Home Apologetics Atheists- free thinkers or free from thinking?

Atheists- free thinkers or free from thinking?

, , Apologetics, , 50
Everything from nothing

When you say that something can come from nothing, then surely you have a screw loose somewhere. If nothing could create something, then it wouldn’t be nothing by the very definition of that word. Simple as that. Nothing cannot create or produce something.

Start with the number zero and try and arrive at another number. If you add in another number like 2, then you have introduced the prime mover which is something. But if all you had was zero, then you will end with zero. Likewise, if there was nothing before the universe, then there would be nothing now. But there is something. It is called the Universe and consciousness. So the universe and consciousness had a prime mover. Both are proofs of God. God is an eternal conscious being who creates. God is not only known by faith, but his existence is demanded logically.

However, many hate the idea of God, so they prefer to believe that everything came solely from nothing. In this they deny God and they also deny reason. When they can demonstrate how to get another number from zero and using zero alone, then I will listen.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 51 total)
123
  • Author
    Posts
  • June 12, 2010 at 8:55 am#777143
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    A challenge for Atheism in an increasing unbelieving world.

    “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” – Arthur Conan Doyle.

    The Origin of the Universe

    Beliefs about the origin of the universe and everything in it vary greatly. Most believe in a God of some kind who created the universe, others believe that the universe is itself eternal and had no need for a creator, while another group believe that the universe emerged from nothing and without any assistance from a god. The answer has been debated by many over the centuries and millennia, while others think it impossible to know the answer for sure, so often say silent on this subject.

    This writing sets out to not only to challenge these views but surprisingly provides the only possible answer too. No matter what you believe, you are about to be challenged. If you are an Atheist, you will be left in a state of realising how little you have thought about this subject. If you are not sure, you will be more sure. If you believe in God, then you will have some irrefutable proof when demonstrating to a non-believer that God does indeed exist.

    Among many scientists and thinkers of our age today, there seems to be an ever-increasing challenge against the idea of God’s existence. Some prominent scientists openly and confidently challenge the idea that God created everything. Some offer ideas or supposed evidence that the universe’s existence can be explained without the need for a God/Creator. But is it really possible to explain the universe without the need for a creator and if so, does such an explanation fall into the realm of science or is it really just another belief?

    I think it is fair to say that nearly every person alive has a belief as to how everything got here.  One group I will call “Believers” accept that a God is the cause, creator, and originator of all things. This camp is generally divided not on the existence of God, but who that God is. Atheists on the other hand believe and agree among themselves that there is no God or that a creator is unlikely to exist. They reject the idea that an intelligence of some kind is the source or cause of all things. Atheists may vary on what caused the universe, but they agree that it wasn’t a God, creator, or intelligence of any kind. Some think everything had its origin from nothing, others think that something such as gravity can explain everything. Finally there is another group called Agnostic. This group of people are undecided as to whether there is a God or not. They admit that God could exist and could be swayed either way according to evidence.

    The Universe, Metaverse, Existence

    Some scientists today hold to the view that our Big Bang could be one of many in a larger construct. This idea is certainly plausible because to think that we humans have seen or comprehend almost all the universe would be an arrogant assumption. People once believed that the Earth was the centre of creation and that the sun went around the Earth and the stars were lights that hung from a huge dome. It can look that way from our Earthly perspective when we look up, however, later discoveries showed that the Earth revolved around the sun and that almost all stars in the heavens are suns. Then we understood that suns were grouped in their billions even hundreds of billions into star cities we call galaxies and that in the known universe there are hundreds of billions of galaxies. Imagine that. Hundreds of billion of galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars which in turn could contain dozens of planets and moons each. It could of course be much bigger than we know of so far because we cannot see further back than the Big Bang which opens the possibility that ours is one of many in a larger construct and also, if there are parts of our universe that are expanding away from us at faster than the speed of light, then they are off our radar so to speak. Regardless of how big the universe is, I will use the word ‘existence’, hence forth to explain all things that exist.

    Some scientists and thinkers think that observations at quantum level, demonstrate that our universe is part of a bigger construct sometimes termed the Metaverse. This could provide an explanation for some phenomena we see in Quantum Physics where the smallest things behave in ways that we cannot predict or understand. The suggestion here is that that just as suns entangle, and galaxies collide and inflict their gravitational forces on each other, perhaps universes (big bangs) also collide and inflict their differing laws at quantum level.

    There are of course many theories and it may or may not be difficult for you to understand them. However, understanding or not understanding ideas about the universe and physics makes very little difference on understanding what caused everything. Science has no conclusive answer to what the cause of everything is even to this day, yet with a little simple logical deduction we can all know the answer. The idea that we can be ignorant of scientific theories and still understand what caused the universe or existence will no doubt be offensive to many intellectuals. Whatever we may believe regarding the cause of the universe, there is only a few options available, and using some basic common sense and a process of deduction it is surprisingly easy to discover which option is the right one.

    Nothing, Something, Someone

    Science has made huge leaps in understanding our physical universe and we know the universe is vast and practically beyond comprehension. But understanding the cause of this universe is not hard to understand at all. You don’t need to be a brilliant scientist to know what caused the universe. In fact I would go as far to say that most people put way too much faith in scientists when it comes to explaining how everything came to be. When some scientists say that God is not needed in explaining the existence of the universe, many concur because they think that the answer to this question can only be known within the realm of the intellectual elite. In some ways, Atheistic scientists are the new prophets of our age who many blindly follow. When some utter their beliefs and conclusions about why there is no God, many take their word for it, because they think that by reason of these scientists intellect and experience in science that they alone are the ones equipped to answer such a question. This simply is not the case as I will demonstrate.

