I am a theoretical physicist and currently Director of 
March 27, 2007
Scientific proof of god's non-existence
There were a couple of interesting (anonymous) comments in response to my post on what constitute rational and irrational beliefs. The writer said that I was overstepping the line that divided science from philosophy when I argued that religious beliefs were irrational. The arguments took a familiar form and went something like this:
1. We cannot prove that god does not exist.
2. Hence it is rational to believe that god exists.
3. Scientists should stick to the world of data and not venture to question god's existence since that enters the realm of philosophy, not science. The author states that if a scientist is asked: 'In your scientific opinion, does God exist?' the proper answer should always be, 'I don't know. I don't have any data on the subject.'
I will readily concede the first point, and in fact have done so previously (See here, here, and here.)
But the other two statements do not follow from the first. Just because we cannot prove, using data, the negation of some entity does not mean that it is reasonable to believe in that entity. Scientists constantly make judgments in the absence of data and act on those judgments. In fact, it is essential that they do so, as science could not proceed otherwise.
The only time that you can prove a negative is if you have the ability to do an exhaustive examination of every possible situation. As an example, I can prove to everyone's satisfaction that no unicorns exist in my office because I can search every nook and cranny and show that none are there. But I cannot similarly prove that no unicorns exist anywhere on the Earth or elsewhere in the universe.
I also cannot prove the non-existence of magic unicorns in my office, that only materialize when I am not present and are capable of hiding all evidence of their visits before they disappear again. It seems to me that arguments for the existence of god are of this nature.
But there is another point about the word 'proof' that needs to be emphasized. When scientists use the word 'proof' they use it in a slightly differently way from the way mathematicians use it. In mathematics, a proof is a construct based on an agreed set of axioms and rules of logic. If someone challenges the validity of any of the axioms or one of the rules, then the proof is also called into question. But since the axioms are usually few in number and do not necessarily have to be based on data, mathematicians can agree on the validity of more things as working hypotheses than scientists can.
Scientific 'proofs' do not have the same level of rigor as a mathematical proofs because the axioms themselves are not simply assumptions but are also expected to justified based on evidence. Also there are far more explicit assumptions that go into scientific conclusions than go into mathematical proofs, thus opening them up to far more challenges. This greater degree of challenge that scientific assumptions receive makes scientific 'proofs' different from mathematical proofs. So although I and other scientists use the word proof frequently, we do understand that it is being used in a slightly different sense than a mathematical proof. The word proof is used to signify a reasoned judgment based on the merits of the evidence.
But just because scientific proofs do not have the same status as mathematical proofs does not mean that scientific conclusions cannot be extremely robust. Let me give an example. Most people readily accept that there are just two kinds of electric charge, positive and negative. This is about as well-established a 'fact' as one is likely to find in science. This is one of the most firmly held beliefs in all of science and the entire modern world is constructed on the basis of this two-charge model. No one even thinks of questioning this fact. (Note that 'positive' and 'negative' are just labels and the charges could just as well have been called things like 'green' and 'blue'.)
The interesting question is how it is that we are so certain that there are just two kinds of charges that we base our entire society on it. Do we have certain proof that there are only two kinds of charges? Do we have direct data that no more charges exist? Have we looked everywhere and convinced ourselves of this? The answer to all three questions is no. So how is it that we are so sure that only two kinds of charges exist? It is because of the absence of certain kinds of data.
Here's how that argument works. Suppose you have three charged objects A, B, and C. What scientists find is that if the charges are such that A and B attract each other and A and C attract each other, then it is always found that B and C repel each other. This set of three observations can be explained by (1) postulating that there exist just two kinds of charges, and (2) adopting a rule that says that like charges repel and unlike charges attract. No data has ever been seen that contradicts the consequences of these two assumptions.
Because of the absence of any data that contradicts any predictions based on those two statements , scientists will say that they are extremely confident that there are only two kinds of charges and this is all the 'proof' they need. But note that haven't actually proved it in a mathematical sense. It is just a powerful inference based on the absence of certain kinds of data, but it is sufficient proof to convince scientists.
