Science Vs. Atheism

[Orthodox]

Hello,

The purpose of this posting is to demonstrate the unscientific nature of atheistic belief. Although I am a Christian I am not primarily attempting in this thread to demonstrate how Christianity is true, I am merely (and I use that word with caution) trying to show how the observation of various empirical facts has in recent years destroyed the scientific base of atheism. I hope to show that the discovery of these facts has changed atheism from a worldview based on fact to one bereft of factual foundation.

About one hundred years ago scientists began to unravel a number of cosmological coincidences, named ‘cosmological constants’. These ‘constants’ were named so because it was immediately apparent that while they were all independent of each other, each one is absolutely necessary for life. Martin Rees, a colleague of Stephen Hawking’s at Cambridge, noted, “The possibility of life as we know it depends on the values of a few basic, physical constants and is in some respects remarkably sensitive to their numerical values. Nature does exhibit some remarkable coincidences.” The effect of these ‘constants’, coupled with the onset of comprehensive physical theories about the universe, has been the death knell of sophisticated scientific atheism.

The physical theory with the most import to this discussion is Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. GR demonstrated that the universe must have had a beginning. Initially, when he developed GR, Einstein incorporated an artificial “fudge factor” into his equation to negate this overt demand for a beginning of the universe. He later called this “the greatest single mistake of [his] career”. So, GR dictates that the universe must have some independent cause, some Prime Mover - for we know that nothing can be causa sui (self-caused – don’t confuse this with something being uncaused). This is the unavoidable conclusion we must draw if we are to accept GR, the most comprehensive and empirically demonstrable physical theory of our day. For this reason very few physical scientists are atheists.

So what does all this mean? It means that to the best of our scientific knowledge the universe was begun by something other than itself in an enormous, and finely tuned, Big Bang. The ‘constants’ at play in the universe are each highly unlikely and highly specific. Together they form what is known as the Anthropic Principle. Below I list a number of these ‘constants’ without which life would be impossible.

1. The gravitational coupling constant. If slightly unbalanced, each star formed would be at least 1.4 times the size of the Sun. Such large stars are required to form heavier elements such as iron and beryllium (used in solar system formation) but, a large star burns too quickly and unevenly to sustain life. A star the size of our own is needed to make those conditions right.

If the force were just a little weaker then stars would be too small and would never form the heavier elements essential for life and planetary systems.
2. If the strong nuclear force coupling constant that binds particles in the nucleus together were slightly weaker then more than one proton would not hold together in the nucleus and hydrogen would be the only element in the universe.

If stronger then Hydrogen would be too rare in the universe and also a number of very heavy elements would not be present in large enough quantities to support life.
3. The weak nuclear force coupling constant and leptons. Leptons form the elementary particles like neutrinos, electrons and photons that have no place in strong nuclear reactions. A weak nuclear force interaction effect is beta decay radiation. ( neutron  proton + electron + neutrino)

The amount of Helium produced in the first few minutes of the Big Bang is determined by the availability of Neutrons. If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger then there would be fewer neutrons, as they would decay more rapidly. Without adequate amounts of helium none of the heavy elements necessary for life would form in the nuclear reactions of stars. If the force were smaller there would be so great an abundance of heavy elements that life would not form either.

Additionally, if the force were larger or smaller then neutrinos could not “blow” the heavy elements located at the core of a supernova out into the solar system. Once again, this would inhibit the development of life.

4. The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms, if smaller electrons would not be held in orbit around the nuclei of atoms, if larger electrons could not be shared between other atoms. Either way, any type of molecule would be impossible. Try to imagine life without molecules.
5. The ratio between the masses of an electron and proton is 1:1836. If slightly different molecules, again, would not form.
6. If the expansion rate of the universe were slightly less by one part in a million million then the whole universe would have collapsed back onto itself just after the Big Bang. If larger by one part in a million stars would not have formed.
7. If the centrifugal force did not perfectly balance the force of gravity then solar systems and galaxies would not form.
8. If the resonance level of the Carbon 12 nucleus were slightly lower carbon would not form. Slightly higher level would instantly destroy it. Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and the other heavy elements required for life need this.
9. If the entropy level of the universe was slightly larger or smaller then stars would not form.
10. The mass of the universe (mass + energy, since E = mc2) determines the nuclear burning after the big bang. If slightly more massive, too much deuterium (hydrogen atoms containing both a proton and a neutron in the nucleus) would form after the big bang. Deuterium is the catalyst for the ignition of stars. Extra deuterium would cause stars to burn too rapidly to sustain life on any planet. If the mass of the universe were slightly smaller, helium would not be generated at all during the aftermath of the big bang. As in number 3, without helium, stars cannot produce the heavy elements necessary for life. Here is the reason for why the universe is as big as it is. If it were any smaller (or larger), no life would be possible.

