. Science CREATES laws that work. If you throw enough numbers at something you come up with ∞ or ⧜ or ⧝; none of which explain anything. They leave more questions. At least with God, there is a finite position and closing. God doesn’t require more theories or explanations. It works for people. You are no one to discredit that belief no matter how smart you think you are. Your theory is also flawed. Let’s agree on this. No one has the right answer. You are right about one thing though, we will all find out one day. I will point out one thing though, only one of us is still searching for answers. I hope you have a great day. I have enjoyed this blip of retorts and points of views. Neither of us is right, neither of us is wrong. We simply do not have all the facts at this jecture in time to make that assumption. That is why creationists have faith and scientific minds are still searching for answers. – RJ

          1. Allow me to distill what you said into short tidbits…

            You don’t believe in absolutes, yet God is real…

            You’re a man of science, yet you do not understand that as gravity pulls in, inflation pushed out, and dark energy keeps pushing out…

            Your notion of nothing is corrupted by philosophers of old who knew objectively less than most fifth-graders today… And if God is real, then whence did he came? (Don’t worry, I know your answer; he’s uncaused…Yet its possible for the universe to be uncaused?)

            Creationism is wrong because its easier… So easy in fact, that old ignorant men thought of it 3,000 years ago who hadn’t the faintest clue of anything…

            Infinite’s in math and science are examples of futility. An infinite God is believable…

            I am still searching for answers…That’s why I read the scientific literature and update my beliefs and knowledge when necessary. You think you have the answer so you stopped searching…


        2. All the theoretical evidences you are saying are just theoretical and satisfying some people like you, but not giving the answers to all the questions arising and can never be. I am 100% sure. You are like same 3000 year old orthodox person who thinks he is right and ask everyone believe as it is satisfying some answers. But just you covered with modern man and coated with science. No other difference I see in your thoughts. I again insist Science is tool to understand how that could happen and keep improving the answer on a continuous basis based on the new data available. But science can never find the ultimate truth nor it can be greater than the GOD (or whatever people calls). You have accepts/assume the start and stop for each thing by creating the theory and try to find evidence based on those assumptions. But when one like me questions on what basis you are assuming that, then science cannot answer to that. That’s what the science is.

          Let me quote some examples how science works:
          1) Coffee is good for heart. No, it spoils the liver. People who drink coffee prone to more brain damage. So now the summary, coffee is good or bad? Open question.
          2) Same case with Alcohol.
          3) Same case with nuclear energy
          4) Same case with cell phones
          5) Same case with GM food.
          6) Same case with Pluto (Whether it is planet or not no one sure, everyone claims their data is correct)

          I can go on any subject. Science just messes things and disturb without understanding predicting any long term consequences. That;s what SCIENCE is.

  4. An interesting question, how long was the first day?. Genesis 1 says “on the first day God created the heaven and the earth”, so the day length was set before the earth existed – our 24 hour day came later. Probably the word day should be changed to period, this then would fit into the accepted scientific pattern.

    1. I’m not quite sure I follow. Day is a subjective term. Each planet has it’s own day. Mar’s day is 24.5 hours, while on Venus, its day is 224 of our days. Also, time is subjective. It is relative, the more mass something has, the slower time goes on the mass, so every seconds, minutes, and hours lose their meaning.

      1. Agreed, a day’s time is relative. At the beginning of Genesis’s creation plan and the start of day one there was no planets (these were created on day one) so a days time has to be God’s day length, this could be any length of time hence my use of the word “period”.

  5. One of the issues with your logical argument is that it’s aimed partially at the faithful. I.e. those that deny logic and know only faith. They only understand faith, and so cannot be convinced by logic. Conversely, those of us that understand logic, cannot be convinced with faith. That said, many people do use/have/understand logic and faith.

    1. A very valid point you raise. It reminds me of the quote by Sam Harris, what evidence can you use evidence to convince someone who doesn’t understand evidence to accept it. What logical argument could you use to convince some of their illogical ways. Not an exact quote, but you get the drift.

