Atheists Disregard Scientific Evidence of God

Source

Imagine this scenario: the Weather Service issues a tornado warning for your area, and all the people in town immediately seek shelter. Having had previous experience with how dangerous such a storm can be, no one stays above ground to watch the winds in action. That’s why everyone is so astonished when they emerge from their basements after the storm, and are able to see what the tornado did.

Right in the center of town, where before the storm there was an unsightly junkyard, all the junk has disappeared. And in its place sits a brand, spanking new Boeing 747 jetliner, with engines idling, apparently ready for takeoff!

Of course, everyone wants to know what happened to all that junk? And how did a 747 land in that small space?

Then the mayor of the city, the chief of police, and the principal of the high school all come forward with an incredible story. "We saw it with our own eyes," they say, "the tornado hit the junk, mixed it all up, and assembled it by the purest of chances into that 747!"

Here's the question: do you think anyone would believe that tale?

Boeing 747
Boeing 747 | Source

Remember: it's the mayor, the police chief and the high school principal who are making the claim - perhaps the highest status individuals in town. Let's make the town the state capital, and throw in the governor as an additional witness. Plus a Nobel Prize winning physicist at the state university. They all claim that when the tornado hit the junk yard, it produced, totally by accident, a fully assembled and functioning Boeing 747 jetliner. Do you believe them?

Of course you don't! The report they are making defies not only all common sense, but the laws of probability. No rational person with any understanding of science would believe such a claim.

Yet, according to British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, the scientist who coined the term "Big Bang" to describe the beginning of the universe, that's exactly the kind of story atheism would have us believe.

Atheism is bad science!

In his book, The Intelligent Universe, Hoyle says:

The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard.

But that’s just what the logic of atheist beliefs would have us accept as the explanation for how life began in a complex yet orderly universe that, atheists say, came into being on its own with no Creator: it all happened by pure, blind chance.

Whatever that story may be, one thing it's not is science!

Atheist badge
Atheist badge | Source

Atheism rejects evidence it doesn't like

A fundamental premise of atheism is that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God. Theists (those who believe that God is real) counter that such evidence is all around us, and is so obvious that only willful blindness can avoid seeing it.

Having dispensed with the idea of a Creator, atheism must of necessity argue that the universe just came into existence on its own, and life arose spontaneously from inert materials. But is that what the scientific evidence really shows?

What the scientific evidence says about the origin of the universe

Modern astrophysics is based firmly on the Big Bang theory, which says that the universe began with a huge, never to be repeated cosmic explosion. Almost the entire scientific community acknowledges that the Big Bang happened. But no scientist has yet put forth even a respectable theory of what could have caused it. Nor has anyone definitively demonstrated the process by which it could have occurred. Similarly, the way in which the enormous complexity and order that characterizes both the universe and organic life could have arisen from blind, random forces remains unexplained.

In 1929 astronomer Edwin Hubble (for whom the Hubble space telescope is named) published findings that have been called “the most important event in astronomy in the [20th] century.” His observations, embodied in what is now called Hubble's Law, proved that the expansion of the universe predicted by Einstein's relativity theory is real. Hubble demonstrated that every astronomical object in the universe is moving away from every other object, just as every point on the surface of an inflating balloon is moving away from every other point on the balloon’s surface.

The universe had a beginning

The significance of Hubble’s findings is that they show that all the astronomical structures in the universe (stars, galaxies, etc) started their outward expansion from a single point. In other words, the expansion of the universe proves conclusively that the universe had a beginning.

That this massive explosion of matter and energy (called the Big Bang) that marked the beginning of our universe took place at a specific point in time and space is now almost universally accepted as scientific fact.

Hubble Space Telescope image of the spiral galaxy NGC 4414
Hubble Space Telescope image of the spiral galaxy NGC 4414 | Source

Will the Big Bang ever repeat itself?

There are two major possibilities for the future of the universe. One, nicknamed "The Big Crunch," is that the universe contains sufficient mass that the force of gravity will eventually arrest the expansion and cause the cosmos to fall back in on itself. That means the cycle of expand/collapse could repeat itself over and over. Calculations indicate that if the shape of the universe is spherical, it does contain enough matter to bring this scenario to fruition.

The other possibility, called "The Big Freeze," would occur if the amount of matter in the universe is insufficient to bring about a gravitation-induced re-collapse. This will be the case if the shape of the universe is either flat or hyperbolic.

The latest observations, particularly those from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) show that the greatest probability is that the universe is flat. This confirms previous studies indicating that the universe will expand forever.

So the scientific evidence shows that the universe not only had a beginning, but its beginning was a single, unique, one-time event that never happened before, and will never happen again.

As Baby Bear would say, the universe is “just right” to support life

Not only was the Big Bang unique, but it produced a universe that is exactly the way it must be in order to support life. If any of a number of physical constants and values were different by even a few percentage points, life would be impossible.

As physicist Paul Davies, writing in the International Journal of Astrobiology, put it:

There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects “fine-tuned” for life.

Look, for example, at just a small sample of the factors that constitute the knife edge on which life in the universe rests:

  • If the force of explosion [the Big Bang] was only slightly higher, the universe would only consist of gas without stars, galaxies, or planets…The matching had to be to the remarkable precision of one part in 1055.

Dean L. Overman in A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization

  • If the strong nuclear force were even 0.3 % stronger or 2% weaker the universe would never be able to support life.

Astronomer John D. Barrow and Physicist Frank J. Tipler in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle:

  • The big bang, the most cataclysmic event we can imagine, on closer inspection appears finely orchestrated.

Astrophysicist George Smoot in Wrinkles in Time

  • How is it that common elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen happened to have just the right kind of atomic structure that they needed to combine to make the molecules upon which life depends? It is almost as though the universe had been consciously designed.

Richard Morris, a science writer with a PhD in Physics, in The Fate of the Universe

It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.

— Atheist Stephen Hawking

Even theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, one of the most famous and influential atheists in the world, is impressed that the scientific evidence gives the appearance that the universe was deliberately designed to support human life. He says in his book A Brief History of Time:

The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.

It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.

Though Hawking doesn’t believe in God, he’s forced to admit that everything scientists have discovered about the structure of the universe appears to point directly to a Creator.

VIDEO: Our fine tuned universe

Poll

What do you think is the most probable explanation for the existence of a “fine tuned” universe?

See results without voting

There is no naturalistic explanation for the universe we live in

No scientist has yet formulated any widely accepted theory of how this finely tuned universe could possibly have created itself. But atheists are forced by their belief system to assert that it did exactly that. Moreover, by the purest chance, the universe, out of an infinite set of other possibilities, somehow created itself in exactly the way necessary to support life.

But, atheists argue, despite all the appearance of the universe having been created and designed specifically to be a hospitable environment for life, the idea that there may be a Creator and Designer who exists outside the universe, and who brought it into being for a purpose, is not a possible reading of the evidence.

The evident design of the universe indicates there must be a Designer

Believers in God take a much more rational view. The idea of a cosmos that had no existence but somehow brought itself into existence, and did so in such a way that it seems to have been precisely designed to nurture life, defies logic.

Design drawing
Design drawing | Source

The norm in all of human experience is to infer a designer from evident design. Therefore, the very existence of a complex and orderly universe, fined tuned in every way to support human life, speaks of a Creator and Designer. That conclusion arises directly from an objective analysis of the scientific evidence.

An objective reading of the scientific evidence supports belief in God

Let’s go back to where we started. If you claim that the 747 airliner that appeared in the center of town after a tornado was not created or designed but came together purely by accident, the enormous improbability of such an occurrence requires that you present some definite and empirically testable hypothesis as to how it happened. If no such hypothesis can be given, the inference that someone designed and built that machine must be accepted. There is no reasonable alternative.

This is the rule we all follow every day in every aspect of life – the fact of evident design unquestionably indicates the existence of a designer. But atheism can offer no empirically testable hypothesis of how an infinitely complex yet orderly and hospitable universe came into being on its own, without a creator or designer.

So, atheists must refuse, in this one instance alone, to apply that rule. It's only when they would have to acknowledge a Creator that atheists refuse to accept the kind of evidence they accept in every other area of life.

Clearly, atheists don’t disbelieve in God because there is no evidence for His existence. Rather, it is their refusal to believe in God that forces them to ignore evidence that is clear and compelling to anyone willing to examine it with an unbiased mind.

This is the second in a series on the reasonableness and necessity of belief in God. You can read the first in the series at Why Morality Requires Faith In God.

© 2015 Ronald E. Franklin

More by this Author


131 comments

Jodah profile image

Jodah 19 months ago from Queensland Australia

This is the best article I have ever read on the subject of an intelligent creator vs "the Big Bang" Ron. You offer an educated and difficult to dispute case (though I am sure atheists will try). The use of the 747 randomly created from junk is such a great example of your point. Loved this hub, voted up and shared.


Phil Perez profile image

Phil Perez 19 months ago

You are still avoiding that Theists make the claim that God exists, Atheists, just finds ways to explain a Theist's argument. They don't put it "aside" if they "don't like it" they see how in depth the argument is, and if they can back it up with scientific evidence they will! Simple ! I'm an Agnostic so I honestly do not know if God does or does not exist. It's not like people do not want to believe in God, they just will not easily say He exists without first coming with the conclusion He does. I'm that way. If I make an argument, I want to be proven wrong, that is why Atheists argue constantly. The absence of proof is not the evidence of absence. Obviously, something began, nobody knows though, humans are still too ignorant to figure that out. Theists look for physical proof that can be called objectively existing (and not something like, "God has spoken to me"), that's subjective and cannot be used as proof. To a person who has never heard of God or anything like that, you'd come across as a schizophrenic. It was an interesting Hub nonetheless. I actually enjoyed your attempt at justifying your belief in God and trying to find how Atheists think, really great!


Phyllis Doyle profile image

Phyllis Doyle 19 months ago from High desert of Nevada.

Ron, I have to agree with what Jodah wrote. This is the most intelligent and sensible article I have ever read on evidence of God, the Creator and Designer. It is powerful.

Voted UP ++++, H+, F, G+


old albion profile image

old albion 19 months ago from Lancashire. England.

Great hub Ron. much food for thought to say the least. Well done.

voted up and all.

Graham.


Pawpawwrites profile image

Pawpawwrites 19 months ago from Kansas

I doubt if even well written rational thought will change the mind of an atheist. It might take an act of God.


graceinus 19 months ago from those of the Ekklesia

The problem is, atheists are their own god. And they don't what anything to take that away from them. This is why they always deman physical evidence or proof from christians of God's existance. They know that a christians faith in God does not require physical proof that God exist and therefore they believe they've won their argument.

It all boils down to this simple point. The issue at hand is not christians vs. atheists, the issue is faith vs proof. Which one of these two do you think is all the excuse an atheist needs to be their own god.


savvydating profile image

savvydating 19 months ago

Well composed article. You have a talent for making scientific arguments easy to understand. And to think this article is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to scientific evidence for a Creator. Voting up.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Jodah, thanks much. I think a lot of people just assume there's no objective evidence for God, and that's what I'm trying to counter.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Hi, Phil Perez. The point I'm trying to make is that if someone examines the available evidence from a purely objective and scientific perspective, without philosophical preconceptions on either side of the issue, the most probable explanation for the universe we observe is that it was designed and created rather than having just happened by chance. Yet that is a point atheists, by the very nature of their belief system, cannot admit. Thanks for reading and sharing.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Thanks, Phyllis. My hope is to encourage people to really examine the evidence rather than assuming, as most atheists do, that belief in God is just based on "blind faith" with no objective basis. The reality is just the opposite.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Thank you, Graham. If I've helped get people thinking about what the evidence really shows, I've accomplished my goal.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Pawpawwrites, actually you are exactly right - an act of God is just what it takes to shake any of us out of our delusions! My hope is to help just a little in that process. Thanks for sharing.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

graceinus, I think the hidden underlying motivation of many who proclaim themselves atheist is the desire not to have to yield to God. They don't disbelieve because there is no evidence for God; they assume there is no evidence for God because they don't want to believe. Thanks for reading.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

savvydating, thanks for the encouragement. And you are very right that this article only scratches the surface about the scientific case for the Creator. Hopefully it will get some folks thinking about these issues.


Phil Perez profile image

Phil Perez 19 months ago

That is a very good point, Ron. I very much agree with that statement.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Thanks, Phil.


justthemessenger profile image

justthemessenger 19 months ago from The Great Midwest

The junkyard to 747 example perfectly demonstrates the thinking one must use to deny existence of a creator. The order present in all of nature simply shouts out that this world was designed-by a designer.


Skarlet profile image

Skarlet 19 months ago from California

Congrats on an excellent Hub. Voted up!