Here are just eleven out of many such cosmic ‘coincidences’. There are no natural laws that require the universe to be this way, apparently it is just a freak occurrence. The chances involved for just one of these constants to occur is astronomical. Take, for example, the smoothness of the universe. If it were more smooth then stars and galaxies (and subsequently life) would not have formed, if less smooth then only super massive black holes would have formed (no life there either). Roger Penrose, the famous scientist who developed the Singularity Theorem with Stephen Hawking, calculated the chances of the smoothness of the universe being that needed to sustain life as 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. Just to give you a little insight into this number; it is a bigger number than the number of particles in the universe (by particles I don’t just mean atoms, or even protons, I mean quarks!).

Sir Fred Hoyle, the British astrophysicist, was forced to concede that “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this question almost beyond question.”

Stephen Hawking, a staunch anti-atheist, said, “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron…. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”

Arno Penzias, co-discoverer of the microwave background radiation and 1978 Nobel prize recipient said, “The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

 

[Orthodox]

[add on to above - post too long]

What can a sceptic say to this? Well, they could say something like, “If there are an infinite number universes (presumably through some bouncing universe, big bang/big crunch model) then eventually there will arise a universe that can support life.” However, Alan Guth, the first to postulate the idea of an “inflationary big bang”, has put this idea to death. He proved, in his 1983 article in Nature entitled “The impossibility of a Bouncing Universe”, that even if the universe had adequate mass to stop its expansion, a big crunch would only create a ‘thud’ not a ‘bounce’. There is now a consensus among most physicists and cosmologists that short of intervention by a God the universe will continue to expand forever.

A sceptic may also say that life is not necessarily contingent upon carbon and therefore life could arise in another type of universe that does not support carbon. This again is an unscientific presumption, Polkinghorne responded to this idea by saying:
“Those who make such a claim are drawing a very large intellectual blank check on a totally unknown bank account. Consciousness seems to demand very great physical complexity to sustain it (the human brain is the most complicated physical system we have created). It is far from persuasive that there are many alternative routes to this generation of complexity.”

Let us also consider the Laws of Thermodynamics. The second law, dealing with entropy, states that the amount of useable energy in the universe is decreasing. An example of this law is found in the burning of wood. When I burn a log of wood it turns from a highly ordered and useable lump of energy to a disordered and unusable piece, ash, smoke, heat and light. We can’t burn the ash, smoke, heat and light again and only a small quantity of them will be re-ordered into useable energy. This law is working on the large scale as well. The universe is slowly winding itself down so that eventually it will be at a constant temperature (slightly higher than absolute Zero) and will have no useable energy left.

The universe, it seems, will eventually run out of steam and be dark and desolate. There will be no light, all the stars would all have died. There would be practically no heat; even electrons will hardly move. The universe will be dead. It is apparent, scientifically, that this universe we inhabit was started by something bigger and more powerful than itself, it has had this one shot at vitality before it dies.

What now, are the odds of there being no God? Science and reason have sided with religion, aren’t they the atheist’s patrons?

On the thread entitled “What kind of atheist are you?” someone had written,

From a scientific perspective... There is good evidence against the existence of any god(s)

I don’t think there are many prominent contemporary scientists who would say this. Is this a statement of faith? If not, I hope that person would be so kind as to enlighten me!

 

[Green Gaia]

None of the above - I consider myself mostly Deist.

Moving to Science vs Religion Forum....

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Orthodox-- Great post!

Let us also consider the Laws of Thermodynamics. The second law, dealing with entropy, states that the amount of useable energy in the universe is decreasing. An example of this law is found in the burning of wood. When I burn a log of wood it turns from a highly ordered and useable lump of energy to a disordered and unusable piece, ash, smoke, heat and light. We can’t burn the ash, smoke, heat and light again and only a small quantity of them will be re-ordered into useable energy. This law is working on the large scale as well. The universe is slowly winding itself down so that eventually it will be at a constant temperature (slightly higher than absolute Zero) and will have no useable energy left.