      1. I’ve read your comments and found them quite interesting and well thought out. I have a question though about your use of a “logical argument”. You refer to logic on a number of occasions and obviously hold the concept in high regard. However, on other occasions, well at least one other, you explain some universal phenomena as being “counter intuitive”, which most would see as being illogical. Do you or would you accept the notion that this idea of counter intuitiveness can and likely does exist in numerous aspects of western science. Thanks for your time

        1. A fine observation and excellent question. To answer your last point first, yes, absolutely! This is why science is theoretical, experimental, peer-reviewed, and conclusive only if all evidence matches our initial guesses (hypothesis’s). Science only exists because most of the world is counter-intuitive in and of itself.
          To me, what logic means is using the best data available (before science, this meant using rules-of-thumb and that which observation provided), though today, the foundation of logic flows from science. So, for example, the self-creation of the universe logically follows from the Big Bang Theory and Inflation Theory (both of which are regarded as true via theory, observation, and simulation), and that logical assumption does not beget more questions, which makes it a good explanation, as the theory of God does not because it raises more questions, i.e., who designed the designer?
          Logic can mean different things to different people, but logic is using inferences from that which we regard as true, and today, science provides that foundation, so from there, we make logical inferences, and then try to prove them wrong. If that is unsuccessful, then it becomes regarded as true, becomes part of the foundation, and we use logic again to go above and beyond.
          Hope I answered it satisfactorily. It’s a great observation you made, and perhaps it needs more study and discussion 🙂

          1. Thanks for your reply sir. I have problems with the concepts of “logic” and “counter-intuitive”. Please correct me if I am seeing this in an incorrect manner. When I contemplate your expressed notion of logic, “using the best data available”, and “inferences from that which we regard as true”, and combine it with if we can’t prove it wrong then it becomes part of the foundation for the next step. I hope I didn’t misrepresent you here. Anyway, aren’t we really talking about what some would call “educated guesses”? And wouldn’t the results then simply be proof the that our guesses haven’t been proved wrong—yet? Therefore, our “logic” is no more than an educated guess. This may be our best take at “science ” at this point in man’s development but it surely has it’s limitations. One incorrect educated guess,(it may not be known for decades), and it back to the drawing board.
            Now the term “counter-intuitive” is really a hard one to digest. Intuition by definition is “direct knowledge”. It is direct awareness without the cognitive, (thought processes). So the term itself is contradictory. How can something that is counter or contrary to direct knowledge be seen as a correct approach to anything? ( I know how the term is used and applied, I am just pointing out how it doesn’t make sense to me).
            I have come to realize after extensive practice, that direct knowledge is superior. By that I mean that as an expression of intuition it is therefore a more basic or fundamental expression of what we call “true”
            My reason for the lengthy preface is that as great a tool that science is, it still suffers severe limitations. Intuition is inner knowledge tied connected to and translated through wisdom, not educated guesses. What really perplexes me, and frustrates me is the notion that science, and the existence of All Powerful, Ever present force, power, entity, being , God, Creator, whatever term you chose, seem to have to be in opposition to each other. Science is an incredible tool for humankind. One day, when general field of science has reached heights well beyond its present stature, science will be the “tool” that in fact will verify the existence of such a power, Source, etc.
            Please hurry!

  6. The earth is probably a hologram. The Universe shares the same description. Now unresolved scientific questions can be answered. Our brains holds more data than its size would permit. It can if is a hologram. A rat who has been taught to run a maze can continue do so with 70% of its brain removed. Two different realms of science (neurology and physics) have separately come to same conclusion. Time and space are also illusory. Who will write a popular book about this?

    1. Spacetime is not yet conclusively proven to be a hologram, the results of the study you mention indicate that some of the properties may be similar, but nothing is conclusive yet. The hologram-ness of the universe may simply be how the universe operates, and not necessarily indicative of the matrix. Much work remains to be done so drawing conclusions is premature. A rat running a previously-learned maze with 70% of its brain gone only shows the distributed load-carrying capacity of the brain. It is well-known that when one part of the brain is damaged, other parts take over, so this is no surprise. And we have only just started cracking the code of the human mind, so we don’t fully know all the details, so we cannot draw such conclusions as yet. The brain will take 2-3 decades more for us to fully reverse-engineer. At that time, some conclusions may prove true, or not.