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Thanks, Skarlet.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

justthemessenger, you're exactly right: the heavens declare the glory of God! Thanks for reading.


whonunuwho profile image

whonunuwho 19 months ago from United States

Thank you for sharing this work with us...the believers, and those who refuse to accept their celestial design as a fact...the works of a benevolent creator, and ever watchful guardian. whonu


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Thanks so much, whonunuwho.


Skarlet profile image

Skarlet 19 months ago from California

I sent this article around and one of the readers said that to believe in atheism is to believe in a theory similar to that of a bunch of rocks fell down a hill and at the bottom the rocks fell perfectly into place, creating a beautiful mansion. Haha.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Thanks, Skarlet. Your reader got it! On purely scientific terms, the case for God is much more probable than the opposing view. I appreciate you sharing the article.


MsDora profile image

MsDora 19 months ago from The Caribbean

Ron, your explanation is so clear and credible, but I could be prejudiced by my fear of an airplane or a universe created by chance. It makes so much sense to believe in God.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Thanks, MsDora. You're so right - it makes much more sense to believe in God, and that the universe could not have made itself, than the opposite. Someone has said that they don't have enough faith to be an atheist, and I think that's right on target.


Rosualdo Ponce profile image

Rosualdo Ponce 19 months ago from Gawad Kalinga Village Ticad, Bantayan, Cebu, Philippines

A brilliantly designed article that will hammer the mind of an atheist. You present an accurate scientific evidence of God's existence. By unwavering scientific and mathematical laws, we can see that the universe was designed and engineered by a great engineering intelligence, not by a big bang accident. Thanks for the great insights. Voted up and more.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Thank you, Rosualdo. I think the evidence is powerful and my hope is that many people will be encouraged to really examine it with an open mind.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 19 months ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

I would like to believe that all of this was just a matter of chance. It would absolve me of any responsibility. Once I accept an intelligent design then I must see a reason for my creation and with that comes a duty to act in alignment with that design.

This article does much in the way toward pushing me to reason. Perhaps today I needed that push. Thank you.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Thank you, Eric. I think you've articulated why it's so hard for some to give the evidence for God the attention it merits - they don't want to have to acknowledge that "duty to act in alignment" with God's order.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

The analogy of the 747 is pretty weak. You're suggesting that the people came out of their bunkers after the storm to find a 747 sitting there. That wouldn't allow much time for that to happen. The universe on the other hand is about 16.4 Billion years old, so it's not hard at all to imagine that the elements that would sustain life someplace in an infinite universe would come together. An infinite universe would yield infinite possibilities would it not?

Also...assuming that God exists...where in the universe would he live? Is God a physical being? I think most people would say no, otherwise he could be measured. That's what science does. There could be a scientific test to determine what he is. So if he's not physical, does he live outside of this infinite universe? There is no outside. The universe is made up of matter existing in space. Where exactly is space outside of space that would be Gods platform? There is no space "outside" of space. That would simply be more space. It also brings to mind, where did God come from. I mean the argument here is that the universe could not spring from nothingness and arrange itself in such a way as to support life...so where did God spring from? A couple of ideas might be that God is eternal, and he's always been here. If so, what took so long to create the universe? What was he doing prior to 16.4 Billion years ago? Maybe this isn't the first universe he tried. Maybe he's done this many times before, trying to get it right.

You know what I think? I think its counter-productive to keep trying to prove the existence of God. That's what Faith is for. Those that continually attempt to prove God, are of very little faith. Their faith won't sustain them. They need something more. They need some kind of evidence that will prove them to be right. So Faith loses. They even look to science to prove what science can never prove. God is a metaphysical concept. NOT a physical being. He doesn't exist in the physical universe. Science only deals in the physical. Science cannot prove nor falsify Gods existence. Science tells us how things work. It doesn't tell us why. That's the job of philosophers and clerics.


graceinus 19 months ago from those of the Ekklesia

The analogy of the 747 is perfect.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 19 months ago from Tasmania

"The analogy of the 747 is perfect" .... shows how small one's mind needs to be in order to agree with an evangelist's weighted thesis.

".... it all happened by pure, blind chance....." This is not implied or asserted by the Theory of Evolution as put forward by Charles Darwin. He observed the variety and diversity of living organisms and tried to come up with a theory of how it might have happened. Like a good, true scientist, (and being strongly of the Christian Faith) he kept his mind open to other possibilities while trying to be totally honest about his observations. He was ridiculed by his peers, who were thoroughly stuck in their comfortable Christian ways.

He proposed the key to evolution being possible was Natural Selection. As I understand it, the Theory has continued to measure up to deeper analysis and enquiry. Still, everyone who studies it keeps his/her mind open to further knowledge arising, as opposed to the Theist's stubborn insistence on a god's revelation, Period!

I notice the majority of your respondents in this Thread are already the converted, so don't take their general agreement as being proof of your righteous beliefs.

I can do no better than quote from a book by a most capable scientist, John T. Moore, EdD, Professor of Chemistry at Stephen F. Austin State University, "Chemistry for Dummies," 2nd Edition, Wiley Publishing, Inc.

Here Professor Moore has given a very clear, sensible and knowledgeable explanation of science and how it differs from "faith."

""Science is far more than a collection of facts, figures, graphs and tables. Science is a method for examining the physical universe. It's a way of asking and answering questions. However, in order for it to be called science, it must be testable. Being testable is what makes science different from faith."

He goes on to say in the next paragraph but one:

"Science is best described by the attitudes of scientists themselves. They're sceptical. They simply won't take another person's word for a phenomena -- it must be testable.....(and).......Scientists wonder, they question, they strive to find out WHY, and they experiment -- they have exactly the same attitudes that most small children have before they grow up. Maybe this is a good definition of scientists -- they are adults who've never lost that wonder of nature and the desire to know."

Do you see from this that you are welcome to hang on to your faith and beliefs in the unseen, the mystique of "God," but science is not the right tool for proving or disproving your beliefs.

How about having great respect for honest scientists who can furnish you with so much more wonder and awe about the world which you believe "God" has made.

Yours sincerely,

Atheist-minded Gentleman.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

adagio4639, I appreciate you taking the time to comment.

You apparently believe that given enough time, a 747 could be assembled by chance. Let’s do some simple math. The universe is currently thought to be 13.82 billion years old. What would you guess is the mathematical probability that in 13.82 billion years a single transistor (properly doped silicon, wire leads attached in exactly the right places to allowed the silicon chip to perform a current switching or voltage amplification function) would assemble itself by chance? Keep in mind that there is no record that in 13.82 billion years the universe produced even one such component - the first transistor of which humanity is aware was invented in 1947, not by chance but by a lot of hard and intelligent scientific work. But, of course, there are probably no single transistors in a 747, but rather hundreds of integrated circuits containing thousands of transistors each. What’s the probability of a single integrated circuit coming together by chance in 13.82 billion years? A 747-400 has about six million parts, each of which must similarly come into being in exactly the right configuration, also purely by chance. Then all those 6 million must be connected together in their proper place in the assembly. Note that all these already vanishingly small probabilities of each particular part coming together by chance must be multiplied against one another (remember that if two 1/10 probabilities are multiplied, the result is 1/100). Finally, out of practically infinite number of ways those 6 million parts could be arranged, they must come together in exactly the right way as an assembly. Any competent mathematician will tell you that the probability of all that happening is essentially the same whether the time frame is 13.82 billion years or 13.82 seconds: zero. Yet by definition, a 747 is far less complex than our fine-tuned-for-life universe.

Where does God live? That question is logically fallacious because it implicitly assumes that God is a physical being who must be “somewhere” in space-time. Similarly, your question about what God was doing before He created the universe is meaningless. Physicists are agreed that time itself started with the Big Bang. There is no such thing as “before” that. That fact also renders your “where did God come from” question moot, since it too assumes the passage of time and that God progressed, over time, from one state to another. If God created the universe, He must by definition have existed outside the universe, and outside of time. I plan to get into this more in another hub.

Finally, you miss the intent of the hub. There is no attempt to “prove” the existence of God, but merely to say that the best scientific evidence points in His direction. In other words, even on atheists’ own chosen ground (science) the evidence for God is far greater than the evidence for a purposeless universe that created itself, and arranged itself to support highly organized life, totally by accident.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 19 months ago from Tasmania

Sir, your analogy of the 747 is just not sensible at all. It's spurious to say the least. Who ever suggested it be considered?

Also, you refer to "...best scientific evidence..."

Any evidence, to be scientifically valid, must be testible. "God" is not testable!


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Jonnycomelately, thanks for sharing your thoughts. However, your statements indicate misunderstandings on several levels.

(1) Darwinistic evolution is not relevant to the subject of the hub. Something can’t “evolve” until it exists. This hub deals with whether the available scientific evidence for the universe coming into existence is more compatible with purposeful creation or purposeless accident.

(2) Faith is not alluded to in this hub. By design it aims to engage on the ground of what the scientific evidence states. The claims made are backed up not by theology, but by science, and should be evaluated and discussed on that basis.

(3) I see no attempt in your comments to actually respond to the scientific facts presented. I hope I don’t offend you by saying this mode of response proves my point – in my experience atheists typically resort to put-downs based on their supposed intellectual superiority rather than actually defending their claims based on objective assessment of the scientific evidence.

By the way, I spent most of my professional life as an electrical engineer, thankful every day for the mathematicians, physicists, and other scientists with whom I worked, and whose scientific contributions made possible everything I did.


Randy Godwin profile image

Randy Godwin 19 months ago from Southern Georgia

Sorry Ron, the 747 example sounds good, but isn't. And we have no idea how many times the universe has expanded and contracted. Nor how many universes there are.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Hi, Randy. On what basis do you say the 747 example falls short? Remember, it didn't originate with me, but with Sir Fred Hoyle, who presumably had a better feel for the science and math involved than either you or me. Are you saying that there is some reason to believe that the coming into existence of this exactly fine-tuned universe is a more mathematically probable event than the by-chance assembling of a 747? That takes some justifying! In any case, the example is just that, an example, not the crux of the argument.

Similarly, your statement that we don't know how many times the universe has expanded and contracted requires some kind of justification based on available science. I was careful to present the best scientific thinking on the subject at this time, which says that the highest probability is that there will be no expansion/contraction cycle. If you disagree with the science, it behooves you to make a science-based counter-argument on why it is invalid.

I'd love to have a discussion based on really evaluating the scientific claims. In any event, thanks for chiming in.


Randy Godwin profile image

Randy Godwin 19 months ago from Southern Georgia

Yes, Fred Hoyle coined the term, but he was wrong about certain aspects of the theory as shown in the link you provided. And how do you know only one god, and not many, created the universe?


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Randy, remember that the purpose of the 747 example is to illustrate the point concerning the vast improbability of the universe exploding itself into being (the big bang) in exactly the way required to support life. The mathematical probabilities of the alternative explanations for the existence of our universe (not airplanes) is the point of discussion.

Also, think about the premise of the hub - that atheists avoid dealing objectively with what the science indicates because that requires them to admit that the idea of a Creator, rather than pure chance, best fits the evidence. That's why I'm challenging those who deny the possibility of that Creator (as by definition atheists do) to engage on the basis of objective evaluation of the best science we have.

Finally, this hub makes no claims about how many Creators there may be, except that a fair reading of the scientific evidence is that the number is greater than zero! That's another whole discussion (and maybe hub).


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"That this massive explosion of matter and energy (called the Big Bang) that marked the beginning of our universe took place at a specific point in time and space is now almost universally accepted as scientific fact."

First of all the Big Bang marked the beginning of the visible universe. We know nothing that may have existed prior to that event. Secondly it didn't really happen at any specific time. Time didn't exist prior to that event. Time is marked from that point. We don't even know if our universe was the only Big Bang. Maybe there have been thousands or millions of others all creating universes. There are many theories being tossed into the frey. Cosmologists usually explore using physics which suggest various new theories to consider.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 19 months ago from Tasmania

1. ".....more compatible with purposeful creation or purposeless accident."

Reading from your profile I gather that, as Pastor of your church, you have a Christian bias in asking all the questions. Your aim is to have atheists converting to Christianity. Please be honest. I am not trying to stop you doing this. Just want you to place all your cards on the table, so to speak.

2. With regards to scientific enquiry and research, if you are wanting absolute, definitive answers from scientists you are most unlikely to get it.

Scientific means opening the mind to possibilities and coming up with probabilities, workable situations. Not absolute, irrefutable "facts."

3. "....in my experience atheists typically resort to put-downs based on their supposed intellectual superiority ...."

I don't claim any intellectual superiority. There are commentators here who are far more intellectually capable than myself. I am not able to argue the scientific aspects personally, because they are "beyond my ken" in many cases.

However, I do present a skeptical mind when I see someone masquerading as unbiased when in fact he/she is not.

You say you come from a professional life in electrical engineering. I come from a 45-year career in medical radiography. You have chosen a religious path. I have "been there, done that." And I have seen the light! An obscure light which is used to serve the ulterior motives of people who wish to control the minds of others.

