All language subtitles for The universe S06E07 God and the Universe

Male narrator: In the beginning,
there was darkness,

and then, bang,

giving birth to an endless
expanding existence

of time, space, and matter.

Every day, new discoveries
are unlocking the mysterious,

the mind-blowing,
the deadly secrets

of a place we call
The Universe.

Looking at the Earth's
incredible complexity,

people have always wondered
what made it all possible.

- What breathed fire
into the equations of physics?

Narrator:
Religion has long offered

a spiritual explanation,

that God created the universe.

But is science now starting
to find elusive evidence of God?

Or does physics tell us
that no creator was necessary?

- Stephen Hawking and I say
in the book The Grand Design

that the universe
could have come from nothing.

Narrator: Let's embark
on a scientific search for God

in the universe.

[dramatic music]

♪ ♪

The universe can be
a very violent place

where galaxies
routinely collide

and exhausted stars
explode.

But it is also a place

that gave birth to something
absolutely extraordinary—

At least, here on Earth...

Conscious, sentient beings.

- It is, of course, a mystery
as to why the universe exists

in such an intelligible manner,

but it suggests—
to me, at least—

That there's a deep link
between the universe,

the grand scheme
that's unfolding,

and beings like ourselves.

Somehow, the universe
has become self-aware.

It's engineered the emergence
of comprehending,

thinking beings like ourselves,

who can come to know
the universe.

Narrator:
Some people marvel at the fact

that the universe has,
over billions of years,

given birth to beings who
can appreciate its complexity.

We can even ponder
where and how we fit in.

But at the dawn of history,

people thought
they knew the answers

to these profound questions.

- The ancients viewed
their world as a snow globe,

as essentially
a flat Earth, say a disc,

covered by a dome.

And we call this,
in English, a firmament.

And in the firmament

is where all the stars
and planets were hung.

Narrator:
Almost all ancient cultures

believed their universe

existed in a dome
similar to this one,

and they never questioned
who created it.

- The ancients assumed
that there was a god or gods

responsible for the creation

and the maintenance
of the universe.

Narrator: The idea
that God created the universe

went largely unchallenged
until the Middle Ages,

when scientists made
a sacrilegious suggestion

based on their observations:

the Sun, not the Earth,

was at the center
of the universe.

- It was a paradigm shift.

There is now another way

to explain the naturally
occurring phenomena around us,

and this is science.

Narrator: Since the Middle Ages,

scientists have developed
sophisticated new theories

about the enormity
of the universe

and our place in it,

theories that often
have no room for God.

- Many phenomena have appeared

mysterious or miraculous
or magical,

and then through
the process of science,

we've eventually
understood them.

Scientists gradually realized
that the Sun

really is just one star
among a multitude of stars

in a gigantic galaxy

having hundreds
of billions of such stars,

and all this was created
in a big bang

13.7 billion years ago.

Narrator: But while
scientific theories,

observations, and experiments

tell us where we are
in the cosmos,

they don't answer
the eternal questions:

why we're here

and who, if anyone,
created us.

So some physicists continue
to search for those answers.

What they're finding
is extraordinary:

a remarkable unseen order

that may govern the universe.

- We're all struck
by the beauty and majesty

of the natural world about us,

the trees

and the sky

and the beauty of a sunset.

It is awesome in its majesty.

How can we make sense of it all?

We need to look at the hidden
subtext of nature,

the mathematical relationships
that underpin it,

forming a sort of shadow world.

Some people think of this
as like a cosmic code.

Narrator:
Regardless of whether or not

they believe in God,

most scientists agree

the cosmic code
appears to exist.

- Everything in the universe
is determined

by the fundamental
forces of nature.

The strength of those forces
are characterized

by numbers called
fundamental constants

that are so sensitive
that if they changed

by just a little bit,

the universe as we know it
wouldn't be here.

For example, if the rate
of expansion of the universe

right after the big bang

had changed by one part
in a quintillion—

A quintillion is
1 with 18 zeros after it—

The universe
would continue to expand

or collapse back on itself,

and none of this
would be possible.

To illustrate
just how small a number

one part in a quintillion is,

imagine all the grains of sand
on this beach—

In fact, imagine
all the grains of sand

in all the world's beaches.

