Introduction.
A growing number of atheists rejecting a supernatural Creator are nevertheless open to—and in some cases sympathetic to—a more natural concept of a Creator.1 Contrary to arguing for a spaceless, timeless, immaterial being, what follows is a secular, humanist argument2 that is consistent with the idea that ‘As man now is, God once was.’3
In brief, if there is even a tiny chance that someone—anyone—in our potentially infinite future will ever make many re-creations of the world around us today, then we probably have a Creator.
Populations.
Suppose that somewhere in the vast expanse of all time and space, another human race arises. Not only do they reach our current stage of development, but they ascend much higher than us in matters of science and technology etc., 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 development, perhaps for purposes of observation and exploration.4 Whether this re-creation be material or virtual,5 those living within it would naturally be unaware they were in a re-creation, and instead presume themselves pioneers of progress, ascending into uncharted stages of development. Were anyone among them to suggest they might be in a re-creation of a prior ascent, the likely—but mistaken—response would be that re-creations will only exist in the future when the technology is finally invented.
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 our stage of development or ascend higher. 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 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 looking back across all time and space, and seeing the number of human populations that reached our stage of development was 1,000. If just 0.1% of them—one population in this case—had ascended even higher and 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 who are not, 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 ever 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—absent any reason to think we are privileged—the chances of anyone in our population ever doing so, would effectively be zero.
From a humanist perspective, this outlook of human potential would be serious, and very difficult to accept. Given humanity’s long and proven ability to survive and thrive under the harshest conditions, together with our persistent drive 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. As our ability to re-create the world around us continues to grow through new technologies, there must be at least a tiny chance that someone, somewhere, at some point in humanity’s distant future will make many re-creations that include our current stage of development.
One might point out the technological challenges of such an exercise, 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—literally impossible. One might also point out the moral challenges associated with making re-creations, but someone from only a few decades ago might be astonished at society’s current moral norms. In any case, for our human population to make many re-creations it need not be a collective endeavor, widely known or universally approved of; it could simply be a progressive decision by a small group or individual.7 One may finally point to the ultimate risk of extinction as a possible justification for such a vanishingly low chance, but this too represents a challenge to be managed by humanity, not an inevitable endpoint.
For these reasons, anyone with any modest confidence in humanity continuing to survive would likely not accept—perhaps refuse to accept—that humanity’s chances of one day re-creating our stage of development many times over, are effectively zero.8 Extending this same confidence to all humanity—wherever it arises—we are committed to accepting that a tiny fraction of all human populations at our stage of development do, in fact, go on to re-create our stage of development many times over.9
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.
Indifference.
But if most human populations like ours will be in a re-creation, then 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 we are exempt because, as pioneers of progress, re-creations will only exist in the future when the technology is finally invented. But this is of course no excuse, as that’s just how it would appear if we were in a re-creation of our stage of development, it would ‘look’ like the technology has not yet been invented.
One might still insist that no advanced human population could possibly have gone before us because of our position relative to the Big Bang, which was the beginning of all time and space. But to use one’s position as reliable evidence for not being in a re-creation requires one to first assume they are not already in a re-creation. And most who make that assumption would, as a matter of probability, be wrong. In truth, we probably couldn’t tell from any observation whether or not we are in a re-creation. 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 a prior 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, having confidence in humanity, we would probably be correct if we just assume we live in a re-creation. In other words, we would probably be correct if we just assume that—through an entirely natural process—we have a Creator.10
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 ↩︎
- In other words, recreating the natural conditions of the human phase, such that those in the re-creation can make choices and determine their own future. ↩︎
- See Creation ↩︎
- See Cannon, L. (2015). The Creation Argument. Retrieved from https://lincoln.metacannon.net/2008/04/creation-argument.html
↩︎ - The numbers could equally be fulfilled by many small groups or individuals making just a few re-creations each. ↩︎
- One could of course throw their hands up and claim to not have any idea what chance we have of one day making many re-creations. However, if this were the case and all chances were deemed potentially equally probable, then the likelihood of it being practically zero would naturally be very improbable. ↩︎
- Even without extending the same confidence to all humanity, we are still committed logically by 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 re-create our stage of development many times over”, and Q is “the chances of anyone in our population ever doing so, are effectively be zero”. ↩︎
- Interestingly, Nick Bostrom now notes that a “cosmic host” probably exists. See Bostrom, N. (2024) AI Creation and the Cosmic Host (Draft). Retrieved from: https://nickbostrom.com/papers/ai-creation-and-the-cosmic-host.pdf ↩︎