Notice though that even this 'proof' can be challenged. After all, we have done such experiments with just a few sets of charges. We have not exhaustively repeated them with every single charge that exists in the universe because it would be impossible to do so. As a result, someone can come along and say that scientists are wrong, that there does exist a third kind of charge but that either it has not been found yet or that it does not interfere with the experiments that scientists do. There is no way that scientists can prove this person wrong. How could they? But what they will do is ignore this argument as not worth responding to because that kind of argument has the same standing as magical unicorns in my office or a god who is determined to avoid leaving evidence of his/her existence.
A belief that has no observable consequences is of no use to scientists and they will work on the assumption that this third charge does not exist and that would be perfectly rational behavior. A person who clings to the belief in a mysterious third charge that has no observable consequences will be treated as somewhat eccentric.
Historians and philosophers of science have long pointed out that there is no proposition in science, however idiotic, that cannot be made immune from refutation by the addition of a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses to shield its weaknesses. But if you want to convince scientists that something like a third kind of charge exists, you will have to provide positive evidence, some actual data that cannot be explained by a two-charge theory. For scientists, the absence of such evidence or data is taken as evidence of absence.
It seems to me that the arguments put forward by believers for the existence of god are of the same kind as those that might be put forward for a third charge: It exists but its effects cannot be observed. But just as scientists are perfectly justified in rejecting as irrational that kind of hypothesis when applied to a third charge and confidently proceeding on the basis that it is false, so it is that we can confidently reject the arguments currently given for the existence of god.
So although you may not be able to prove exhaustively that god does not exist, you cannot obtain a stronger scientific proof than what we currently have.
So if someone should ask me 'In your scientific opinion, does God exist?', I would answer 'No' with the same degree of confidence that I would say 'No' to the question as to whether a third type of electric charge exists.
POST SCRIPT: More lists of famous atheists
Some more lists of well-known atheists and agnostics, along with quotations from them justifying their inclusion in these lists, can be found here and here.
Although it should be obvious, I should add that the mere fact that someone famous is an atheist is not being offered as an argument in favor of atheism. Lists of this kind are simply to identify the members of an affinity group. One could do the same thing with lists of vegetarians or Bassett hound owners.
Comments
What you describe with charges (which seems a very good analogy, by the way) is basically the problem of induction, no? It still seems to me to be a very hard/interesting problem, not just scientifically but regarding human reasoning generally. It's clear that human cognition does not follow formal logical rules here (and that's a good thing).
Yes, it is an example of the problem of induction. Inductive reasoning is a good example of how people can arrive at conclusions that cannot be justified by pure logic.
I disagree. I think your description of the charges is a bad analogy. Charges are everywhere. Everything has some level of electical charge that could be measured.
When discussing God, at least the monotheistic Christian God, we are talking about a single, sentient entity. Creating tests to determine the existence of a unique, unpredictable entity are more problematic. than measuring an electrical charge.
I think a better analogy would be if I took a solitary man and dropped him into an arctic wasteland. How could a test or series of tests be conducted to even confirm the man's existence? This happens constantly - people get lost in the wilderness all the time and at our current level of technology they are still very difficult to find. If we have to hunt for 4 days to find a boy scout in the North Carolina Mountains how can we possibly expect to create a test that proves or disproves the existence of God.
Bob, your view interests and puzzles me. I grew up Roman Catholic, and I never got the sense that God was the kind of entity that had a place. I was pretty sure he was supposed to be omnipresent, like charge. I didn't even think it was a controversial issue in Christianity. I assume from your writings that you are Christian -- what kind, specifically?
