Are they? Or are atheist leaders choosing to remain ignorant of any scientific discovery that doesn’t uphold their world-view?
It’s true that atheists, nor anyone else for that matter should be required to prove a negative or to prove that something, in this case Creator God, doesn’t exist. It can't be done.
That however is not the issue. No one is asking atheists to prove that God doesn’t exist. But you are required to prove that He is not the best explanation for the 'Why of the universe' and the 'Why is it this universe and not another.'
That is because, based on scientific knowledge, Creator God is the best, nay, the only solution that fits the scientific facts regarding the Big Bang.
. If atheists don’t like that solution then they need to refute that solution.
. If atheists think that Creator God is the wrong explanation, they need to falsify the claim “The best evidence for the existence of Creator God is the existence of the universe.”
Ever since the Big Bang Creation Event was confirmed, atheist scientists have been barely able to make their nausea subside. In an attempt to soothe their fear of reality, atheists have produced a fairly long list of failed hypotheses. For example:
The steady state model
Oscillating models
Baby universes
Multi verses
The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario
The Chaotic Inflationary Model
Brane-cosmology
Inflationary multi-verse
Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum
The many worlds hypothesis
The black hole hypothesis
String Scenarios
Quantum gravity models
Vacuum fluctuation models
Imaginary time and imaginary space
None of these propositions have been able to explain what science observes today. Not counting Hawking’s imaginary time and space, which even he concedes is an interesting but ultimately useless mind game, all of the above speculations have been proven to need an absolute beginning. Each one of them needs a definite space / time boundary. Each one of them requires a Creation event. None of them can exist from eternity past. That leaves the Big Bang Creation Event. That means that we live in a universe where matter, space, time and the laws of physics all had a beginning at the Singularity. There was literally nothing before the Singularity.
The metaphysical implications of the Big Bang are so disturbing to atheist scientists that in comic fashion atheists are even saying "Space aliens brought life to earth." Even that is preferable to acknowledging the reality of Creator God. Imagine! Self-described rational, logical, reasoned atheists find that combining the above "origin mythologies" with the spectre of space aliens is more palatable than allowing for Creator God. Talk about allowing one’s bias to colour the conclusion.
Now, as Carl Sagan once said, "Spin more than one hypothesis. If there's something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among 'multiple working hypotheses,' has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy."
Unfortunately for atheists, it can be said with absolute confidence that no cosmogonic model has been:
As repeatedly verified in its predictions,
As corroborated by attempts at its falsification,
As concordant with empirical discoveries, and
As philosophically coherent as the Standard Big Bang Creation Event Model.
So what has this got to do with lying atheist leaders? Well, it’s simply not acceptable for well known atheists, as Daniel Dennett did recently, to just ignore the findings of science and purposely mislead his audience by claiming that our universe is just the last of an infinite number of previous universes. Either he knows that science directly disproves that claim, yet he makes it anyway, or he’s ignorant of the well-known scientific conclusions regarding origins. Neither option,
. Purposeful lying or
. Negligent ignorance
is acceptable for the supposedly high standards of integrity and knowledge to which atheists, and particularly atheist leaders claim for themselves.
Reaching their “No God” conclusion PRIOR to confirming evidence allows atheists to stand in their faith and claim with great confidence,
“There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God.”
What is the basis for the atheist belief that God does not exist? There is no basis for such a belief! None whatsoever! Everything that science has discovered about the origin and nature of our universe contains the finger print of Creator God. Until atheists come up with a workable hypothesis that excludes Creator God, He IS the solution to the Why our universe exists and Why it exists as this universe and not another.
Atheism is a philosophy that is protected by irrational, illogical, incoherent and may I say dishonest conclusions. Atheism is dishonest to both the observer of atheism and to the atheist h/herself.
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.”
The “fact” that atheists are too dishonest to admit,
The “fact” that could not exist unless there was a Creator God
Is the UNIVERSE itself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
200 years ago it was believed that organic matter possessed a "vital force" and couldn't be synthesized. It was thought as kind of divine.
Then Wöhler synthesized urea from ammonia and cyanic acid and proved that no "vis vitalis" was required.
Atheists just draw the line from findings like this to the origin of our universe. There is a naturalistic explanations for all wonders of nature. Why should that explanation fail at the big bang just because we don't know it yet?
Ya, good point. Religious people, and even non religious people with their "old wives tales," have all been made to look ridiculous over the years by believing things that were later found to be untrue.
I suppose that might even happen in regards to origins. I don't think it will but who knows. As with the case for Jesus, I've done what I believe is a significant study of the evidence and I believe that a strong case can be made for Creator God. Even Richard Dawkins recently said, "A strong case can be made for a deistic god." He was alluding to origins of the universe in that comment. I think that he's right. I also think that Jesus is what changes a deistic God into a Theistic God.