Maybe I am trying to do just that... but I don't think so, to be honest. I am more inclined to allowing each to find his/her chosen set of understandings, not be pushed, goaded, tricked into "believing" because of perceived fear and guilt.

You have tried to present a scientific view, yet you have an ulterior motive.

Am I not right?


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

adagio4639, you cite what we don't know, and speculations of what might have been, but don't deal with the evidence we do know and the reasonable deductions that can be made from that. Again, that's exactly what this hub is about - atheists don't want to deal with the scientific evidence we have at this point because it demonstrates that the universe having been created by a Creator is a better fit to the evidence than the idea that it all just kind of happened, and we can't say how.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

jonnycomelately, what in the world does my background have to do with what the scientific evidence indicates? Or my motives, for that matter? What you have done is to a priori rule out anything I might say about the scientific evidence based on your prejudices concerning my religious beliefs. The whole point of the hub is that this is typically what atheists do - they can't deal with the science, so they instead try to declare whatever a person who believes in God says out of bounds without addressing the scientific issues raised because such a person must have "ulterior motives," and therefore need not be taken seriously.

My point: if you think you can demonstrate by deductions based on the science that the evidence now available indicates that it is more probable that the universe created itself from nothing in exactly the way required to sustain life than that there was a Creator who designed it for a purpose, make the argument. But make it by dealing objectively with the scientific evidence, and not based on your beliefs about religion.


graceinus 19 months ago from those of the Ekklesia

Ron- It a lost cause with jonnycomelately- Jonny could be standing at the foot of the throne of God on judgement day, looking at the Almighty right in the face and Jonny would still ask God for His I.D.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"adagio4639, you cite what we don't know, and speculations of what might have been, but don't deal with the evidence we do know and the reasonable deductions that can be made from that."

Your deductions are not reasonable. And you have no "evidence" of any scientific nature to empirically prove the existence of a metaphysical concept. It certainly exists in the minds of a lot of people, but that doesn't translate into physical reality.

"atheists don't want to deal with the scientific evidence we have at this point because it demonstrates that the universe having been created by a Creator is a better fit to the evidence than the idea that it all just kind of happened, and we can't say how."

No. It doesn't demonstrate that the universe was "created". But what it does do is beg the question; what created the creator? And how is a creator that sprang from nowhere somehow more credible than a universe that came out of the Big Bang? At least with the Big Bang we can point to an event. What event created the creator?

I think that your problem lies with the fact that you have very little faith in God. If you had faith, you and others would not be compelled to prove what cannot be proven. God is a metaphysical concept. He's not of the physical world. We don't have any instruments that measure the non-physical. You cannot falsify the concept of God. You cannot prove the existence of God. You take God on Faith, and faith is something that you seem to be sorely lacking in. If you had it, you wouldn't feel a need to prove God as a FACT instead of accept him as a Belief.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

I think it's long past time for people to begin to re-evaluate their concept of God. Maybe they should begin to think of God as Nature itself. God as the entire universe. They can't accept that a universe sprang into existence of it's own accord, but they can accept that a God did that exact same thing and then created a universe that would support life on one planet in one solar system in one galaxy amidst this vast universe that contains billions of other stars and solar systems and galaxies. They can't explain where this God might actually live. What space does he occupy and then be faced with the fact that space is space, and there is no space beyond space. It's just more space. Is God contained within some space outside of space?

People seem to need a personal God. One that has human attributes. One that is judgmental. After all, we all desire justice don't we? Reward for the good. Punishment for the evil. Maybe however, if God is actually the universe itself...Nature, then God has all the necessities to establish life as we know it. We can see it all around us. But we can't see God because we're looking for a being with human attributes instead of seeing nature as God itself. Of course that would mean that God is impersonal. That God is non-judgmental. That god is Amoral.

I think that the Pan-theistic view is probably the most accurate when it comes to God. Nature provides everything to sustain life. And the idea that God created this entire universe in order to support life on one small planet in one solar system in one galaxy among the billions of others in the universe is an enormous waste of space. If that's the case, then God is not a very efficient creator.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

adagio4639, I'll only say that with every post you further prove my point. I'll be happy to engage with you on the basis of any arguments you care to make based on the evidence. Making dogmatic statements of opinion, with neither data nor deductions from the data, does not, however, qualify as discussing the science. And do you notice that instead of taking the science seriously, you want to change the subject to my "problem." So, we're back where we started - "Atheists Disregard Scientific Evidence of God."

But I do appreciate you sharing your point of view.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Thanks for sharing, graceinus.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 19 months ago from Tasmania

Hahaha, graceinus ! Welcome to the world of more ..."dogmatic statements of opinion."

It certainly is a "lost cause" with Yours Truly. The convoluted conniving which comes from the minds of weakly faithful believers, trying to support their claims of being more "right with God," do at least provide some light-hearted entertainment. Not much of interest or entertaining on the TV News these days..... just a total presence or a total absence of God, depending which channel you turn to.

Have fun whilst you can, God won't mind.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 19 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"Making dogmatic statements of opinion, with neither data nor deductions from the data, does not, however, qualify as discussing the science."

Making dogmatic statements??? hehe, that's pretty amazing coming from a person steeped in dogma. You want to discuss the science of God?? There's nothing to discuss. What is it that you're attempting to prove through science with regards to God?

I mean...look at the title of your Hub; "Atheists Disregard Scientific Evidence of God". There two things that are problems you really need to deal with here. The first is that there is no way to empirically test for God. Science does not test metaphysical concepts. There is no way to test them. So the premise of your Hub is false. Science deals with the physical universe. Not the metaphysical. So the very premise of what you're talking about is false to begin with. Secondly, what you're doing with this is not demonstrating proof of God. You're demonstrating proof of your own lack of faith. You have none. If you did, you wouldn't be looking for proof. Faith doesn't require proof. Religion is a matter of faith, NOT proof. If you have proof you wouldn't need faith, and religion wouldn't be religion. It would be science.

"And do you notice that instead of taking the science seriously, you want to change the subject to my "problem."

I do take science seriously. That's why I disregard your claims as silly. There is no scientific way of measuring God. In fact, if there was...he couldn't be God, because if God can be measured by man, then he's not worthy of the title GOD.

" So, we're back where we started - "Atheists Disregard Scientific Evidence of God."

What we're back to is the fact that you have no faith. You need something more than what faith can offer. You need proof, because faith doesn't require proof. The Christian that says that miracles support his faith in God is a hypocrite. You either have faith, or you look for proof. Based on your Hub, I can see where you're coming from.


Kristen Howe profile image

Kristen Howe 19 months ago from Northeast Ohio

Ron, this was a great hub from you. You've hit every details spot on, when you talk about religion and God. Voted up for interesting!


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 19 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Thanks so much Kristen. The details are very important, and I'm really glad when readers take note of them.


Kristen Howe profile image

Kristen Howe 18 months ago from Northeast Ohio

You're welcome Ron. You're a great hubber.


lyoness913 profile image

lyoness913 18 months ago from Overland Park, KS

Excellent hub on an all-too-important matter. Regardless if there is a God, or not- I do not condone a world in which religion is used for murder, control, taxation and repression.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 18 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Thank you, lyoness913. I certainly agree with you that true faith in God is never justification for hatred, oppression, and murder. As a Christian (the only faith I'm qualified to speak about) it's clear that the God who says of Himself "God is love," and who commands that we not only love our neighbors as ourselves, but our enemies also, is fundamentally opposed to such practices by those who claim to act in His name.


lawrence01 profile image

lawrence01 18 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

Ron

Its interesting that Richard Dawkins in his book "The God delusion" accuses human genes of decieving us into thinking they were designued by a creator!

Awesome hub

Lawrence


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 18 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Thanks, Lawrence. You're right about Dawkins. Many things he said demonstrate that his atheism is based more on a philosophical (or ideological) predisposition than on a fair reading of the evidence.


lawrence01 profile image

lawrence01 18 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

I just find it strange that Dawkins has to resort to accusations of deception to fudge things into fitting his worldview!

Lawrence


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 18 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

@Ron: "So the scientific evidence shows that the universe not only had a beginning, but its beginning was a single, unique, one-time event that never happened before, and will never happen again."

No. It doesn't. It shows that the Big Bang took place about 14 billion years ago. But there was no time in space when it happened because time and space didn't exist prior to it. Why do you say things like that which you must know aren't true. There are numerous theories in cosmology. You brought several up already. The God theory is also one of them. And, it seems to be your "Go To" theory.

"Atheists Disregard Scientific Evidence of God"

You are concluding that God created everything. So, lets have a look at your argument.

Unfortunately it can't be tested because it's not a physical concept but a metaphysical one. But if the oscillating universe is correct, then the event is not one-time, it's endlessly repeating. A Big Bang followed by a Big Crunch followed by another Big Bang and on and on. Of course that's a theory that's been around for a while now. In fact there could be multiverses that get swallowed up by Black Holes that become so dense that even light can't escape. There is one within our own galaxy. They can swallow up everything to the point of breaking down the laws of physics into a singularity which ignites another Big Bang the creates another universe. Then there is something pretty new: "Researchers from the BICEP2 collaboration today (March 17, 2014) announced the first direct evidence supporting this theory, known as "cosmic inflation." Their data also represent the first images of gravitational waves, or ripples in space-time. These waves have been described as the "first tremors of the Big Bang." Finally, the data confirm a deep connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

The analogy of the 747 is really silly. I mean really; "The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard.

We can run that idea as a conditional statement

1.If the current scenario of the origin of life is true, THEN a 747 can be assembled by a tornado passing through a junkyard.

2. A 747 cannot be assembled by a tornado passing through a junkyard

_________________________________________________

C: Therefore God is the source of life.

That's quite a leap. It's also a logical fallacy

That is what you're trying to say right? Your conclusion is that God is the source of life and created the universe. Right? you present the argument that if the current theories of the origin of the universe are true, then a 747 could be assembled from junk out of a passing tornado. Since that cannot happen, then God must have created the universe. Is that it?

Well...first of all the syllogism is false. It is a fallacy because any valid forms of categorical syllogism that assert a negative premise must have a negative conclusion. Premise 2 is a negative premise. We cannot draw a positive conclusion from a syllogism with a negative premise.

It's hard enough to grapple with the idea that something could spring from nothing, but it begs the question, From where did God spring.

One person I argued with claimed that All existence requires a cause. But he asserted that God is an un-caused cause. So all existence requires a cause, but God does not require a cause. Therefore god exists.

P1. All existence requires a cause

P2. God has no cause

____________________________

C:Therefore God exists.

Again it's a logically false claim. You can't derive a positive conclusion from a negative premise.

They syllogism would read

P1. All existence requires a cause

P2. God has no cause

__________________________

C: Therefore God does not exist.

What came from the Big Bang was physics which begat chemistry, which begat biology, which begat technology which created the 747.


lawrence01 profile image

lawrence01 18 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

adagio4639.

You've put some interesting stuff there. But some of the things you mention are not that logical.

(1) If the Big Bang was the start and there was no time and space before it (paragraph 2) then how can we have an oscillating universe where the big bang and the bid crunch happen repeatedly? (paragraph 4).

(2) It's not a fallacy to say that God is the source of all life. It's an observable fact. Science can explain a lot of things but it can't explain the origin of life. It certainly falls in explaining how the universe began (I would suggest you have a read of some of my hubs that deal with the scientific side of things and the laws of science that have to be bypassed in order for the Big bang to work (there are a lot of them).


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 18 months ago from Tasmania

lawrence01, I don't see what you have said as being logical.

"It's not a fallacy to say that God is the source of all life. It's an observable fact."

"God" is not a "Fact" since it only exists in the minds of persons who "believe." In order to be scientifically proven, something measurable and repeatable must be observed. That proof must be consistent and apply to the past and the future.

It's fair enough to treat "God" as a hypothesis for the time being, and to play around with that possibility in numerous mental exercises, trying to give some repeatable substance to the belief. Yet any result will be far cry from "proof," because that "God" is infinite and not provable.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 18 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

@Lawrence: "(1) If the Big Bang was the start and there was no time and space before it (paragraph 2) then how can we have an oscillating universe where the big bang and the bid crunch happen repeatedly? (paragraph 4).

Hi Lawrence, I don't think that an oscillating universe is dependent on time. I think it's the other way around. There is no time before time. We assign a time value to the universe. IF...and I emphasize IF, an oscillating universe were an accurate theory, then time, and in fact the laws of physics themselves, would fall away at the point of singularity. Probably before ever reaching that point. I don't think that time enters into it beyond our placing a time value in order to understand it. It's like infinity. Our mind tries to grasp the concept in terms of time. But infinity would be timeless. So we use words like eternal.

2." It's not a fallacy to say that God is the source of all life. It's an observable fact."

