Brief History of Human UnderstandingIn the time long before microscopes, the human race believed that every object was comprised of sand. They thought sand was the basic building block of all the objects around them because they couldn't imagine anything smaller than those tiny grains found by bodies of water.
A short time before and after microscopes were created, scientists hypothesized that each substance was comprised of smaller bits or particles of that substance and we soon after learned about molecules and atoms.
Atoms were thought to be the smallest building blocks of the objects around us, and it took awhile longer to learn about protons, neutrons, and electrons.
We discovered protons and neutrons have mass and there is the existence of an energetic charge that binds each atom together. It was eventually found that the splitting of an atom (changing a large atom to a smaller atom) caused a release of energy equal to the mass lost times the speed of light squared. This E=mc^2 revelation changed the way we thought about the universe and allowed nuclear physics to begin. All of these things showed that even protons and neutrons must have something making them up to give them mass and energy.
Then of course, scientists found even smaller particles making up the protons and neutrons and smaller components of other things like light and other aspects of quantum physics.
Logically, this whole process leads to one conclusion; that there is no end to the cycle of smaller and smaller components making up each smaller thing we discover. This conclusion must render true because either there is no end to the infinite smallness of pieces of the universe, or at some point there is a particle that is comprised of absolutely nothing, and nothing gives that particle its properties.
The first case would be more logically sound because any dimension of measurement is made of infinite instances of the last. For instance a line is made of infinite points, a plane is made of infinite lines, and an object is made of infinite planes. To me, geometry shows a mathematical precedent for infinite infinitely small particles being comprised of smaller particles.
The second case however, where there is a particle literally made of nothing is an impossibility in itself. How can a bunch of nothings create a something? This is a mathematical impossibility.
So assuming that there is no end to the amount of particles making up larger particles, the universe contains infinite complexity and therefore we, as humans, are infinitely ignorant compared to the grand scheme of things. This also presents some very powerful questions. Where did these particles come from? How did they gain the properties that they did? Where were the laws of physics governing each particle's behavior derive from?
I know people (atheists) like to say that the universe created itself in a random oddity called "The Big Bang." But think of the infinite number of particles that would need to randomly be given properties that allow them to compose the larger particle in the chain above them, and its pretty easy to see the logical conundrum. If we do live in a multi-verse that randomly spawns universes, then why did it spawn one as large as this? Why not something much smaller and less complex? If there is complete randomness, then why is there a sentient being, however relatively small, sitting in a chair pondering the existence of the universe right now?
Similarly, if there IS something about the universe that allows it to give itself properties, then what gives the universe the property to give itself properties?
The only possible conclusion is that something too powerful to comprehend exists outside of existence which implemented everything we know and never will know about the universe.
Only simple coincidences happen by chance. There's nothing simple about the infinite complexity of the universe and that, in my mind, points to a Creator.