In the last two decades we have seen a plethora of books which depict an image of the universe to show that it is accidental both in architecture and origin. We will prove in due course that this is not tenable based on purely scientific reasoning. No one can prove the existence of God but using scientific arguments it is possible to convincingly argue that there exists a strong presumption of a supernatural architect of the universe. The scientific arguments we have in mind exist as a coherent package within the contemporary status of Physics and within cosmological evidence. Maybe Einstein, who avoided to state categorically that he was an atheist, made various statements which lead us to think he wanted to know more about the possible divine origin or otherwise of the universe and was not able to do so until he passed away. The main reason was that we did not then have enough scientific information to lead us to decide on the origin of the universe, whether accidental or supernatural. The two decades following his demise saw a number of ideas like the Higgs boson capable of being exposed in the LHC experiments, a strong belief of the scientific possibility of soon unfolding a theory of everything and concepts like quantum fluctuations involving infinite negative energy levels existing before the origin of the universe, all so far still floating in the realm of speculations. The physical reality of the universe, analysed in the works of the great physicists of the last century have enough ideas, which taken in the context of concepts of the last two decades, seems to show more and more that a reassessment of the nature of the universe, whether supernatuual or divine, can lead to some solid arguments and conclusion: the universe could not have had an accidental origin and there could be a strong presumtion of a supernatural design or architect.
No comments:
Post a Comment