    Atheists will often say “show me proof” when debating with someone who believes in God, but when you ask them for proof that there being no God, the typical answer is that they don’t need to prove that God doesn’t exists in the same way that they don’t need to prove in the existence of the tooth fairy. But is this a fair response? I will first show you why this is not a fair response and will prove that it is but a maneuver to shoulder all responsibility of proof to the believer, while they feel they have the right to get off free with their belief. It should be that both the believer and the non-believer shouldering equal responsibility for the burden of proof for what they teach or believe. Think of it this way. If I said that there was no life in the universe except on planet Earth, you would surely want some proof of this statement, or at least a logical argument to back up this statement. Also the difference between belief in the tooth fairy and the belief of the possibility of life on other planets is not comparable because one is an obvious myth and the other a real possibility. God is also a real possibility even to a person who has not experienced God in any way. I will point out shortly why this is so and we also must remember that the majority of mankind believes in a god, while Atheists are a minority. Back to the Tooth Fairy comparison. you cannot say for a start that most people believe in the tooth fairy, and a little logic can easily see that the existence of the tooth fairy is a non-starter. So this comparison is a silly one, so let’s look at this logically.

    The kind of proof Atheists ask Believers regarding the existence of God is unreasonable to Believers because beyond experiencing God, they contend that the universe itself is the proof, just as a house is proof that there is a builder of that house. The fact that there is an ordered universe that contains life is enough proof for Believers that God exists. Whereas Atheists believe that the existence of the universe and us, has absolutely no bearing on the existence of  God.

    Who is right here? Does it not seem unreasonable to say that something only exists if you can show it to someone or take a photo of it? What about a crime scene where there are no witnesses to the crime. Can we not engage in some detective work to find out who committed the crime. Is it not normal to reveal theories that fit the crime and using a process of elimination, narrow down the search to the point where the evidence points to someone? Of course that is possible and many crimes are solved even without eye witnesses.

    So thinking about how the universe came to be, it is no different. It is not as daunting as you might imagine. Think of it in the same way you might attempt to spell a big word. It might seem hard to spell a long difficult word, but the usual way to do it is to break the word up into little words because it is sometimes easier to spell a few smaller words than one big one. When it comes to how the universe came to be, in an investigative sense, you only need to break the answer down to these 3 possibilities, which anyone can understand. The contenders are:

    • Nothing
    • Something
    • Someone

    I am sure you will agree that these options cover all possibilities. Even if you are not sure which answer is right, you have a whopping 33% chance of pulling the right one out of a hat. So even if you take a random bunch of people who know nothing about science, at least a third should be able to guess the basic correct answer as to how the Universe got here.

    We will now take an investigative look at each option to determine which is the most likely. To start with it should be said that the first and third options are only applicable if the universe had a beginning and the 2nd option is applicable only if the universe has always existed in some form whether physical or not, such as the eternal presence of gravity. This is because the Something option is really the Nothing option if it is not eternal because something that is not eternal or infinite and is the original or first thing, then it must have been preceded by nothing.

    I will now attempt to explain some weaknesses and strengths with each option which will help determine the one that is correct or the most likely. If you think about it, all options are ludicrous to some people. The idea of a God is the equivalent of a fairytale to Atheists. To Believers the idea that everything came from nothing is absolute inexcusable foolishness. To an Agnostic, the idea that there is something eternal whether it be intelligent or not, is possible, but not necessarily true.

    It also needs to be said that whatever the cause of the everything is, it probably should come as no surprise that the answer would be ludicrous considering that our experience with existence is but a minuscule snapshot in time, and the reality and truth outside of our frame of reference and even before time would certainly be strange and also hard to believe. Yet one of these three ludicrous options is the truth as these are the only basic options on the table. Feel free to suggest a fourth option, but I am sure that what ever option you decide to add, it really fits in one of the three. Someone, Something, and Nothing covers all possibilities and all beliefs hinge on one of these options.

    Why take such a basic look at the options you may ask. Well that is easy to answer. By disproving an option, the result is that all beliefs that are attached to it, come tumbling down. Remember I am taking a detectives approach to how the universe got here because no one was around to see it happen.

    So, if you could prove that there was no God, then all religions that believe in a God would be wrong and that would eliminate multitudes of beliefs that grew from that understanding. And if you could prove that nothing was not a viable option as the cause of everything and could eliminate the idea that anything was eternal, then Atheism would collapse too. So let’s take a look at each option.

    The Nothing option

    Some people including some reputable scientists believe that everything came from nothing. The idea that nothing actually caused anything is actually impossible because nothing by definition is ‘no thing’. If it turns out that ‘no thing’ can actually do something, then it cannot be nothing in the true definition of that word and it had to be something all along. That alone makes this option a non-starter, because nothing does nothing because it is nothing and the fact that there is something, proves that nothing is not the origin. If there was nothing, then would be nothing now it is as simple as that.

    However, given this obvious fact that practically anyone can understand, the idea that nothing begat everything is still argued as a possible candidate as to the origin of the universe. So let’s dig a little deeper and give this view another chance.

    Some scientists argue that there is science and maths behind the idea that everything came from nothing. It goes something like the this: Inflationary Theory or Cosmic Inflation says that the universe is expanding and this expansion is exponential or at least speeding up. There is some very good science behind this which I am not going to delve into as I do not wish to diverge, but suffice to say that this theory suggests that positive energy is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero, so it really consists of essentially nothing. The meaning of “nothing” is of course somewhat ambiguous because it turns out that nothing is really a vacuum or place with no stuff.

