Friday, February 6, 2009

“There’s Zero Evidence for Creator God!”

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.”

Well, each and every one of these posts is giving examples, 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, 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. Have you ever asked yourself why there are dozens of hypotheses and dozens of variations of those hypotheses? 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 it. Like the saying, "It was in the last place that I looked," if any one of the atheist speculations was acceptable there wouldn't be any more theories. The fact is, based on know science,NONE of them are acceptable.

As everyone knows, atheists claim, and claim boldly, “There is absolutely no evidence for God.”

They then state that the reason for their atheism is evidence based. In reality atheism is not evidence based. One way we can know this is that atheism pre dates anything that modern day atheists describe as evidence. Atheism in all it’s forms is a philosophical stance that is supported by ideas that they’ve gleaned from their experiences. This "evidence" (which is really nothing more than an alternate explanation)supports their predetermined world-view. Evidence that doesn’t support this philosophy is ignored or mocked and belittled.

That’s not so unusual. We all do it. While atheists and Christians share the same hopes and dreams as any human, their philosophies are two belief systems that can never share the same podium.

What it all boils down to is this. We believe one of two possibilities:
1) Matter is eternal - or
Creator God is eternal
2) If Matter isn’t eternal then Matter is able to bring itself into existence - or
Creator God brings matter into existence
3) Matter, against impossible odds, accidentally or purposely produces life - or
Creator God purposely produces life from Matter
4) Matter arranges and designs itself exquisitely and intricately - or
Creator God arranges and designs Matter exquisitely and intricately
5) Matter produces a life of meaning and context and purpose - NOT! - or
Creator God produces a life of meaning and context and purpose.

Christians observe the world around them, both Universal and Cellular in nature and conclude that the evidence points to a “Creator God.”

Atheists say “No god,” then develop a hypothesis that provides for them a satisfactory and convincing argument.

Each group examines the very same evidence and comes to irreconcilably different conclusions. In the absence of further evidence, each side requires about an equal measure of faith in order to maintain their beliefs and to live out the moral and relational implications of their beliefs.

The Christian points to Jesus and says that His life on earth as well as His supernatural presence in the life of the “believer” is the final and convincing proof of God.

The atheist says final and convincing evidence that confirms “No god” will arrive, if not shortly then certainly at some point in the future.

Reaching this conclusion of “No God” ahead of confirming evidence allows atheists to emphatically and with a great display of confidence say, “There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God.”

The problem for both sides of the equation is, when there are several possible answers to questions that arise re: abiogenesis, or "Why did the universe come into being?" with some of the answers supporting your beliefs and some calling into question what you believe, how does one keep internal bias from discarding a “competing” proposition of equal validity? As I came to see, atheists like Richard Dawkins don’t even try to eliminate their bias.

It would seem, in this case, that agnostics are the ones who could call themselves the most scientifically minded. For they are the ones who only go as far as the evidence will take them. Christians and atheists, on the other hand, use inductive reasoning to take them part way, and then bring about a deductive conclusion based upon that evidence in combination with a faith that feels coherent to their pre-set world-view.

Till next Friday - God loves you - so relax and enjoy life.

16 comments:

Mark said...

What created God?

HumbleHumanity said...

Possibility 1 should answer that.

Matter created God or God wasn't created.

Possibility 2 expounds, Matter brought itself into existence, then it brought god into existence or God wasn't created.

Mark said...

I can't make any sense out of your comments. I don't know exactly what claim you're making.

Makarios said...

Hi Mark. I hope that you're having a good day. What created God at first seems like a good question. However let me explain it this way.
. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
. The universe had a beginning.
. Therefore the beginning of the universe had a cause.
. The universe contains everything that had a beginning, including itself.

That takes care of the question, “Well, if God made the universe, who made God?”

Remember, atheists have no problem with saying that something is infinite, or that it has always existed, or that it’s eternal, as long as that something isn’t Creator God.