That number's probably
somewhere around a quintillion.

In this analogy,
if all that sand represented

the rate of expansion
of the universe

right after the big bang,

how many grains of sand
would I need to add or subtract

to wreck the universe?

Just one grain,

one in a quintillion.

That's how precise
things had to be

for us to be here.

Narrator:
But even though the big bang

was perfectly calibrated,

intelligent life
would never have formed

if matter had spread evenly
across the universe.

- Had it been perfectly smooth,

then there wouldn't be
any clumps,

which would gravitate
and form stars and galaxies,

so we needed
slight irregularities

in the distribution of matter
in the universe.

Had those irregularities
been much smaller,

stars and galaxies
wouldn't have formed.

Had they been much larger,

everything would have collapsed
to form black holes.

Narrator: But even with
the right distribution of matter

throughout the universe,

life would still
never have formed

without a complex series
of processes inside stars

that converted helium
and hydrogen

into heavier elements,
like carbon,

that form the basis
of all living beings.

- Some of those stars explode,

providing raw material
with which to form new stars,

planets,
and, ultimately, life.

Had the laws of physics
been a little bit different,

or even if
the physical constants

had been a little bit different
from what they really are,

this process of nuclear fusion
and the explosion of stars

might not have been possible,

and we wouldn't be here
discussing it.

- I don't know
a single scientist

who would disagree
with the statement

that the world
is exceedingly ingenious,

not just mathematical,
not just beautiful,

not just elegant,

but the manifestation
of something

truly extraordinary.

Narrator: How could
this extraordinary

fine-tuning of the universe

be anything less
than unmistakable evidence

of a divine creator?

- It's often said
that the delicate fine-tuning

must be evidence that
some agency tuned it that way.

Most physicists' take on this

is actually not to go
in that direction.

When you see something
that's finely tuned in physics,

it usually means
there's a mechanism

that you don't yet understand
that is playing a role there.

Narrator: So while it appears

a divine creator
planned the universe,

many physicists say
apparent fine-tuning

doesn't prove anything
of the sort.

Something else must be at work.

But what other than God
could possibly explain

the remarkable series of events

that led to the creation
of life in our universe?

One very popular contender
is an idea

that seems
at least as incredible

as the idea of God.

It's the multiple universe
theory.

- A very large number
of universes,

perhaps even an infinite number,

could, in principle,
exist in a vast hyperspace.

Narrator: We can understand
the idea of hyperspace

by comparing it
to a mug of beer.

- The beer mug would be
the hyperspace,

and the bubbles would be
these individual universes.

The bubbles in a beer mug are
all physically about the same,

but suppose they span
a range of properties.

Some of them might have
carbon and oxygen

and stars and gravity,

and others don't.

We would be in one of the ones

that leads to a rich,
complex universe,

culminating
with life as we know it.

Narrator: If there are
an infinite number

of other universes,

the fine-tuning that
seems to be present in ours

isn't an example of God's plan

but rather
the law of statistics.

Most of these universes
wouldn't naturally develop

in ways that fostered
intelligent life,

but a few would.

- So then the explanation

for the specialness
of the universe

is that we are winners
in a gigantic cosmic lottery.

It stands to reason
that we couldn't be living

and discussing this

in a universe
that was hostile to life.

Only the bio-friendly ones
get populated

with thinking beings.

- Having a multitude
of universes

is actually quite a simple
and natural consequence

of some of the most
favored models

for the birth
and early evolution

of our universe.

It's kind of like stars
and planets.

As long as you have
the capacity to make one,

it's easy to make
lots of them.

Narrator. But some theologians
say the idea

of an infinite number
of universes

isn't any more likely
than an unseen creator

ensuring our universe
is habitable for life.

- A multiverse requires
as much belief

as belief
in a transcendent god.

There is simply no evidence
for it right now,

and it may be very difficult
to prove it in the future.

Physicist Paul Davies said,

"To postulate trillions
upon trillions

"upon trillions of universes

"just to explain one like ours

is bringing excess baggage
to cosmic extremes."

Narrator: This debate

over the question of God
in the universe

may soon enter
an explosive phase.

Startling new theories suggest
something could exist

in an unexplored dimension

just millimeters away
from each person on Earth.