    Putting this explanation to one side for a moment, it has to be said that there is no escaping the fact that if nothing does something, then it is something and not nothing. But a look at Quantum theory and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, (according to some), provides an explanation for how energy may have come out of nothing. It has to do with ‘quantum fluctuations’. It assumes that particles and antiparticles form and quickly annihilate each other which is what is believed happened at one of the earliest stages of the universe. One idea is that one fluctuation lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation leading to our universe. Of course if you delve deeper into such speculation, you have to conclude that in order for this to happen, there has to exist laws such as gravity, and/or particle pairs etc. That surely is not nothing, however it doesn’t stop some from saying that the universe came from nothing. In truth, that is called ‘something’ and you don’t need to be a brilliant scientific mind to see that nothing cannot be the source of the universe.

    But let’s not throw this option out the door yet. Lets look at the math. We know that infinity can produce finite and even a zero result. It is easily understood that in everyday things we see examples of finite and zero contained within a bigger realm that seems uncountable. Let’s look at an example of zero and how it can be produced. If I multiply zero by zero or add zero to zero, then I end up with zero. For a more real application, let’s take a situation where there is zero flammable gas in a room. You can conclude from that, that there never existed flammable gas in this room or you can say that there was flammable gas, but all of it is gone due to perhaps being burned up, leaving no flammable gas. This example is of course not adequate in explaining the science of one positive particle annihilating a negative one to bring about zero, but for the sake of common sense, we can see that the state of no flammable gas is explained either by it never existing in the first place or by existing and being burned up, cancelled out, or transformed into something else like heat.

    The point with this is that just because we observe or work out zero in a deduction or experiment, it is no proof that nothing was the first thing. Saying that the universe came from nothing is either saying that the universe and everything in it never existed in any form at the earliest stage, or that it came from something that we measure as zero. If it is the latter, then it is really like a swinging pendulum that is sitting dead on zero at the time of measurement or speculation, but is in reality moving or fluctuating from side to side before and after that measurement or speculation.

    Scientists who say that everything came from nothing are really saying that all existence that supposedly came from nothing is really just a balance of negative and positive which equals zero but it is a no brainer that something must exist in order for there to be positive and negative anything to take place. The fact you can make flammable gas disappear or reduce to zero is no indication that it can come out from nothing, rather that it exists but you can produce a zero result in the right conditions. Observers can see zero within a realm of somethings. We often witness no rain for example and when it does rain, it doesn’t mean that it came from nothing. In other words if you see something from nothing, then if you go back further from nothing, you should again see something. If a positive and negative particle annihilate each other, that actually suggests a construct of some kind that makes this possible. It suggests that something exists in order for this result to happen. If you still believe it is possible that everything really did come from absolutely nothing (with something never existing before that), then all you have is a belief, that requires faith, and no proof or logic whatsoever.

    On the outset, the Nothing option had a 33% chance of being right (of the three options) but upon simple deduction and analysis the chance that the universe came from nothing just sunk to 0% because it turns out that it is impossible for nothing to do anything. The chances of the Nothing option being right is zero. We know this because if there was nothing there would be nothing now. But as we are all aware, something does exist. In fact many things exist. You exist. I exist. This leaves the last two options which both now have a whopping 50 percent chance of being right on the outset.

    The Something option

    Looking at the idea that something was the cause of the universe seems more feasible now, especially now that it is obvious that the Nothing option is a non-starter. Whatever we observe, we never really think it was nothing that caused it. If there is a fire, I would never conclude that it came from nothing, but that the fire was caused by something. Similarly the universe is no different. It must have had a cause. Something gave it a push. Something influenced something or something made something from itself.

    I do however need to point out at this stage that the Something option does include the Someone/God option if you consider God as being something, but for practical reasons, I will put this Someone option into its own category and say that the Something option means anything that is not nothing or God.

    This means that the Something option is a non-intelligent, non-aware, and non-living thing. Otherwise we are clearly talking about the Someone option. The Something option must also cater for the belief that something is eternal, otherwise we are back to the Nothing option if something was preceded by nothing. Remember we are talking about the source or cause of all things. So we need to go back to the earliest thing or cause.

    The Something option could perhaps be a force, a law, a particle, energy, or even something we have no understanding of. It could be gravity or might be energy like light. Perhaps it is just something completely unknown to us.

    The thing with the Something option is that because this option has to be non-intelligent, unaware, and possessing no consciousness, it is reasonable to assume that whatever this something is, it must possesses the IQ of zero. Because it lacks awareness and cannot make intelligent conscious decisions, some questions need to be asked. How does an eternal dead something give birth to consciousness? How does one know that this something that caused the universe doesn’t itself possess life, the very attribute it has produced? Why is it that something which by reason of not being aware or alive come up with better inventions and designs than humans who can think and are aware. I mean a dead something with no intelligence would mean that a person with the IQ of 1, would have an advantage over whatever caused the universe, yet even if Albert Einstein or Sir Isaac Newton lived for billions of years, could they make a universe? Of course these great men wouldn’t even understand all that the universe had to offer if they could observe the present universe from beginning to end. And considering that the whole universe was determined at the first moments of the Big Bang, then that gives this something with no intelligence less than a second to determine everything that the universe was, is now, and will be in the future. This also includes life and you.

    When you see the universe with its collection of billions of galaxies, it does seems ludicrous that something with no intelligence came up with much more clever inventions and design than the combined intelligence of the human race who at best only copy that which we find in nature and the universe. Is it really possible that something with the IQ of zero and no consciousness can come up with better technology than conscious beings? And how does a non-conscious anything assemble the micro and the macro into one huge system that is so complex it is beyond our ability to understand it all?