The universe, it seems, will eventually run out of steam and be dark and desolate. There will be no light, all the stars would all have died. There would be practically no heat; even electrons will hardly move. The universe will be dead. It is apparent, scientifically, that this universe we inhabit was started by something bigger and more powerful than itself, it has had this one shot at vitality before it dies.

The last sentence does not logically follow the ones before it. Scientifically, time is finite in the cosmos that we inhabit, and one day it will "die". Saying that, therefore, it must have been started by something bigger and more powerful than itself is conjecture.

You say that if one of many mathematical constants in physics were different, life would not be possible. I agree. Next, you say that, therefore, something greater than the universe itself must have fine tuned those constants in order to create life....but this does not logically follow. If the universe were different, it would be different...no surprise there.

Let's talk hypothetical for a moment and say that none of the constants in physics are set right now. Now we pick some constants, and we get a universe made completely out of hydrogen. What were the odds of all the constants being exactly what they needed to be to make this hypothetical universe? Do all the hydrogen atoms fly around in this universe and say "you know, if the constants were slightly different, we wouldn't all be hydrogen atoms...there must be an intelligent entity out there who had hydrogen atoms in mind from the beginning, and who specifically fine tuned everything to make all this possible"? I don't think the hydrogen atoms would say that because, unlike we humans, they don't have such big egos.

No matter what numbers you pick for the mathematical constants in the physical laws of the universe, it seems to me that any combination of numbers is as unlikely as any other (as you said, no natural laws that we know of require the constants to be the way they are now). So, in asking why we have the constants that we do, I would ask: why not? Does it make sense to look at a hand of thirteen cards drawn from a 52 card deck, and conclude that the odds of you getting this particular hand are so small that someone must have used their intelligence to specifically rig the deck to create that outcome?

Atheism unscientific? I've got to respond to that :

You say that the mathematical constants in the laws of physics are not caused by anything--there is no natural law dictating what those constants must be. IF that is true, then we are at the limits of what we can come to know through science, and nothing more can be said about what causes the universe. Adding an intelligent entity for which there is zero evidence would be a clear violation of Occam's Razor.

The only thing science can say on this issue is "this is what the constants are. If they were different, the universe would be different. These constants are uncaused (or, we do not know what causes them)". If you have evidence of what causes the physical laws, please share it. I did not see in your post any evidence that the physical laws of the universe were caused by anything (much less an intelligent being).

Philosophically speaking, if the mathematical constants in physical laws truly have no cause, they are the Prime Mover.

For now, I think atheism is not a belief--scientifically, it remains the status quo--theists are the ones who speculate on what might be without any evidence in support.

 

[Orthodox]

Hey spinkles,

Thanks for your reply! I may have been a liitle sloppy with some of my point making (I reply to that one first)!

Saying that [because the universe will 'die'] it must have been started by something bigger and more powerful than itself is conjecture.

No it's not. I think you will agree with me (and atheists like Satre) that a self-caused being is an impossibility. So anything that has an end cannot be infinite, cannot have self-caused itself, and therefore, must have a beginning. I also was relying on the statments made in the above paragraphs to make my point valid.

Does it make sense to look at a hand of thirteen cards drawn from a 52 card deck, and conclude that the odds of you getting this particular hand are so small that someone must have used their intelligence to specifically rig the deck to create that outcome?

Not if the odds are that small, but on the large scale an inquiry would be common sense. In the case of the 'constants' not only are the variables highly unlikely, but they are also highly specific. Each 'constant' must arise entirely independently of the others, but all seem tailored to support life. This is a highly unlikely, highly specific outcome. To use the card analogy; Pretend you and I were both equally good at poker, and that we played 20,000 games of it (a rather conservative number considering the cosmic proportions). One would expect that I would win 50% and you would win 50% of the games. However, if 20,000 times in a row I was dealt (or dealt myself) a royal flush then alarm bells would begin to ring in your mind. You would think that I rigged it. Again, that is what scientists are suggesting, someone 'rigged' the universe. The 'each outcome is equally unlikely' excuse is not valid given the specification of the 'constants'. Those famous scientists I quoted said themselves that it looks as if some 'superintellect' 'monkeyed', 'finetuned' or 'adsjusted' the ratios to produce life supportable condidtions.

Adding an intelligent entity for which there is zero evidence would be a clear violation of Occam's Razor.

