Thursday, November 29, 2012

105 Minutes with an Atheist



 
A few weeks ago, a friend of mine introduced me to a man who happened to be an atheist. After an hour-long conversation about life, he blurts out, “You keep talking about science. You’re a pastor. Do you believe in science?” He went on to say how he doesn’t believe in God because there is too much “stuff” out there such as “millions of galaxies containing trillions of stars…it’s just too vast to come from a God.” I could not wipe the smile off my face as I said, “Exactly! Too much stuff! Where did all that stuff come from?”

The Law of Cause and Effect is one of the scientific laws that allows the field of science to even exist; without its guiding principle, theories become impossible. That is, scientists observe effects such as life, planets, spinning spiral galaxies, and etc. They spend their life attempting to determine the cause of such effects. There are two options (three if you count aliens, but then where did the aliens come from…back to two options) to the cause of existence, everything from nothing or everything from something. The first option is naturalism (no God) and the second is theism (a God). Again, a third option (minus panspermia/aliens) does not exist. If you are not a theist you are a naturalist (atheist) and vice versa. Either God created or nothing created.
“I think I believe in science more than the naturalist” is what I told him. He narrowed his eyes, threw his head back, and asked, “How so?” I believe the scientific laws that exist today have always existed, and when God decided to create everything, He simply used the laws that are within Him. As a theist, I do not suspend the laws of science; I embrace them. In particular, the law of cause and effect. In order to believe everything came from nothing, I must suspend reality, logic, and rational thought, basically, all laws of science. Everything cannot pop into existence from nothing because there is nothing to make something, and a cause to the first something leading to everything cannot exist in nothing. Simplified, it takes at least one thing to make the next thing. If there was Something (what we call God), then all things are possible because that Thing caused all things to begin. A first cause must exist in order to make the first effect; therefore, there is no choice but to accept the required existence of a first Cause, and that Cause we call God. We are not required to exist; conversely, He is required, and we know this simply because we are here. The universe overflows with unnecessary stuff, therefore, there must be a “stuff” Maker, or there would be no stuff. God is not a maybe, He’s a must.   
So my answer to him was a resounding and excited, “Yes, I believe in—and embrace—science and the very laws by which the field is substantiated! Further, I find it intriguing that atheists mock my strong belief in all scientific laws and consider my unbending commitment to same as ridiculous if not naïve when it comes to the start of it all.” My thought: everyone innately knows that everything requires a something to make anything and that what one gets from nothing is nothing. So my question is, “Who is remaining logical, rational, and intellectually honest? The one who suspends all knowledge of the laws that surround and uphold us, or the one who accepts the fact that those same laws require a law Giver?”
 

12 comments:

  1. You said that the universe had to have come from nothing without God. Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello, Grundy, a fellow seeker of truth.
      I love your blog and the search you have initiated due to your past. We have much in common, my friend. Without going into a long diatribe with a complex topic I will simply say that my a priori belief rests on foundationalism rather than infinitism. Therefore, if philosophical physicists like Dr. Lisa Randall (love her work) and others who study “M”, String, or T.O.E. theory eventually arrive at a “conclusion”, they have only set the bar back one step thus mandating a ‘secondary’ means to the end…I believe it’s not illogical to say this is an answer with no answer, would you agree with that statement? Further, mathematically and scientifically speaking, there cannot be an infinite regress (many scientists consider this a law), there must be a first uncaused cause (it’s likely you are familiar with this epistemological argument of cosmology). Would you agree this argument creates, at minimum, a philosophical vacuum requiring some form of an epistemological satisfying?
      I believe one finds the answer to said void in Jesus Christ for various reasons further explained in multiple other posts in this blog. The primary point of this particular blog, however, is not to illuminate Jesus Christ as much as it is to demonstrate that science, math, and logic in and of themselves (if one holds to them consistently [logical inconsistency is self-defeating]), mandates an uncaused cause and we happen to call that power God. So, when I say if nothing then God, I simply am refereeing to the logical and mathematical requirement of a power that initiates the first unnecessary effect. Our (regardless of plant, planet, or animal life) mere existence mandates (via the well substantiated law of cause and effect) a law giver. And like my self-description on my blog states; I am “just a man seeking truth regardless of my desires, wants, or even love. Truth, it is apparent, is the only rock that is not budged by the whims of man, the winds of time, nor the echoes of the past.”
      Thank you for the honest question and I know one day all of us will laugh and/or cry at what we once thought was right. I continue to question everything allowing reality and truth to dictate while attempting to ignore my personal desires often caused by pain inflicted by either hateful or well-meaning individuals. Peace, my friend.