However, if God exists, then He exists outside of and prior to the universe.
God is not material. He is Spirit. He does not need a cause. He has always been.
He is infinite.
He is eternal.

Asking, “What caused an infinite or eternal Being to begin?” or, “When did an eternal being begin to exist?” is illogical and incoherent.

Illogical statements are something that atheists usually take great pains to avoid, except when they’re confronted with the reality of Creator God. Then, it seems, all bets are off.

The fact remains, and it remains a fact that is based on what science tells us is true, that everything that begins to exist, including the universe, had its cause from something outside of itself. There are no known exceptions to this observed and consistently verified rule.

Mark, if you want to follow along in the other posts, I will explain this concept further.

The other posts show why it is that we must choose between matter as infinite and Creator God who is Spirit, as infinite. Reason states that it must be One and not the other for matter cannot pre-exist itself either physically or chronologically, nor can matter bring itself into existence or create itself. Again, it is impossible for matter to be infinite or to exist from eternity past.

Mark said...

What you say makes sense ONLY if we assume the existence of a God. But you're trying to address the question of a God's existence, which means your reasoning is circular.

I think you misunderstand a lot of the science you refer to.

When people say there's no evidence for a God, here is what they mean. There is no verifiable fact you can point to and say that it could not be true if a God didn't exist. Since the God you describe is not a physical being, there is no way it can affect our physical world and leave evidence of its presence.

Without evidence, there's no way to argue that God exists.

Makarios said...

What if our world, our universe in fact IS the evidence of Creator God.

Let's back up a bit. Would you agree that EITHER:
. Matter must be eternal or
. There is a Creator or Cause, which is itself eternal, that brought matter into existence?

Mark said...

No, I don't see any reason to agree with that. First of all, the choices are too non-specific to have definite meaning. Second, there may be more than two possibilities.

The question is slanted in favor of the conclusion you've already decided to reach.

Makarios said...

"there may be more than two possibilities"

You're absolutely correct. There are exactly three possibilities.

1) Matter is eternal (science shows us that this is impossible)

2) Matter pre existed itself physically and / or chronologically (science shows us that this is impossible)

3) Matter brought itself into existence (science shows us that this is impossible)

3) Creator God is eternal and He brought matter into existence (atheism says that this is impossible)

In fact science itself is ruling out every possibility BUT Creator God. The harder science tries to posit alternatives to Creator God, the more the God hypothesis is validated. See my response to Greg in Part 3
===============

"The question is slanted in favor of the conclusion you've already decided to reach."

How so?

Mark said...

You need to stop talking about science and what it does and doesn't prove, since you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Do you even know what science IS?

If that's the best you can do, this exchange is a complete waste of our time.

Makarios said...

Ok, I'm open to learning. What is science and how am I misrepresenting what science is telling us?

As well, perhaps you could answer the following from my last response.


"The question is slanted in favor of the conclusion you've already decided to reach."

How so?

Mark said...

I'm not up to conducting a class on the philosophy of science. If you really want to learn something, I could suggest a lot of interesting books you can read. Your local bookstore or library surely must have a large science section.

An excellent one to start with is "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design" by Richard Dawkins.

Keep in mind that science is a system for increasing knowledge, and sometimes it works by discarding previous knowledge that turns out not to be true. It isn't the purpose of science to provide you with an excuse to believe what you wish was true.

Regard slanted questions, yours was multiple choice with only two alternatives:

+ Matter must be eternal or
+ There is a Creator or Cause, which is itself eternal, that brought matter into existence?

You don't explain how you arrived at just those choices, and no others. You don't explain why you think they are mutually exclusive, why one rules out the other. There's also the assumption that, if such a creator existed, it still exists, and if it still exists, it will continue to exist forever. You're leaving out a lot of possible choices.

What if it's possible for matter to come into existence spontaneously, without an external cause? As far as I know science has not ruled that out.

What if the universe was created by something that no longer exists?

What if the creator still exists but no longer has any involvement with its creation?

