Comment

This was originally a comment in response to Casey Zak's post about recent cosmological findings.

Calling these "awarenesses" [Boltzmann brains] brains is more an analogy than a comparison: the conditions under which the fluctuations of matter produce awareness is are infinitely more common than the conditions that produce aware brains.

This is (yet another) advance in science that makes the theory of atheistic origins seem less plausible than theistic ones.

All theories of origins require a belief in something eternal; atheistic origins take matter as eternal. Theistic origins take God as eternal. Either one requires a massive amount of faith; but the very fact of one’s own existence - or even the possibility of anything existing - is mindbendingly awesome. Seriously, think about it.

Theistic origins are more plausible because once a powerful, intelligent, eternal being is assumed, the rest of the cosmos follows logically, if simplistically. Why do atoms, ecosystems, and humans look like we were carefully designed? Because we were.

Atheistic origins require not only a faith in the eternity of matter, but the belief that enough random processes fell the right way, overcame entropy and chaos through sheer chance, and actually occurred. As these new calculations show, it is in fact infinitely more likely that we do not exist. I, dear reader, am only a figment of your fluctuating imagination, as are you and all history.

I find it much less a leap of faith to believe in a God I actively experience and encounter than to believe that the rest of my experiences and encounters are infinitely unlikely and yet occurred.