- #1
David McArthur
- 5
- 0
I was watching a discussion on wether the the universe is the way it is through design or by chance. The design theory is basically that the universe is such a complex entity and that for it to have evolved exactly as we see it, then it must have been designed. The counter theory is that we live in a multiverse, as possibly predicted by M theory, and that if there are enough universes then eventually you will find one exactly like the one we inhabit.
It seems to me that there is no real way to prove or disprove either theory. However I was thinking that perhaps there is a clue in the formation of the early universe. Immediately after the big bang there was nothing but pure energy, and that after a short period of expansion the energy 'condensed' into matter. The behaviour of matter is governed by the fundamental forces of nature, i.e. gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces. Presumably these forces existed and were ingrained into the fabric of the universe from the outset, that is before the matter that they act upon even existed. So if the forces of nature existed prior to the matter that they control, does that not imply forward planning, and therefore an argument for design?
It seems to me that there is no real way to prove or disprove either theory. However I was thinking that perhaps there is a clue in the formation of the early universe. Immediately after the big bang there was nothing but pure energy, and that after a short period of expansion the energy 'condensed' into matter. The behaviour of matter is governed by the fundamental forces of nature, i.e. gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces. Presumably these forces existed and were ingrained into the fabric of the universe from the outset, that is before the matter that they act upon even existed. So if the forces of nature existed prior to the matter that they control, does that not imply forward planning, and therefore an argument for design?
