Thursday, February 12, 2009

The basis of atheist belief - Part 5

By one atheist’s definition, the phrase “There is no evidence for God” means,

“This “fact” could not exist unless there was a Creator God.”

Each and every one of these posts is giving:

Examples of facts,

Examples that are based on scientific facts,

Facts that are attested to and verified by atheist scientists

That show that the laws of physics as we know them are not able to account for the “Facts” that we observe.

Therefore citing Creator God as the probable cause for these facts is not an argument from ignorance because Creator God is the answer that best fits the scientific evidence. The only thing keeping people from accepting the obvious answer to what we observe is an a priori rejection of the existence of Creator God.

In other words, According to known and accepted scientific laws and observations, the evidence that I am citing in this series of posts COULD NOT EXIST unless there was a Creator God.

Are there alternative speculations proposed? Of course there are! There have to be because in the atheist world-view Creator God cannot exist. This conclusion is emphatically not based on evidence or facts. Atheism is a philosophical stance.

Have you ever asked yourself why there are dozens of hypotheses and dozens of variations of those hypotheses regarding how the universe came into being? It's because NONE of them work according to the laws of physics. If any one of them was workable according to scientific laws, then that would be the end of the discussion. Like the saying, "It was in the last place that I looked," if any one of the atheist speculations on the origin of the universe was acceptable, there wouldn't be any more theories proposed. The fact is, based on known science, NONE of them are acceptable.

In the last post I gave examples of the exquisite fine tuning of our life sustaining universe. Even atheist scientists allow that because of this fine tuning, the beginning of our universe seems supernatural in nature. They won’t allow that this is the case, of course, but they will allow that "it seems that way." There is simply no other explanation that fits the evidence.

Today I want to take a look at the three alternatives before us; alternatives that explain how we came to live in this highly improbable life sustaining universe.

Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, we know that the fine tuning of the universe that I spoke about in the last post is due to only ONE of the following: (if you can think of any others you're welcome to post them)

1) Physical necessity (our universe had to be this way and no other way),

2) Chance (it’s just a really, really, really lucky accident), or

3) It’s the design of a Creator God.

Everyone, except those on the lunatic fringe agrees that the universe as we know it is not due to physical necessity. Roughly 13.5 billion years ago, literally nothing existed. No matter, no energy, no time, no space - nothing existed. In a secular or natural reality there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that ANY given universe had to come into being, let alone a universe that HAD to be so finely tuned as to be life sustaining. It’s far more likely that if a universe came into being out of nothing, it would not be the kind of universe that could allow the evolution of life, nor could it sustain life. That’s possibility number one.

Nor is this fine tuning due to chance. As I stated in the Part 4, science has shown us that the fine tuning of our universe is so exquisite that an infinitesimal change in any one of the necessary constants and quantities would mean that neither we nor any life would happen. The odds against all of them being perfectly set by chance prior to Planck time are insurmountable. Yet, science has shown that they were in place by Planck time. Every single one of them was in place and ready to produce a life sustaining universe. Because of this, atheists are forced to say that it happened by chance because the only other alternative is philosophically and metaphysically untenable to the atheist’s world-view.

Because of an a priori rejection of the concept of Creator God, Richard Dawkins and fundamentalist atheists like him are forced to say, “As improbable as it is for our universe to be exactly as we find it, it must have happened by accident because here we are.”

Because of a philosophy that actually rejects a whole category of evidence for only one reason, i.e., it contradicts their world-view, what atheists are really saying is, “Yes it’s impossible but it must have happened anyway.”

As I stated in an earlier post on this subject, If atheism is true, then the universe is the first and only time that something (in this case EVERYTHING) came into being from nothing BY nothing.

If on the other hand there is a Cause for the existence of the universe, then atheism is false because the only possible Cause for the Singularity, for the coming into being of space, time, matter and energy, again out of nothing, is Creator God.

. True claim: If observers who exist within a universe are able to analyse its constants and quantities, it is highly PROBABLE that they will observe them to be fine-tuned for their existence.

. True claim: Without a Designer, a Creator, a First Cause, it is highly and extraordinarily IMPROBABLE that a universe exists which is finely tuned for the existence of observers within it.

Some gullible people have been led to think that if the constants and quantities of our universe were different, then other life forms would have evolved. This is simply not true. Floating fanciful theories and hoping that they snag a believer here and there is not by any means good science. Yet it would seem that each one of the dozens of possibilities that have been sent out, including
- Everything that we experience is happening in imaginary space and imaginary time, and
- Life was brought to earth by space aliens
have had many, many followers of the atheist mind-set.

In reality, “Life” means the ability to take in food and use its energy, to grow and adapt and reproduce. Without the fine tuning that we observe, not even atomic matter would exist, not to mention a planet where life might exist.

There is no reason whatsoever that a universe such as ours had to exist. That it couldn’t NOT exist.

And there is most certainly no reason to expect that a universe as finely tuned as is our universe should exist by chance.

Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true:
. The fine tuning of the universe is due to design.
. We do not experience just the appearance of design.
. The design we experience is apparent and real.
. The design that we experience is from Creator God.


Mark said...

To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask. -- Geoff Mather

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts

Makarios said...

To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted . . .

Your belief that matter is eternal or that it is self-created is based on what exactly?

And as far as both of us being atheists, are you suggesting that Jesus is as mythological as Zeus or Thor?

Mark said...

God is as mythological as Zeus or Thor.

Makarios said...

Jesus said, "If you have seen Me, you have seen God the Father."

Jesus said, "I and God the Father are one and the same."