While the search for God
in the universe heats up,

some scientists are working
to develop a theory

that has been called
the holy grail of physics,

a theory that could explain
everything in the universe,

including how it started.

It's called string theory.

- String theory is the latest
ambitious popular attempt

to pull all of the disparate
strands of physics together

into one grand unified theory.

Narrator:
Since it promises to answer

nearly every question
in physics,

will string theory
be able to tell us

whether it was
a transcendent creator

or the laws of physics alone

that gave birth to the universe?

- It's getting us
one level deeper.

Every time we find new links
between things,

we go down a level.

It's getting us closer
to the total package,

and when we get
that complete description

of the universe,

well, we can't do much
better than that.

Narrator: Whether or not
string theory leads us to God,

it already offers
tantalizing suggestions

about unexplored dimensions

that humans
have never detected.

- The basic idea
of string theory

is that there are these little

fundamental packages
of energy.

You could call them
little strings,

and they vibrate
in different ways,

and the different modes
of vibration

correspond
to the different kinds

of fundamental particles
we observe in the universe.

Narrator:
According to the theory,

these infinitesimally
small strings

are the fundamental
building blocks

of all energy and matter,

but the mathematics
behind the theory

suggests
one astounding conclusion.

- The strings have to vibrate

not just in the three dimensions
we see

but in a larger number,

and so that raises the question,

where are
all these extra dimensions?

Narrator:
Some physicists believe

those extra dimensions
may be so small,

we've never been able
to detect them,

but others say
that some of them

may lie outside our universe,

in a so-called
bulk universe.

- It's quite possible
that our universe—

The four easily
observed dimensions—

Is like a membrane

within
a higher-dimensional bulk.

Narrator: In theory,
the higher-dimensional bulk

could exist
just millimeters away from us

because it's
in a different dimension.

But how could things exist
so close to us

without our knowing?

And what might that imply
about the existence

or the nonexistence
of God?

Astronomer Laura Danly
demonstrates this concept

from her three-dimensional world
of height,

width,

and depth

by trying to communicate
with physicist Alex Filippenko,

who's on a television screen
with just two dimensions,

height and width.

- Alex?

Alex!

Narrator: Alex can't see Laura

because he's trapped
in two dimensions.

He has no dimension of depth

that would link him
to Laura's world.

- He can't see in front of him,

and he can't see behind him,

because in his
two-dimensional universe,

there is no
"in front" or "behind."

I, on the other hand,
can see behind me

and see Alex
on that screen.

Narrator: And she can also hear
what Alex says.

- If the laws of physics
are constrained

to work in a certain number
of dimensions,

then we can't physically see
or touch or experience

a dimension
that's perpendicular

to those dimensions.

So for example,
suppose your universe,

your hypothetical universe,

was just the surface
of this television screen.

You can go up, down;
left and right;

or any combination
of those motions.

But you can't go in or out.

That dimension would be
a mathematically describable

but physically inaccessible
dimension.

- Alex?

Narrator: Just as Alex
can be in the same room as Laura

without being able
to see or hear her,

there could be hidden dimensions
right beside us

that we can never detect.

If God or other
sentient creatures

exist in a higher number
of dimensions,

they might be able to see us

and get very close to us
without our knowing it.

- You can imagine speculating

that there are
intelligent forms of life

that live in these
higher-dimensional scenarios

that we see the effects of
somehow in our dimensions,

and we don't realize that
they're actual living agents

affecting our lives.

I think, right now,

science can certainly
not disprove that.

I think it's—it's very much
in the realm of speculation.

- String theory predicts
that our universe extends

into other dimensions

but doesn't predict
that anything in particular

lives in those other dimensions.

There's no bearded fellow there
creating the universe

or pulling the strings.

[laughs]

Narrator: Theologians argue
we'll never find God

in the 11-dimensional reality

predicted by string theory

because he transcends
the bulk universe.

- Hidden within the 11
dimensions of string theory

is a remarkable amount
of fine-tuning.

But hidden within the 11
dimensions of string theory

is not an unconditioned,
completely intelligible,

unrestricted,
continuously creating reality.

Narrator:
However, some scientists believe

that even if God doesn't exist
in the bulk universe,

the reason
for the big bang might.