As an undergrad in the arts whose knowledge of scientific theories and facts is below paltry I will not attempt to engage the charge analogy. However, it seems to me that non existence of positive proof can never be proof of non existence. This may be in a mathematical sense or otherwise, but merely through the use of logic, it is difficult to conceive of the non existence of proof proves non existence of the object. Thus all we have is a sort of scale of probabilities, scientific or otherwise. The question of God's existence must be taken thus as a question of balancing probabilities, not as a question of determining logical proof, given the lack of data. I fear you are playing word games when you assert that there exists 'scientific' proof of god's non existence merely because mathematical proof of existence does not exist. The argument for the existence of God you have noted at the top of your post, you must be aware, is not the classical Christian apologists clinching argument for the arguing for the probability that God exists. You may have reasons for believing that the probabilities for the existence of God's existence are slim. Yet your manipulation of that simple idea to assert that proof exists in scientific terms of God's non existence seems to me to be an argument does not hold water. While I'm not sure how the scientist as opposed to the mathematician determines what constitutes proof, suffice it to be said that your idea of 'scientific proof' cannot satisfy a logical standard.
Bob,
I share Erin's puzzlement. All the standard representations of god suggest the qualities of omnipresence, ominipotence, and omniscience. The idea of a localized god, limited by time or space or the laws of nature would be quite novel.
Niran,
I quite agree with your basic point that the non-existence of god cannot be proven as a purely logical proposition. I conceded as much right at the beginning of the essay.
But what I was saying is that scientific 'proofs' of the non-existence of something use different arguments from logical proofs and using those, the evidence for the non-existence of god is at least as strong as the evidence for the absence of a third kind of charge.
The challenge to believers is really this: What kind of evidence would you need to prove to you that god does not exist?
Erin, I attend a non-denominational Christian church. I'm not sure what you mean about God having a place, wasn't really the point I was trying to get across.
The point I was attempting to get across is that God is a being with thoughts, motivations and activities that are, at best, difficult for us to know. Electricity is a force that is visible everywhere and always acts the same way. God, while omnipresent, isn't something that can be tested for. The only way to 'prove' that He exists would be, in theory, to measure the impact He has on the universe. Like a man lost in the wilderness, the only evidence are his activites. To create a test for Him, like you can for electricity, would require that God for Him to generate some type of response to a given stimulus. Being a living entity, His activities add difficulty to creating any kind of measurement.
Like a person in the wilderness, the only way to find Him is to either predict what He is going to do next or look for evidence of His activities.
I'm glad we can settle that the question of the existence of God, in philosophical terms, is one of probabilities and not that of conclusive proof. Your question to the believer may be posed back to you. What standard we adopt to accept one or the other position on the question of the existence of a supernatural being is necessarily one that will depend on the individuals receptivity to either of the two ideas, since it's a question of probability.
I hope you're not assuming that the only argument for the existence of God is the non existence of positive proof negating the existence of God. That seems to be the argument you have responded to. The charge analogy may be apt if that were the case. The fact is that whether you accept the arguments or not, the arguments adduced by theists for the existence of God are generally a little more advanced than the mere reliance on the absence of proof that God does not exist. Thus, it seems to me that your claim that there exists scientific proof for the non existence of God is contingent on your being able to set up a straw man theist apologist.
Hi -- Maybe I've overlooked a comment, but no one has said the obvious (to me) thing...Of course, religious belief is irrational. At least, it's clearly non-rational. Isn't that the reason it's a "belief," and it's called "faith"? Reason is a good thing, but it's not everything...
Niran,
Actially, I think it is not productive to compare probablities when evaluating theories because there is no operationally unambiguous way of doing so.
What I am saying is that the arguments for god are of the same kind as the arguments given for the existence of magic invisible unicorns in my office, and thus should evoke similar responses. I am also saying that science has provided all the possible proof that it can against the existence of god. I cannot see what more proof could be asked.
As for theistic argments, all the ones that I have seen either (a) make god superfluous and irrelevant or (b) at some point invoke an action that violates scientific laws in unknowable ways.
Kathy,
I totally agree with you. And we all do believe irrational things. I think the important thing is to know when we are believing something irrational and when we are believing something based on persuasive evidence.
It is impossible to prove God exists unless you are given exact characteristics, or at least one or two characteristics.
Since there have been over 3400 different Gods that man has spoke about, we can conclude that man created at least all but one of them, so it is also easy to conclude that all Gods most likely are man made concepts.