      1. I invite Fourat J to do the research on his next book. The Holographic Universe-Magic or Real? I leave to your imagination what you choose to call it. What I have stated in my previous posts is supported in peer reviewed published literature in the biological sciences as well as in the published journals of theoretical astronomical physicists. Good luck in your efforts.

          1. Photons would not necessarily be fuzzi in a holographic universe. The best evidence is what has been observed sub-atomically. The unpredictability of what occurs at that level is accepted now as being due to an illusory universe. Neural biologist are mostly accepting of this idea as well. Each branch of science came to this same conclusion independently.

    2. This may be out of the realm of what you are looking for but a book called “Autobiography of a Yogi” by Paramahansa Yoganda addresses the illusionary aspects you are talking about . The book is an easy and enjoyable read and was recently chosen as the the most significant book on Spirituality of the past century. I know that some here may be turned off by that label but the explanation of truly unique and amazing skills put into a scientific context is really informative and at the same time provides an avenue for the possible expansion of the human mind.

      1. Hi Joe,

        I figured I would answer your above comment here (since I can’t add a reply under that one).

        Intuition is what we might call direct knowledge, but it should be called subjective knowledge. Our human methods of knowing are based on shortcuts of the brain coupled with information from our senses.
        I’ll give you a few examples. What does the world look like? You might see the sky is blue, the trees are green and brown, the concrete is gray, and so on and so forth. But, then we use our scientific instruments to measure the range of electromagnetic radiation that exists, and that our eyes can perceive. What does it find? That our eyes can only perceive 0.01% of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum.. So the ‘direct knowledge’ of intuition has led you to a completely subjective interpretation of reality that cannot be considered objective.
        To take this concept a little further, what is the colour blue, or red? These exist only in your mind, they are actually created by your mind. The difference between blue and red is a different frequency of light. The former having a shorter wavelength than the latter, they don’t have a colour perse.
        I take issue with your point of educated guesses. They are logical extrapolations. For example, we know that since space is expanding, that it must have began somewhere. The latter logically follows from the former. We have the relativity and quantum mechanics that 100% describe our current reality, so when we take them backwards in time, we know there was a big bang. It logically follows based on what we know, it isn’t a guess. We can run simulations upto one-millionth of a second after the big bang, that will virtually end up with a universe that is identical to our own with the same laws of physics.

        So to sum up, intuition is not superior. Intuition is good for finding food, water, shelter, and social interaction, and living out our day-to-day lives. Considering how ignorant man was before modern science was created 400 years ago, should tell you all you need to know about the ‘superiority’ of intuition, so I respectfully disagree with you. The logic, facts, and history do not agree with that assertion. Thanks for your question and honest candor. It’s refreshing that we can have a debate such as this.

        1. isnt the simulation extrapolated from the input into the machine in the first place. isnt that an assumption?”garbage in garbage out”
          i am not saying science is garbage i live for it.since its something i can deal with every day.i can touch i can feel it.and when i pinch myself i can feel it its called if you are in doubt about reality just try that little works for me every time, when i loose sight of the the religion i have to believe the letter that was auctioned off recently coming from my mentor albert einstein.
          however we should not remove the comfort and crutch that this illusion god provides for most of the population.untill we have a substitute or a universal goal,survival??

  7. come on…..a explosion from nothing, when the day comes when they can prove it , not by doing math, real proof, god made everthing and everyone if we evolved then why is there no half monkey, half man running around still evolving , did it just stop…no… because god created man in his own image…not from a monkey

    1. Well God took so much time. If you believe it was God. God could have with a snap of her heavenly fingers made it all happen instantly. Unfortunately the God you believe in was devious. God destroyed all the evidence of instant creation. God made it appear that it took billions of years. The God you believe in actually would prefer to remain hidden and does not require any prayer. Just forget about God and wrap your mind around rational truth. It has been scientifically proven that might increase the brain cells in your head.

