Proving a god exists

This is probably very old hat for anyone who knows anything about philosophy, but I don't so it seemed like quite an exciting line of questioning to me. What am I talking about, you may be asking yourself, and why are you bothering to read such blather? Well, this question may answer you:

“Does the Big Bang theory mean there has to be a god?”*

My reasoning is thusly (to sound a bit Old Testament about it all) - if the universe was created from a singularity, or in other words everything in creation grew from the same vanishingly small something at the start of the Big Bang, then is it possible that all movements & interaction of every particle in the universe is predictable? If we could know the conditions when everything sprang from nothing, when all the energy and matter in the universe was set in motion, then surely we could predict what those motions would be for the rest of eternity.

It would be a bit like holding a load of marbles in your hand & chucking them into the air - if you know the position and movement of the marbles as they leave your hand, you could predict exactly where they will fly & land.

Now, if we can predict what will happen to all the particles & energy in the universe, we could work out what has happened since the Big Bang and what will happen until the universe freezes to a halt (if indeed it will). If this is the case, then every action and thought has been pre-determined and there is no free will. Such a situation would be pretty much exactly the same as there being a god ruling and directing creation, so as long as we overlook the heaven/hell bit (which is OK as we are taking about gods here, not God) we could say that the Big Bang proves the existence of a god.

So, there I was thinking these thoughts and it was looking quite promising, as long as the universe did indeed start from a singularity and not some rather nebulous collapse of a previous universe, when along came a big but!

Please notice the single 'T' in that last word. Thank you, you can now carry on.

BUT, rather excitingly (I am soooo dull) a useful loophole appeared at the moment critique for the there's-a-god-but-also-free-will fraternity. This loophole was:

(please imagine a fanfare at this point)

THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE

This means that it is physically impossible for the location, composition, energy, movement etc of any subatomic particle to be known at the same time - you can know what something is but not where it is, or vice versa. Now, the term 'know' here is a little more fundamental than just seeing or hearing: it means that all interactions at the subatomic scale are inherently unpredictable. As they are unpredictable, it means that it is impossible to predict the movement of mater & energy, so there is not necessarily predetermination.

No predetermination means free will and no proof that there is a god, or at least no proof that the universe acts as if there were a god, which to my mind is so ridiculously similar that it would be churlish to argue about it.

So, even if the universe did start from a real singularity there is the potential for free will and the existence of a god is safely returned to being based purely on faith.

Phew!

*I'm not referring to the comedy series, by the way, but the theory that explains how an expanding universe was created in the first place. Or recreated. Possibly.

Zeta, gods & spirituality

We all believe in something: perhaps a god, perhaps some nebulous form of spiritual force or possibly just blind guidance by physical laws. It doesn't really matter as far as Zeta is concerned, as it is this life that we are concerned with rather than the next. Think of it as the path to heaven on earth, if you like.

It is quite possible that all theologies are correct at the same time, even the mutually exclusive ones, so it is silly to stress about which is superior. It is also rather arrogant to claim that one's own beliefs are correct and everyone else's wrong, as others believe just as strongly as you and with just as much justification.

It is interesting to note that the founders or major prophets of most religions have said similar things about the ways to reach their gods: be tolerant, be kind, be spiritual and chill out about what you have and your position in society.

This is also the way to heaven on earth, which simply means reaching a state of contentment in your life. Focusing on the spiritual in your life will make this much easier to achieve and is possibly the only route to full contentment. In this context spiritual does not necessarily mean any of the gods/astral plain/reincarnation type stuff, but does concern the inner you: your emotions, the shrouded foundations of your conscious thought, your subconscious and instinct.

For instance, being unpleasant to someone may lead to a sense of superiority, victory and elation, but brings with it stress, anger, alienation and emotional retreat. This could enhance happiness in the short term, but would almost certainly reduce contentment for the longer term. The same degree of pleasantness to others would bring a longer lasting joy, elation, connection, mutual social elevation (as opposed to lone superiority, with all its drawbacks) and emotional growth. It would also boost contentment.

Remember that happiness is an intense but fleeting feeling that comes and goes rapidly, leaving little of use behind it once gone. Contentment, on the other hand, is a stable state of being that influences all other emotions and tends to engender that rather chimeric feeling of happiness.

Most religions of the world also try to dissuade people from being proud, and that message is as relevant today as it has ever been. It is perhaps the most important message of them all, as the whole chilling out & being spiritual thing is almost impossible if you get it wrong. No spiritual chilling means no enlightenment, no pervasive contentment.

The classically religious interpretation of pride seems to be similar with boasting or big-headedness. This, I think, is slightly off the mark and is probably a misunderstanding of the teachings of men (mainly) who were, after all, some of the wisest the world has even known, even if you don't believe in their gods. Now, the Zeta interpretation of pride is 'don't take yourself too seriously', but this is basically the same as the classical teachings, only updated for a modern context.

Pride is a boon in some circumstances - pride in your children's rather dubious artwork, for instance. In fact, it can be a great source of joy and motivation to do good. But if you take yourself too seriously, the pride can very easily turn venomous. If you don't take yourself too seriously, then you can view the world through untainted eyes and feel good about just about everything. It gives you room to be understanding other people and forgive their foibles or insults, just as you should forgive yourself for your own.

Well, enough for now - it's time to stroll into the market for the week's shopping.

p.s. very proud of myself, as I wrote all that without a snigle spelling mistake!