If I say there is an invisible man that lives under my bed, it would be up to me to provide evidence that he exists. The same goes for anyone who states God exists. I don't see any reason believe such an assertion when there is not one shred of evidence that God exists.
How is the kalam cosmological argument akin to the assertion that there are magical unicorns in your room. Is this a mere assertion based on some faith based idea, or do you not think that the whole question of the existence of an uncaused cause to explain the existence of a finite universe involves a little more philosophically sophisticated argumentation than arguing about magical objects in your room.
And if arguments for the existence of God involve assertions that violate scientific principles in 'unknowable ways', how do you suppose you got to know about them?
I think that is one of the great things about science and logic. An "uncaused cause to explain the existence of a finite universe" may be more sophisticated or complex than "magical objects" or "unicorns," but that in no way implies that a test to find such an entity be more complex as well.
Heidi, what is your test to determine the existence of magical unicorns in your office? Look around? I can't think of any alternative. The cosmological argument however seeks to argue that a finite world must necessarily have has an uncaused initial cause, since the alternative would be a infinite regression of causes- an alternative that cannot sit with well with the idea of a finite universe. Logic is beautiful.
Well I guess I've just been hoping that the little figurine of Ganesha and the stuffed manatee in my office serve to intimidate the unicorns into staying away. I'd hate to accidently set upon one after all.
But seriously, the notion of infinity--whether spatially or in terms of the regression you describe--has frustrated me since I was less than three years old, and four years studying philosophy didn't give me any additional insight into that particular issue. Yet neither can I wrap my head around the idea of an "uncaused cause." It just defies the laws of physics logic as we currently know them--though I do expect that our understanding of these laws--and those yet to be discovered--will grow significantly over the course of time.
To have always been, or to have come into being without some force or causation--whether we are discussing a supreme being, an energy force or something else--is a notion beyond my reach. Since I can't process the concept of such a thing existing, neither can I put forth the idea that such a thing would be the cause of that which does exist.
To me the first cause (whether it were the big bang or a god) would still have to have some cause of its own. As frustrating as the infinite regression may be, I don't know how we can work around it unless we discover a way for something to be "uncaused."
All this talk of uncaused causes and infinite regressions reminds me of what I understand to be Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. I have yet to finish the book "Godel, Escher, & Bach" but what I read was fascinating.
A purely reasoned answer to the question must be.
I do not know. On either side of the question you have belief.
I love the authors statement:
"A belief that has no observable consequences is of no use to scientists and they will work on the assumption that this third charge does not exist and that would be perfectly rational behavior. A person who clings to the belief in a mysterious third charge that has no observable consequences will be treated as somewhat eccentric."
The term mysterious simply means unknown. The use of Mysterious and eccentric are keys word indicating the personal predisposition of the author.
And this:
"So although you may not be able to prove exhaustively that god does not exist, you cannot obtain a stronger scientific proof than what we currently have."
We currently have no proof that addresses the question in any manner. It simply remains a question. There are many questions of this nature.
Heidi, sorry for the delay in replying. Was away on holiday for the long weekend on account of a religious holiday (in Sri Lanka) and hope that this thread is still alive. Your rejection of an uncaused cause is based not on science or on philosophy, but on faith and assumption. What we know of the universe is that it is finite and expanding and thus, cannot be adduced to an infinite regression of cause and affect. I think it becomes clearer now that a worldview that rejects outright the notion of an uncaused cause is not as scientifically sophisticated as it may seem, and that positing an uncaused cause is not as silly as arguing for the existence of a third charge or unicorns scared off by Ganesha.
Dear Mr. Singham,
your article is provocative. As footnote, you gave two links to "famous atheists". My question is: in these cases, being atheist is a [non-scientific] choice or a [scientific] consequence?
My main question is: God's existence or non-existence has to be scientifically proved? The science, as result of our particular way of understanding of our existence, is not the creation's result?
With respect,
Respiro
Respiro,
God's non-existence, like the non-existence of anything, is not capable of logical proof. But, just like the non-existence of Santa Claus and invisible unicorns, it is not something for which we have any reason to believe.