What if the universe we're in isn't the only one? How many others might there be?

Makarios said...

Until you came along, no one has had any trouble understanding what I mean by “Because of scientific evidence.”

You don’t seem to be particularly stupid so I’m guessing you’d rather argue than discuss.

Nevertheless, to make it a bit easier for you, I’m talking about the scientific method of discovery. I actually spell it out several times - observe, repeat, verify etc.
=============

“An excellent one to start with is "The Blind Watchmaker:”

The Blind Watchmaker? Are you kidding me? Dawkins attempts to explain away a complicated watch but ignores the whole factory that produces nothing but watches. Where did this factory come from and why? He has no answer whatsoever. Mark, in this series of posts I’m not dealing with abiogenesis or natural selection. I’m talking about the origins of the universe.
=======

“It isn't the purpose of science to provide you with an excuse to believe what you wish was true.”

I understand that. But via a scientific means of discovery we now know things like,

Matter cannot be eternal

Matter cannot precede itself
either physically or chronologically

Matter cannot create itself

Whatever begins to exist has a cause

Whatever begins to exist has an explanation of its beginning either in the necessity of its being or in an external cause.

The universe began to exist

The universe cannot be infinite

Intelligent life would not have evolved on this planet if the universe wasn’t finely tuned to an exquisite degree.

These are known facts that were garnered via a scientific method of enquiry. I'm not asking science to draw a conclusion for me. I’m drawing my own conclusion. You’re free to draw your own conclusion.

On the other hand I find it interesting that atheist scientists are devolving into the ridiculous and the mythological in an effort to avoid the obvious metaphysical conclusion that these scientific discoveries are indicating.

Because atheism is NOT science, atheists are allowed to say ridiculous things like the universe does not have a beginning or a cause. Atheists are allowed to say, “Everything came from nothing by nothing.” Science, cannot say that because it now knows that to be untrue. Atheists, as you’ve shown below are free to propose things even if they don’t fit the evidence.
================

“Regard slanted questions, yours was multiple choice with only two alternatives:?

So, what are the other alternatives?

I don’t want speculation or strange and unworkable hypotheses. And you needn’t bother repeating the following because these have ALL, to date proven to be unworkable precisely because they ALL require a beginning. Non of them can be eternal in nature.

Not the steady state model

Not oscillating models

Not baby universes

Not multi verses

Not the Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario

Not the Chaotic Inflationary Model

Not brane-cosmology

Not an inflationary multi verse

Not bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum

Not the many worlds hypothesis

Not the black hole hypothesis

Not string Scenarios

Not quantum gravity models

Not vacuum fluctuation models

None of these propositions have been able to explain what science observes today. As you state in your response, the scientific method of inquiry has ruled out these alternatives.

So if my alternative of either matter is eternal or Creator God is eternal, what alternative(s) are you saying that I’ve missed?
=================

“You don't explain how you arrived at just those choices, and no others. You don't explain why you think they are mutually exclusive, why one rules out the other.”

If matter can be eternal, then we don’t need God as an explanation for the universe. However, since it can’t be eternal then we need SOMETHING that is not only eternal but also outside of and transcendent to matter because we know that matter cannot precede itself nor can it create itself. I explain in Part 2 why eternal matter or eternal God are in fact mutually exclusive.
============

“You're leaving out a lot of possible choices.”

Like what? Unless you have some information that has managed to elude the brightest minds in the world, the bottom line remains, at least until you let everyone in on what you know, that Something has to be eternal for IT to cause the universe to come into being.
================

What if it's possible for matter to come into existence spontaneously, without an external cause? As far as I know science has not ruled that out.

Well, Mark, how can I reply to this when you won’t even define what you mean by the term “science”? I'm joking, so you can see how absurd that statement is.

However, I’m going to assume that what you mean is the same as everyone else in the world understands. On those terms Mark, yes, science has ruled out matter’s ability or anything else’s ability for that matter to just pop into existence out of nothing - Whoa!! Where did that Zebra come from?
================

“What if the universe was created by something that no longer exists?”