That very statement is a fallacy. We can present it as a Conditional statement. If/then: If God is the source of all life, then it's an observable fact. Conversely If God is not the source of all life, then it's not an observable fact. Nature is an observable fact. But that doesn't demonstrate that God is the source of Nature. You're merely making that assertion without demonstrating why it's true. We could substitute God with the Purple Unicorn, or anything for that matter, and the logic would be just as valid and just as unsound. If The Purple Unicorn is the source of all life, then it's an observable fact. I have no reason to assume that the observable fact of Nature is a result of a Purple Unicorn or a God for that matter.

If we put it in the form of a deductive syllogism we have a formula : If “a is b” and “b is c” then “a is c” e.g., “All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.”

P1.God is the source of all life

P2. It's an observable fact

________________________

C:Therefore, It's not a fallacy (to say that God is the source of all life.)

A Negative conclusion from affirmative premises is a syllogistic fallacy committed when a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion yet both premises are affirmative. The inability of affirmative premises to reach a negative conclusion is usually cited as one of the basic rules of constructing a valid categorical syllogism.

The conclusion of a standard form categorical syllogism is negative, but both of the premises are positive. Any valid forms of categorical syllogisms that assert a negative conclusion must have at least one negative premise.

God as observable nature....That's a good case for Pan-theism, but not a good case for a personal God such as that of the Bible. God as Nature itself. Then why not simply say...Nature is everything?

I don't think that's ( It's an observable fact.") demonstrated as true. We look at nature and make the claim that God is the source of all life. Full stop. But an oscillating universe that repeats the Bang/Crunch/Bang/Crunch endlessly doesn't require a God. It's simply always been here and always will.

"Science can explain a lot of things but it can't explain the origin of life. It certainly falls in explaining how the universe began (I would suggest you have a read of some of my hubs that deal with the scientific side of things and the laws of science that have to be bypassed in order for the Big bang to work (there are a lot of them)."

Thanks, but I am aware of the laws of science and I tend to subscribe to the Scientific Philosophy of Karl Popper. And I'm pretty familiar with the logical construction of an argument. I don't believe that the idea of justified true belief is accurate. Our science isn't rational because we can justify it. It's rational because we can criticize it.

Science doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. Philosophy does. Science tells us how things work. Philosophy and religion try to tell us why.

"It certainly falls in explaining how the universe began".

But the alternative explanation that a God did this fails to explain where God came from. The argument that was given to me by another person was that God doesn't need a cause. The universe does. So God is not of the physical world. God is a metaphysical concept. (But...he didn't like that. He needed to try to prove God through science, which is a fools errand) Not material. Therefore, God is not bound by the laws that would dictate cause and effect. That's very convenient don't you think? It's a way of saying that God can violate his own natural law, which means that if natural law can be violated, then it doesn't exist. I don't think that God could separate himself from his creation.

The great foundationalist programs of the past were attempts to justify our beliefs, where ‘justify’ meant showing them to be true, and ‘true’ meant corresponding to the facts. The collapse of foundationalism in the twentieth century is due to our discovery that it is impossible to justify our beliefs in this way. This is the great philosophical fact of the twentieth century. And the great epistemological problem posed by this fact is ‘How should philosophers and scientists respond to it?’

The institutionalist approach to science is just one instance of a far more general response to the collapse of foundationalism that I call ‘Floating Foundationalism’. Floating Foundationalism comes in many different varieties. But its basic move is to accept some statement or theory—paradigm, linguistic framework, form of life, belief or what have you—without justification, and to then use it as a foundation upon which to justify everything else. In so doing, Floating Foundationalism retains the demand, the purpose, and sometimes even the logical structure of justification. But it leaves the foundations themselves floating in mid-air. It acknowledges that justification is ultimately grounded upon something that is itself ungrounded and, irrational. But it advises us not to question these things, but to ‘commit’ ourselves to them instead—and to proceed as if nothing has changed. Indeed, the only real difference between Floating Foundationalism and traditional bedrock foundationalism is that Floating Foundationalism does not even pretend that its foundations are indubitably true or that the theories that are ‘grounded’ upon them always follow with logical necessity.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 18 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

adagio4639, I appreciate your reasoned response, but it betrays a number of misconceptions about the claims made in this article.

I’ll deal first with your comment on a subject that seems both irrelevant and trivial, but let’s get it out of the way. You say “there was no time” when the Big Bang (BB) happened. In terms of any discussion about the development of the universe, it certainly is appropriate to speak of the “time” when the BB happened. Remember that time began with the BB. Thus, if this moment is t[x], where x is the number of time units since the BB, then the time of the BB is t[0]. What would not make sense would be any argumentation about the state of things at some arbitrary t[-n].

The article is not “concluding that God created everything.” Rather the point is that when the available scientific evidence is objectively evaluated, the hypothesis that the universe was purposefully created is a better fit to that evidence than the alternative, which is that it all just happened for some unknown reason, and by accident it worked out to be exactly what is required to bring about and sustain life. In other words, the hypothesis of a Creator is far more probable than the alternative.

Interestingly, your belief that the premise that God created the universe can’t be tested because it is a metaphysical concept rather than a physical one is directly contradicted by arch-atheist Richard Dawkins. In “The God Delusion” Dawkins says, “the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other … God's existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice.” For once I agree with Dawkins.

About the 747 illustration being “silly.” If you treat an illustration as if it were a premise in a syllogism, I suppose it could be silly. But, of course, that’s not its purpose. It’s an ILLUSTRATION!

Now, what is the premise being illustrated? Simply that no rational person believes that even the level of organized complexity (to borrow a term from Richard Dawkins) represented by a jet plane can arise by pure chance. How much less can the infinitely greater level of organized complexity that characterizes our “fine-tuned for life” universe have arisen by chance. As I say in the article, if you claimed that a 747 came together by chance, you would have to lay out a testable and verifiable process by which it could have happened in order to have any prospect of being believed. Similarly, if you say this universe was assembled by chance, you need to posit some verifiable series of steps or processes by which such an infinitesimally probable outcome could have occurred. This has never been done.

By asking “from where did God spring?” you get your question begging backward. If God exists at all, He exists as a being outside of time, which is something He created when He caused the BB. To ask where He came from implicitly assumes that over some period of time, “prior” to the BB, God changed from one state to another (from non-existence to existence). But since the concept of time “prior” to t[0] is meaningless, the question itself is meaningless.

The real question being begged by those who assert that the universe created itself is: from where did the universe spring? What reason is there to believe that some unknowable something existed for all of eternity, and that for some unknowable reason it decided at t[0] to explode into the matter/energy entity that is our cosmos?

You mention the possibility of an oscillating universe. As the article mentions, the best evidence at this time is that such oscillations do not and have never occurred. That such oscillations might occur is a possible hypothesis. But the evidence says that the probability of that is less than the probability of the universe being ever-expanding. Thus the working premise of modern astrophysics is that the universe will never fall back on itself.

That brings me to the major misapprehension about the article revealed in your comments. It’s purpose is not to “prove” that God created the universe, but simply that the possibility that the universe was created is supported by the evidence at least as well (and actually better) than is the alternative. Yet, by definition atheists claim that the probability of special creation is effectively zero.

There are only two possibilities for the origin of the universe of which I am aware: either it was created, or it just happened by unknown processes for no knowable reason. In the first instance, at time t[0] there must have already been in existence an entity that most of mankind identify as “God.” In the alternative conception, at time t[0] there must have already been in existence something we might call the “pre-universe.” What’s the difference? Only that one is intelligent, creative, and purposeful, while the other is none of those things. As I show in the article, even the most prominent atheist scientists cannot escape the fact that universe gives the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. And that “purposeful design” scenario is a much better fit to the evidence than the “just happened” alternative.

The challenge for atheists is to demonstrate that their alternative should be considered a better fit to the physical evidence than the Creator alternative. My contention is that they have consistently shown themselves unwilling to take on that challenge because they know (or at least sense) that the evidentiary deck is stacked against them.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 18 months ago from Tasmania

".... or it just happened by unknown processes for no knowable reason."

Surely it is the task of scientific research to try to understand the reasons, the why's and wherefores . However scientists are a bit limited when it comes to measuring and quantifying a formless, mystical, imagined, infinite being such as "God."

The mind play is all understandable and acceptable... provided it is not turned around for ulterior motive in order to make judgment and inflict punishment.

The art of imposing guilt and fear upon fellow humans is the work of religion and/or politics. They are bound together usually.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 18 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

jonnycomelately, it is not necessary to "measure and quantify" God in order to assess whether the evidence that can be measured and quantified is more consistent with the universe having been created or not. My point in this article is that the knowable, physical, scientific evidence lines up better with the idea of the universe having been purposefully designed than with it somehow just happening by a stupendous series of astronomically improbable events. Nothing about that is particularly "religious." It's all about the science.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 18 months ago from Tasmania

Ok.... a "better idea of...." Yes, the debate goes on and on. The suggestion, the theory, of evolution and a progressive growing of all life forms from an initial simple-celled organisms into the more complex forms that have existed and continue to do so today...... theory-hypothesis-observation-experiment-record-extrapolate-propose a law.... all these efforts to prove or disprove anything that comes up for consideration.

Please, if the consensus of scientific evidence today points to "the Big Bang" - not a good analogy, apparently - and there is disagreement, then please propose an alternative explanation. If Evolution is discounted, what is another possibility/probability? How did the physical reality of this world come about?

I am asking for a plausible alternative that does not require Harry Potter's wand to enact it.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 18 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

jonnycomelately, keep in mind that you must talk origins before you can talk evolution. Until there's a universe, and until there is life within that universe, there is nothing for the cycle of random mutation/natural selection that's at the heart of Darwinian evolution to operate on. I'm planning other hubs to examine the fossil and biochemical evidence regarding evolution. Stay tuned.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 18 months ago from Tasmania

Yes, as I understand it, the anaerobic conditions in the deep clefts of the oceans, where sulphurous outpouring create conditions as they most probably were in the atmosphere, billions of years ago.....have been replicated in the laboratory, and achieved early production of amino acids, or something like that.

That would/could be the origins you speak of. Beyond this conjecture we can only resort to metaphysical explanations, belief systems, etc.

None of which can ever be proven.


lawrence01 profile image

lawrence01 18 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

Johnnycomelately

Its interesting what you say about the amino acids. They did create three acids, but lets stop and think. It was a team of researchers who set out to create these acids (it was intentional and not accidental). They created three, but to just make the simplest protein used to create DNA they need 75! Then there is the combination of proteins required for the first cell, you need between 3-5,000 proteins just to create one cell!

Then after all that all you have is organic matter and you have the problem of how to get life into the cell and all the while all three LAWS of Thermodynamics are working against you!! (Not to mention Biogenesis aka Louis pasteur).

The Big bang throws out Einsteins theory of relativity (it says that in the first moments after the bang the universe expanded at speeds much greater than that of light despite Einsteins theory saying nothing can exceed the speed of light!) And Thermodynamics says that the compounds that make up the amino acids left even a short time would degenerate and not 'evolve'

Evolution's answer to all this is "it must have"

Creationists have put forward theories as to how to scientifically explain their views but the first accusations they get is they aren't real scientists despite having doctorates in their fields. They are often denied funding for their research because it doesn't fit the current theory.


lawrence01 profile image

lawrence01 18 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

I forgot to mention that once the proteins are assembled in the right sequence then DNA can be constructed. You need anywhere between 25,000 to 40,000 strands if DNA per cell (each with 3,000 to 5,000 proteins)


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 18 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

@Ron: " In other words, the hypothesis of a Creator is far more probable than the alternative."

Sorry Ron, but I don't believe that either. I think it's very simple to assign a "creator' to the entire thing, in which case a Purple Unicorn would be just as valid. If I applied Occams Razor I might say that the simplest answer is probably the most likely to be true. Never add unnecessary contingencies if you can avoid it. But in this case there is too much scientific data to ignore, and to simply say an invisible man in the sky did it, stretches credulity to the breaking point. There are many theories out there, including the God theory, but at least the others can be falsified. The God theory cannot, because it's a metaphysical concept. It can't be subjected to any testing. So for any scientist to claim that the hypothesis that a creator is most likely is something I find ludicrous, especially coming from a scientist who is not likely to abandon the scientific method for a belief system.

As for the time of the BB, the time would be Zero. There is no time before time. It's like a stopwatch. The watch begins with the Bang.

"Interestingly, your belief that the premise that God created the universe can’t be tested because it is a metaphysical concept rather than a physical one is directly contradicted by arch-atheist Richard Dawkins."

Dawkins is an Atheist. That doesn't make him a philosopher of note. I simply disagree. I think he's completely wrong. In fact, I think he's as wrong as wrong can be.

"“the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other … God's existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice.” For once I agree with Dawkins."