    2. Where is your proof then? We have observational proof of the Big Bang (The Cosmic Microwave Background) is conclusive evidence of a Big Bang, and seeing as how our laws of physics accurately describe the known universe thus far, and in simulations accurately describe the evolution of the universe to now, at least we have a foundation from which to logically extrapolate conclusions.
      Your only proof is a book written in the Middle East by bronze-age men, who may or may not have had little voices in their head they mistakenly attributed to a deity, of if you are a deist, you have an assumption about cause-and-effect that leds you to a deity, but that precludes you from asking how that deity came to be.
      I’d rather a foundation of real facts, than an assumption based on nothing…

  8. is it possible to include god when discussing evolution – evolution being shaped as the need arises by this awareness we call god – layman just as curious

    1. I don’t think so. We only exist because of several (possibly million) accidents occurred so fortuitously, so as to result in homo sapiens. First, the dinosaurs had to be wiped out, because there was no room for mammals to compete with them. When we first left Africa, a gigantic volcanic eruption occurred that nearly wiped out humanity, leaving only a few thousand people alive (we are all descended from these few-thousand), and I imagine, many other events we know nothing about. If God wanted to guide evolution, then he drove it in the wrong direction, and when he figured out dinosaurs wouldn’t end up being us, decided to wipe them out. Why wouldn’t God just skip the dinosaur step, instead of wasting two-hundred-million years pursuing that experiment? The God Hypothesis offers us nothing from an evolutionarily perspective.

  9. Hi Fourat,

    Nice article. Very informative.

    I have no problem in the way you have described how the universe began to exist, I can live with that as a Christian. But in your little creation you forgot to account for few things that, in my opinion needs to be addressed in your article as it supposed to explain “How the universe Happened”. And these are:

    1. “singularity.” What causes it to explode? (I have follow -up questions about this.
    2. “Abiogenesis.” This is not science. If you want to argue about its credibility and integrity as a scientific study, by all means present your case.
    3. Amino acid. I will spare you to explain how the first amino acids were formed in the first appearance of life on earth but will ask,how will you account for the infusion or formation of information in the DNA. Also, I have follow -up questions on this.

    Good luck, sir. Will appreciate your honest response.

    1. Hi Vladski, thanks. I’ll try to address your concerns here, but I didn’t forget to write them, I just wanted to keep it simple. What I have described is a very bare-bones approach to creation. If I wrote out the entire intricate story, it would be very long, and very boring.

      1) The current theories of Big Bang, Quantum Mechanics, and Inflation, allow for the spontaneous creation of the Universe. In other words, if the Universe were to create itself by itself, that would not violate the laws of physics as we know them. As it stands, this is the most probable creation event. It is not 100% conclusive yet, but it is very close.

      2) Abiogenesis is the search for the scientific explanation of how organic matter became life. We know how organic matter can be created (there are several scientific papers attesting to this), and we know that life exists because here we are, what we are missing is the abiogenesis event. It’s not a science yet, it’s the search for the science of it. See the difference?

      3) We know, from a NASA study, the mechanisms (at least partially), for how the individual parts of DNA (A-T-C-G) could be formed, in space no less! But the study of how DNA formed is part of the abiogenesis search. DNA does not last longer than a million years in the fossil record, and since life is approximately 4-billion years, it maybe that we might never know, so unfortunately, I am unable to answer this question, but maybe a biologist could give you a better explanation.

      1. Thank you for your reply.

        According to this blog entry (This is how the Universe happened…), you said that the current laws allow the Universe to create itself, from where did you get this idea? Please explain and present current facts and data for this assumption and not mere statements from theoretical physicists and hardcore atheists like Dawkins.

        How can a finite thing can exists by itself? This is logically impossible. Not to mention that the current established scientific data and facts about what we know of our Universe doesn’t support such assumption, with the exemption of course to yet established theories such as inflation model of the Universe. The most accepted theory for the beginning of the Universe that agrees to current scientific data and facts is, of course the BB. So please do not introduce theories that are based on mere imaginations of some theoretical physicists or notable biologists such as Richard Dawkins.

        If the the universe has no ontological beginning, then the Universe should have been existing eternally. But the current and widely accepted theory, the BB (or Big Bang), it implies that the Universe began to exists in one particular point in the past where everything that was and that there is, were created.

        Objection to Reply No. 1.

        The reason I asked this question is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the Universe is losing its usable energy – Increased Entropy.

        The Universe is expanding. That is a fact. The Universe requires energy to work (Cosmic Expansion). Time will come when the Universe will lose its all usable energy and will come to an end – the universe is not infinite. This is what our current data shows.