One could say that god created the laws of science and immediately retired. Such a deist position is unassailable. But it is not what most religious people believe
Mano Singham-
All the standard representations of god suggest the qualities of omnipresence, ominipotence, and omniscience. The idea of a localized god, limited by time or space or the laws of nature would be quite novel.
Omnipotence and omniscience present unique problems when used together. Quite frankly, they can't work together. Omnipotence is power withiout limits, so, it must even be able to overpower omniscience, knowledge without limits. (a god should be able to surprise itself or doing something that it didn't know it would do.) However, if a god can overpower its omniscience, then it isn't omniscience. If it cannot, it isn't omnipotent.
Who needs scientific proof when you can invalidate a concept with internal contradiction.
The Atheist Jew makes and excellent point, definition first rebuttal after. ^_^
Mesoforte,
Yes, there is an inherent contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence. Some have tried to get around it by placing various limits on both of those, but most people just ignore the contradictions or are unaware of it.
belief in god is MORE than irrational, there are so many flaws in the proof its never-ending... i mean, why would god create us to live? surely he would know our pasts and futures already?... so why would we be created to live, say: 'for his entertainment'? surely an all knowing all see-ing perfect entity would not need entertained or anything to keep him buzy? religion was only formed to keep the masses under control, and they are doing a VERY good job of it. i dont know any christian who questions theyre faith, and that to me is the ultimate man-made controlling device, what better to keep people under control than the thought of eternal pain and suffering? its like santa claus for adults... for kids its "if your not good santa wnot come" for adults its "if your not good you'll be flung in to the lake of fire for eternity"... dunno about you people but thats kinda childish to me...
well, i'll leave u with a bill hicks quote:-
"The whole image is that eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love. That's the message we're brought up with, isn't it? Believe or die! "Thank you, forgiving Lord, for all those options."
Gavin, part of Christianity *is* questioning your faith; as St Augustine said "I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe." Blind belief is not the same as faith; although belief and faith have come to mean the same thing in the dictionary, they are not in religious terms.
In regard to the charge analogy; Newton did not know about quarks. This does not mean that quarks did not exist when Newton was alive; scientists just did not have the data available to them. We do not know how to test for God, therefore saying we haven't found Him yet is irrelevant. You wouldn't try to measure voltage with a tape measure.
The trouble is that most of the 'evidence' that suggests God exists is dismissed by scientists, which is why they say there is no reason to believe in God (although some scientists do believe in God - does that make them bad scientists?)
In my opinion, science is a necessary part of religion; it helps us to understand how to the universe works, and our role in creation.
This talk about charges and the uncaused cause had made me realize that the Big Bang could have occurred at the point where NOTHING became SOMETHING...or the instant when matter and anti-matter separated from each other. As matter and anti-matter annihillates each other when they join together (zero charge or NOTHING), then separating anti-matter and matter creates SOMETHING (e.g.the universe) from NOTHING (e.g. the void).
The notion of infinite chain of causality has brought to bear the similarities with the infinite size of the universe problem. If one goes to the edge of the expanding universe, then sticks his hand thru the threshold, what does he find? Did he just expand the universe a tad more? Or, did he just touch another reality?
Similar question arises with Einsteins idea that the universe is a curve. What do you call the expanse oustside of this curve?
The answer could simply be... NOTHING. But this NOTHING is as potent as the NOTHING that was the beginning of the BIG BANG.
To say that god is NOTHING (the uncaused cause) is to say that god is EVERTHING.
Vic: to produce matter and antimatter, you would need to have energy to start with. Energy can be converted to matter and antimatter, but that is different from creating them from nothing whatsoever. Also, as I understand it, in the initial moments of the Universe after the big bang, there was only energy, not yet matter or antimatter. So production of matter and antimatter isn't really relevant to the moment of the big bang.