The point that I was trying to make in this post is that Daniel Dennett knows, how can he NOT know that science has proven that we are NOT the last of an infinite series of former universes. Yet, he told his audience, he deliberately told his audience something that science tells us is impossible. That bothers me, so I wrote about it.
If we want to speak of failed hypothesis, lets speak of the:
Creation Myth
Flood Myth
Exodus Myth
Tower of Babel Myth
There is no evidence whatsoever to support those myths.
Since those are totally falsified, there is no compelling reaon to believe anything else from the bible other than it is a cultural artifact who's only value it's limited help in understanding the mindset of bronze age middle east.
Atheist leaders?
In 40 years an atheist I never one time had any concept of anyone acting as a leader. Their are some prominent atheists but I surely do not prescribe to ther personal philosophies or be led by them.
Other than your paraphrase of Dennett, who has a problem with the Big Bang theory other than a competing physicist trying to get his theory published?
Was Dennett talking about Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok's "endless universe" model? A quote from their site:
Steinhardt and Turok “contend that what we think of as the moment of creation was simply part of an infinite cycle of titanic collisions between our universe and a parallel world”
But they don't come up with new theories because the Big Bang makes it look like a deistic God must have done it. What evidence do you have that any scientist has done that?
And it's a Big Jump to go from Big Bang to Jesus...where do you make the connection?
". . . "endless universe" model?"
An endless universe isn’t the problem. Many models that are endless are also workable. What doesn't exist is a model that doesn’t need a finite beginning.
The Big Bang with its unacceptable metaphysical Creator God implications is the only model we have.
============
“But they don't come up with new theories because the Big Bang makes it look like a deistic God must have done it. What evidence do you have that any scientist has done that?”
There IS no other reason to look for other alternatives. The Big Bang fits perfectly what we observe to be true of the universe. It's the only explanation that fits what we observe. As I said above, no cosmogonic model has been:
As repeatedly verified in its predictions,
As corroborated by attempts at its falsification,
As concordant with empirical discoveries, and
As philosophically coherent as the Standard Big Bang Creation Event Model.
There is only one reason to look further and that reason is heard in these comments by atheist scientists.
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.”
Well, back in his day, when atheists were still hopeful that their faith system would prevail, that might have been possible for him to say. It is my belief that if Hume had known that Christianity would prove so resistant to destruction, he would have joined today’s atheist scientists in throwing off all restraints, put his integrity on the shelf, proposed ever more ridiculous scenarios and in that manner he would have increased his intellectual stature among the atheist crowd.
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 the laws of physics. 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.
===========
“And it's a Big Jump to go from Big Bang to Jesus...where do you make the connection?”
I’m not attempting to jump from one to the other. The beginning of our universe points only to a deistic God. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus point to a Theistic God. If there is a connection to be made it is in Jesus' claims that He IS the Creator of the universe.
There IS no other reason to look for other alternatives. The Big Bang fits perfectly what we observe to be true of the universe. It's the only explanation that fits what we observe.
The whole point of science is to test ideas to find bits of truth, so, yes, there are many reasons to come up with alternatives. I'm no theoretical physicist but I don't think you can say that they all think the big bang idea is perfect.
And to jump to the conclusion that "god did it" because you can't think of a better alternative isn't very scientific.
I'll explain in tomorrows post why "God" isn't jumping to conclusions.
Well, it's early. I'll give you a little snippit tonight as to why it isn't an argument from ignorance to suggest that Creator God is the Cause of our universe being in existence.
Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, we know that the fine tuning of the universe is due to one of the following:
. Physical necessity (it had to be this way and no other way),
. Chance (it’s just a really, really, really lucky accident), or
. It’s the design of an intelligence beyond anything we have ever experienced.
If you can think of any other possibility you're welcome to inform me of it tomorrow.
It is not due to physical necessity. In a secular or natural reality there is no reason whatsoever that any given universe has to be so finely tuned or even exist at all. This is an accepted conclusion in the scientific community and it is one of the reasons why there is so much pressure to find a reason for our existence that doesn't include Creator God.
Nor is this fine tuning due to chance. The required 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 this happening by chance are insurmountable. I'll show you what I mean tomorrow.
. 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 it is highly and extraordinarily IMPROBABLE that a universe exists which is finely tuned for the existence of observers within it.
Because of snake oil salesmen like Richard Dawkins, 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.
“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. Among other things the universe would have either recollapsed or expanded beyond any ability to congeal. Again, there is no reason to expect that a universe as finely tuned as is our universe should exist by chance, nor is there any need or physical necessity for such a universe to exist anywhere except for the sole purpose of life.
What I’m saying as clearly as I'm able is that there is no reason whatsoever that a universe such as ours had to exist. That it couldn’t NOT exist.
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 a Designer.
This is not a jump to a conclusion, this is a conclusion that follows the rules of logical, reasonable philosophical thought.
Post a Comment