        What is finite, must have a beginning. This is what the present scientific data tell us, not by some theories formulated by atheistic scientists to get around this inescapable truth.

        Based on this Law, it seems to imply that the Universe was, in the past, been into a perfect state (zero entropy, Prior to BB). It could be interpreted that the Entropy was started during the BB (Cosmic expansion).

        Objection to Reply No. 2.

        I know abiogenesis is not science the reason I heavily object this to be used as an explanation for the origin of life. And how could you possibly accept this explanation blindly if you knew that this such study is not science? Aren’t you guilty of cherry-picking your explanation that best suits your favored belief?

        You said “We know that life exist because here we are…” is a very poor explanation to me not to mention how logically fallacious you have become by coming out with an explanation that obviously suitable for preschoolers. I’m sorry but I wasn’t not convinced.

        Objection to Reply No. 3.

        There is no scientific evidence that can explain how the information in DNA came to be. It still remains a mystery to scientists.

        By logical calculation and mathematical probabilities, evolution by mere chance alone has no place in a time constraint universe, let alone a young earth (4.5 billion years). I assume you are aware of the time intervals from the Big Bang up to the time the earth was formed and the appearance of first life on earth.

        What is the possibility of life to be formed by mere chance alone? Please allow me to quote some of these scientists:

        “[W]e are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the earth’s surface and the origin of life. Life is not a complex accident that required immense time to convert the vastly improbable into the nearly certain. Instead, life, for all its intricacy, probably arose rapidly about as soon as it could.”
        (Gould, S. J., “An Early Start,” Natural History, February, 1978)

        “…we have now what we believe is strong evidence for life on Earth 3,800 thousand million years [ago]. This brings the theory for the Origin of Life on Earth down to a very narrow range … we are now thinking, in geochemical terms, of instant life…”
        (Ponnamperuma, C. from “Evolution from Space,” 1981)

        Francis Crick, the scientist who discovered the structure of DNA, commented:
        “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.” – Horgan, J., “In the Beginning…,” Scientific American, (Feb 1991) 264:116-126).

        “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” – Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996).

        Even the heavy proponents of evolution such as Dawkins openly admitted the appearance of Design in Biology. The only difference is that, Dawkins would rather conclude that aliens are responsible for such life formation than to consider a Creator responsible for life. How funny could that be?

        Anyway, I commend you for saying you do not know the answer for this.

        1. Hi Vlad,

          I’m not going to restate the Theory of Inflation here as one, you more than likely will sweep it aside (no offense). The evidence supporting Inflation is hugely compelling, made even more so with recent experiments such as WMAP, the inhomogeneity of the universe which accounts for the current structure, and it makes numerous more theoretical predictions that are confirmed observationally. There are debates within the inflation theory, such as eternal inflation or local inflation, and whether either of those, is part of a multiverse or not. Don’t assume that it’s because there is something wrong with it to suit your imagined ends.

          The Universe has a beginning, but the scientific knowledge is continuously expanding, and we may find ourselves (as we do right now in theory) with multiverse projections, or even a bouncing universe. Whatever it ends up being, postulating God does not solve it. It just moves the buck one step back, and theists refuse to press the same scrutiny to God as they did with the Big Bang because they are now finally satisfied the answer is correct, as if it were as easy as coming up with the answer and question simultaneously, before the knowledge, experiments, and data come along.

          Your statement about atheist biologists, and theoretical physicists is arrogance at its finest. Most scientists aren’t out trying to disprove God, as most theists are out to prove God when they read the scientific literature or find one flaw in 10,000. The sheer arrogance with which you make that statement (and many millions of others) is stupefying to the highest-degree, not to mention hugely ironic, you are doing exactly that, which you accuse scientists of doing, yet they aren’t doing it and you are! I do no mean to cause offense here, but that is the way I see it.