    You could counter this argument by saying that a computer has no consciousness or awareness, and yet it harbors cyberspace which contains digital worlds, places, and what appears to be intelligent services or even laws. But that argument is moot when you consider that every part of a computer and cyberspace and its contained digital worlds are all created by the intelligence and consciousness of man. A computer harbouring cyberspace could not come from nothing.

    The other major thing that doesn’t bode well for the Something option is that this option also assumes that the universe or existence didn’t have a beginning. You might argue strongly against that, but we already know why it has to be eternal. If the something that caused the universe was not eternal, infinite, existing forever, then it must have come from something, so we then need to change the something to the earlier something. In fact we need to go to the first something and know that it had to be eternal and infinite. If not, then it too came from nothing at its earliest point and we have to put this in the Nothing option which we have already seen is not a viable option. In addition to this, scientists over the last 50 years have been adamant in their belief that the universe had a beginning.

    So, the something option must assume that something has existed for all eternity and this original and eternal cause of the universe has always existed in some form or another. The weakness with this option for many is that design, complexity, logic, patterns, laws, and life, and even code such as DNA suggests very strongly that there is a designer, logical mind, or programmer of some kind behind the creation of the universe. It is for these people, far more likely that the universe is a product rather than the universe being the maker or cause itself. It is like believing that a garage, car, or computer had always existed or that they can exist without a maker. Or it is like believing that builders came after the building.

    In addition to these complications, if the universe existed without an intelligent mind or awareness, then how did awareness or consciousness come about? Perhaps you yourself are the biggest proof of awareness from your own point of view because that is about all you can be certain about. I think, therefore I am. If existence started with no life or intelligence, then would life and intelligence exist today? Do you have to be aware for anything to exist? Think of a universe and everything without life. How does it come up with consciousness and awareness? Surely only awareness and life can understand existence and only an awareness can produce an awareness.

    In many scientific experiments done at quantum level, they seem to indicate that some things do not happen unless they are observed. Upon observation, the result changes. This has led many scientists to believe that reality and time are an illusion. So is the universe the creator of consciousness or is consciousness the creator of the universe.

    Further, we have all observed that life comes from life. Understanding this, we know that we came from our mother who also is/was alive and she from her mother and so on. If we follow the timeline backward, it is logical that someone has to be the oldest. Like all things, there had to be a first. But many have not considered that if we have only ever observed life come from life, then the first life could well be eternal because if not, then that first life came from non-life. Thus the observable facts to date do not point to life coming from non-life, and while it has certainly been tried, no one has ever produced life from non-living matter, nor have they ever made a dead creature come alive again.

    The Something option also seems like a non-starter when you have thought it through. The problem is that most people do not think about it. Their opinions are based on little thought and they have not thought this through carefully. Any intelligence with an IQ of 1 couldn’t make a universe and probably couldn’t even tie up a pair of shoelaces, yet possessing an IQ at all is surely a huge advantage over anything that has no IQ such as a rock. Surely believing that something with the IQ of zero was able to produce a universe has to fall in the ludicrous or fairy tale category. The Something option is almost as silly as the Nothing option.

    The Someone option

    The idea that a god created the universe or everything is of course not new. In fact it is the most believed of all the options and was even the standard premise in the history of the world and even in the early years of science. Scientists such as Sir Isaac Newton and Michael Faraday staunchly believed in God. Science to such people was not about disproving or proving God, but proving how God created things.

    However, the idea that a god of some kind created the universe is ludicrous to many today. It is considered ludicrous by Atheists otherwise they would be Agnostic. Questions that naturally arise from a belief in a god is “who made God”, “Does God have a God?”, “what was before God?. Such questions only prove that the person asking these questions does not understand infinity or has neglected to apply this concept to God. Some Atheists ask “what is the difference in saying that God is eternal as opposed to Something else being eternal”? This is a good question and I will get into that later.

    To the Atheist, the idea of a creator can even cause offense because they feel offended in the same way that the existence of the Tooth Fairy would offend your intellect. However, as much as your intellect may or may not be offended, it has to be said that the Someone/God option is one of three possible options and surely it wouldn’t be fair to write off this option based on bias or belief, especially when there is no evidence, logic, or argument to the contrary. Unfortunately this is what many Atheists do. They discard one of the three options by bias alone. After all, there is not one Atheist who has proof that there is no God, just as there is no one who has proof that there is no intelligent life outside of Earth.

    Some Atheists believe that there isn’t a God because they think religion causes war and unnecessary violence, thus they conclude that belief in God must be wrong because the effect is bad. This conclusion forms their belief that there is no God. But is this conclusion a fair one? After all, Atheists also cause wars and what effect does religious wars have on the existence of God anyway? Absolutely no effect at all. Surely, what men do in God’s name has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of God.

    The real reason many choose to be Atheist is because they actually don’t like the idea of an all powerful God which normally goes hand in hand with the idea that we are accountable for how we live our lives. Due to the dislike of this possibility, rejecting the idea that there is a God might make one feel better. Atheists write the God option off simply because they are biased as they obviously lack any evidence for their belief.

    You might be thinking how I can make such assumptions. Well ask an Atheist why he is an Atheist. I bet the reason has more to do with their dislike for religion which as we all know has no effect on the existence of God. Because of different religions and their conflicts, they often hate the idea that people can be so stupid as to kill, engage in war, and divide in the name of religion. Atheists also hate the idea that people can’t see that the religion they belong to is probably wrong from the standpoint that their religion is one of many thousands. For this and other reasons, they deny God, and think no good can come of it. But is this fair? If I denied the existence of guns because guns kill people, would that be fair or reasonable? No it would not.

    Some think that people believe in God because God placed that truth or idea inside us to begin with. This view fits as a possible answer as to why humans have a fundamental belief in God. This is the biblical view of God and man’s sinful condition which has separated him from knowing God means that men as a result would naturally argue about this God they know exists.