- There's one hypothesis
that the big bang resulted

when two
of these parallel membranes

crashed together in
a higher-dimensional hyperspace.

I personally don't subscribe
to that hypothesis,

but it is
an interesting idea.

Narrator:
But how can science prove

or disprove what happens

in these proposed
extra dimensions

and whether they support
or undermine

the existence of a creator

when we're destined to remain
in our three-dimensional world?

- One possibility is that
we can find the effects

of those other dimensions

by interacting with particles

that may be able to move
into those other dimensions.

Narrator: To find matter

that moves
into higher dimensions,

scientists have built
enormous accelerators

that smash
subatomic particles together

at tremendous speeds.

But these particle accelerators

may soon do something else
astounding,

something that seemed impossible
only a few years ago.

They may allow scientists
to go back in time

to nearly the moment
our universe was created

and perhaps,
as some have suggested,

catch a glimpse
of our creator.

To help determine

whether God
or the laws of physics alone

created the universe,

scientists are using

multibillion-dollar
particle accelerators

to take them on a journey
back in time

to nearly the moment
of creation.

To achieve this remarkable feat,

physicists send
subatomic particles

screaming in opposite directions
around enormous oval tracks.

When these tiny pieces of matter
reach nearly the speed of light,

scientists steer them
into each other.

But how can these
violent explosions

possibly allow scientists
to look back far into the past

to shed light
on the question of God?

- What particle accelerators do

is take us
beyond the realm of theory

and give us some direct access
to the physics that prevailed

at the first split second
after the big bang.

- These high-energy collisions
of elementary particles

that go on in these experiments

create enough energy to create,
for a moment,

the conditions
of the very early universe,

and then we can actually study
that moment of creation,

using the laws of physics.

Narrator. The enormous energy

that comes out
of these particle collisions

is a microscopic version

of the super-heated conditions
that existed

just after the big bang.

- A useful analogy
for what goes on

in a particle accelerator

is to actually use
remote-controlled cars

going around
an actual racetrack.

I'm actually here at a racetrack
with an expert,

Dana Smeltzer,

who's been showing me
how to use these remote controls

to drive these cars
around the track.

Dana, how fast
are these cars going?

- They're going
around 25 miles an hour,

and if it was a real-sized car,

it would be going
250 miles an hour.

- Hmm.

That's actually great
for our demonstration,

because having
these small objects, the cars,

going around the track
at high speed

is exactly what goes on
in the particle accelerator,

where you have the tiny,
fundamental particles

begin driven around the track
at incredibly high speeds,

almost the speed of light,

being guided around the track,
using powerful magnets.

We actually want the cars
to represent

these super fast particles

that are going around
in the particle accelerator.

So now we've got these cars
up to speed,

I'm thinking a fun thing to do

would be to actually
guide them into each other

and collide them.

Could we do that?

- We could, but you're
gonna get a big crash.

- And what would happen?

- Oh, parts are gonna go
everywhere.

- Well, let's do it.

Oh, that's great!

Pieces everywhere.

Let's go and have a look.

This is great.

- Wow.

- We have
all of these great pieces.

- A lot of pieces here.

Narrator. The energy created
in this collision

immediately shatters the car
into dozens of pieces.

When this explosion
is amplified exponentially

in a particle accelerator,

it creates so much energy
that, for a split second,

the conditions
around the crash site

begin to resemble those

near the moment
our universe was created,

and scientists may be able
to see the hand of God

starting it all.

- You actually get a glimpse

of what the universe was like
very early on.

So we get a glimpse of creation.

We can actually see how things
got the way they are now

through physics
that was going on

billions of years ago.

So it's as though we're going
back to the factory of creation

by creating a little piece of it
in the experiment

and allowing us to look
at the creation moment

and see that the laws of physics

can tell us
what really happened,

in the same way here we look
at the output of the collision,

and we can use
the laws of physics

to figure out
how the cars collided

and what the cars
were made of.

Narrator: Particle accelerators

have not yet answered
the God question,

because the latest technology
can't generate enough energy

to go all the way back
to the exact moment of creation.

So far, scientists have reached
a fraction of a second

after the big bang

without finding anything

that can't be explained
by physics.

