It's been a while since I last wrote an article for the Christian group but in light of recent comments I've decided to create one again this time addressing why I'm Christian and not a atheist. In this article I will write about why atheism is illogical as well as evidenceless.
Atheists say that atheism is not a belief or a religion but simply a denial of gods and the supernatural. Why I could write a whole article on why I dispute that I'll just play along here and go with this statement. Okay, atheism isn't any of those things but by the very denial of gods and the supernatural atheism proposes theories which are illogical and contrary to evidence. So let's have a look at the summary of what atheism proposes by denying gods:
Theories of atheism:
- The universe is eternal.
- Prior energy existed and created the universe.
- Something from nothing (where they try to use quantum mechanics to support this).
Let's address these debunked notions:
The universe is eternal:
I could argue why this is impossible due to energy and the Laws of Thermodynamics but the simple fact is that all observational evidence and scientific data states that the universe never always existed and had a beginning. The Big Bang itself argues that the universe had an origin from one single point and never always existed (although the theory itself is in regards to what occurred moments after the "birth" of the universe). That's all that needs to be said. The universe is not eternal and had a beginning. In fact space-time came into existence with The Big Bang.
And for reference: The Big Bang wasn't some explosion. The Big Bang simply refers to the expansion of the universe after it sprung into existence. The name is really an injustice to what the theory really teaches. There's more to it than "the universe is expanding from the single point of that primordial dense force of mass after it bloomed" one must take in account of the values and properties as all this happened. With The Big Bang, space-time and gravity all sprung into existence. If gravity was a little stronger, then it would have suppressed the expansion. At the same time, the weak nuclear force was set in value to give an appropriate balance of hydrogen and helium atoms. However I'm speaking ahead here. We'll come back to this section later.
Either way we have now established that the universe is finite.
Prior energy existed and created the universe:
There are several problems with this theory.
We know something chaotic can't produce order. There is no observational evidence for this. Natural disasters do not produce order. Throwing thousands of bricks in one spot will not produce a building (geometry and mathematics play a part of this as it's simple logic that one needs to plan a layout for a building, even with the impossible infinite monkey theorem playing part, throwing thousands of bricks in one spot will not produce a house because there's no thought or plan behind it) and an explosion will only destroy.
At this point we see that common sense and mathematics is against the idea of a chaotic mindless energy being behind our universe. The universe has design and mathematical values. This is something that cannot come from mindlessness. Period.
Using a string-theory explanation for the origin of the universe (universe from another) doesn't answer the origin question. At one point there would have to be a beginning and the string-theory doesn't answer this. We know universes are not eternal too so at one point there was a origin and it couldn't have come from nothing. Causality demands there to be start.
Something from nothing:
This is just impossible. Atheists say there is observational evidence and data of something coming from nothing but what they cite is not nothing. They use the vacuum of space as evidence even though the vacuum is not truly empty. The vacuum contains energy. The particles that arise from here are coming from something and something that already exists so to date there is still no observational evidence for something from nothing.
Saying this is possible is as illogical as wishing for something and hoping for it to become true. It just won't.
You cannot get something from nothing and that is not what quantum mechanics teaches. In regards to quantum mechanics I'd wager that neither I or the atheist or even qualified to speak here.
So there we have it. Those three theories are not only wrong but they're evidenceless too. I have debunked them with scientific sources.
Here's what this all means:
- The universe had a beginning alongside space-time. Cause and effect demands there to be something responsible since the universe is the effect.
- The universe did not come from nothing because that's impossible.
- The universe did not come from chaos because chaos does not produce the order we see as I have explained above.
- The logical educated conclusion from this is that something intelligent was behind the universe's creation and this is further supported by the level of complexity we can observe. The chance for all of this to occur by itself is impossible. The Goldilocks principles of our universe (affirmed by theist and atheist scientists alike) simply argue against a huge-scale coincidence occurring. There had to be a purpose. The being responsible for the universe's creation would be eternal and it existing before space-time would mean it wouldn't be subject to time. This being had no beginning and has no end.
The Goldilocks principle of our universe:
The universe is finely tuned. Most scientists agree on this. The values are perfectly aligned with one another. The examples are below:
- When the universe was expanding after The Big Bang, too much gravity would have pulled atoms closer together resulting in the end of the universe there and then. Meanwhile too little gravity would mean that the atoms would spread too far not creating galaxies or stars. There had to be an exact value. In fact simply increasing or decreasing gravity's constant by one billionth of a gram would have would have changed the constant for the worst.
- How delicate is the balance for the strong nuclear force? If it were just 2% weaker or 0.3% stronger than it actually is, life would be impossible at any time and any place within the universe.
- The neutron is 0.138% more massive than a proton. Because of this extra mass, neutrons require slightly more energy to make than protons. So as the universe cooled from the hot big bang creation event, it produced more protons than neutrons‹in fact, about seven times as many.If the neutron were just another 0.1% more massive, so few neutrons would remain from the cooling off of the big bang that there would not be enough of them to make the nuclei of all the heavy elements essential for life. The extra mass of the neutron relative to the proton also determines the rate at which neutrons decay into protons and protons build into neutrons (one neutron = one proton + one electron + one neutrino). If the neutron were 0.1% less massive, so many protons would be built up to make neutrons that all the stars in the universe would have rapidly collapsed into either neutron stars or black holes.7 Thus for life to be possible in the universe, the neutron mass must be fine tuned to better than 0.1%.
etc. Read more in the sources below. Of course the scientists and researchers below each have their own views on the matter. For example the scientist in the third source says "Today, atheist reductionists try to reduce the cosmic story to a series of random accidents and religious fundamentalists try to show it as evidence of some sort of intelligent creator external to the universe. I, like many scientists and thinkers, have never been happy with either of these extremes and this is my personal journey through the maze of cosmotheology, guided by some of the best minds in the field." While another source is from Dr.William.Craig who is Christian. Either way the evidence for a fine-tuned universe is there and most scientists accept it. For me it's logical to conclude it's this way because of "intelligent creator external to the universe".
The Law of Biogenesis:
The Law of Biogenesis states that life only comes from pre-existing life. The contrary hypothesis of abiogenesis declares otherwise. However there is no evidence for life forming on its own. The Miller-Urey experiment is now outdated and the experiment conducted by scientists relied upon constants and values set by humans (and therefore intelligence) for building blocks for life to form. The experiment only argued that intelligence is needed for anything remotely relating to life to form.
So you ask how is this the Christian God?
Well The Bible is evidence of this. Within is knowledge demonstrating divine inspiration or the authors who had advanced knowledge for their time. There is a lot of archaeological evidence for events that occurred in The Bible and many historians agree that Jesus Christ not only existed but ministered to people as The Bible proclaims. There are also the Biblical fulfilled prophecies once again affirming God as the creator.
I can go on and on giving evidences implying divine creation but I've given enough to debunk the theories of atheism. At the end of the day, atheism has nothing to stand upon. Everything I've wrote about is backed by evidence and sources which I have given above.