    This can explain why most believe in God but do not agree on who or what that God is. You might ask, how did God give us this knowledge? Well you could reply, ‘how do we know how to breathe when we are born?’. How do we know how to blink? Where does this information reside? Some say in our conscience. Conscience is an interesting word. It is made up of ‘con’ which is Latin (and Spanish) for ‘with’ and ‘science’ which means knowledge. In other words we are born with knowledge and not as a blank hard drive as some think.

    Given this, I think it is fair to say that yes, a God is also ludicrous to some as the idea of God is so far removed from many people’s everyday and lifetime experience, that they simply do not believe that he could exist because he seems to be at least separate to their experience of life. But how many people do you know that have not experienced a black hole or seen one, and yet that doesn’t stop many from believing that they actually exist. It helps in the case of black holes that we now have good science backing their existence and even a visual reference of objects spinning around a black area of space at incredible speed. Before science could back up their likely existence, did they cease to exist until we believed that they existed? Of course they existed. Our beliefs do not change reality and truth at all. The only difference is how we perceive truth. It would have been ludicrous to say with absolute certainty that black holes don’t exist and in the same breath I also say that it is ludicrous to say that there is no God.

    Why it is unreasonable to say there is no God

    Let’s take a subject that is less emotional for most. The existence of extraterrestrial life. This will aid in us seeing our motives and bias more clearly. I would like to start with the following statements. In your mind, take note of the following statements that you agree with.

    1. It is unreasonable to deny the possibility that there is life on other planets.
    2. It is unreasonable to assume that there is definitely life on other planets.
    3. It is reasonable to assume that there is life on other planets, if you have come into contact with extra-terrestrial life or seen evidence of life through a telescope.
    4. It is reasonable to assume that there could be life on other planets if circumstances that we see on Earth (that are evidence of life) exist elsewhere in the universe.

    Remember which ones you agree with and now take the same test with a different subject.

    1. It is unreasonable to deny that there is a God.
    2. It is unreasonable to assume that there is a God (if you have nothing to back it up).
    3. It is reasonable to assume that there is a God, if you have come into contact with God.
    4. It is reasonable to assume that there is a God if we see what appears to be intelligent design in the physical universe.

    Now be honest with yourself. Did you agree and disagree with the same statements for each question? If you were not consistent, then that demonstrates your judgement contains bias. The only other possible explanation is that you have in fact experienced extra-terrestrial life in some way such as an abduction or a UFO sighting, and/or you have experienced God in some way. Otherwise, if you have not experienced or seen extra-terrestrial life or God, then your agreed statements should be the same in both examples. If they are not, then you are biased and this bias is warping your thinking.

    Can you prove that there is no God?

    People often say, can you prove that there is a God. Some say yes I can, others say I cannot. Let me ask you a question. Can you prove that there is no God? Or can you prove that there is no extra-terrestrial life? In order to say without any doubt that there is no extra-terrestrial life, one needs to explore every galaxy, sun, planet, moon, comet, asteroid, and the space in between to say that there is absolutely no life outside of life on Earth. In other words an impossible task. Even if you did that and found nothing else, you would have to additionally search all of time too.

    To say that there is absolutely no God is even harder to prove because if he exists, it would be likely be that he exists outside his own creation like a programmer exists outside his own computer. So even if you searched the whole universe, metaverse, everything, and including all time, realms, and dimensions, you still would need to look outside of all that. Likewise if I were an AI in a computer, I would have to search outside the computer to find my creator. So it is obvious that no one can say that there is no God, especially given that you understand or know less than 0.000000000000000000000001% of all the information in the known universe and existence, (notice the word ‘known’).

    Awareness and consciousness

    Why are we aware? Why are we conscious? Both the nothing or something options cannot explain it. Only the God/creator option has an explanation.

    We know that life comes from life and trying to explain life from something dead is about as ludicrous as saying that something came from nothing. If the eternal universe had no awareness, then there should still be no awareness and conscience now. Yet we are aware and conscious. This begs the question, where did awareness or conscience come from? What caused it? The biggest clue that we have is that the cause had to possess the attribute itself otherwise it came from nothing which we know is impossible.

    Something or someone has to be eternal

    Something has to be eternal, otherwise we have to accept that there was nothing and something just appeared at some point. We already know that this is unacceptable logic because that is the Nothing option we just looked at. So the only option left for us to believe is that something has to be eternal. Let’s assume for a moment, (regardless of your belief), that indeed, something is eternal and from that something came everything. Does this idea fit what we see or is it so absurd that it doesn’t fit what we see. The answer is that the existence of an eternal someone does explain everything.

    Let’s also say that eternity is represented by “infinity”. Is it possible to produce 1000 from infinity? Of course. In fact you can produce any finite number from infinity. Now let’s imagine that everything came from absolutely nothing. There is however a huge problem with this and I am sure you can see it already. You cannot get any number from zero unless you apply a number that is not zero to it. So all numbers can be explained in an infinite number set. No number can be explained if you start with zero and apply no other number or value.

    Lets look at this in a real life sense. Can a human come from another human? Absolutely. Can a human come from nothing? No, absolutely not. Can a ten dollar bill come from a tree? Yes the paper can at least. Can a ten dollar bill come from nothing? Absolutely not. So something has to be eternal, otherwise we are forced to conclude that everything came from something finite and then that finite thing came from nothing (zero) which we know is not possible.

    Which option fits the facts?

