Introduction.
A growing number of atheists rejecting a supernatural Creator are nevertheless open to—and in some cases sympathetic toward—a more natural concept of a Creator.1 Contrary to arguing for a spaceless, timeless, immaterial being, what follows is a secular, humanist argument2 consistent with the idea that ‘As man now is, God once was.’3
Populations.
Suppose that somewhere in the vast expanse of all time and space, another human race arises. Not only do they equal our own stage of development, but they ascend much higher than us in matters of science and technology, into what we might call a ‘posthuman’ or ‘superhuman’ stage of development.
With so many options for discovery and innovation, it seems possible that they could use their highly advanced capabilities to re-create the ‘human’ stage of their ascent for purposes of observation and exploration. Whether this re-creation be material or virtual,4 those living within it would naturally presume themselves pioneers of progress, and part of the initial ascent towards greatness, unaware the summit has been reached before.5 Were anyone among them to suggest they might be in a re-creation of a previous ascent, the likely response would be that it is impossible because, as pioneers of progress, such a capability does not yet exist.
We do not know how many human populations have ever existed, exist now, or will ever exist—especially if time and space extend indefinately or exist beyond the observable universe. We also do not know how many human populations reach out stage of development or go on further. But despite not knowing the numbers, we can derive the following mathematical insight by considering human populations in terms of fractions:
If even a tiny fraction of all human populations at our stage of development eventually go on to re-create our stage of development—many times over—then the majority of all human populations at our stage of development will find themselves in a re-creation.6
To illustrate using simple numbers: imagine all time finally ends at some point in the potentially infinite future, and looking back across all time and space, the number of human populations that arrived at our stage of development was 1,000. If just 0.1% of them—one population in this case—went on to re-create our stage of development 2,000 times, then the number of human populations at our stage of development in a re-creation would outnumber those not in a re-creation by a ratio of 2:1.
Confidence.
The question, then, is whether even a tiny fraction of all human populations at our stage of development eventually go on to re-create our stage of development—many times over. We obviously do not know, but it is clear that if not even a tiny fraction do, then—probabilistically—the chances of anyone in our population ever doing so, would effectively be zero.
From a humanist perspective this would be very difficult to accept. Considering humanity’s long, proven ability to survive and thrive through the harshest conditions, plus humanity’s continued desire to discover and innovate, surely it is not true that our chances of one day re-creating our stage of development—many times over—are practically zero. Seeing our increasing ability to re-create the world around us—whether for training or entertainment—there must be a mere tiny chance that someone, somewhere, at some point in humanity’s distant future attains and exercises the capability to generate a large number of re-creations of the world we live in now.7
One might point out the technological or moral challenges that could justify such pessimism, yet history consistently shows that barriers once deemed insurmountable are simply overcome by creativity and steady growth. A person living just a few hundred years ago would have considered many things we now take for granted—like real-time communication across the globe—impossible. Even someone from only a few decades ago might be astonished at society’s current moral norms. One may also point to the risk of extinction as a possible justification for such a vanishingly low chance, but this too represents a challenge to be managed, not an inevitable endpoint.
For these reasons, anyone with any modest confidence in humanity would likely not accept—perhaps refuse to accept—that our chances of one day re-creating our stage of development—many times over—are effectively zero. Meaning—probabilistically—we do not accept, or refuse to accept, that not even a tiny fraction of all human populations at our stage of development eventually go on to re-create our stage of development—many times over.8
Therefore, returning to the earlier mathematical insight, we would expect that the majority of all human populations at our stage of development will find themselves in a re-creation. In other words, most human populations at our stage of development will be unaware that another human population has already gone before them.
Indifference.
But if most human populations like ours will be unaware that another human population has already gone before them, what makes us think we are exempt? What makes us so sure we haven’t completely misunderstood our position in the scenario we are describing?
We might naturally think it’s impossible for us to be in a re-creation because, as pioneers of progress, such a capability does not yet exist. But this is of course no excuse, as that’s just how it would appear if we were in a re-creation of an ascent. It would ‘look’ like we were part of an initial ascent towards greatness, and we would be unaware the summit has been reached before.
In truth, we probably couldn’t tell from any observation whether or not we are in a re-creation. One could argue that our seemingly early position on the grand cosmic timeline makes it unlikely that re-creations exist or are already in the majority. But using one’s position as evidence requires first assuming that one is not in a re-creation. And most who make that assumption would, as a matter of probability, be wrong. Therefore, in such a state of ignorance, we know we would probably be correct if we just apply a principle of indifference and assume that we are part of the majority living in a re-creation of an ascent.
Were all populations at our stage to assume they were in a re-creation, most would indeed be correct; were all to assume the contrary, most would in fact be wrong.
Conclusion.
Thus, with any modest confidence in humanity, we would probably be correct in assuming we live in a re-creation. In other words, we would probably be correct in assuming that—through an entirely natural process—we have a Creator.
Notes.
- Cannon, L. (2008). Atheists Anticipate Theosis. Retrieved from https://new-god-argument.com/support/atheists-anticipate-theosis.html ↩︎
- See Bostrom, N. (2003). Are You Living In A Computer Simulation? Retrieved from https://simulation-argument.com/simulation and Cannon, L. (2008). The New God Argument. Retrieved from https://new-god-argument.com ↩︎
- Snow, L. The Grand Destiny of the Faithful. Retrieved from https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/chapter-5-the-grand-destiny-of-the-faithful?lang=eng ↩︎
- A material creation would likely resonate with most Latter-day Saints. See Abraham 3:24-25 ↩︎
- Perhaps consensually. ↩︎
- See Cannon, L. (2015). The Creation Argument. Retrieved from https://lincoln.metacannon.net/2008/04/creation-argument.html
↩︎ - For a human population to make a large number of re-creations of their ascent, it need not be a collective endeavor or even widely known; it could simply be the decision of a small group or an individual. Furthermore, the numbers could equally be fulfilled by many small groups or individuals making just a few re-creations each. ↩︎
- Modus tollens: If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P. Where P is “Not even a tiny fraction of all human populations at our stage of development go on to make a large number of re-creations of their ascent”, and Q is “the chances of our own population ever making a large number of re-creations, are effectively zero”. ↩︎