Hogwash. Not surprising that you would agree with him, and I would disagree. The idea of God predates science. Science played no role in the beliefs of ancients. And if Dawkins thinks there is some scientific bases for metaphysics then he's a terrible philosopher and even worse scientist. There is no physical quality to God. God if anything , is a spiritual being, incapable of being measured or tested in any scientific way. Certainly you would know that. If God were a physical being he would have to live someplace within the physical universe, since there is no place outside of space. Space outside of space is just more space, and that would mean that God is contained within that space, and what can contain God? If he is a God than nothing can contain him. On the contrary he would contain space. ( ahhh....God as Nature. Maybe Pantheism is on to something?)

"By asking “from where did God spring?” you get your question begging backward.

I don't think so, but if you're really going to go there, be my guest.

" If God exists at all, He exists as a being outside of time, which is something He created when He caused the BB."

That doesn't explain where God came from. Furthermore, what evidence do you have that God caused the BB? The universe could have done exactly the same thing without the involvement of God.

"To ask where He came from implicitly assumes that over some period of time, “prior” to the BB, God changed from one state to another (from non-existence to existence). But since the concept of time “prior” to t[0] is meaningless, the question itself is meaningless."

So God has no beginning? How convenient. The universe requires a beginning; a cause. But God doesn't. The concept of time cannot be meaningless for God because in order for God to have created anything he would FIRST have to become self-aware. And Self-awareness imposes time. He must be conscious of himself and that implies the passage of time from moment to moment. Time would be an a priori condition for the creation to take place. The word First implies time.

The argument becomes:

P1. All existence requires a cause

P2. God has no cause

____________________________

C: Therefore God does not exist.

In a conditional form of Modus Tollens IF/Then

If p then q

Not q

therefore not p

If all of existence requires a cause , then God has a cause'

God has no cause.

Therefore all of existence does not require a cause.

"The real question being begged by those who assert that the universe created itself is: from where did the universe spring? What reason is there to believe that some unknowable something existed for all of eternity, and that for some unknowable reason it decided at t[0] to explode into the matter/energy entity that is our cosmos?"

As you can see from the syllogisms there is no need to "beg the question". The unknowable something is knowable. It's the universe. We learn more about it and how it works all the time. The unknowable something is God who at some point in his self-awareness, he takes it upon himself to indulge in a self-conscious task of creating a universe. If he is not self-aware, then he has no point of reference and the universe springs to life at the very moment of his awareness. In other words, God was dormant until the moment of self -awareness. In that moment all things begin, including the Bang. And time. So there couldn't be a plan. A plan requires planning and planning takes time. No concept of right or wrong. No morality to judge good from evil because there was nothing to inform him of morality. He would have been “winging” it.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 18 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

@Ron:""Yet, by definition atheists claim that the probability of special creation is effectively zero."

Yeah, I don't believe that at all for the reasons stated above. I don't believe the argument that nothing that exists can escape a cause, but God can. Logically if nothing can then God does not exist. Special pleading comes into play. Special pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency — in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules.

This seems to be the MO of the creationism apologist. In the Thomistic cosmological argument for the existence of God, everything requires a cause. However, proponents of the argument then create a special case where God doesn't need a cause, but they can't say why in any particularly rigorous fashion. However, nature itself could have existed eternally in some form just as they say God had existed eternally before creating nature.

Biblical morality takes massive amounts of special pleading from Biblical literalists who insist that morality can only come from the Bible. They are very happy to follow some rules (shunning gay men) but not others (selling their daughters into slavery, stoning disobedient children, eschewing shellfish) — even though the Bible, which they claim can be the only source of their moral decision making, is quite silent on what parts of it you can happily ignore.

“The challenge for atheists is to demonstrate that their alternative should be considered a better fit to the physical evidence than the Creator alternative. My contention is that they have consistently shown themselves unwilling to take on that challenge because they know (or at least sense) that the evidentiary deck is stacked against them.”

You’re totally wrong about that Ron. There is no challenge for atheists. The reason that they don’t engage that kind of nonsense is simply because the challenge is not theirs. It’s yours. You and those of your persuasion are making the assertion that a creator did all of this. The burden of proof is not on the atheist to demonstrate that some alternative is a better fit. The atheist isn’t always a bunch of philosophers sitting around doing what you and I are doing. They simply don’t believe that a case has been made to warrant belief in God. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making a claim. That’s a facit of critical thinking that nobody is going to give up on. It’s what delivered us out of the dark ages where anyone could accuse somebody of being a witch, and then having to prove you aren’t. Prove a negative. Prove that you aren’t something. If somebody accused you of cheating on your wife, how would you go about proving that you didn’t? Whether it’s in a court room where a person is charged with a crime, or something else; the burden of proof is always with the accuser or the person making the assertion. And that my friend is your burden. Not the atheists.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 18 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

adagio4639, you say you don't believe that there can be an "Uncaused Cause," as Aquinas puts it. But of course you do. As I mentioned before, at the time the universe as we know it came into being, there had to be something already in existence. Whether you call that something "God" or the "pre-universe" or whatever name you give it, it had to be there to either cause the Big Bang or be the raw material for it. In either case, you face exactly the same problem of where that something came from. The only difference is whether that pre-existing something was intelligent and purposeful (in which case, that's God) or impersonal and purposeless. But, again, the problem of what caused it is the same in either case. So if you believe the universe exists, you can't help but believe in some kind of uncaused cause. Unless, of course, you assert that the universe magically created itself from nothing.

I agree with you about one thing: atheists do prefer to call what creationists believe "nonsense" and refuse to deal with it. Exactly.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 18 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

@Ron: "you say you don't believe that there can be an "Uncaused Cause," as Aquinas puts it. But of course you do."

No Ron. I didn't say that. Theists are saying that. And then they use Special Pleading to make the case that God is an uncaused cause. You've got it mixed up.

" As I mentioned before, at the time the universe as we know it came into being, there had to be something already in existence."

The argument is what caused the Big Bang. The theist says God. So what caused God? The theist offers Special Pleading which is a logical fallacy, but that never stopped them from ignoring logic before, so why now?

"Whether you call that something "God" or the "pre-universe" or whatever name you give it, it had to be there to either cause the Big Bang or be the raw material for it. In either case, you face exactly the same problem of where that something came from"

I don't have that problem. I think it's always been here. The visible universe that we see is a result of the Bang. The universe could have been in a static state prior to the bang.

"The only difference is whether that pre-existing something was intelligent and purposeful (in which case, that's God) or impersonal and purposeless. But, again, the problem of what caused it is the same in either case. So if you believe the universe exists, you can't help but believe in some kind of uncaused cause. Unless, of course, you assert that the universe magically created itself from nothing."

No, not magic at all Ron. I think its always been here, possibly in a dormant state. Our own minds can't conceive of something without a cause. But we don't know everything about the universe. We're just scratching the surface. But, I'm not one that's inclined to reach for a supernatural answer to a more complex problem. The secrets of the cosmos are revealed more and more as we grow. Maybe we're the universe becoming aware of itself. The more we learn about it the more we learn about ourselves. But to simply assign the entire process to a magical being with supernatural powers sounds like the same desire that we have for Superman and all the other Super Hero's. And the question remains, if all existence requires a cause, where did God come from? Invoking a logical fallacy won't win the day on that question. I for one cannot, and will not abandon logic and reason and commit to irrationality as a way of life. If you know that you're accepting a logical fallacy in order to maintain a belief, then your belief is more important to you than the truth. It's a sign of irrationality to know that something is false and continue to accept it. If I have to live with a lie in order to maintain a belief, then I know that belief is false.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 18 months ago from Tasmania

Gentlemen, please excuse me here to inject a small amount of reality. I cannot get into the sort of logical leanings with which you both seem to be familiar with. I find it sort of mind-boggling.

However, for me there is a better, more logical line of understanding.

We have been told the relationship between Mass and Energy.

Energy is created by difference. In other words, something might be bigger/smaller; higher/lower; louder/softer; darker/lighter; positive/negative; etc., etc.

With that difference you enable the flow of something in order to achieve a balanced condition, where no difference is apparent.

With the infinite condition, there is NO difference, therefore NO flow.

With Change you immediately have a Difference. Something IS possible from Nothing.

Therefore, as I see it, this explains how "Something" can arise out of "Nothing." A Difference somehow arose. It might have been gradual or sudden, but arise it did.

When a Change occurs, immediately you have "existence."

Now, Ron, if you imagine that your God is all powerful, that would be as a result of "Him" being in total control of Change.

"He" could then enact all those miraculous happenings, just like Harry Potter can do with his Wand. (Or more like Dumbledore, who was painted as god-like by J.K.Rowling.)

I propose that these simple suggestions of mine are no more, no less plausible than what you have in your mind.... but it's an understanding which I can hold and live with and discard the uncertainties of religious ambiguity.

The one, true, fundamental factor of all existence, the factor which does not change and cannot be absent if you are to have existence, is CHANGE itself.

Now, if this puts me on a level with Mr. Einstein, so be it. Make me famous, (wink-wink) but don't bow down and worship me, 'cos I ain't God!


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 18 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

adagio4639 and jonnycomelately: there's a lot of personal opinion and speculation in your comments. I appreciate the input, but this article is about which hypothesis concerning how the universe came into being best fits the observational data. It is not intended as a discussion of religion or of personal beliefs. The question might be framed this way: from the perspective of the physics and the statistical probabilities involved, does the available data fit more closely with a model based on the universe having been designed or appearing by chance? My conclusion is that the physics and the math clearly favor design over chance. If someone disagrees, it behooves them to lay out a chain of reasoning (not simply opinions) that explains how the physics and math indicate a different conclusion. I'm happy to have a discussion based on the science, but not one about religion or "what I believe."


Randy Godwin profile image

Randy Godwin 18 months ago from Southern Georgia

The way I understand the science of something occurring from seemingly nothing, is like a line drawn with everything above it being matter and below it anti-matter which cancelled each other out. As long as the two remained the same no matter existed. It was only when enough anti-matter erupted above the line--sort of like digging a hole and piling up the dirt--that matter became a material thing.

Kinda simplified to make it more easy to understand but apparently some people need such an explanation to get the gist of the thing.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 18 months ago from Tasmania

"It is not intended as a discussion of religion or of personal beliefs."

" My conclusion is that the physics and the math clearly favor design over chance."

You seem to be full of delusion, Ron! You approach all of this discussion from the position of your beliefs. Yet you try to invoke Science, a method whereby people try to understand the structures and workings of this physical planet.

My suggestions are just as valid as any of your beliefs. This difference is that I have an enquiring, flexible frame mind, not a fixed one dependent on un-testable philosophy.

How can you apply physics and math to a belief system? Answer: they can only come as purely abstract ideas, nothing more.

IMHO


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 18 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

jonnycomelately, thanks for your input.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 18 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

@Ron: "My conclusion is that the physics and the math clearly favor design over chance. If someone disagrees, it behooves them to lay out a chain of reasoning (not simply opinions) that explains how the physics and math indicate a different conclusion. I'm happy to have a discussion based on the science, but not one about religion or "what I believe."

Ron, aren't you doing exactly that? Laying out a discussion about religion and what you believe? You believe that science leads you to the conclusion that a Supernatural intelligence must be the cause which itself has no cause. How is that not a discussion of what you believe and lead us to a discussion of religion? I don't see where any science or physics supports a supernatural cause. That's an enormous leap of faith. Not a matter of physics or science. The very notion that you can use science to establish a non-scientific theory is contradictory. Science doesn't deal with metaphysical theories. God is not a material being. God is not a question of science. It's a question of philosophy. Validity is a choice, not a proof.


Randy Godwin profile image

Randy Godwin 18 months ago from Southern Georgia

The title itself indicates a lack of knowledge by the writer as far as what atheists are concerned with. :(


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 18 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

I know. I wish people would stop telling atheists what it is that they believe. It's not as if they have some book that they subscribe to.


SuperBrains profile image

SuperBrains 17 months ago from Florida

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

Douglas Adams


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 17 months ago from Tasmania

Beautiful analogy, SuperBrains So a big thank you to Douglas Adams.

Was it he that spoke of "Raining cats and dogs, and leaving little poodles?"


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 17 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Randy Godwin and adagio4639, the only thing I say about what atheists believe is what can be directly inferred from the title they apply to themselves: atheist = no God. If you think I have imputed some set of beliefs to atheists that don't track with either that definition or with what atheists commonly claim in defending their position, please point out those statements. I'll be happy to either correct or defend them.


lawrence01 profile image

lawrence01 17 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

Ron

Godel's ontological argument says "that by which there is no greater being is by definition God"

If we can concieve a being greater than ourselves then we are not God, but if tgat being is the greatest we can concieve then that being is God and by definition has to exist because we can concieve that he does!

Godel was a Mathematician and friend/protege of Einstein!

No one has yet refuted this argument though many have tried!