- Of course, people want
to go back

to the very first moment
itself.

That's where they might imagine
that one would see,

so to speak, the hand of God,
or the maker's mark.

We haven't got there yet.

- With all the experiments

and observations
that we've made,

we've never found
any single exception

to physical law,

so we believe that
there's a good case to be made

that miracles don't happen,

and everything can be explained
by the laws of nature.

- Just because up to this point,

one has not discovered anything

that couldn't be explained
by a physical law

doesn't mean that
in the future,

there couldn't be
literally thousands of things

newly discovered that aren't
explained by any physical law.

Why is that?

Because science itself
must always be open

to new discoveries.

Narrator:
However, if scientists

are eventually able to use
the laws of nature

to explain everything,

will we someday
be able to understand,

in scientific terms,
concepts like the soul,

consciousness,
heaven, and hell?

- It's probably asking
too much of science

to find that one day
there'll be solutions

of equations
that represent heaven or hell

or some other great thing

from our mythological legends
of old.

It's probably going to be
a lot more subtle than that.

Narrator: Physicists hope
to eventually have

a complete scientific
explanation

for how the universe
was created,

but they say it may be
beyond their grasp

to determine whether or not God
created these scientific laws,

unless we had a creator
who left a message

inside the universe's
cosmic code

when he programmed it.

- Are there clues

to the architect
of that cosmic program

buried deep within it,
within all those ones and zeros,

like a maker's mark

stamped on the architecture
of the universe

at the outset?

Well, the problem is,
tantalizing though that is,

one might follow those
ones and zeroes

forever and ever
and still not find this mark.

I think that's a lost cause,
a hopeless exercise,

but in some deeper sense,

the fact that the universe
is mathematical—

And when we explore
that mathematical realm,

we are, in a certain sense,
glimpsing the mind of God.

What we're really doing
is exploring,

at a hidden level,
the order in nature.

Narrator: But one of the most
respected scientists

in the world

recently rocked the planet

when he said he's explored
the hidden order of nature

and found mathematical proof

that God doesn't
need to exist.

As the debate
over God in the universe rages,

famed physicist Stephen Hawking

said in his book
The Grand Design

that the latest calculations
in quantum theory

suggest a universal creator
need never have existed.

[camera shutter clicks]

Hawking and co-author
Leonard Mlodinow

assert that
the laws of physics

allow entire universes
to form spontaneously.

- Stephen Hawking and I say
in The Grand Design

that the universe,
the galaxy,

the solar system,
the Earth, this rock,

that everything could have come
from nothing.

They could have been created
spontaneously

from a quantum vacuum.

And so we don't really need God
as a creator of the universe.

It follows
from the laws of physics.

- The universe could have
formed spontaneously

out of nothing,

because according
to quantum physics,

particles can form

for a short time
out of nothing,

and then they
disappear again.

We see this happening in labs.

We've measured it.

Well, maybe there are lots
of little quantum fluctuations

which go away,

but in some cases,

conditions become conducive
to further expansion.

That can then create
a giant universe

out of essentially nothing.

Narrator: But Filippenko
and other physicists

say we don't know how or when
the laws of physics originated.

This is significant,

because critics say
spontaneous creation

requires nature to exist
prior to the big bang.

The nothingness
Hawking is talking about

is a quantum vacuum
ruled by physical laws.

- It's like saying,
"I have a bank account,

"but unfortunately,
in my bank account,

I have a zero balance."

Does that mean that
I don't have

a real bank account
in a real bank?

Of course not.

Just because I have
a zero balance,

the bank account really exists
in a real bank.

Narrator: When theologians talk
about what existed

before the beginning
of the universe,

they imagine
it was a true void.

- If the universe
was really nothing,

that implies something
beyond the universe,

something transcending
the universe created it

to move it
from nothing to something

when it was nothing,

and that transcendent entity,

well, that would be God.

Narrator:
Stephen Hawking responds

with an elegant
and startling theory

that can be demonstrated

inside a Southern California
landmark.

- I'm walking
under the planetarium dome

of Griffith observatory
in Los Angeles.

The dome gives a good
illustration

of one idea for the origin
of the universe

called the no boundary proposal.

Our best theory for the origin
of the universe

tells us that he universe
came from a single point.