Mmmmmm... not sure about your understanding of Ockham's Razor. In his Razor Ockham affirms that 'causes should not be muliplied without without necessity'. Often the popular form of the Razor, 'the simplest explanation is the best explanation', is taken to mean 'the fewest, the truest', this is not correct, simple does not necessarily imply few. In the case of the 'constants', the evidence suggests that we needn't complicate the equation by staking its proclaimation on a tiny tiny hope, that the universe has no creator. According to Ockham, we must just go where the flow of evidence is pointing us and accept that the universe has a creator.

Philosophically speaking, if the mathematical constants in physical laws truly have no cause, they are the Prime Mover

No one suggested that they were. From scientific studies we know that in a big bang singularity the rules of science break down, ratios disappear. Thats why their present condition is so very remarkable. An incredibly simplified analogy would be putting an apple in the blender and having it come out as a whole carrot.

For now, I think atheism is not a belief--scientifically, it remains the status quo--theists are the ones who speculate on what might be without any evidence in support.

Are you saying there isd evidence against a God? If so please share it! Obviousley none of us knows everything, so, making a proclaimation about what isn't existent is a riddiculous call. You need to know everything to know what does not exist, this is not the case with knowing that something does exist. If I asked you to prove that there was no such thing as a white crow (stand in for God) you would need to find every crow in the world and make sure it was not white. On the other hand if I asked you to prove that a white crow does exist all you may have to do is walk outside and see one in a tree, no further searching required.

Given this, can Atheism be logically viable whatever the case of our evidence? Wouldn't agnostic be a more appropriate term for the condition of your belief in God? Also, scientifically atheism is not the status quo. As I have shown most scientists have sided with some form of religious thinking.

Orthodox

 

[Pah]

"The purpose of this posting is to demonstrate the unscientific nature of atheistic belief."

I don't think you made a case for that goal. You have failed to show that any alternative to Atheism is scientific - thus equating your stated purpose to an unscientific God. If, as you say, Atheism is unscientific (and it is for it is not concerned with science at all) then so you must also say also say God is unscientifc.

-pah-

 

[Mister Emu]

I don't think you made a case for that goal. You have failed to show that any alternative to Atheism is scientific - thus equating your stated purpose to an unscientific God. If, as you say, Atheism is unscientific (and it is for it is not concerned with science at all) then so you must also say also say God is unscientifc.

I think the problem with the mindset Atheism=Science is that too many modern day atheists try to back up their assertions of no God with science, and too many scientists think atheisism is "the" scientific view because they were taught atheistic views all through school.

Neither Atheism nor any religion are scientific, yet the view that there is some kind of higher power has a scientific base, and many of the scientific community's fore-fathers were clearly theists of some sort.

I believe(not sure, but I remember seeing this quote somewhere, if I'm wrong please tell me ) Darwin said something to the effect of: I believe that there was a God not because of any spiritual revelation, but because the odds of a supreme being creating the universe are greater than that of any other creation theory.

 

[Pah]

I think the problem with the mindset Atheism=Science is that too many modern day atheists try to back up their assertions of no God with science, and too many scientists think atheisism is "the" scientific view because they were taught atheistic views all through school.

I agree that there is a problem. But the proof of God/No God falls into agruments of history and formal logic (philosophy), as well. Yet no one would dare say that history or logic is Atheistic. The confusion some harbor is rooted in melding the two strongest argumentistic "enemies" of God.

Neither Atheism nor any religion are scientific, yet the view that there is some kind of higher power has a scientific base, and many of the scientific community's fore-fathers were clearly theists of some sort.

I have heard no scientic evidence for the existence of a higher power. The thrust of Creationism is an defensive attack on ideas that threaten the truth of a God existing and nothing in a positve, scietific vein.

I believe(not sure, but I remember seeing this quote somewhere, if I'm wrong please tell me ) Darwin said something to the effect of: I believe that there was a God not because of any spiritual revelation, but because the odds of a supreme being creating the universe are greater than that of any other creation theory]

I have not heard that before and would appreciate, if you can find it again, a more accurate quote. I suspect it it much like the death-bed regret Darwin had of his work - a made up, biased myth.

-pah-

 

[Mister Emu]

I have not heard that before and would appreciate, if you can find it again, a more accurate quote. I suspect it it much like the death-bed regret Darwin had of his work - a made up, biased myth.

I must go along with this.

The thrust of Creationism is an defensive attack on ideas that threaten the truth of a God existing and nothing in a positve, scietific vein.