It can’t be. That’s what eternal means - always has been, always will be.
===============

What if the creator still exists but no longer has any involvement with its creation?

That may be. At this point I’m only arguing for the existence of a Deistic God.
============

What if the universe we're in isn't the only one? How many others might there be?

It doesn’t matter if there are a trillion or more universes. There had to be a beginning and that beginning had to have a cause that was outside of and transcendent to itself.

Mark, my man, I don’t think that you’ve thought through the implications of what we know to be true. Follow the evidence. Confront your fear of what it might mean. Surely truth is better than ignorance.

Mark said...

You keep saying matter can't be eternal. But you don't say why. Do you have a citation for that? Or did you just decide it for yourself? And if matter needs something to cause it, why doesn't God? (Maybe the difference is that matter is real and God is imaginary.)

Did you ever read "The God Delusion"? I understand you might find it offensive, but I can't find any flaws in his reasoning.

Makarios said...

“You keep saying matter can't be eternal. But you don't say why.”

Mark, are you reading any of the other posts in this series? Or am I just not explaining this stuff clearly enough. I know that when considering a totally foreign paradigm it sometimes takes a few readings to “get” what’s being said, but . . ., well, I’m not sure how I can explain it more clearly.

As far as the natural or the material goes, the eternal or the infinite does not exist in reality. While some have suggested scenarios with infinte matter, they are just theoretical and are admitted to being theoretical.

Now it's true that potential infinities are uses in mathematics but only as abstract, theoretical, conceptual or POTENTIAL infinities. But there are no ACTUAL infinities.

In reality, the infinite only exists as an idea or a concept.

When I described the impossibility of moving through and shelf of books with out a beginning, I was describing why matter, or time could not exist from infinity or eternally.

Of course these aren’t my ideas. I’m not nearly smart enough to figure these things out. But neither are they “religious” ideas. As I said at the start of this series, I am using ONLY facts, and comments arrived at or said by atheist scientists. I agree whole heartedly with their findings (who am I to dispute science?) but I disagree with their conclusions. I disagree because, when it comes to origins atheists are forced to posit the impossible. I gave examples on a different post of the incredulousness of atheist scientists as they confront the REALITY of the Big Bang or Standard Model of the universe -

This is a model that states emphatically that matter is not eternal, space is not eternal, time is not eternal, energy is not eternal, the laws of physics are not eternal etc.
==============

(Maybe the difference is that matter is real and God is imaginary.)

No, because matter is matter and God is Spirit.

Existing outside of time (before time) the Cause is infinite or Eternal,

Existing outside of matter (which is finite - so existing before matter) the Cause is immaterial or Spiritual,

Existing as the Cause of time and energy, space, matter and the laws of physics, the Cause is immeasurably more powerful than the mathematically precise universe and its exquisitely Finely Tuned constants and quantities.

Mark, consider this. Before the Big Bang, there wasn’t any time, or space, or matter or laws of physics to govern that matter.

Whatever produced The Big Bang, produced those laws. If the universe came into being without using the laws of physics, more than that, before the laws of physics were even in place, then that is the working definition of a miracle. Think about that for a bit. ok?

The Cause of the beginning of the universe cannot be “scientific” because neither matter nor the laws of physics (i.e., the laws that science has observed and identified), existed prior to the Singularity.

Therefore the Cause of the beginning of the universe is not scientific but Personal.

The transcendent Cause of the universe is therefore on the order of a Mind.

That Cause is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. That Cause, is what is normally described as God.
==================

“Did you ever read "The God Delusion"? I understand you might find it offensive, but I can't find any flaws in his reasoning.”

Don’t get me wrong. Richard Dawkins is a brilliant man. He’s a brilliant scientist. His early writings are entertaining and relatively easy to understand. However, his more recent work is so tainted by his rabid hatred of Christianity that, in my opinion, he has been forced to make some pretty silly remarks, particularly about God.