There's also some misunderstanding underlying your idea of the expanding universe. There is no edge to touch. (Or, from another point of view, the edge is everywhere.) Imagine a one-dimensional line. Now let it be wrapped into a loop so it is embedded in two dimensions. Now let it expand over time. Or imagine a two-dimensional surface, wrapped into the shape of a sphere embedded in three dimensions, also expanding over time. The residents of the one-dimension or two-dimensional world could travel all around the circle, or over the entire surface of the sphere, and would never run up against a boundary. Their space, their universe, is the boundary everwhere, when viewed with the extra dimension that their space is curved through. It's the same with our universe - it's curved through a fourth dimension (which is not itself part of our universe), and wraps around to meet itself, so there is no boundary.
The expansion of the universe has to be from the point of explosion outwards in all directions, more or less, spherically and perhaps at a steady rate speed and not accelerated. The initial deceleration noted earlier by our scientists may be due initially to gravitational attractions but as great distances are reached, the effect of gravitation wanes and thus the acceleration of expansion. That is expansion in 3d.
If the Big Bang occurred as a 2 dimensional explosion, we would only have a expanding circle created by matter ejected in more likely than not, straight lines from the point of explosion. As everything goes outwards in a straight line a planar circle is thus created. No need to curve anything into a 3 dimensional spehere. The edge of the universe is thus delineated in 2d was well as in 3d (more or less).
If a 2d universe curves and intersects itself at one point or another, there is the danger of collissions of galaxies and that would be a big mess, indeed. A 3d universe, that is curving around itself into a 4th dimension, the same danger might exist. Suppose an outer edge of the expansion that is going one way, is interacting with the outer edge of the expansion going the opposite way because the "curving" edges got "too close" to each other. Would the galaxies near the edges get gravitational pull from the galaxies on opposing edge of the curve that got too close?
This could be a possible reason why the expansion of the universe (on 3d) is now accelerating.
But question still remains, what does one call the expanse around this 3d universe that is curved into a 4th D?. Perhaps we may call it as the VOID and until it is populated by a galaxy or an anti matter or dark matter or even by someones poking finger ..it will remain as such.
Back to the uncaused cause. Many physicists propose that at the nearest point in time immediately after the instant of the Big Bang, was energy (in plasma state) which then led to matter and anti-matter exploding in all directions, hence the name BIG BANG.
Based on that, at least chronologically, energy preceeded matter so we may say that the nearest candidate for the uncaused cause must be made of, or is, plasma energy.
A radical thought comes up into view. If matter was able to evolve into a self aware entity, could an entity made up of energy evolve to be self aware as well?
Vic,
The big bang expansion is not an "explosion" in the everyday sense of the term, in which thing radiate from a central point into the surrounding space, which is presumed to already exist.
The expansion is better analogized as the dough of raisin bread growing under the influence of yeast and heat. Space is the space occupied by the dough. There is no space outside the dough. As the dough expands, every raisin is moving away from every other raisin and there is no danger of collions between the raisins.
The reason there is no space outside the space of the dough is what Paul was explaining, that the space closes in on itself into 4D space. This is not easy for us to visualize given our limited 3D experiences. That is why Paul invoked a 2D analog, a 2D space closing by folding into 3D space, like the surface of the balloon.
As the balloon expands, dots painted on it will each move farther away from each other with increasing speed but will not collide with each other. The 2D space is closed and curved in 3D but there is no space outside the space of the balloon surface, in this 2D analog of the universe.
So when we say that the 3D space closes in on itself in 4D, it is not encapsulating a void.
I prove I am GOD.
www.geocities.com/cdbowman1
Won't the uncaused cause ask the very same questions we are asking??? e.g.
What am I here for?
Where did I come from?
What is the meaning/purpose of life?
I think therefore I am...then what?
My expectations of god..at the very least are as follows:
1. It must have created mankind or the immediate beginnings of it.
2. If it did not or could not create the universe that we know of.. perhaps it should at least have created our solar system.(this could be too much too).
3. Because of its seniority... being the first...it should have accumulated a lot of knowledge .... and of course wisdom.
I came up with this list because of certain things that bother me... a lot.