To quote Darwin(and of this I'm sure I just looked through about 10 darwin quotes sites) loosely

It is a better good to prove a wrong theory false, than it is to bring a new fact or truth to light.

 

[Pah]

To quote Darwin(and of this I'm sure I just looked through about 10 darwin quotes sites) loosely

It is a better good to prove a wrong theory false, than it is to bring a new fact or truth to light.

I really wish you had quoted exactly and given the site link where it was found. My google search for various phrases in what you presented brought no results.

-pah-

 

[Mister Emu]

I really wish you had quoted exactly and given the site link where it was found. My google search for various phrases in what you presented brought no results.

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/charles_darwin/3.html

It is the third one down

 

[Pah]

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/charles_darwin/3.html

It is the third one down

Yes, I found

"To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact"

With no attribution for the quote (I searched for "to kill an error" and found it on about four sites), it is impossible to understand the context in which it was given. It could very well speak of the error of creationism in relation to evolution or even just the scientific process

-pah-

 

[Mister Emu]

it is impossible to understand the context in which it was given. It could very well speak of the error of creationism in relation to evolution or even just the scientific process

That statement seems pretty hard to take out of context, at least to me.

unlike when other creationist quote the thing where he said the idea that an eye evolved was ludacris, which he then goes on to counter.

I try not take things out of context, and it just seems like that one can't be.

 

[Pah]

That statement seems pretty hard to take out of context, at least to me.

The was no context - it was a quote taken out of context and as such becomes very ambigious. That's why I did a further search on the actually quote - to discover the context. There is not even a reference to where or when it originated.

//cut//

I try not take things out of context, and it just seems like that one can't be.

I appreciate that. But I have shown two alternate meanings that can be inferred from the "naked" quote. Your attached meaning makes a third. That is the definition of ambigious - not clearly or succinctly defined.

-pah-

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Orthodox-- Oooh, great points--I'm really taking a beating in this debate! I must confess I know little about these physical constants other than what you have already posted, and this has motivated me to learn more on the subject of constants and so forth.

I think you will agree with me (and atheists like Satre) that a self-caused being is an impossibility.

What about an uncaused being? Correct me if I'm wrong, but uncaused events are part of quantum theory.

So anything that has an end cannot be infinite, cannot have self-caused itself, and therefore, must have a beginning.

I agree that according to theory the universe will expand forever and that eventually "die" when all the stars and so forth run out of energy, but that doesn't mean the universe will "end"...the universe will continue to expand forever (at least, that's my understanding). I also don't think that everything with a beginning must have had a cause--if something is acausal, or random, it will have a beginning, but no cause. You are not only arguing that there is a cause, but you are also proposing that science knows what that cause is. So where's the evidence?

Not if the odds are that small, but on the large scale an inquiry would be common sense. In the case of the 'constants' not only are the variables highly unlikely, but they are also highly specific. Each 'constant' must arise entirely independently of the others, but all seem tailored to support life. This is a highly unlikely, highly specific outcome. To use the card analogy; Pretend you and I were both equally good at poker, and that we played 20,000 games of it (a rather conservative number considering the cosmic proportions). One would expect that I would win 50% and you would win 50% of the games. However, if 20,000 times in a row I was dealt (or dealt myself) a royal flush then alarm bells would begin to ring in your mind. You would think that I rigged it.

I would think that you rigged it, because I can see you right in front of me and you had motive to rig the deck--you are a clearly evident element in the equation. God, on the other hand, is not sitting across a poker table from us....I think the analogy could be improved by saying that I shuffled a deck in a room by myself and dealt myself a royal flush 20,000 times in a row.

I would indeed find this a perplexing mystery, one requiring further inquiry, but I hesitate to jump to conclusions about intelligent being(s) being behind it, as tempting and exciting as that may be. Not so long ago, lightning was a complete mystery and could only be explained by the wrath of the gods. I readily admit that you have sparked my interest--it will be very exciting to see what future discoveries are made in the attempt to unravel this phenomenon, and I now feel compelled to find out more on my own.

Again, that is what scientists are suggesting, someone 'rigged' the universe.

I thought they only pointed out the mysterious apparent rigging--in which peer-reviewed papers do they claim the existence of this "someone"? In the history of science, the discoveries of many new phenomena have lead people to think it affirms God's existence...until, that is, we got hold of a better understanding of them. It seems God will forever remain a filler in our gaps of knowledge.