          I don’t get your objection two. You breakdown at the singularity where our current laws of physics can offer no perfect explanation (aside from us knowing it happen, but not why, unless eternal inflation proves true). So what do you do? Do you invent God? No, you continue probing, which is what scientists are doing to come up with a Theory of Everything that will explain it…

          None of the quotes you pointed out above point to much of anything. A prominent biologist, Maynard Smith, had this to say about Stephen Gould “is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory.” The fact that improbable things happened does not make them impossible. That’s the most obvious statement one can conceive, but the odds were still above zero, and no amount of sugar-coating will get us around that. I am made up of 50 trillion cells. The Earth is 6×10^24 kilograms, a number of atoms that is beyond count, in a constantly-evolving and changing planet with untold trillions of trillions of trillions of chemical adaptions in hot, warm, and cold environments in high pressure and low pressure environments, concluded after 1 billion years, single-celled life. I mean, we have evidence of life from 3 billion years ago so obviously it happened, in some way! More than likely, since the evidence of how organic matter became life is lost to us, we may simulate a virtual universe in the coming age of cheap and hugely powerful computers, with the laws of physics, and we’ll see it happen virtually. But to say we never will, so lets believe in an even more unprovable theory is wrong. I’m sorry to be blunt, but that’s the cold hard truth. Listening to one biologist out a thousand go against the grain is not a measure of truth.

          Lastly, of course there is an appearance of design. Every biologist will tell you this, but to skip over the fact that a large majority of them can explain how that design came to be is shortsighted. Biologists are just as prone to awe and wonder at the sheer luck and chance of it all as us (as if they were mechanical autobots). Just because we know how something came to be, does not mean we can imagine it. Try thinking of a light-year (you can’t), or the enormity of the sun (you can’t), or the smallness an atom (you can’t), and so when you take a biologists quote (perhaps out of context or put them into a context they didn’t intend it too, as you have clearly done with at least two of those scientists), you get knowledge in, garbage out.

          A hundred years ago, we could have never imagined how we would find proof of subatomic particles, the origins of the universe, or the basis for morality, let alone evolution. Yet here we are with highly probable scenario’s in which a lot of those questions are answered. Are you seriously going to commit the same short-sighted mistake that most great and small thinkers over the histories have done? By saying the buck stops here? That from here forward, science will reveal no more (even scientists were saying this at the beginning of last century)… That is to commit the biggest folly of all.

          1. Hi Fourat,

            I have noticed in your reply that you seemed to argue with the general public when you only have to respond specifically to what I have written. And by doing so you made lots of conjectures in your posts .

            Anyway, I think you have misread what I’ve written. I’m not sure from where you get the idea that I am against inflation theory. In fact, in my post above, I made specific mention of Inflation Theory to be exempted from among the many theories that has no supporting data from the current knowledge that we have about our Universe. I know the significance of Inflation theory in explaining the current state of the Universe and the numbers of issues it resolved because of Big Bang. Current facts and data support or match some form of Inflation. And it seems to imply that we live in an inflationary big bang universe. And I don’t see any problem with that.

            The problem in your responses, as I have mentioned in my blog (where you responded to one of my entries.. thanks for dropping by, anyway) is that, you argued on the merits of the things that is yet to come and yet to happen i.e. that someday science will eventually be able to explain everything. As I already stated, this poses a serious logical error. And I know you know why.

            If the Universe has a beginning as you claimed above, then we are left with the question “how does everything began to exist?” If God is not the answer, then we need to find out where we should make a stop, We can go on for eternity. Along the line, we need to find somewhere where we can make a stop. We cannot go on forever to eternal regress.

            Christians define this “stopping point” as the Creator where everything that there was and there is, came into existence. Now, If you have another name for that “stopping point” so be it.

            And personally, I am not satisfied yet with the present theory (Big Bang) that explains how the Universe began to exist. I am just happy with its discovery because it pushes back atheistic belief to the edge of time (from my response to your comment in my blog). And the more we know about our Universe, the more atheistic belief is push back to the edge of time.

            The statement i made about atheist biologists and theoretical physicists are true to some personalities and not intended to generalized the scientific community especially those hold atheistic belief. I don’t think there is arrogance in my statement (and I don’t feel offended in anyway with your statement). I am only stating the facts from what these people have written against religion. If you are a man of science, you don’t publish books that attack particular religion. Rather you publish books about what happened science only.