All matter, space, time, energy,

and even the laws of physics

seem to have exploded
into existence

from that single point.

Narrator: However,
when scientists

use the classical
laws of physics

to figure out how
the big bang started,

they encounter what's called
a singularity,

a place where
the laws of physics

seem to break down

and a transcendent god

is theoretically needed
to start the universe.

- This is a real problem
for scientists,

but Stephen Hawking

and other proponents
of the no boundary proposal

have found a way around this

by saying that
the universe didn't begin

in a singularity.

Narrator. They say the beginning
of the universe

wasn't a point.

It was more like a dome.

Just after the big bang,
space and time curved together.

As hard as it is to imagine,

Hawking says
time actually started out

as another dimension
of space.

- With the no boundary proposal,

there was never a time

when the laws of physics
didn't work.

Space and time had no boundary,

no edge, no beginning,
no singularity.

So trying to travel
back in time

to the beginning
of the universe

is kind of like trying to travel
north of the north pole

or, in this analogy,

higher than the top
of our perfect dome.

You can't get there,
because no such place exists.

- If you trace
the great cosmic story

back to what you thought
was the first moment,

it all merges
in some quantum fuzz,

so there's never
a singular switching on.

So it's a really neat idea

that the universe
is somehow self-contained.

There was no before.

Time does not extend
back for all eternity.

Time begins with the universe.

Space begins with the universe,

but in such a way that there
isn't a singular first moment.

Narrator:
If the no boundary proposal

and spontaneous creation
are true, Hawking says,

the universe
had no true beginning

and would have required nothing
outside the laws of physics

to come into existence.

So why do we need
a transcendent creator?

- There was no point
where someone's sitting there

and going,
"Let's start a universe."

You don't have
that point of time anymore.

And the idea
that the universe

can come spontaneously
from nothing

also means
that you don't need a god

to make everything.

So taken together,
those two ideas

show that the standard arguments
for why we need a god

don't really hold.

Narrator:
Hawking and Mlodinow's critics

say the no boundary proposal
is an elegant theory

that may actually be correct,

but it's beside the point.

- You're not really saying that

the universe extends infinitely
backward into time.

All you're saying
is that your initial point

is a kind of fuzzy condition,

which, quite frankly,

means you still need
a beginning.

Narrator:
To counter Stephen Hawking

and support the idea of God,

many theologians cite
the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.

Formulated by three prominent
mainstream physicists,

it states
that any expanding universe

must have had a beginning.

This is true, they say,

even if the universe
is part of a multiverse,

as long as those universes
are also expanding.

- What they showed was that
every inflating universal model

would have to have a boundary
to past time,

and even if that boundary
only indicated a transition

to a new kind of physics,

even that condition
would require

some kind of boundary
to past time,

so eventually,
you're going to have

to get to a beginning,

prior to which the universe
was nothing,

implying some sort
of transcendent force

to create it.

Narrator: With each side
of this debate

citing their own complicated
mathematical evidence

about a possible beginning
and a possible creator,

whose equations are right?

- Stephen Hawking
expresses this very well.

We have all these contending
mathematical descriptions

of possible worlds.

What is it that breathes fire

into one particular set
of equations

and makes a universe
for them to govern?

- That's a good question.

What is it that literally

breathed reality
into these equations

that enabled them
to do something,

to burn, to explode,
to become a universe?

That's a very good question,

and it does imply
a transcendent creator.

Narrator: This debate
about whether a transcendent God

or the laws of physics alone
breathed fire into the universe

will rage until we find
definitive evidence

one way or the other.

But some physicists
have come up

with an intriguing
third possibility.

As mind-boggling as it sounds,

they say the universe
may have been created

by an alien species
so advanced

it's become indistinguishable
from nature itself.

As physicists
search for answers

to fundamental questions

about the beginning
of the universe

and the role a god
may have played in it,

some have wondered
how this quest would change

if we made contact

with an advanced
alien civilization.

- There's no doubt in my mind
that if we discovered

the existence
of other intelligent beings

out there in the universe,

it would be the greatest

scientific discovery
of all time.

But it would inevitably
have an impact

on the world's religions,

because these refer
to human beings, one species,

and planet Earth, one planet,

inevitably so, because
the religions were put together

at a time when that
was all anybody knew.