The 'each outcome is equally unlikely' excuse is not valid given the specification of the 'constants'. Those famous scientists I quoted said themselves that it looks as if some 'superintellect' 'monkeyed', 'finetuned' or 'adsjusted' the ratios to produce life supportable condidtions.

I'm not sure I understand the math here. If you have a specific outcome already in mind (i.e. a universe exactly like ours) then based on what I've read from you the odds of that happening are astronomically small. However, it would seem that the odds of getting any specific outcome are astronomically small. If we do not have a specific outcome in mind (in other words, if we do not place more "value" on our universe than all the other possible universes) the odds of this universe happening are the same as the odds of any other universe happening. It seems you would place "more value" on this universe by comparing it to royal flushes, but I suppose that is simply because you have a teleological philosophy, and I do not. Mathematically, I would think it more appropriate to compare our universe to getting any unique combination of cards, as all combinations--royal flushes and non-royal flushes alike--are equally unlikely.

Now, if you are saying that certain values for constants (specifically, our values) are less likely than any other possible set of values, perhaps I should do some further reading on the subject.

Mmmmmm... not sure about your understanding of Ockham's Razor. In his Razor Ockham affirms that 'causes should not be muliplied without without necessity'. Often the popular form of the Razor, 'the simplest explanation is the best explanation', is taken to mean 'the fewest, the truest', this is not correct, simple does not necessarily imply few. In the case of the 'constants', the evidence suggests that we needn't complicate the equation by staking its proclaimation on a tiny tiny hope, that the universe has no creator. According to Ockham, we must just go where the flow of evidence is pointing us and accept that the universe has a creator.

At worst, the flow of evidence suggests that our current set of constants is as unlikely as any other set of constants, and in this case we need not violate Ockham's Razor (I spelled it right! ) by adding causes (god(s)) to explain why we got the constants we did. At the very best, the flow of evidence points us in the direction not of accepting a creator, but of accepting the existence of "something(s) that causes physical constants to favor a universe in which life will arise". To call that "something" God, an intelligent entity, a spirit, or whatever--that is an unnecessary conjecture not based on evidence and only adds causes, thereby violating Ockham's Razor.

No one suggested that they were. From scientific studies we know that in a big bang singularity the rules of science break down, ratios disappear. Thats why their present condition is so very remarkable. An incredibly simplified analogy would be putting an apple in the blender and having it come out as a whole carrot.

I am not sure how this relates to my comment: "Philosophically speaking, if the mathematical constants in physical laws truly have no cause, they are the Prime Mover".

Are you saying there isd evidence against a God? If so please share it!

The absence of evidence for God is good evidence against God. Not believing in God is the status quo when there is zero evidence, just as not believing in mermaids is perfectly acceptable since there is no evidence for mermaids.

Obviousley none of us knows everything, so, making a proclaimation about what isn't existent is a riddiculous call. You need to know everything to know what does not exist, this is not the case with knowing that something does exist.

I agree with part of this: I cannot claim to know for a fact that God does not exist (especially considering how ambiguous and disputed God's definition is). However, I can logically conclude that the existence of some Gods is unreasonable (i.e. an all good all powerful God who allows evil). Furthermore, I can reduce the probability of existence for any god without evidence to the same probability of mermaids or the easter bunny or unicorns existing. I agree with you on one thing: philosophically speaking, I cannot rule out with 100% confidence the existence of unproven gods or the easter bunny.

If I asked you to prove that there was no such thing as a white crow (stand in for God) you would need to find every crow in the world and make sure it was not white. On the other hand if I asked you to prove that a white crow does exist all you may have to do is walk outside and see one in a tree, no further searching required.

This is precisely why the burden of proof falls on the backs of those who make a claim. Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence--if white crows exist, then your task is simple: bring me a single white crow and I will believe in their existence. Unlike theistic belief, my beliefs are contingent upon the evidence, and therefore are able to change. But until you bring me one white crow, I am more than justified in saying the existence of white crows is merely speculative, and the existence of invisible pink crows unreasonable.

Given this, can Atheism be logically viable whatever the case of our evidence? Wouldn't agnostic be a more appropriate term for the condition of your belief in God? Also, scientifically atheism is not the status quo. As I have shown most scientists have sided with some form of religious thinking.