1. If god is so powerful...then he could do anything he wants with us..
2. If god is all knowing...then he could spare us the pain of seeing other peoples suffering... and send us all to that perfect place...right away.
3. if god is omnipresent...then where is he?
Perhaps, i am over estimating god. Yes, it might be mankind's creator but it may just be limited to doing just that...create humans.
Besides, do we really want to be beside god? Remember, he will be always right.
As reagrds the balloon (or raisin bread) theory of the expansion of the universe, some theoretical physicist (Discover channel) forecast the Big Rip. In this Big Rip scenario, the end of universe (billions of years from no) will be matter ripping itself apart disintegrating into nothingness (void??) as if it has reached its limit of being stretched as it expands and thus pops like a ballon.
Some would say, then what is the point of life when universe will simply wink out anyway. Well, my answer is ...we are simply lucky to be here talking about it... and I am simply glad I got a chance to enjoy existence with a lot of entities just like me to talk and converse with....
I guess, if I could see from the uncaused cause's point of view...when he was just by himself, I would also be hard pressed to do some creating of entities as similar to himself as possible itself ...to talk perhaps as a fellow of similar thought patterns as close to his own. Perhaps he would give it or them freedom of thought so they could converse with or argue with him about everything conceivable just for the sake of argument (just to pass the time???).
But all is not lost because however grim the future of the universe is from the point of view Big Rip scenario, the scenerio of the Big Chill is more likely. The Big Chill (or Big Cool/Cold) seems to be more applicable as the distances between galaxies increase. But to me, as long as my own galaxy (with its billions of stars), the Milky Way, keeps its resident stars and planets (that's us) within constant distance, mankind would be okay. We should be able to find new habitable planets within the galaxy, should our own sun turn nova. If we chose to relocate to any of the nearby galaxies we will have to solve the necessary equations for folding time/space first and then find the necessary source of energy to implement it. Mind you, it will be a one way ticket.
So for the universe, there is great hope. How about locally, here in our own planet... is there hope? The answer to this depends on a mankind's maturity... and luck. This planet has been lucky so far, an to the benefit of us mankind...at least the least, twice hit by big ones and still here.
When it pertains to hope for the individual's continuity...hopefuly even after death...we still have to find proof that there is something that remains self aware after the body has passed away.
Hope of continuity after death is the product that religions provide. Without that hope, most people would loose direction and purpose. Great chaos could ensure...and civilizations could go astray and violent. The lack of accountability for what you did during your life could encourage Hitler types and genocidal maniacs. This is because mankind has not achieved the maturity level required for stable society/ies that abide by the rule of law that is for the people and by the people. Few countries are leading in the endeavor to achieve the rule of human law for the entire humanity but it seems that the cost will be great.
For those that do not wish to accept death, great effort is exerted to please the entity that could hopefully provide this continuity (eternity or life eternal).
This is why it is so important for god to exist.
Without god, there is no hope for continuity after death.
Until technology comes up with the cure for our mortality, people would cling to faith and religious hope. One important prerequisite before we can possibly allow this thought immortality (thru technology) ... we will need a bigger planet. Otherwise, wars will ensue for food and territory, again. Because there will be over population problems...and it could be a big mess.
The other option, is live your life to the fullest...when you can....enjoy this one...hopefully, after your death on this one..you get another chance....mind you..you probably got a previous life and don't even know about it....deja vu? To other people this very option, could be a another religios thougt...one that supports reincarnation.
If the universe started from the Big Bang...an event triggered by nothing (???) and if the size of universe is finite, then perhaps the Big Crunch could be possible...then in a cyclical way, another Big Bang will ensue... a rebirth of the universe....much like the reincarnation theories....
It is just that it is hard to imagine the universe coming from nothing. Our scientist have resisted with much vigor. It took another civilization, the Incas (?) to come up with the concept of zero....until then our knowledge was so limited. Zero state does not mean null...it simply means a balance between positive and negative.
Your are not a scientist , how can you say that .
GOD exisit ..your arguments are absurds and have no logic .