Narrator. But would
an advanced alien species

pray to an entirely different
God or set of gods?

Or, more profoundly,

would they have such
an incredible grasp of science

that they've proven

a divine consciousness
does not exist?

- I don't think we're gonna
discover any surprising facts

from an intelligent,
developed alien culture,

because I think
they're going to have

the same transcendent desires
that we do.

- I'm not sure that
meeting extraterrestrials,

if they exist,

will give us any more
insight on God.

We've more or less
done that already

when the Old World
met the New World,

and the denizens
of the New World

observed certain gods,

and they were different

from the denizens
of the Old World.

Every time we encounter
a new culture,

we learn new things
about that culture

and how it appreciates
and describes God.

Narrator: But perhaps
a more pressing question

is whether aliens

might be the God
that people have been seeking,

the entity that created
the universe.

- We can imagine
the very far future,

where science advances
to the point

where we cannot just
manipulate matter

locally around us,

but we could make
entire universes.

We could design them
and create them

to our own liking,

and if this manipulation

extends to choosing
the laws of physics themselves,

well, we could make universes

of a sort that maybe
have never existed.

We could make
our own designer universes.

Now, this is wild
and speculative stuff,

but it's actually
not so very far

from what string theory
predicts.

Narrator:
Perhaps we will someday be able

to create a new universe,

almost as if it were
a physics project.

Scientists could eventually
focus enough energy

on a microscopically small space

to create a black hole
in our universe,

while on the other side,

a big bang would create
another universe.

- Well, it's just a small step
from this

to the speculation
that maybe our universe

is the product
of a super-duper intelligence

that existed
in another universe.

Narrator: If this speculation
turns out to be true,

it would echo
the ancient Hindu teaching

that there are an infinite
number of universes,

each with a different God,

dreaming its own cosmic dream.

But would this God
be the transcendent being

that many people imagine
our creator is,

or would it simply be
an advanced mortal?

- Well, a mother
creates a child,

and that doesn't mean

that mother is the god
to that child.

We are all created
out of the Earth.

That doesn't mean
that the Earth is God.

- Even if you did have
multiple gods

thinking of multiple universes,

you're still going to logically
have to have

some super god that's thinking
all of the other gods

into existence,

along with all the universes
about which they're thinking.

Narrator: Of course,
the famous Hindu teaching

goes on to say
that everything may be reversed,

that people may not be
the dreams of the gods

but that the gods may be
the dreams of people.

This is the fundamental question

that people
are trying to answer.

Are we just dreaming about
a divine order to the universe,

or is the divine order
drawing us to it?

- Ultimately, the point is,

if there's no way to
scientifically test a hypothesis

through experiments
and observations,

it's not truly
a scientific hypothesis.

And so, since the question
of the ultimate origin

and the ultimate creator

is fundamentally
an untestable question,

it's really not part of science.

- Science cannot
disprove something

which is beyond our universe,

and the reason is,

it's taking its data
from within the universe itself.

I mean, that's tantamount
to saying,

"Oh, the cartoon character

"is going to use data
from the cartoon

to disprove the cartoonist.”

It just simply can't be done.

- The role of God
has been pushed back

by the advance of science.

Nevertheless, it's not
a battle between the two.

I don't think
there'll ever be a time

when we understand
everything.

I think there'll always be
the unknown.

There'll always be a frontier.

So there will always be
questions

that are beyond
our ability to answer them

at a current time,

but then there's always hope

that we might
explain things better.

- Physics and mathematics
can never explain

where the laws
or where logic came from.

That's where we start from,

and if people want to say,
"Well, that must come from God,"

we certainly don't
argue against that.

In some ways,
the laws of physics

are as eternal
as God is to a theologian.

- But we could imagine
that there's something

underpinning
the laws of nature,

upholding them,
explaining them.

Why are they mathematical?

Why do they have the properties
that they do?

Why are they intelligible?

I'm not sure God is the right
answer to this,

because of the cultural baggage
that goes with it,

but I do think
that accepting the universe

and its underlying laws
as a package of marvels

that just happens to be,

is deeply unsatisfying.

I think we must go beyond,
and I think we can go beyond.