Lawrence


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 17 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Lawrence, to be honest, Godel's proof is beyond me. I haven't read that much about it yet. But thanks for bringing it up. I'll have to dig in and see if I can understand it.


lawrence01 profile image

lawrence01 17 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

Ron

It came up in another hub/discussion a few days ago. I'm not sure I really understand it but the argument is basically one from logic not philosphy and thats why the atheist doesn't like it as it brings logic and mathematics into play.

I'll definately be looking into it much more.

Have a great weekend

Lawrence


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 17 months ago from Tasmania

@lawrence01 "....and thats why the atheist doesn't like it as it brings logic and mathematics into play."

That must be the most contradictory statement made here in this forum! People who are a-atheist are able to think for themselves, instead of deferring to an obscure, questionable, interpreted-ad-infinitum book of ancient literature; are able to question, step out of the conventional and accepted mode of dogmatic thinking.... and you say we are afraid of addressing logic and mathematics?

Would you care to bring logic into play here? That might get us somewhere useful.


Christopher Jay T profile image

Christopher Jay T 17 months ago from Fort Worth, TX

You never even proved your Headline. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence. The fact that you say there is scientific evidence of god proves that you have no concept of what scientific evidence is. Some ancient people writing about god in a collection of religious writings is no more proof of gods existence than the comic book the Amazing Spider man is proof of the existence of spider man. You speak of scientific evidence and then badmouth scientific theory. If there was so much "scientific " evidence of god, there would be a scientific consensus. This does not mean god does not exist, but no one can prove nor disprove the existence of god. Religion has no place in science, and science has no place in religion.


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 17 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Christopher Jay T, thanks for your comment. It is in line with what other atheists have said in reaction to this post. Yet none of those comments, including yours, has even attempted to deal with the actual scientific data I cite and the inferences I draw from it. Instead they, like you, have attempted to turn the discussion to one about religion. I challenge you, as I have them, to demonstrate from the data why the scientific evidence we now have fits more closely with the universe having come into being by some unknown mechanism in exactly the way required to support life, or with the universe in the form we find it being the result of purposeful creation. Every time an atheist avoids that issue in favor of railing against religion, they simply reinforce the premise with which I started: "Atheists Disregard Scientific Evidence of God." I haven't had to prove my headline; you guys are doing it for me.


Randy Godwin profile image

Randy Godwin 17 months ago from Southern Georgia

As far as I know I haven't told you what my beliefs are, Ron. And I haven't seen any scientific proof of any gods so far. If there were one, then there would be many.


DzyMsLizzy profile image

DzyMsLizzy 17 months ago from Oakley, CA

Perhaps the discussion devolves into religion because it is the exclusive purview of religions to promote the idea of a god. (No, I do not capitalize it, because I view it as a job description, not a name.)

I voted for your third choice; we have yet to discover the cause. I don't find any 'evidence' of a supreme being in those arguments, any more than I would believe the 747 analogy you used. For all I know, we are an experiment put here by aliens. Yes, I know--you will argue about who or what created said aliens. I don't have an answer, but neither do I believe falling back on some ancient book holds the answer, either.

I remain unconvinced, and from what I see of what goes on in the world, any so-called "merciful and loving" supreme being that would either cause or allow the horrors we see, I want no part of. Free will? Where is the free will of a child killed by some horrific disease? Did they choose that? Was an innocent child so evil? I think not. Pre-destination? Mutually exclusive to the concept of free will. You cannot have it both ways.

So, no, I see no credible scientific evidence strong enough to convince me otherwise. By the way--I have come 180 degrees from what I thought and believed in my youth. Life has shown me the folly of my former beliefs. And--don't even talk to me about "tests of faith." If this 'god' is supposed to be 'father' to us all...and supposedly loves us, then why the torture chamber? If we were to treat any of our children on Earth as we are treated by this so-called "loving" father, in an attempt to 'make the child prove their love for us,' we'd be in jail in a heartbeat for felony child abuse. I'm sorry; it's just a concept I cannot buy into.


lawrence01 profile image

lawrence01 17 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

I would suggest that you all read "Godel's proof" for yourselves.

His argument isn't based on any religious notion but on principles and truth that would be true no matter what the situation.

Ron, I agree with you, they are doing a good job!

Lawrence


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 17 months ago from Tasmania

For me, those are philosophical tongue twisters, totally unnecessary in my life.

"God," with or without the initial capital letter, is a figment of the human imagination. As far as we can tell, no other animal species either needs such a concept nor wants it nor is able to formulate it.

Why would you need to look to a person such as Godel for a "proof?"

I anyone wants to believe such an entity exists, and that belief helps him or her to live a better life, then so be it. Who are we to deny that freedom?

This does not thereby encloak the concept with skin and flesh. It's still not real, only imagined.

Any religious argument will always come back to the basic presumption of a supernatural being lording it over us.


kalinin1158 profile image

kalinin1158 15 months ago from California

I love this hub! So intelligently written on such a complex subject. I never bought the whole Darwinian evolution theory, but I didn't realize there's actually science behind the idea of God. Great job!


RonElFran profile image

RonElFran 15 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA Author

Thanks much, kalinin1158. And be assured that there are some compelling scientific objections to Darwinism that I plan to deal with in another hub.


lawrence01 profile image

lawrence01 15 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

Ron

I've been reading Lee Strobel's book 'case for a creator'. Really compelling interviews with top scientists in their field who all show that the only way for the science to work is if there is a creator behind it all.

Looking forward to your hub

Lawrence


ClaireKelley profile image

ClaireKelley 13 months ago

RonElFran,

Thank you for such a great article! It is compelling, thought-provoking, and truthful. You have disclosed significant information using reputable references. Good for you that you're standing steadfast in your beliefs, regardless of the attacks from those who disagree and misunderstand. God is our amazing Creator & Designer. Every design necessitates a designer. He is my Savior, and will save anyone who wants to be saved. God’s not dead!


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 13 months ago from Tasmania

Claire, with great respect to you for your faith and your beliefs, as they obviously work for you in your life. I have no quarrel with that.

However, the term "scientific" has a meaning.

"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

The atheist view does not state, as Ron has done, that "it all happened by pure, blind chance."

Everything has a reason for being. The objective of scientific enquiry is to find out how, when, why everything is as it is. Any hypothesis, any idea, any experiment, any result must in the terms of scientific authenticity, be repeatable and observable by anyone else under the same conditions.

Your "God" is not measurable or perceived by anyone else. "He" is in your mind. You can use any art form you like to describe your perception of "God." Your rendering will never be exactly the same as that from anyone else. Your view is a metaphor, that is all.

So, your "God" cannot be proven "scientifically."

Period.


lawrence01 profile image

lawrence01 13 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

Johnny

You're right that 'my god' can't be proven BUT the concept of God as a being can and is by the latest scientific data shown to be a plausable and consistent explanation for the universe as we know it!

What Ron actually shows here is that the Atheist in order to maintain their position has to disregard that data otherwise they would be forced by the data to modify their position to that of a deist just like the Celebrated Atheist Anthony Frew did just before his death in 2010 (he became a deist and when asked said it was because of the data he found reading up on intelligent design)

Lawrence


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 13 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

Lawrence, your concept of God cannot be demonstrated as true. It's a metaphysical concept. Not physical. Science deals with the physical universe. Not beliefs. God cannot be measured, or tested, simply because God has no physical properties that can be measured or tested.Think about it; If he could, what kind of God would that be? A God that can be reduced to physical terms? Gee, I would think that any God worthy of being called God would be way beyond human ability to measure. You can't prove or disprove a belief. That's why it's metaphysical. And your characterization of why an atheist feels any need to protect a position reveals a lot more about how little you understand about atheism. Since you've never been one, how can you know anything about it? Most atheists were theists at one point in their life. So they can speak from both viewpoints. If you had data that could prove the existence of God, most every agnostic/atheist would jump on that train with no problems. But the truth is that you don't have that, and never will because there is no scientific way of measuring something that isn't scientific. As for Anthony Frew, I never heard of him, so I don't know how "celebrated" he is. I do know that Christopher Hitchens is far more "celebrated" as an atheist and he never came to that conclusion before his death and wrote that anybody that would suggest that he did, is lying. The point here is that anecdotal evidence doesn't do anything to prove your case.

Finally, I would add this; why is it that so many theists feel a need to prove the existence of God. Isn't God a matter of Faith? Clearly those that feel a need to prove God's existence have no faith. If they did, they wouldn't feel the need to seek some kind of proof. If you could prove that God exists, you wouldn't need faith. God's existence would be a matter of fact that could be scientifically demonstrated. Faith would no longer be necessary. Only those whose faith is weak, feel a need to prove something that can't be proven.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 13 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

Lawrence: you said this: "Every design necessitates a designer. He is my Savior, and will save anyone who wants to be saved. God’s not dead!"

This begs the question, Where did God come from? Who was his designer? The argument is always the same. Something cannot come from nothing. So where did God come from? The answer to that always falls on "special pleading". Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. In short, God didn't need a designer because he's God. So the very rules of existence that you call on to prove that there must be a "designer"called God, don't apply to God because he's a special case. He's God. It's a logical fallacy, and you might embrace that fallacy, but I think that those that know something is a fallacy and still hold on to it, demonstrate their own irrationality. Personally, I don't think embracing irrationality is a way of life that fits me, but to each his own.


lawrence01 profile image

lawrence01 13 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

Adiago4639

To quote a video I watched earlier where Stephen Mayer said "Before the big bang there was nothing! That doesn't mean there was a time with nothing, it literally means there was NOTHING!!! If nothing exists then how do you get something out of nothing without an external influence?"

Most Atheists actually have to reject the big bang theory because you can't make it work without a designer (Stephen Hawking is trying to but so far has not succeeded!)

This is only 'special pleading' in the sense that all the known theories we have can't actually work without it! The Atheist knows this and tries to hide behind the 'special pleading' plea because they know that we know from science that the universe had a beginning yet they can't explain it, we know that life arose on a small planet rotating an insignificant star in a small galaxy but they can't explain how, and they certainly can't explain how the specific coding for life came into being and how detailed it is in both our DNA and RNA not to mention the molecular machines that are required to run the basic functions of every living cell on that insignificant planet yet when an alternative explanation is put forward (and actually isn't being put forward from a Christian standpoint but from a science standpoint) they cry "FOUL, that's religion talking"

My answer is you can't have natural processes doing it because the basic materials and laws weren't there at the start! Not even Quantum theory can explain it as all that does is move the point back further, you still have how the material got out of the quantum field and what forced it out!

Once you've chased down all the blind alleys and come back to the same thing over and over you come to what I think of as the "Sherlock principle" That is simply "Once you've eliminated all the other possibilities, then the only one that's left. no matter how improbable is the right one!"

Think about it.

Lawrence


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 13 months ago from Tasmania

Lawrence, I feel you have answered your own conundrum.

""Once you've eliminated all the other possibilities, then the only one that's left. no matter how improbable is the right one!"

You cannot eliminate all the other possibilities. Scientific inquiry never says there is 100% no other explanation or possibility. There is always room for other information to arrive which can change one's mind.

I am a-theist, but my mind is not closed. It is open to the infinite possibilities of this world, but doubting the fallacious improbabilities put forward by some theist minds.

If the "God" you talk about is involved with the infinite possibilities, how about allowing me and my life to be one of those possibilities, whether you disagree with the manifestation of me or not. I get on in life quite well without that god of yours to hinder me.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 13 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

Lawrence: " If nothing exists then how do you get something out of nothing without an external influence?"

Lawrence, the problem you're having here is that you are treating "nothing" as if it were "something". You're very first words, state "If nothing exists..." There is no time before time.

This statement "Most Atheists actually have to reject the big bang theory because you can't make it work without a designer (Stephen Hawking is trying to but so far has not succeeded!)" is simply false. I don't know of any atheist that rejects the "big bang". Your reference to Hawking points to Entropy. Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences that seems to imply a particular direction of progress, sometimes called an arrow of time. As time progresses, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases. Hence, from this perspective, entropy measurement is thought of as a kind of clock. The entropy of a black hole is proportional to the surface area of the black hole's event horizon.

Jacob Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking have shown that black holes have the maximum possible entropy of any object of equal size. This makes them likely end points of all entropy-increasing processes, if they are totally effective matter and energy traps. However, the escape of energy from black holes might be possible due to quantum activity, (see Hawking radiation). Hawking has recently changed his stance on some details, in a paper which largely redefined the event horizons of black holes.

The main point here is that when you say that Hawking is trying but has thus far not succeeded, does not mean that he won't, and if not Hawking, then somebody else. What you offer is a closed system. In short, there is no reason for Hawking to pursue this because the answer to the question comes in the form of an intelligent designer. Just because an answer hasn't been arrived at today doesn't mean that it won't tomorrow. That's why science is always open ended and religion is a closed system of thought. It's like saying, "well, because we don't know something, it must be God which we can't possibly demonstrate but must instead just accept on faith. Science doesn't work that way. Religion does.