Scientists are allowed to have personal philosophical beleifs, but I have never heard of a peer-reviewed scientific experiment that made God's existence scientific fact. As far as science is concerned, until we prove it, God and the easter bunny are white crows that no one has found.

 

[Runt]

Just a note after having read the first two posts... and only the first two posts (sorry if someone already brought this up): the argument Orthodox created seems to center around the notion that life is important. That because life is so important, the purpose of all the laws of the universe are to create life and sustain life. That because these life is important and the laws needed to create life are so specific, they could not have arisen randomly but must have been created by something.

However, imagine (yes, imagine) that if the laws governing the universe--(and also imagine, if you do not already believe, that these laws are completely random rather than having been created with a purpose)--had been different, something, some ultimate shape of the universe, and many particular, special things dependent upon those very specific laws within that universe, would exist. Life as we know it would not exist, LIFE might not even exist... but this universe would be just as natural, just as "right", as our own.

Moving back to our universe... if life is not important at all, if it was simply an accident that arose because those factor exists (rather than the factors existing because some undefined "first cause" put them in place so that life could exist, which seems to be the direction in which the argument was leaning), then there is no reason to believe that there is a conscious entity that created life, and created the universe in such a way that life could exist.

 

[Orthodox]

Mr Spinkles,

I did mean what I said; you did make some good points. The fact that you don’t know much on the subject (by your own admission) doesn’t (unfortunately for me) prevent you from being able to critically examine the gaps in my posting. I understand what I am trying to say but often I fail to convey it adequately, thank-you for bringing my attention to the gaps. Now, down to business.

Concerning my statement about the impossibility of a self-caused being you said:

What about an uncaused being? Correct me if I'm wrong, but uncaused events are part of quantum theory.

Well firstly, I do believe in an uncaused thing, God. According to the Bible he exists outside of space and time, incidentally, this idea, which caused the church much embarrassment up until Hawking and Penrose’s ‘Singularity theorem’, is in exact alignment with the best scientific knowledge of our day. As Robert Jastrow, theoretical physicist and author, said,

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Secondly, Quantum Mechanics (I assume that’s what you meant by ‘quantum theory’) does not posit ‘uncaused’ events. QM is the theory deriving from Planck’s ‘quantum principal’ and Heisenbergs’s ‘uncertainty principal’. It deals with the behaviour of particle quanta, and the understanding we may have of them given the restrictions of the UP. There are two things we must know precisely about a particle in order to accurately predict its actions, its velocity and its position. Unfortunately, as the UP shows, we cannot know both things at once, the closer we are to knowing the precise velocity of a particle the further we are from know its position, and vice versa. So, because we cannot know exactitudes about a particle we must deal in probabilities. We will say that there is a 60% chance a particle is ‘here’ and a 40% it is ‘here’. This does not mean that the particle is in two places at once, nor does it mean that the particle’s actions are uncaused and free from the principal of causality, merely that we don’t know the cause or the exact position. Don’t worry, it is a common mistake to misunderstand the conditions and implications of QM. To begin with Einstein himself misunderstood and rejected QM saying, “God does not play dice”.

I also don't think that everything with a beginning must have had a cause--if something is acausal, or random, it will have a beginning, but no cause.

Are you sure? The very reason the Big Bang necessitates a ‘outside force’ is because in the ‘singularity’ the very rules of causality breakdown. Everything in this universe, and indeed the universe itself, requires a cause. Just because things happen without us intending them to do so does not mean that there was no cause. Give me any example of a natural (as opposed to supernatural) ‘acausal’ thing, I will prove it to have a cause. Whether the cause be wind, entropy or accident, everything natural has a cause. The fact that ‘acausal’ is not a real word may demonstrate my point better than further discussion will.

You are not only arguing that there is a cause, but you are also proposing that science knows what that cause is. So where's the evidence?

I am arguing that science shows that the universe needs a cause outside of itself. That is all. I am a Christian and I believe that the physical breakthroughs of the 20th century are consistent with the Biblical view of the universe, however that does not mean that they confirm it, merely that they allow for it. On the other hand, Atheism/Materialism/Naturalism is a belief that is no longer consistent with science. The belief in an infinite universe is the crux of Atheism, in the absence of it atheism is groundless. Christianity would be groundless to if it were true that the universe always has and always will exist.

The evidence? GR, QM, the singularity theorem, pretty much all of modern physics actually. Where’s yours (or evidence of no evidence – as you propose)?