            My Objection No. 2 is simply questioning your given explanation (abiogenesis) about how life came into existence as this is considered not science. This experiment conducted first by Oparin in the 1920s and was completed by Miller/Urey in 1953. It was once heralded in scientific community but now we know that this is not evidence for the formation of life. And you came up with this one as your explanation on how life originated on earth?

            I quoted some phrases from biologists to show that your explanation about how life originated is not as simple as the abiogenesis experiments. It shows that life formation requires very specific complicated process. And there you are giving us the abiogenesis that explains the origin of life.

            I’ll post my reply in a separate post on the appearance of design in biology as I run out of time to do it now.


  10. My theory is that the UNIVERSE always existed. God is simply a concept of that existence. Maybe each one of us is that conscienceness dreaming of itself. The battle of good and evil is within, not external.

    1. I’d like to take that further, I think the universe has always existed, and we anthropomorphized it into something personal, something we call God.

  11. You are telling me that Big Bang is not mere theory, but fact, when I have yet to see a simple and thorough explanation of time..

    Was Einstein correct in stating that Past and Future are an illusion?
    Does time have a purpose or is it an effect?
    What is time?
    What is required to be cognizant of it?
    How is time measured?
    Where does the measurement begin, where does it end?
    What is the start value for time.?
    These questions should be child’s play for you

    1. look in the mirror and compare your pictures when you were a little kid and the reflection that you see now and then ask yourself oh my where has the time gone?

  12. Good morning…..
    I have a question that perhaps you can answer. In the top left hand corner of your blog there is a depiction of the big bang and the expansion of the universe emanating to the right. But according to the law of equal and opposite reaction, wouldn’t the expansion emanate in all directions? like a sphere with the beginning suspended in the center?. I find it very difficult to Allie with the supreme being theory as it is just too absurd to give credence to and hopefully mankind will come to realize that the notion of a god is simply man made.


    1. Hi Kim,
      Excellent question, The law of equal and opposite reaction is a Newtonian law. Newtonian physics is not applicable to the universe at large, only at our scales, and in situations where the speed of light is not approached closely, or strong gravitational influence is not present.
      Universal cause-and-effect is not the same as the cause-and-effect that makes sense to us. The equal and opposite reaction is the expansion of space-time itself, along with creation of positive energy (light+matter) countered against the negative energy of gravity juxtaposed against the quantum mechanics that invariably try to create something where nothing exists. Bit of a mouthful huh? One of my latest posts is called “The Universe and Causality”, and that should make things a bit clearer if you have the time to read that.

      Hope that helps. 🙂

  13. Mr. Fourat Janabi,

    You argue, very successfully, that the Universe created itself from nothing. You also argue very successfully that life originated from non-living matter.

    But, why do you stop your line of thinking when it comes to life? Why the double-standard when you say that “we know that life exists because here we are”?

    I would argue that life, consciousness and free will are merely illusions. How do “you” “push” the neurons in your brain to make decisions? Even though it appears that we’re having an enjoyable discussion, my reading of your post would definitely result in my making this post, and your reading my post would definitely result in your responding in a certain way (or ignoring it – it is definite, even if I don’t have the knowledge of what it is). And, if you don’t really have free will, are you really conscious?

    Similarly, it then becomes completely unsurprising that “life” arose by itself from non-living matter. Because “life” is non-living matter; there is no such thing as “life”. There is no value in life. If 20 billion “people” were to simultaneously “die”, it would merely be a conversion of matter and energy, nothing more. The only reason you use your right hand to pick up food and eat it, is because of arbitrary things called “pleasure” and “pain”. If it gave you pleasure to use your right hand to take a hammer and smash yourself, you would do that instead. You are not alive. Worse, you are not even dead – you have never been alive.

    Your thoughts?

    1. Well, life is just another form of matter. We call stars stars, planets planets, and things that move on their own, life. I do believe that free will is an illusion, and that we can only react to other events, but Conscious does exist, even though it may be an illusion, we can still feel and react, unlike say a rock. I’m reading an enjoyable book called ‘The Ego Tunnel’ on exactly this subject, and I have a feeling, you will enjoy it. We are up-verted anti-entropic matter. Doesn’t make us any less real though, illusion or not.