Here is what we know - scientifically: . Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
. The universe had a beginning.
. Therefore the beginning of the universe had a cause.

That takes care of the silly question, “Well, if God made the universe, who made God?”

Remember, atheists as you have shown, have no problem with saying that something is infinite, or that it has always existed, or that it’s eternal, as long as that something isn’t Creator God.

As I stated above, if God exists, then He exists outside of and prior to the universe. God is not material. He is Spirit. He does not need a cause. He has always been. He is infinite. He is eternal.

Asking, “What caused an infinite or eternal Being to begin?” or, “When did an eternal being begin to exist?” is illogical and incoherent.

Illogical statements are something that atheists usually take great pains to avoid, except when they’re confronted with the reality of Creator God. Then, it seems, all bets are off. The fact remains, and it remains a fact that is based on what science tells us is true, that everything that begins to exist, including the universe, had its cause from something outside of itself. There are no known exceptions to this observed and consistently verified rule.

Reason states that either God is eternal or matter is eternal for matter cannot pre-exist itself either physically or chronologically, nor can matter bring itself into existence or create itself.

Yet it is IMPOSSIBLE for matter to be infinite or to exist from eternity past. That leaves Creator God. It’s impossible because the Big Bang scenario is the only workable hypothesis and in this theory matter came into being at the Singularity.

Now, Richard Dawkins says that a complicated God is very improbable. I don't see why God is improbable at all. But suppose His existence is imporobabel. Surely IMPROBABLE is better than IMPOSSIBLE.

As well, whose to say that God is complicated? He may be capable of doing complicated things but that is another issue.

Mark, you have to watch out for Richard Dawkins. He has reached a stage in his life where, as stated, his hatred for and bigotry against Christ and Christians is so great that he is beginning to make some pretty strange and contradictory statements. For example:

Richard says, “As a lover of truth, I am suspicious of strongly held beliefs that are unsupported by evidence.”

Yet, he goes right from that and makes an adamant demand that there is no God (something that cannot be supported by current evidence), and that there is life on at least a BILLION planets (something else that cannot be supported by current evidence).

. Richard Dawkins tells us that the unknown origins of the universe pose no problem for Darwin’s theory.

. Richard Dawkins tells us the origin of the universe really isn’t that difficult to comprehend.

. Richard Dawkins tells us that the “spontaneous arising” of DNA should not surprise us.

. Richard Dawkins tells us that “the magic of large numbers” makes anything possible.

. Richard Dawkins tells us his conjecture on the origins of life “completely demolishes” any need for design or designer to explain non-life turning into life

None of these things are epistomologically true Mark.
Be careful. Richard is a smart man but his anti-Christian bias is making him lose contact with reality in some areas.

You're not the only atheist who desperately wants matter to be eternal. The Creation Event, or the Big Bang is so serious a problem for those who have devolved into Scientism that they are now claiming, without any evidence whatsoever, that something can have a beginning without a cause. Here are some examples of what atheist scientists are saying.

Astronomer Arthur Eddington - “The concept of the Big Bang is preposterous, incredible, repugnant.”

Physicist Philip Morrison - “I find it hard to accept the Big Bang theory. I would like to reject it.”

Physicist Victor Stenger - “The universe may be uncaused and may have emerged from nothing.”

On the “bright” side David Hume stated, “I have never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without cause.”

Mark said...

Yes, I did read this stuff, at least as much of it as I could stand. I won't be making that mistake any more. You don't seem to realize that you're not making any logical sense. All your verbiage is nothing but a confused mass of logical fallacies. There's nothing that even resembles a valid chain of reasoning.

If you ever studied formal logic, you might understand that.

Do yourself a favor and don't writ another word until you've read the article at this link:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

Maybe then you can start to edit your previous posts so that they make some kind of sense.

Makarios said...

"I won't be making that mistake any more."

Ok, well, thanks for stopping by.