“in which peer-reviewed papers do they claim the existence of this "someone” [who rigged the universe]

Firstly, the purpose of physics is to find the properties and rules that govern the universe, so, most physical papers make only fleeting reference to the ‘god-factor’ or whatever because understanding principals is not usually contingent upon an understanding of God. The understanding principals can give a limited understanding of God though. Two such ‘peer-reviewed’ sources are “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking, and “God and the Astronomers” by Robert Jastrow. As I said, physical theories have profound implications for belief systems, but religious beliefs should not have profound implications for physical theories. Wouldn’t you agree? For this reason God is not discussed as much as GR, but GR is seen to have profound implications about the question of whether there is a God. Anyway, I suggest you read those two books, both authors are experts and both mention and affirm the existence of God extensively in their writing.

At worst, the flow of evidence suggests that our current set of constants is as unlikely as any other set of constants, and in this case we need not violate Ockham's Razor by adding causes (god(s)) to explain why we got the constants we did. At the very best, the flow of evidence points us in the direction not of accepting a creator, but of accepting the existence of "something(s) that causes physical constants to favor a universe in which life will arise". To call that "something" God, an intelligent entity, a spirit, or whatever--that is an unnecessary conjecture not based on evidence and only adds causes, thereby violating Ockham's Razor.

All I suggested with Ockham’s Razor was that because all available evidence points towards the existence of an outside ‘something’, atheism couldn’t be scientific. In order to make atheism scientific one would have to show that the overt need for a starter/creator (as shown in GR and the ST) is avoided by the observance of some observational and demonstrable empirical facts. This has not been done. It is not just a ‘something’ that is required for the ignition of the universe but an ‘outside something’. Whatever form this takes becomes the realm of theology and philosophy debates, however, the fact remain the there needs to be this ‘outside something’. Positing unnecessary and additional causes for the universe is a violation of the razor, atheism is doing this.

I said:

No one suggested that they were. From scientific studies we know that in a big bang singularity the rules of science break down, ratios disappear. Thats why their present condition is so very remarkable. An incredibly simplified analogy would be putting an apple in the blender and having it come out as a whole carrot.

you said:

I am not sure how this relates to my comment: "Philosophically speaking, if the mathematical constants in physical laws truly have no cause, they are the Prime Mover".

It does relate, the physical constants are shown to arise without natural cause in the Big Bang. Therefore they must be part of the creation not the creator, they cannot be “God”.


The rest of your contentions dealt with the nature of the unlikely-hood and specification of the ‘constants’ and the ‘lack of evidence’ they give. I will try to make my point clear on this.

Here is what science is saying:

1. The universe began in a Big Bang that couldn’t occur through chance*.
2. This Big Bang did not need to produce any certain type of universe.
3. It produced one with a remarkable degree of unlikely-hood and specification, seemingly to facilitate life**.
4. There cannot have been an infinite (or even multiple) number of universes in this field of space-time before the present one, and there will not be any in the future. (All this is assuming an absence of supernatural interference).


 *There needs to be a ‘starter’/’creator’ that exists outside of the universe it started.
 ** A number of highly unlikely ‘constants’ each independent and each seeming to have been ‘fine tuned’ to support life.

Atheism cannot account for this scientific model of the universe. Science has proven it invalid (once again, it has not necessarily proven Christianity valid, it has just not proven it invalid).

This website may demonstrate my point better, http://www.counterbalance.net/cosmcrea/meyer-body.html .
Counterbalance is a not overtly Christian website, it only seeks to bring religion and science into the same room. It wants a sincere evaluation of the facts.
Orthodox

 

[Orthodox]

Oh come on! There has to be at least one atheist on this site with a scientific reason for disbelieving in God. I am disappointed!

orthodox

 

[Pah]

Oh come on! There has to be at least one atheist on this site with a scientific reason for disbelieving in God. I am disappointed!

orthodox

Science doesn't have one - why should an atheist invent one. We like to leave invention to the theist

-pah-

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good afternoon, Orthodox.

The belief in an infinite universe is the crux of Atheism, in the absence of it atheism is groundless.

That is absolute nonsense. Atheism is no more and no less than the assertion of insufficient evidence to warrant a belief in Deity.

Oh come on! There has to be at least one atheist on this site with a scientific reason for disbelieving in God.

To which God or Gods are you referring? What are its/their attributes, and how did you come to be aware of them? How might they be verified?

I am disappointed!

Or, perhaps you are merely being disingenuous.