      1. Thanks for the recommendation – I will be sure to check out ‘The Ego Tunnel’ when I get the time.

        Regarding your definition of life – that’s my point, though. As far as science is concerned, we don’t act “on our own”. We’re just shapes in the sand formed by the blowing wind, and our movements are made by external stimuli – we have no control over them. It’s the external wind that moves us. So, we really aren’t any different from the non-living matter from which we came. When you look at it that way, it’s not at all surprising that we came from non-living matter, because that’s all we still are.

        Thus, I feel that the debate over whether or not life came from non-living matter should be rephrased as “Is there anything such as life?”.

  14. I will enter into the conversation slowly but with posing some questions first.

    If we compare the characteristics of GOD (as conceived by religions) and Energy (in its generic and general form) can we see the similarities?

    As we have proved (almost) that the condition and thus scientific laws (particularly those of physics) prevailing during the Big Bang (taken it as true) and present time (just after the inflation point and probably a bit after fusion points) are quite different so can we talk in same language of Thermodynamics?

    And, can Energy and GOD as science (as it always existed whether we have discovered them or not) and philosophy (which is basically the conscious interpretation of the laws of nature and thus science) be distinguished by the consideration of a consciousness with conscience?

    We now know that energy and matter are almost inseparable and thus the point of singularity can be conceived of as a point of energy only (no space and even time) that can give the internal dialects required for the Bang.

    Though I will propose that there was, is and always will be a universal time and space (may not be in its present conception) within which frame the Big Bang occurred.

    I am proposing a different framework for holistic interpretation which is “logical logic”. By this in simple term I mean the logic that encompasses all the possible perspectives and try to see things from a neutral point of view (or to say for safety- Most Pervasive Point of view)

    I request critical arguments.

  15. I have been reading “The First Three Minutes” by Dr. Steven Weinberg. Are you familiar with this book? He writes to the layman, such as myself, and should be mandatory reading for anyone seeking knowledge about the creation or perhaps even the creator !

  16. Oh my! Such a heavy-weight conversation going on here, I wouldn’t be able to enter convincingly at your level. I would like to throw a few marbles into the game. First, the preceding arguments remind me of the good ol’ days in the Agora of Athens, with philosophers, students and everyday wise-guys arguing about the number of angels that could stand on the head of a pin. The answer depends on how you classify the existance of angels, etc, etc…
    Secondly, tiring of the massive debate, I’ve decided that the Creation boils down to two statements:
    Religion declares WHAT happened.
    Science explains HOW it was done.
    Thirdly, only fools, jackasses and devious cretins ever try to bring religion into politics.

    Carry on, Gentle folk and enjoy your debate.

    1. hehe, nice interjection Dennis. A slight refinement of your points, if I may.

      Religion declares WHAT happened with no proof
      Science explains HOW it happened with theory, evidence, and observation, since WHY is not an inherent property of the Universe…
      The answer depends on knowing when there is, and isn’t an question worth asking…

  17. i am a person who believes both in religion as well as science…….As per Ur knowledge universe and earth are something that exits long…..long ago or by the crash of smthng and something,it developed…… If GOD was just for the sake of a name, why till today science has not overcome death.??????????????????

    As per me science is a gift from GOD………………………..

  18. Alright….I have a question. Can we see light (waves or particles?) that hasn’t reached us yet?. Like with Hubble for instance.

  19. Firstly, great post and I love the Q&A that follows and admire your patience. Are you a teacher?

    I have a serious question. In the first answer you say that the quantum field and gravity cannot be removed from an empty universe. That then becomes the basis for creation of matter to balance out the net energy. Why is it that the quantum field and gravity ‘are’ there?

    Thanks – great blog.

    1. Nope, not a teacher. Just a curious fellow who bought a domain name for $26.

      To your question, the simple answer is we’ve no idea. It is an assumption, but one that works theoretically. As far as we know, you can never remove everything. Another way to put it, there is no such thing as nothing, and when we speak of the quantum field being there, or particle popping into existence, there is no other way for it to be. It’s either an infinite regress, or it stops somewhere, probably arbitrarily. But, as I make the point, we are making certain assumptions, though with our current level of science, it meshes theoretically. 🙂

Leave a Reply to vladski Cancel reply


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

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s