We know next to nothing about the universe around us. Our knowledge can be likened to scientists staring at a wall and running all manner of experiments to determine what it is. So far, they have figured out it is probably a large item, made from some sort of substance with some weird anti-substance in between. And tiny bits of it can disappear and reappear at random. And it might or might not be getting bigger. But they have no idea what is above it, or even if there is anything behind it. They also have no idea where it came from. But they do know it is there, because we exist.
We don’t know where our universe came from. We don’t know if there are others – we haven’t a shred of evidence for their existence, although gut-feeling suggests they are there. We don’t how our universe came into being. The big bang idea fits, but it remains only the most likely explanation. We don’t know what led to the big bang. We do know that the way the big bang happened resulted in a set of rules, one outcome of which was that our form of life came into existence. And mathematically, if it had of exploded in a minutely different way, we would have an entirely different set of rules governing its existence (it could have been a hunk or gold, rather than a ball of hydrogen and helium).
We don’t know how it is possible for a tiny thing to exist in the middle of nothing and then to become a great big thing. We do now know there is no such thing as nothing – so we have figured out there is matter and anti-matter. But we have no idea how, before the big bang, a tiny ball could exist surrounded by, apparently nothing.
We have now figured out the universe is made up of immensely tiny things. But they seem tiny only relative to our size. And conversely, the universe seems immense only because we are so small.
Our view of our universe is hugely prejudiced by the way we are built – to wit, our style of vision. If humans never had sight, we would have an entirely different perception of our universe.
All of this leads to the interesting hypothesis of atheism – that the universe, and us, are simply a mathematical outcome. The question is, are we making a mathematical model fit what we can see, or are we in fact discovering the imbedded code? And that is crux of the religious versus the atheists. The religious say because there are great events that occur which cannot be explained, it must be a miracle and thus the handy-work of God. Atheists say that when great events occur that cannot be explained, there must be a mathematical answer that hasn’t yet been discovered. Both camps are rely on assumption – but atheist apply a great deal more intellectual thought to their views, while the religious rely (lazily) on quoting things that were written a few thousand years ago.
That is why the atheist win every argument – because the religious are inherently intellectually lazy (which is besides the point).
The fact is, if atheists are right, that our universe, and us, are simply a mathematical formula whose origins are inexplicable (i.e. who wrote the code), then that would therefore qualify as the greatest miracle of all and would be freaky beyond belief.
We are a very long time away from quantifying how our universe works (and quite possibly will never know given the limits of the human design). I will, however, hang around for the answer, content in the knowledge that my matter will be recycled perpetually across the universe, for better or for worse. We will all continue to exist in interesting times.