The Universe and Divine Purpose

Kirk Straughen

(Investigator 222, 2025 May)

Theologians sometimes argue the universe displays divine purpose in that it exhibits evidence of design, which is indicated by the regularity of natural laws, and that these laws are specifically ordered to bring about the emergence of humanity as the pinnacle of the creative evolutionary process.

It seems unlikely that this assumption is true. The idea that the laws of nature imply a law-giver is an error that arises from confusion between natural and human law. The laws that govern society command its members to behave in a certain way – a way that they may either choose to observe or choose not to observe.

Natural laws, however, are an inherent aspect of the structure of matter. They are mathematical descriptions of how nature behaves, and being mere descriptions of what nature does, it is not possible in my opinion to argue that there must be a law-giver who “told” nature to behave in a certain way.

Theologians may argue that God made matter. But how do we know that God made matter? Everything that we know about things that have been made comes from the experience of things that we already know have been made. If after examining atoms it was discovered that they bore a strong resemblance to artifacts we know are the products of manufacture, then perhaps we could validly deduce that matter has been made, but no such similarity exists. Indeed, all the evidence points to a natural origin for the universe.

The idea that the emergence of humanity in particular and nature in general is the aim of divine purpose is, in my opinion, refuted by the inevitable extinction of our species and the universe as a whole – a fate determined by the very laws of nature (the second law of thermodynamics, specifically) to which the theologians appeal.

Our sun is a star, and like all stars, it produces the energy that life on Earth depends upon by the fusion of hydrogen to helium in its core. However, there comes a time in every star’s life when it runs out of the hydrogen that fuels its thermonuclear reactions. Astronomers and physicists have calculated that our sun will reach the beginning of the end of its life about 5 billion years from now. By then, it will have converted all the hydrogen in its core to helium.

When this happens, gravitational forces will compress the core, allowing the rest of the sun to swell like an inflating balloon to hundreds of times its current size and become what astronomers call a red giant. In the process of expanding, the sun will engulf the inner planets of the solar system – Mercury, Venus, and Earth will be completely vaporized.

Of course, all life on Earth will have perished long before this event, for it will have been destroyed by the tremendous heat of our star’s steadily encroaching sphere. After the red giant phase, approximately 7 to 8 billion years from now, our sun will eventually collapse in upon itself to form a white dwarf, which will slowly cool until nothing remains but a dark, dim globe of inert matter - the last observable stage of evolution for low and medium-mass stars such as ours.

The death of our sun is inevitable, as is the eventual death of all the stars in the universe. In the inconceivably distant future, about 100 trillion years from now, after all the gas needed for star formation has been exhausted, and existing stars have run out of fuel, the universe will be a cold and lifeless void of eternal darkness. What then of divine purpose?

Of course, the theologians will probably claim that although the universe is gradually running down, God will rewind His creation, so to speak, and all will be right with the world. Just how this hoped-for miracle (perhaps wishful thinking would be a more accurate term) of cosmic proportions will be accomplished remains unknown. But perhaps I am expecting too much from the theologians. After all, they are neither astronomers nor physicists, are they?

The theologians may say science paints a rather bleak picture and that their views give hope, while the atheistic position can only lead to depression and despair. But I say the meaning of life is found in life itself rather than a belief in egotistical gods who demand we worship them. The meaning of life, in my opinion, consists of striving to make the world a better place for our children and our children’s children.


References

UNIVERSE and PURPOSE

Response To  #222

(Investigator 223, 2025 July)

Kirk: You wasted your money. The house will get old and fall apart, and you yourself will die. Therefore the house has no purpose!

Simon: On the contrary, its purpose is to raise my family in it, in security and comfort. A house is better than living on the sidewalk for 50 years.

Mr Straughen writes: "The idea that the emergence of humanity in particular and nature in general is the aim of divine purpose is, in my opinion, refuted by the inevitable extinction of our species and the universe as a whole…"

However, before the Universe goes "extinct" much can happen. Who knows what technologies humans could discover and control in billions of years and what other universes will exist to which humans could relocate? Two centuries ago no one knew of today's technologies, yet Straughen looks ahead billions of years!

The purpose of the Universe at present is as a place for humans to live and collectively acquire the abilities of God — as Genesis 11 says "Nothing that they propose to do will  now be impossible for them."

