The Godless Equation
I've been developing a theory for quite some time, and now I'm going to share it.
What made me decide to do it right now is that I just saw the video in which two fundamentalists formally debated two atheists on the existence of God. When I learned about the video, the Fundy's claimed they would provide scientific proof of the existence of God.
I found the video and was expecting to see some some really interesting theories played against eachother, with the atheists using the traditional scientific "disproofs" of God (which they did), and the Fundy's proving some new insights and a new, logical theory.
My hope was entirely too misguided.
Instead, the Fundy's provided the usual, over-used and under-explained Intelligent Design argument. They held up the Mona Lisa and said (to paraphrase), "Anyone who sees this painting can tell that a painter painted it. If you got a bunch of scientists into a room, a repeatable experiment, and showed them the picture, they would conclude each time that there was a painter."
Then he applied the same concept to the universe.
The atheist responded that a painting is not proof of a painter, but a painting. They said that just because there is a complex image (or complex anything, for that matter) it doesn't mean that something intelligent created it. (For an example of a painting without a painter, see this picture, which should at least let you see my point.)
Plus, a simple rebuttal to this theory (when it is not explained) is, "Who created the creator?" which the atheists did, completely mooting his point, because he apparently wasn't knowledgeable enough to defend the theory.
From what I saw, there was nothing else that the Fundy's pointed out. They then skipped over to the 10 Commandments, and tried to show how we're all sinners and need God's forgiveness.
That's why they should stick to converting people, and not to theological discussion.
Anyway, the atheists countered with another theory, and said that if God can be infinite, why not the universe? They then cited the First Law of Thermodynamics (mistakenly calling it the third, and actually citing the Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy) and said that, because "matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed", the mass/energy in the universe has to always have been here. Then, the universe is infinite and really there is no need to consider God. (The Fundy's didn't know how to respond, and their faces were priceless!)
With that prologue, on to the Godless Equation itself.
Put in mathematical terms, the Godless Equation can be written as "X + Y = 0". I discovered this equation while trying to understand how the universe could exist without God, for reasons of my own.
The implication that I usually consider is that "X" represents any sort of object in the universe, and "Y" represents the particular (read: relative to particles) opposite of "X", meaning Y = -X. Thus, a piece of matter could be "X", and a piece of something particularly opposite to matter could be "Y". I'm not sure there is any evidence for such a thing, but anti-matter seems similar. It would be similar to the relationship between 1 and -1. (There's enough qualifiers in that last passage to run for President!) Anyway, the opp-matter would be the exact opposite of matter (hence the name), negating it. Any tangible object in our universe is made up of matter, so the equivalent amount of its opp-matter in the universe is equal to Y, and in effect cancels out the X, just as in the equation 1 + -1 = 0, -1 cancels out 1.
The detailed explanation: The universe without a deity is equal to zero (0). Nothing in our universe can exist if it has not been created, therefore our universe without creation is equal to nothing. Anything that you could hypothetically have in that universe (x) must comply with this rule, and therefore must equal 0 as well, relative to the universe. The equation at this point is "X = 0".
Before we go on, it must be here noted that the natural state of any system is to be filled. That is why vacuums suck things into them, which in turn is why black holes are sometimes referred to as enemies of nature. If the universe is equal to zero, then there is nothing in the system, because there is no system. We have only a void. For this void to be filled, in compliance with the laws of nature, something must fill it.
In the equation, then we have X equal to 0 and a lot of time (or lack thereof) on our hands, and with an infinite (or nonexistant) amount of time and only one thing to happen, that thing is naturally going to happen. Nature will find a way to fix the situation; in this case by filling the void.
But we can't have creation if the state of things must equal zero. The sum of the parts of the equation must equal zero, so, "= 0" will always be the right hand of the equation. If matter was created without any reason, then "1 = 0" would be the result (1 representing one piece of matter), which is a logical impossibility.
But, like I said, the sum of the right hand of the equation must equal zero. So what if we have 1 + -1 = 0, as in the example? That makes sense. We have a piece of matter in the universe, but it is negated by an equal amount of opp-matter, and the universe maintains equality to zero. Has matter been created? Not exactly. Matter is in the universe, but the state of the universe is equal to zero because of the equality of matter vs. opp-matter, so we can't exactly say that matter has been created.
It is rather simple from there, really. A random amount of matter is "created", because of the natural state of any system of things, and sort of "explodes" (big bang?) into existence. An equal amount of opp-matter is "created" as well.
We end up with the universe exactly like the one we live in, only God is not necessarily there. And all because of the Godless Equation.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!