"This is only 'special pleading' in the sense that all the known theories we have can't actually work without it!"

Hehe, well when you say "only", that's all that we need to recognize a case of special pleading which is a logical fallacy. You offer special pleading to make a case for special pleading. That in itself is a case of special pleading. You're suggesting that we accept special pleading as only taking place in this debate, and somehow that's supposed to be acceptable?? I'm sorry, but that doesn't logically follow.

"The Atheist knows this and tries to hide behind the 'special pleading' plea because they know that we know from science that the universe had a beginning yet they can't explain it,"

Hmmm...hiding behind logic? I'm sorry, but logic doesn't play favorites. It's not a matter of hiding. It's a matter of recognizing something doesn't add up. The universe can be traced backward to the Big Bang. We already know that. No atheist that I know of disputes that. A lot of theists reject the Big Bang because it threatens the Biblical account of the "beginning", but I'm not aware of atheists that reject this. The question is what caused it. There is no question that it took place.

"when an alternative explanation is put forward (and actually isn't being put forward from a Christian standpoint but from a science standpoint) they cry "FOUL, that's religion talking"

The Christian explanation was established in the Bible a few thousand years ago. The alternative explanation does comes from science which rejects "superstition" as a legitimate answer to the mysteries of the cosmos. Science doesn't cry FOUL when Christianists offer their design theories. They simply reject them as lacking any scientific foundations. No matter how you slice this or try to explain this it always ends at the doorstep of God and that leaves a gaping hole with only special pleading as an answer, which is no answers. If God created the universe, where did God come from. You're argument is that something cannot come from nothing. If that's so, then where did God come from? You still have not dealt with that, without offering special pleading as the answer.

"My answer is you can't have natural processes doing it because the basic materials and laws weren't there at the start!"

Of course they were. The potential for all of the natural processes doing this were always there. We're living evidence of that.

"That is simply "Once you've eliminated all the other possibilities, then the only one that's left. no matter how improbable is the right one!"

Think about it."

I have. And the most basic and fundamental response to your statement is that ALL other possibilities have NOT been eliminated. The problem with your comment is that it assumes a finite number of possibilities within an infinite universe of possibilities. All we know is what is available to us within the visible universe. This fails to recognize what we now understand as dark matter. For you to write off scientific discovery by saying that All possibilities have been eliminated is the product of a extremely narrow mind. Again, I have to say that your "Faith" is weak. When you have "faith" you don't need proof. Why are you trying to prove your faith?? Isn't your faith enough for you?


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 13 months ago from Tasmania

On the topic of "Nothing" - I see everything that we regard as Material having arizen from Energy. Energy arises from a condition of Difference. Contrast. Not This but That. Big/small. High/low. Up/down. Light/dark. Etc.

As soon as a Difference is created, Energy now has the potential to flow. When it does flow, work is done. For example it might cause the change in position of one Thing to another. It might cause change of size, colour, loudness, softness. All these manifestations are a result of Energy flow which itself is a product of Difference.

With the advent of Difference it becomes possible to Define. The Finite arises. It has arisen out of Infinite - Nothingness.

"Nothingness" is a condition, a state, that is all, with no difference.

"Something" is an existence, created by Difference.

Hence, I contend it IS possible for Something to come from Nothing.


lawrence01 profile image

lawrence01 13 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

Johnny

You're right, we can't eliminate all the possibilities (I apoligise for that remark) but we can work out the probability of something and then compare it to the probability of another explanation. Once we do this then logic would allow us to take the 'most likely' explanation!

I think what you're talking about (with the 'something from nothing' argument) is quantum theory which you still need the 'energy' and the agent of change for the event to occur, we do talk about fluctuations in the quantum energy field causing the big bang but we've no real idea or proof yet (merely hypotheses)

Adiago

As for atheists who don't accept the big bang, how about Sir Fred Hume? How about proponents of the oscillating universe?

As for faith, it should always be based on empirical evidence! If it doesn't stand up to the evidence then it shouldn't be accepted!

Lawrence


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 13 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

Lawrence: You say this: "but we can work out the probability of something and then compare it to the probability of another explanation. Once we do this then logic would allow us to take the 'most likely' explanation!"

That's not how science works. You're applying inductive reasoning when you look for "the most likely explanation" meaning a generality. You're satisfied with making a general statement and calling that truth. It isn't. Inductive reasoning NEVER proves a theory. That's why science no longer uses that and hasn't for a very long time. David Hume introduced the Problem of Induction in the 1700's. The problem is that we cannot justify our science rationally using induction. That problem existed with philosophers for several hundred years until the 20th Century Scientific philosopher, Karl Popper showed us how we were taking the wrong approach to our science. Nothing is ever proven in science. Rather than trying to prove a theory, we took the opposite approach. Disprove a theory through falsification. If we can subject a theory to intense criticism and find an error then we know that the theory has been falsified and we discard it. So we may not prove something is true, but we can demonstrate why something is false. And that gives us a clearer view of reality. In short you can always find something that verifies your theory, and another and another, but it only takes one thing to demonstrate why the theory is false. No matter how many things you may find that support your theory, none of them ever prove it as true. It's the All Swans are White problem. All the swans you've ever seen are white, so you make a general statement that the next swan you see will be white. But that doesn't prove that all Swans are white. They found black swans in Australia. So we offer conjectures and refutations. Those that last, only last in a provisional sense, until at some point in time we may find something to disprove the theory. Science looks to disprove theories. Not to prove them.

"As for atheists who don't accept the big bang, how about Sir Fred Hume? How about proponents of the oscillating universe?"

Who is Sir Fred Hume? The oscillating universe still operates on the concept of the big bang, which is followed by a Big Crunch which is then followed by another Bang. It's a pulsating or undulating universe. The crunch is the universe falling back into itself due to gravity and reaching a point of density that explodes out the other side in a bang that begins the process over again. The Bang is the Singularity. That's a theory I've always liked, but it seems that physicists don't like it as much as I do. But it doesn't dismiss the Big Bang.

"As for faith, it should always be based on empirical evidence! If it doesn't stand up to the evidence then it shouldn't be accepted!"

Oh really? Since when? There was no empirical evidence available during the Biblical times since there was no science. That never stopped people of Faith in believing. That didn't stop Daniel from having faith that the Lions wouldn't eat him in the lions den. What empirical evidence supported that faith? It didn't stop Job from having faith that God would raise him from his afflictions that were brought upon him by the very God he had faith in. What empirical evidence supported that faith? At this point you're ignoring that faith is what held religion together for thousands of years prior to anything that would be called "empirical evidence". What your telling me is that you need empirical evidence to support your faith. That's not Faith Lawrence. If you really had faith, you wouldn't need empirical evidence. You would take everything on faith regardless of evidence to the contrary. Clearly that isn't happening with you.


lawrence01 profile image

lawrence01 13 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

Adiago

Thank you the the information you put here, I'll be checking some of it out.

Now to answer some of the things that you raise

Sir Fred Hume. Was a reknown British Astronomer and "Big Bang naysayer' Actually he was the one who coined the phrase 'Big Bang' as he thought that the 'inflation theory' as it was then called was too much like Biblical creationism! He was an ardent atheist and peoposed the Steady state theory that uses a lot of the same empirical data that the Big bang uses but argues that the universe is eternal! he claimed that the galaxies are receding from each other like Hubble demonstrated but new galaxies come into existence and 'fill the void' thus the universe is eternal but constantly renewing itself.

With regard to other scientists that reject the big bang and evolution I've got a hub called 'Creation Myths part 1" that has links in it to open letters by thirty three of the world's top scientists (not one creationist of intelligent designer among them as far as I am aware) who explain the problems with the Big Bang theory why they reject it!

I did also find a list of over five hundred scientists who reject evolution, not all of them are creationists intelligent design proponents, in fact the main reason they give for rejecting it is that the time frame given in the theory of evolution (four and a half billion years) is actually too short for natural selection to have taken place!!!

This is not to mention the theories of stellar formation that tell us that there's no way our sun could have developed the heavy metals that we find on the earth!

By the way I kind of like your argument about faith except you forget 1st Corinthians 15 where Paul tells us that we know for a fact about the resurrection and that our faith is rooted in fact (don't worry I know you don't accept the resurrection, I'm just using it to demonstrate a point!)

I know most Christians are afraid to even start looking into these things as they don't know where to look, but I've had many years of people trying to convince me of evolution and the like! I've come to the conclusion that I should never be afraid of where the science will take me as Jesus said "You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free!"

By the way I"m not ignoring anything, even in ancient times there were scholars seeking to work out how things held together and how our universe works! Ancient Egyptians worked out that the earth was round! Medieval Jewish scholars worked out that we exist in multiple dimensions. Socrates worked out that there was only one God who could be percieved by looking at the order in the universe (and the fact that it had a beginning).

Never be afraid of where the science will take you!

By the way, I've got a few hubs on these things you might want to look at.

Lawrence


ClaireKelley profile image

ClaireKelley 12 months ago

jonnycomelately,

In order for faith and beliefs to “work” in one’s life, a person has to make a determined effort, a choice to maintain them regardless of the circumstances. I know people who have gone through severely horrific tragedies in life, yet they are some of the most amazingly faithful people I have ever encountered. I have not given any personal accounts pertaining to the way faith works in my life, so you don’t know about that. However, my concern is not merely if something can be proven scientifically, for to pursue life with only that perspective seems empty. It is the relentless search for answers, and some questions will never be answered through science. It is hard for non-believers to actually accept miracles and acts of God, but they do exist. I don’t need you to inform me about my God, for it seems you do not know Him, but He wants to know you and everyone.

Why not believe in God Who is so amazing? You have everything to gain when accepting God. God loves the people He created, and He is a Faithful Friend.

I feel that not believing in God requires more faith, because it creates so many more questions and reveals missing links. Believing in God gives me hope. He reveals that we all have a purpose in this life He lovingly gives us, therefore we don’t need to wander around aimlessly. Why don’t you believe in God? If you could choose to have hope, why not have it?

I understand that science has “meaning”; its purpose is to help progress the quality of life. If people invested more time using science to facilitate essential aspects of life, such as using the resources God provided in order to discover cures for diseases, perhaps the quality of life might improve.

You claim “Everything has a reason for being”, therefore, a Designer must establish that reason for being, otherwise it seems that atheists do believe in “pure, blind chance”. If they don’t believe in a designer, then they must believe in chance. Similarly, a house requires the detailed design of an architect. You can’t just throw a bunch of 2x4s, together and expect that to result in a functional, practical house. That doesn’t make sense, does it?! God is scientifically proven through the existence of life.

Life would be so terrifying and depressing if we had to figure everything out on our own. God is here for us, consequently, we don’t have to rely solely on ourselves. He clarifies our direction, and provides guidelines to keep us on a straight path.

ClaireKelley


ClaireKelley profile image

ClaireKelley 12 months ago

adagio4639,

I am the one who stated: “Every design necessitates a designer. He is my Savior, and will save anyone who wants to be saved. God’s not dead!” I profess this because I love God and He is my Faithful Friend, therefore, I am proud to defend Him. I recommend for everyone to watch the movie “God’s Not Dead!”.

In reference to your “disproving theories”, you cannot disprove God. Why do atheists keep defending the “Big Bang” theory, which has been disproven? If you’re always trying to disprove theories, then what do you believe in?

I left a positive comment for Ron’s article because it was well written, logical, and truthful. I feel that God deserves credit, and believing in Him gives people hope. That’s a positive thing, there’s nothing empty or negative about it. Instead of trying to disprove God, people should use science in an actual constructive way to help others.

Atheism devalues the human soul and life overall, for life and souls have so many complexities and distinctive details. It would be insulting to think that humans were derived from bacteria, animals, or similar entities. These beliefs are a slap in the Face to God and His Amazing Creation. It is nice to know that God considers all of us worthy even when some people don’t.

I feel that God doesn’t expose too much of Himself because He wants people to have Faith. If He revealed all of His absolute amazingness all at once, it would probably be too awesomely overwhelming. However, that does not disprove His Existence.

You ask, “Where does God come from?” Ron has already answered that question in a previous response to you, stating: “If God exists at all, He exists as a being outside of time, which is something He created when He caused the Big Bang.” I agree with Ron that this conversation overall has turned its focus toward religion. Atheists should provide scientific evidence for the creation of the universe, or try to disprove it, instead of consistently belittling God. When you “disregard scientific evidence of God”, then you do prove Ron’s point.

ClaireKelley


ClaireKelley profile image

ClaireKelley 12 months ago

lawrence01,

You made some logical points pertaining to science and Biblical references such as 1st Corinthians 15. I, too, feel that it’s OK to research science because I believe that God cannot be disproven anyway!