In turn humans provide God with intelligent companionship. God likes company because this is more fun than solitude especially during long periods like eternity. Some Bible verses suggest that humans give God pleasure. We read, for example, "The LORD takes pleasure in those who fear him, in those who hope in his steadfast love." (Psalm 147:11)

Straughen's other point was: "Natural laws … are mathematical descriptions of how nature behaves … it is not possible … that there must be a law-giver who "told" nature  what to do…"

I suspect that nature and its laws commenced together at the so-called "Big Bang", not nature first and its laws later.

•    Fine-Tuning of the Universe (#126…)
•    Genesis, Creation and Evolution (#199…)
•    God Exists (#143…)
•    Genesis of Gods (#73…)

Straughen regularly complains of "no evidence", and now of no purpose, even though confronted with the evidence and conclusions of scientists who studied the Universe and its laws for decades and became deists.

Universe & Purpose: First Reply to Anonymous

Kirk Straughen

(Investigator 224, 2025 September)

I thank Anonymous for his reply in #223 to my article on the above. However, I do not think his house analogy is valid. In order for something to have a purpose, that something must be designed to fulfill a specific function. We know that houses are designed because we build them. The same cannot be said of the universe.

We do live in the universe, but the universe is not a house; it does not exhibit any of the indications of being a manufactured product. Some early humans lived in caves, but we cannot say that caves were designed for humans to live in. It is possible to ascribe a purpose to a cave that is lived in, but this purpose is not intrinsic to the cave; it is imposed by the person who ascribes it.

Likewise, with the laws of nature. These laws are not evidence of purpose for reasons similar to the above. They do not possess any hallmarks of design or manufacture. To ascribe purpose or design to them is simply to project our desire for meaning onto the fabric of a nonconscious and deterministic world.

The universe is deterministic; the laws of nature are constant and are underpinned by mathematics. 1+1 = 2. This equation is valid now and will still be valid at the end of the universe. Thus, because of the consistency of mathematics, it is possible to know with a high degree of certainty that the heat death of our universe is inevitable. This conclusion is based on known facts, not on speculation about the development of unknown technologies that might allow us to escape to other universes. Of course, one cannot say with absolute certainty that humanity and the universe are doomed to extinction. However, based on the current state of knowledge, this seems the most likely outcome. In conclusion, any purpose ascribed to the universe is purely subjective. Although the universe has no purpose, it does have meaning; however, the meaning that we give it is based on our own subjective desires.

GOD, PURPOSE and UNIVERSE

Anonymous

(Investigator 225)

My "house example" — owning a house in which to raise a family is preferable to camping on the sidewalk — showed that for something to be purposeful it doesn't need to last forever.

Straughen had argued that "divine purpose is … refuted by the inevitable extinction of our species and the universe as a whole…" in the next 100 trillion years.

Firstly, this "inevitable extinction" of the Universe is how modern science sees it after about 800 years of progress. Who knows what will be seen if science advances a further 800 years or 8,000,000 years!

Secondly, "purpose" implies the existence of someone who acts or has acted purposefully. Straughen himself demonstrates "purpose" if he is hungry and heads for the supermarket. His purpose is to get food and does not have to take 100 trillion years to be purposeful.

Purpose.
1. An idea or ideal kept before the mind as an end of effort or action; design; aim.
2. A particular thing to be effected or attained.
3. Practical advantage or result...
4. Settled resolution; determination.
5. Purport; intent, as of spoken or written language.
6. A proposition; question at issue.

On purpose.
Intentionally. To have the intention of doing or accomplishing (something); intend; aim.

Note, all the meanings imply the presence of a conscious individual. Therefore, for the Universe as a whole to have purpose implies someone created it.

But "theologians" don't normally argue from "purpose" to creator, but rather from creator to purpose. No one would argue "The purpose for going to a supermarket is to get food, therefore Straughen must exist and is hungry." The logic is faulty because there can be other purposes (or reasons) why anyone (not only Straughen) might visit a supermarket.

I previously listed debates Investigator hosted from which an ultimate creator of the Universe was inferred. "Inferred" means it's inductive not deductive, therefore a probability not certainty. An experience of God consistent with the inductive reasons is what often makes the evidence conclusive for individuals.

Even non-belief, however, can consider hypothetically what purpose an omnipotent creator, if He existed, might have for creating Universes and intelligent occupants. I suggested the enjoyment of watching humans collectively progress to where "Nothing that they propose to do will be impossible for them" (Genesis 11:6) and meanwhile also enjoying intelligent companionship with them. During long periods (e.g. 100 trillion years) companionship would provide a pleasure that solitude cannot give. (Psalm 147:11)

Investigator Magazine