    Once an Atheist said to me that he gave the existence of God about a 0.0000005% chance of being true. I replied that this statement showed one thing only, his bias. I needed to remind him that an Atheist is an Atheist not because he has proof that there is no God, but that he chooses to believe that there is no God. So believing that God’s existence is extremely unlikely based on a belief alone is really the estimation or whimsical hope of a clueless person giving an opinion.

    You could make this same arguments about the existence of God of course, but the difference is that many claim to have personal evidence of God’s existence as well as the fact that the existence of God is the only logical option that explains how all things came to be. But because it is impossible to prove that there is no God, just as you cannot prove that there is no life outside of Earth, an honest answer from a person who has no proof that there is no God would be that there was a 33.333% chance of there being a God given the 3 possible options. Out of the 3 options, it is clear that only one explains everything and the other 2 do not make sense and worse than that, they are impossible.

    Concluding statements

    • “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
    • Saying that there is no God, leaves only 2 unreasonable options. That everything came from nothing or everything came from something eternal and non-living. Both these alternate answers have no proof, are unreasonable, and impossible.
    • Atheists pose no intellectual threat to believing in God.
    • Infinity or eternity is real and is not just a concept. If it wasn’t real, then everything must have proceeded from nothing at the earliest point. However, if nothing was the earliest state or thing, then there would be nothing now. Thus, infinity/eternity is proven by the very fact that there is something.
    • All non-intelligence (nothing or an eternal non-living entity has the IQ of zero. Anything with the IQ of zero cannot tie up a pair of shoe laces, never mind make a universe.
    • Mankind copies nature’s designs therefore the cause of the universe is much more able and smarter than us.
    • Life produces life. Consciousness comes from consciousness. Dead objects cannot produce consciousness. Consciousness has never been produced in a laboratory, No human has ever made an absolute dead life form live. Because life can only come from life, the oldest living entity must be eternal. i.e., logic dictates that there is eternal life. Otherwise, life came from non-life.
    • There is no scientific or investigative data that proves that there is no God, just as there is no scientific data that says there is no life beyond Earth.
    • Concluding that religion is bad has no bearing on the existence of God.
    • Arguing over who God is, doesn’t disprove God existence. It only proves that men by default believe in God but at the same time do not know this God personally.
    • Believing in God is the only belief that fits all the evidence. God is said to be living, intelligent, and exists outside of and before the universe. All these qualities explain well, the existence of the universe and all the contained qualities such as logic, design, and life.
    • It can only be described as foolishness to say there is no God.

    Think of it like this. If the universe is first, then it had no cause because if it did, then it came from something and that something obviously precedes the universe and therefore the universe cannot be first. Whatever is first had to have no cause because that is the definition of first in this context. Once we understand that, then there are some interesting requirements that the original or first thing must have, such as it must be eternal or infinite. Otherwise again, it is not the first. So the more you look into it, the more you can see the parallels with this and God.

    If the universe has life, then life is part of the source of the universe. If the universe has order, then order is part of the source of the universe. If the universe has design, then the source of the universe has the ability to design. The ingredients and products of the universe must also be present in the source of the universe, otherwise they come from nothing which we already know is impossible.

    Let’s wrap this up. The source is eternal and it produced intelligence, design. life, and laws. Is that not a description of God? Is he not living, a designer, an intelligence, the law giver, and eternal? You can deny God in word, but you cannot deny in deed the need that the source of the universe possesses the qualities that it produced. So you may not like the idea that there is an eternal living designer and lawgiver, but you have to accept it logically and by that definition you agree that there is a God.

    “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” – Arthur Conan Doyle.

    Discussion

    Faitheism

    October 19, 2012 at 8:54 pm#777144
    Anastas
    Participant

    The answer is usually more simple than we like to think. The more one knows and analyses, the more he is likely to confuse himself and complicate things to a point here the truth is lost in complications. Men knew God created the world/universe before they knew how to write. Yet, now with all the advances in technology and science we have found ourselves unable to accept something so simple and straight forward. We prefer complexity, so after we come up with our nonsense we can marvel at our own “intelligence”. That goes to show how arrogance leads men away from God.

    So, using the same formula, perhaps Trinitarian Christians should reexamine the bible and they might come to realize that such a doctrine was made up from the exact same arrogance in thought. If you do, you’ll see that men twisted words and made things far more complicating then they truly were, which ended up with the Trinity position. Incorrect theologies that stem from man’s arrogance to make things more complicated then they truly are, which clouds the truth with a blanket of lies.

    A brother in Christ,
    Anastas

    March 29, 2013 at 8:14 am#777145
    Admin
    Keymaster

    Agreed.

    April 5, 2013 at 12:05 am#777146
    Admin
    Keymaster

    “So, using the same formula, perhaps Trinitarian Christians should reexamine the bible and they might come to realize that such a doctrine was made up from the exact same arrogance in thought.”

    True. It is the same arrogance. Its just applied to Bible understanding instead of science.