ClaireKelley


lawrence01 profile image

lawrence01 12 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

Claire

Thank you.

Lawrence


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 12 months ago from Tasmania

Claire, you speak like a true evangelical Christian..... but no thanks. I've been there, done that, a long time ago, thinking I was going to heaven when I die.

The main thing that turns me off Christianity is the evangelical fervour....and regarding those who don't have "belief" as inferior and in need of that faith. It's presumptuous, Claire. I have also done that.... and look back on my actions as being quite insulting to anyone whom I was trying to get converted. Not now, though! If you wish to continue in those beliefs you are welcome to do so. Please don't waste any time or any of your prayers on my behalf.

As for what you think are logical arguments, such as you have written to myself and others on this thread, one such argument is so basically nonsense, that I must quote it here: "You can’t just throw a bunch of 2x4s, together and expect that to result in a functional, practical house."

Where on earth did you get such an argument from? Who would suggest that such a thing was possible? I would not!

I am a-theist in my understanding at this time. I do not accept the premise that a "God" exists in the ether, who "looks down" upon you, me, anyone, and is preparing any kind of judgment or punishment upon us after our physical deaths. So, on this basis, I can lead my life without worrying about a "life hereafter." And no need to be distracted by your religious arguments. You can get on with it.


ClaireKelley profile image

ClaireKelley 12 months ago

You're welcome, Lawrence.

ClaireKelley


ClaireKelley profile image

ClaireKelley 12 months ago

jonnycomelately,

I didn't mean for any of statements to be perceived as insulting. I’m sorry if anyone comprehended them in that regard. Also, I'm not trying to push my religion upon anyone. I am trying to help others learn about God, for some people who read this may not know Him, but then will maybe decide to give Him and themselves a chance. I don't feel that people have to "worry" about where they will go in the afterlife if they believe in God and try to follow Him. I feel that God helps to set boundaries so that life isn't so chaotic. My religious “debates” are not meant as a distraction, but rather a revelation for people who might be searching for God. Maybe you have known God, but not everyone has been given that opportunity. I don’t feel that people who don’t believe in God are inferior, but I am genuinely concerned for their souls. God is merciful and considers everyone worthy of redemption.

As for my example: "You can’t just throw a bunch of 2x4s, together and expect that to result in a functional, practical house.", it is not nonsense, it is MY practical example supporting the logical necessity of a designer for a design. It reflects my belief that not having a designer of this universe is incomprehensible. Without a designer, what then is our purpose here in this life? In reiteration, you claim “Everything has a reason for being”, therefore, a Designer must establish that reason for being, otherwise it seems that atheists do believe in “pure, blind chance”. If they don’t believe in a Designer, then they must believe in chance. When you “disregard scientific evidence of God”, then you do prove Ron’s point. Furthermore, I will continue praying for lost souls, and I do not need your permission to "get on with it."

ClaireKelley


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 12 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

Claire: You said this: "In reference to your “disproving theories”, you cannot disprove God."

Of course not. You can't prove God either. God is a metaphysical concept. Not physical. There is no method known to man that will prove or disprove God, or any metaphysical concept for that matter. God cannot be measured or tested by any means known to science. God is not a physical thing. You're supposed to take the concept of God on Faith. Not proof.

" Why do atheists keep defending the “Big Bang” theory, which has been disproven?

Probably because the Big Bang has NOT been disprove. Certainly not by any cosmologist living on the planet today. The universe is not only expanding but accelerating, and that is being propelled by something called "Dark Energy". We know very little about it. The universe received a big kick, that we call the Big Bang. We can measure the fact of the expanding and accelerating universe from a starting point which is the point of the Big Bang. The separation of the Galaxies is growing. That means that it is expanding. That has been demonstrated as being true through Hubbles Law: H0 = Velocity/Distance. This of course points to the deeper philosophical question: When did it begin? This is not only a question for a Rabbi or a Priest or Minister. It can be addressed quantitatively by science in a very physics based system.

The Hubble constant, H0 gives the present expansion rate. Its inverse gives the approximate age of the universe. In other words because we can measure the rate of expansion, we can re-run this "movie" backward to the point where all the matter in the universe would have been on top of each other. IN short because we can measure the rate of expansion and velocity we can also measure the rate of contraction to the point where instead of moving away, everything is on top of each other. The inverse of the Hubble Constant, gives us the approximate age of the universe, which is about 14. 5 Billion years from the Big Bang.

"If you’re always trying to disprove theories, then what do you believe in?"

I don't spend my time on beliefs. What I accept is theories that are falsified are no longer worth my time. That doesn't require belief. When something is disproven, it's a matter of Truth. That's what I'm interested in. I'm interested in Truth. Not belief systems. Belief systems cannot be falsified. So you can never know if they're true or false. To the believer they're true, but that doesn't make them true.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 12 months ago from Tasmania

Claire, it is acknowledged you are a genuine and caring person.

All the Catholic teaching that you have received throughout your life is what manifests in your life today. It is your choice whether at any time you question what you have been taught. Also what you retain and what you reject.

I do likewise. Period.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 12 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

Claire: " Instead of trying to disprove God, people should use science in an actual constructive way to help others."

I don't know who's trying to disprove God, Claire. Most atheists already know that God can't be proven or disproven. There is no scientific way of doing that. I think what you see are atheists responding to Hubs like this one saying "Atheists Disregard Scientific Evidence of God". That's not written by an atheist trying to disprove God. That's a theist trying to Prove God. And atheists are sure to chime in because it's a direct shot at atheists and of course they're going to weigh in knowing that the premise of the Hub is false.

Science is always about furthering our knowledge of the universe that we live in. Apparently that upsets theists since it challenges their preconceptions of how everything began according to the Bible. In not interested in Fables. I'm interested in the Truth and if that means that a religion is going to be upset, then that's too bad. Truth is more important than any religion.

"Atheism devalues the human soul and life overall, for life and souls have so many complexities and distinctive details."

Why? Truth is the most important value.

" It would be insulting to think that humans were derived from bacteria, animals, or similar entities."

So...you're concerned about being "insulted"? Does it hurt your feelings in some way that you need to feel some kind of status among living things? Well, you're at the top of the food chain, isn't that enough?

" These beliefs are a slap in the Face to God and His Amazing Creation."

Only to those that believe in God. But since you can't prove that God exists, that's only something of importance to you. In other words the atheist rejects your premise. Your argument begins with the notion of God, and that's something you cannot demonstrate as true. As I said before, I'm only interested in what can be demonstrated as true. I don't care one bit about anybody's religion. I care about Truth. That's all that matters. Everything that challenges our preconceptions gives us an opportunity to re-examine what we perceive as True. I find that exciting. And there are a lot of people that are willing to kill if their beliefs are challenged.

It is nice to know that God considers all of us worthy even when some people don’t."

"It is nice to know that God considers all of us worthy even when some people don’t."

If you believe that, then that should be all that matters to you. Not that others don't share that belief.

"I feel that God doesn’t expose too much of Himself because He wants people to have Faith.

Why? IF what you say is true, then WHY do theists constantly attempt to prove that God Exists as this Hub suggests? That's not Faith. Lawrence claims that faith is based on empirical evidence. I've read the Bible and I see nothing in it that talks about Faith being based on empirical evidence.

" If He revealed all of His absolute amazingness all at once, it would probably be too awesomely overwhelming. However, that does not disprove His Existence."

Nor does it prove it. What it does is offer cover. An explanation of why God does not reveal himself to us. A blanket explanation of why something that can't be proven, remains unproven. Because "we can't handle the truth". How convenient. But think of how many problems in the world could be solved if God did reveal himself. You'd finally know which religion is True and which is false. And there would be no reason for any scientific research because God is always the final answer to every question. And we could all remain, Comfortably Numb.

We have a brain, and its used to solve problems. What a waste that would be if we stopped using it.


ClaireKelley profile image

ClaireKelley 12 months ago

adagio4639

I believe that God exists spiritually, has existed physically, and is the Designer of the universe, as is validated through some of the evidence provided in Ron's article, and Lawrence's statements.

I believe that when someone knows about God, they do not claim to be an atheist anymore when they are on their deathbed. I hope that this is true for their sake.

jonnycomelately

Thank you for acknowledging me as a genuine and caring person, for this is what I strive to be. I want everyone to know that God loves them even if they don't love themselves.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 12 months ago from Tasmania

What you want...... regardless of whether anyone wants it or asks for it or needs it?


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 12 months ago from Tasmania

Claire, I can genuinely say to you, "I hear what you believe and I can live with that. There is no need for you to give up your beliefs to satisfy my unbelief."

What I would love to hear you say, "I hear what you don't believe and I can live with that. There is no need for you to believe what I do in order to satisfy my belief."

If you cannot say that to me, in what way is your absolutism better than any other absolutism?

Can you allow others to just "be?"


Kiss andTales profile image

Kiss andTales 12 months ago

jonnyc, as an example suppose no said their is terrorist in a building and someone saw them enter undetected from others yet you saw the threat to human life, should the one

Who saw this danger keep quiet , leave people alone , give no warning ! What is ahead will end up worse then any terrorist could even imagine on a global scale , the earth will be clean again just as the days of Noah. The point is people need not be in the dark when they can prepare their minds and hearts to a change that will effect every human living.


Kiss andTales profile image

Kiss andTales 12 months ago

jonnyc, as an example suppose no one said their is terrorist in a building and someone saw them enter undetected from others yet you saw the threat to human life, should the one

Who saw this danger keep quiet , leave people alone , give no warning ! What is ahead will end up worse then any terrorist could even imagine on a global scale , the earth will be clean again just as the days of Noah. The point is people need not be in the dark when they can prepare their minds and hearts to a change that will effect every human living.


ClaireKelley profile image

ClaireKelley 12 months ago

Kiss andTales,

You have provided a great example. People should try to teach others about God, then they can choose to accept Him or not. If they don’t accept Him, it’s their fault, but at least they were given the opportunity. I believe that when someone knows about God, they do not claim to be an atheist anymore when they are on their deathbed. I hope that this is true for their sake.

adagio4639,

Life is not about "religion getting upset" or not, it's about the significance of souls. You say “truth is the most important value”, so wouldn’t you think a true soul is important? My "feelings aren't hurt" by some people devaluing a human soul, for souls are important to God and that is what truly matters. I don’t believe people are derived from animals anyway, it’s not “true”, so of course I’m not insulted! That is why I wrote ” It WOULD BE insulting to think that humans were derived from bacteria, animals, or similar entities."

The Bible is not a fable. You make that claim, however you can’t prove your statement, so is it then your "belief"? You say you find it exciting to be interested in the truth?! Jesus said, “Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” (John 18:37 KJV) You say you are “interested” in truth, however you disregard the scientific evidence of God as stated in Ron’s article, whether you can prove it or not, you disregard it all together.

If people don't believe in God or Heaven, what do they perceive is their purpose? If they believe they will never be reunited with their loved ones again, what gives them hope to get through life? Believing in God gives people hope; it is a positive perspective.

jonnycomelately,

When I stated: “I want everyone to know that God loves them even if they don't love themselves.”, I mean that not selfishly, but encouragingly. Hopefully, someone who needs to hear that will read it. My comments are not limited only to specific people, but rather intended for everyone who reads them.

I live in a world full of believers of God and nonbelievers. I am expressing my beliefs, and others are expressing their beliefs. I am not preventing anyone from "being" who they are.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 12 months ago from Tasmania

"I live in a world full of believers......"

Claire, you live in a world of Make-believe. Although you believe in your own mind that you are " not preventing anyone from "being" who they are." you make the arrogant assumption that your beliefs are the right ones for everyone in this world, and that if "they" don't want what you are offering, "they" will suffer for "their" own fault, not yours.

You live in your own little world of self-deception, which has no real honest interest in the plight of others, only on your own relationship with that fictitious "god" when you at last stand before him.

All of your attitude, and that of K&T and Ron, boils down to the christian concept of original sin, punishment and retribution.

You know, because I have said so before, that I reject all of that notion, totally. It is humans, like yourselves, who stand to make judgment. You don't need a god, you rely upon your own understandings.

I reject, just like I reject the superstitious organisation called the "Catholic Church."


Kiss andTales profile image

Kiss andTales 12 months ago

thanks for your comment Claire. Jonny not all people are associated with the same religion , catholic is some peoples choice, but I believe we can learn the message Gods want us to all to know ,he provides answers and they are the basics

all humans need to know why are we here, what is our future, why are things in bad condition , even health, the earth, can we look to the furture of

real life. will we see our loved ones again ? there is good News to all these questions ,but will we be willing to be to learn what it would take to continue here on earth as a new citizen.


ClaireKelley profile image

ClaireKelley 12 months ago

Kiss andTales,

You're welcome. Thank you for your positive insight of God.

ClaireKelley


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 12 months ago from Tasmania

Just do a selfie, Claire........lol !

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working