      Delete
    2. Nice reply, thanks.

      I still see no evidence that nothing ever existed. (if you can even say that nothing exists) Maybe there can't be infinite regress, maybe there can be. I don't quite see how you can know this. For the sake of argument, let's say there is no infinite regress. You obviously think that something could have always existed because you think God has always existed. My question is, why does it have to be God? Why does it have to be anything intelligent or with a personality? Why not the quantum foam, as some of those theories you mention posit, or something else we haven't thought of yet?

      I'm a seeker of truth, as you said, but I doubt my search will ever lead to certain answers in this regard. Maybe several generations later humanity will figure it out, but it's possible humanity never will.

      Delete
    3. I appreciate you, Grundy, and how you, like me, struggle to grasp our surroundings! I hope you have a fantastic week and Christmas!

      Delete
    4. Why does the Source require intelligence, or personality? The trick is that if either intelligence or personality exist (and are not simply illusory) then they need to come from somewhere. There is no known mechanism that can make quantum foam produce information. And getting from information to intelligence is beyond our comprehension (if you don't believe me, consider the failure to define "intelligence"). So either intelligence and personality are words without meaning, or they have a Source. Given the latter, and Ockham's razor, the Source of the universe is also the Source of intelligence and personality. And it would be quite odd, indeed, if the source of those things did not also instantiate those things.

      Delete
  2. This was absolutely brilliant. As someone who embraces science and the Scientific Method, I find it rather astounding that practicing scientists reject the Un-caused Cause (God), when logic itself demands that there be a "Prime Zero", the initiating Cause that would bring about the Universe. Randomness cannot bring about order. The second we say "yes it can if X,Y,Z conditions are met", then we instantly negate the original premise of randomness. Thanks for this blog and I will be following it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow..."brilliant"...I think that's the first time in my life someone has said that about me or my writing. Thank you and yikes! :)
      Love your scientific/mathematical explanation.

      Delete
  3. Thank you for this well-written, easy to grasp explanation. I'm going to start following your blog as I'm always looking to add to my own ability to intelligently (with the emphasis on "gently") discuss truth with others. I especially appreciate your humble and kind manner...it keeps the stage set for honest and respectful dialogue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Barb. Very kind of you and I am grateful for your support!

      Delete
  4. Natural laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. Your entire argument is built on a fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. whaaaat??? What is the fallacy and how would you argue everything out of nothing?

      Delete
    2. True, Anonymous, that is how humankind has defined them and of course that is common knowledge. What I find interesting is that you use the word "natural" as if that force has creative powers. As if the thing we generically call 'nature' has creative attributes (i.e., Nature invented the descriptive laws that support life and existence. Why have something rather than nothing, for instance). The only difference between you and I, Anonymous, is that I assign personhood to that Creator. The laws of physics are descriptive of the Creator. I do this because the descriptive laws of physics should not have to be suspended for any 'length' of a plank unit, but instead hold true regardless. Said scenario can only occur if the force bringing such inconceivable laws into existence already exists and operating. I, therefore and in part, state that an eternal force we have assigned the name God has no choice but to exist and exist in the eternal past which simultaneously mandates an eternal future (true definition of eternal has neither beginning nor ending).
      Thank you for your comments! I truly enjoy those who wish to seek for truth over opinion as our finite minds are indissolubly bound by unnerving cognitive limits. We, therefore, have no choice but to frustratingly make decisions and choices based on something that is more likely true than not and sometimes reach the difficult level of beyond a reasonable doubt. While logic and certainly science have their limitations, we live life based on what we can know to a high degree of certainty. It is with this knowledge that I deduced an eternal being exists, beyond a REASONABLE doubt, hence, some doubts included.
      Have a great day!

      Delete