    October 27, 2013 at 9:42 am#777147
    wilsunphi
    Participant

    Hi,
    I think there is also an alternate proof based on the existence of causal relationships in the universe and our brain’s ability to exploit them using deductive reasoning. I think this may be related to the concept of Logos(Johns)/Wisdom(Proverbs) in the bible.
    In this universe we see a lot of consistency/order – much more than we realize. For eg- both of us and everything around are us are made of atoms and all our atoms behave similarly. I mean why is it possible for a human made construct like atom to explain and predict things. What if my body was made of a single large atom and yours of small atoms. Or what if even if my body is made of atoms but all my atoms behave differently from yours. I recently saw a youtube video of proof of God which states that in order to explain that things don’t fall apart (as the video states in order to explain things we need to explain even the constancy of things) we need to have some conservation laws(of charge,mass-energy etc.). I am not able to find it now otherwise i would have linked it. Anyway the argument there was that what conserves these laws. It will go on an infinite recursion if we keep making meta laws that conserves these laws.
    What I mean is scientists chase after axioms and theories to explain things. But what is necessary for that is that there should be axioms and laws that should be followed. These laws should be followed at all places(in your body’s atoms, in mine and everywhere else). These laws should also be followed at all times. It is because of these laws that there are causal relationships in this physical world. Otherwise we would never be able to throw a ball forward and expect it to move forward. We would never be able to say if the next moment the universe changes and another universe comes into existence.
    Another interesting thing is that our brains are able to exploit these causal relationships. Humans have the ability to make theories and new concepts. (I think that when we were made there was a small set of concepts and relations  and also algorithms to take in new facts and create new concepts hardcoded into our brains. I have a feeling that the algorithm for deductive reasoning was hardcoded into our brains. Which would mean our brains were designed to exploit the causal relationships.I have to think more to come with a conclusive proof). But in any case we know that within the limits of our logic we are able to exploit the causal relationships. We are also within the limits of our logic able to think about infinite alternate possibilities about how things would have been without causal relationships.
    When Issac Newton saw the apple fall he thought why does it fall down when there are infinite other possibilities( it can go any direction). He realized that there is something ‘unnatural’ happening. Similarly here there are infinitely more possibilities(that we ourselves can think about) than that is happening around us. So we must know that something ‘unnatural’ is happening all around us.
    So that means that there is an entity who enforces the laws at all places at all the time(because the ‘natural’ state according to our logic is complete randomness). An entity who stands between infinite possibilities and a much limited subset of these. An entity who enables logic to work in this world. I think this may be the meaning of the Wisdom/Logos mentioned in the bible (whose earthly incarnation is Jesus Christ).
    An atheist can argue into an infinite recursion of mechanism of how things work if he wants. But what is important is that he will never be able to get to a non random consistent laws by starting from a completely random state. In short God made consistency and causal relationships. He gave us the logical ability to exploit these and predict things. He also gave us the ability to imagine more possibilities. So he expects us to realize that he is there.

    October 28, 2013 at 2:20 am#777148
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Wilson
    You have lots of “if” but I Beleive that we should think andspell out only the things we know for sure and not make up what we do not know,and that would be our truth,
     
     

    October 28, 2013 at 6:00 am#777149
    wilsunphi
    Participant

    Hi terrarica,
    Sorry that my post confused you. My communication skills were never top notch. The ‘if’s were just to explain concepts. Even without that I think it is a strong logical proof. Please allow me to try again without the ‘if’s this time.
     
    1) There is order around us and we are able to manipulate our environment around us. This is because the physical world around us follows some laws which we are able to exploit with our brains. Without these laws of science/physics (that is if the world behaved completely random)  there would not have been any causal relationships and our logic would not apply to the physical world.
     
    2) We have the ability to imagine a world much more random than our surrounding. i.e. we are able to imagine a lot of different possibilities if the laws of physics were not followed or even changed a little.
     
    3) If there are lots of possibilities and a limited no of possibilities occur all the time then there is something ‘unnatural’ going on. That is the definition of scientific attitude. (When Newton saw the apple falling down all the time instead of moving in other directions he realized something ‘unnatural’ is going on.)
     
    4)  1), 2) and 3) together implies that there is something ‘unnatural’ going on in this world all the time. There is no necessity that any laws of physics needs to be followed at all the time and at all the places. Which means someone is making it happen every single second and at every single place in this world.
     
    This person may be whom the bible refers to as Wisdom/Logos (ok here it is an ‘if’ but this does not affect the general argument. Besides it would be wrong to go beyond the bible and assert something that is not fully written.).
     
    People can go into an infinite recursion into the mechanism of how/why stuff happens like the world is made up of atoms or subatomic particles. (which ofcourse raises the question of why is it necessary that the whole world should follow the same law of being made up of atoms. I mean that we observe that the concept of atoms can explain stuff in the whole world but we don’t find any reason that 1 concept should explain all the stuff in the whole world…It just conveniently and ‘unnaturally’ happens so for us. ). People can go into an infinite recursion but we cannot arrive at a set of laws from completely random behavior without any laws.
     
    Basically every single time you want to move an object forward your God-given logic says that if you push it forward it will move forward. This is similar to God giving you a prophecy saying if you push it, I will move forward. Then when you push it the laws of physics holds as God had promised you and it moves forward. This is similar to God fulfilling the prophecy.
     
    On a side note, it is nice to meet you. From the forums I assume your name is Pierre. I have been a visitor to this site for about an year. Couldn’t really get around to posting anything. I have learned much from this site and the forums. Thank you and t8 and the rest of the folks.
     
     When I stumbled upon this proof I wanted to post it. I think this is a strong proof in the sense that people cannot make arguments (which are flawed but still they can try to assert it without any proof as we need counterproof) like something complex can evolve from lifeless random something in here.
     

    October 28, 2013 at 6:27 am#777150
    wilsunphi
    Participant

    Basically whenever a scientist makes a claim that
     
    Some laws were followed in an experimental setup => the laws will be followed at all places and at all times.
     
    There is a huge logical jump here. The correct logic would be
     
    Some laws were followed in a experimental setup AND God makes the same laws apply in all places at all time(which he can also waive at his will) so that man can use the logic he gave him =>  the laws will be followed at all places and at all times.

    October 29, 2013 at 9:53 pm#777151
    DavidL
    Participant

    “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
    –
    The problem with that statement is that you can never eliminate the impossibilities…they are endless..!
    –
    truth is an inner awakening of the Spirit – a revelation..!

    October 29, 2013 at 10:32 pm#777152
    Admin
    Keymaster

    Apart from the source of the Universe which is either:

    1) God
    2) Nothing
    3) Something eternal.

    These three options cover all options. So in that sense it is not endless. Thus why the fool has said in his heart that there is no God. Because the other two options are impossible leaving only God.

    The existence of God doesn’t need a special revelation because it is obvious. To know who God is means you have revelation.

    October 30, 2013 at 3:52 pm#777153
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    wilson

    I understand what you are saying ,but those things are more observations of our surroundings ,many people do not take the time to see,and hear and feel live around them ,because of their priorities they have set up in their own mind,a truth is something that never changes ,otherwise if it changes then it was not a truth ,I believe their is no such a thing as an temporary truth do you ???

    and as Einstein said i think;everything is relative ,even our knowledge and understanding of things around us or in us

    October 31, 2013 at 7:36 pm#777154
    wilsunphi
    Participant

    Hi Pierre,
    I got back my old dormant account by resetting the password.

    ‘many people do not take the time to see,and hear and feel live around them ,because of their priorities they have set up in their own mind’
    That is the big tragedy- what is in a person’s apparent immediate interest is not in line with what is in his true immediate and long term interest and he does not recognize this. Sometimes even with recognizing it his flesh compels him.

    Absolute truth is relative to God. So it is constant. Or by truth did you mean what a person perceives as truth from the observations around him. That may change with more observations but it won’t contradict the earlier observations.
    So while our knowledge and understanding of things around us may be limited they cannot be said as relative.

    On a side note when someone rejects trinity they usually reduce Christ to a created being. That is what I like about this site that you adhere to the simple truth that Jesus is God’s only begotten son.

    Wilson

    October 31, 2013 at 7:40 pm#777155
    wilsunphi
    Participant

    Sorry for the repeat post but just to put a more complete and consice set of arguments.

    1) Laws of physics behave to give limited no of possibilities.

    2) We are able to imagine much much more no of possibilities.

    3) From 1) and 2) we can say that laws of physics and hence the root cause of the laws of physics behave in a non random manner.

    4) Root cause of the laws of physics by its definition has no restrictions.

    5) From 3) and 4) the root cause of the laws of physics behaves with specific intentions.

    Wilson

    October 31, 2013 at 8:35 pm#777156
    Admin
    Keymaster

    I love Physics even though I never have much time to study it and never really took that subject at school.
    I think the video on this page is surprisingly good. Might want to take a look:

    Beyond Newton

    November 1, 2013 at 12:17 am#777157
    Admin
    Keymaster

    Scientists say that everything is so finely tuned that if it were just slightly different, then nothing we see would be possible. Further, they worry about depletion of the ozone layer for example and say that this very small layer is of utmost importance to life on Earth. Thus by their understanding of how finely tuned everything is, they indirectly argue that there is a creator because random process never come up with a finely tuned system again and again and again.

    November 1, 2013 at 10:49 pm#777158
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    HI WILSON

    yes ,as you say it is God’s truth ,but everything still relative to us human,because we are not the source of God’s truth ,and so it is related to our understanding of God and this through his scriptures ,but I do not believe in the trinity at all ,and so believe that Christ his a created being ,the very first of creation ,the only begotten son of God the father ,

    as you can see you believe in the trinity and so our understanding becomes relative to the scriptures that we allow our mind to imprint with it ;but only one can be true ;because there is no such thing as two truths with God

    November 1, 2013 at 10:59 pm#777159
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I alway wander at the laws tha God as put in place while he created all things ,

    question on earth how many wild live do we need ? how many birds do we need ??

    and how many sorts of insects and quantity do we need ??

    and how many humans can there be on earth ???

    and how much water salt and soft do we need ???

    and at what point was the equilibrium of all those thing was broken in a way that we now have to suffer the consequences of our doings ,

    now since creation start with God end, but destruction start from man’s end ,how far can it go in God’s direction before it all falls on our heads ???

    November 2, 2013 at 6:29 pm#777160
    wilsunphi
    Participant

    Hi t8,
    I too have no training in Physics beyond high school.

    I saw the video partially. Will try to see it later when I get the time. But from what I saw I think he was trying to put Joshua’s conquest at around 700BC. Or did I get it wrong. But Joshua lived before 1000BC. I had heard about the 360 day calender. I always thought a better explanation could be Uzziah’s earthquake or Hezekiah’s shadow moving backwards incident.

    November 2, 2013 at 7:16 pm#777161
    wilsunphi
    Participant

    I too don’t believe in the trinity, but still believe that Jesus is God’s only begotten son. I recall reading t8’s belief that Jesus is begotton and not created. I think this belief is necessary for salvation. I thought you too were the same.

    I have a feeling (though not explicitly supported by scripture – but not opposed by it either) that God made the system of father-son in this world so that man can have a taste, even though a faint one, of the relationship God has with Jesus. So that he can show man an faint example.

    November 2, 2013 at 10:29 pm#777162
    Admin
    Keymaster

    Yes that is where I stand on the issue because scripture is clear that creation is defined as that which comes from God and through his son Jesus Christ. Obviously the son did not come through the son, hence why he is called the only begotten of the Father. Thus he is different to all else, even if we are going to be LIKE him.

    For this reason, he stands above all else, except the Father of course. And logically speaking the son who came from God must consist of the very nature of God and this is why we read that he existed in the form of God.

    🙂

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 51 total)
123
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

 

CREATE NEW TOPIC
POPULAR TOPICS
ACTIVE TOPICS
SITE SEARCH
SUPPORT US
REGISTER

Recent Replies

ALL REPLIES →

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
 Log in with Facebook
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

 Log in with Facebook
or

Create Account