Can you imagine how disconcerted someone would be if they did not believe in the number 4? They could work for generations, for thousands of years searching for the answer to the mathematical problem of 2 + 2 and never arrive at an answer. In the end they would probably wind up saying that such a problem doesn't even exist. Sounds absurd? Of course it does. That's why I say that atheism sounds absurd. Here's the connection.
When asked, “Why is there a mathematically precise, life supporting, moral universe?” atheists that I've spoken to go into intellectual paroxysms, and world-view spasms of contradictions, finally arriving at Richard Dawkins backup plan, “It's not important to ask why.” Pfft!
It's only the most important question in the universe, but when you refuse to accept that the number 4 exists, and when copious amounts of evidence (a universe worth of evidence) points to the reality of number 4, well, atheists are forced to ignore the question altogether. Let me give some examples of the journey this question has taken.
“This question is the darkest in all philosophy.William James
“This question could tear the individual's mind asunder.”
Bernard Lovell
“The attempt to answer this question constitutes one of the most grandiose enterprises of the human intellect.”
Arthur Lovejoy
Really? All you have to do is accept “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and this question delivers a life-giving answer.
But no . . .
But no . . .
“Each of us is grazed by the question's hidden power.”
Martin Heidegger
Remember Richard Dawkins who encourages his followers to not even contemplate the question at all? Arthur Schopenhauer says of such people, “The lower a man is in an intellectual respect, the less puzzling and mysterious existence itself is to him.”
All one needs to do is accept, “For in Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things and in Him all things hold together.”
Colossians 1:16
But no . . .
Many primitive tribes have assumed as have modern atheists (those who tried to retain the now discredited and utterly refuted Steady State model of cosmology), “It has always been this way.”
“For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.”
Hebrews 3:4
In the “Principle of Sufficient Reason,” Leibniz writes, “There is an explanation for every fact and answer for every question.” This principle having been stated, the first question which we have a right to ask will be, Why is there something rather than nothing?”
That sounds like a good start but alas, the a priori world-view that the number 4 does not exist rules out contemplating the question and therefore missing the most important answer in mankind's existence. Leibniz could see plainly that either the universe is necessary (it can't NOT exist) or the Cause of the universe is necessary. Either matter is eternal (and we now know that it can't be) or the Cause of matter is eternal. God's explanation of Himself as “I Am,” was on the tip our knowledge,
That sounds like a good start but alas, the a priori world-view that the number 4 does not exist rules out contemplating the question and therefore missing the most important answer in mankind's existence. Leibniz could see plainly that either the universe is necessary (it can't NOT exist) or the Cause of the universe is necessary. Either matter is eternal (and we now know that it can't be) or the Cause of matter is eternal. God's explanation of Himself as “I Am,” was on the tip our knowledge,
But no . . .
The likes of David Hume took centre stage with, “Any proposed answer to this question would be mere sophistry and illusion, since it could never be grounded in our experience.”
That sounds fine but “cause and effect” IS based on our experience. We have NEVER experienced something coming into being without that thing having an external cause for it's beginning. Remember, the scientific method is based upon observation, testing, verification. So close to discovering the number 4,
That sounds fine but “cause and effect” IS based on our experience. We have NEVER experienced something coming into being without that thing having an external cause for it's beginning. Remember, the scientific method is based upon observation, testing, verification. So close to discovering the number 4,
“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for You created all things, and by Your will they were created and have their being. And He swore by Him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it.”
Revelation 4:11
Friedrich Schelling came close when he stated, “The main function of all philosophy is the solution of the problem of the existence of the world.” Protecting the atheist world-view brought enquiry to the same dismal end.
“For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord made the heavens.”
Psalm 96:5
In, Creative Evolution,” Henri Bergson almost petulantly demanded, “I want to know why the universe exists, since the existence of matter, consciousness and God Himself is a conquest over nothingness.”
Sadly, as atheists are today running into an increasing number of concrete walls, Bergson makes the absurd claim I predicted in the first paragraph of this post and says the question itself is an illusion, a pseudo question if you will. A question that Heidegger said was “The deepest, the most far-reaching, the most fundamental of all questions,” is of necessity left by atheists in the garbage because the only possible answer, the most logical answer, the most rational answer is Creator God. And like atheists today, Heidegger advised his listeners, “being able to ask a question means being able to wait, even one's whole life long,” [for an answer other than the correct answer]. Atheists know that there is no possibility of a material, natural, scientific answer to the universe coming into being because until Big Bang, literally nothing material, natural or scientific existed. But they will wait until they arrive in hell waiting for a material answer.
Sadly, as atheists are today running into an increasing number of concrete walls, Bergson makes the absurd claim I predicted in the first paragraph of this post and says the question itself is an illusion, a pseudo question if you will. A question that Heidegger said was “The deepest, the most far-reaching, the most fundamental of all questions,” is of necessity left by atheists in the garbage because the only possible answer, the most logical answer, the most rational answer is Creator God. And like atheists today, Heidegger advised his listeners, “being able to ask a question means being able to wait, even one's whole life long,” [for an answer other than the correct answer]. Atheists know that there is no possibility of a material, natural, scientific answer to the universe coming into being because until Big Bang, literally nothing material, natural or scientific existed. But they will wait until they arrive in hell waiting for a material answer.
Still, reality entices.
“You alone are the Lord. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you.”
Nehemiah 9:6
“It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that things are.”
Wittgenstein.
Again, forced by his world-view to deny reality, the absurd became preferable and Wittgenstein concluded, “The question is senseless. The riddle does not exist.”
Again, forced by his world-view to deny reality, the absurd became preferable and Wittgenstein concluded, “The question is senseless. The riddle does not exist.”
Isn't that profoundly sad? Tragic? When the evidence leads directly to Creator God, those who claim to diligently follow the evidence turn away and refuse to acknowledge that the question even exists. Father Coplestone, in a debate with atheist A.J. Ayer said, “The question is an opening to the transcendent, a way of seeing God's existence as the ultimate ontological explanation of phenomena.”
It was not to be. Human nature in it's unredeemed state will not tolerate anything that attempts to knock humans off the throne.
It was not to be. Human nature in it's unredeemed state will not tolerate anything that attempts to knock humans off the throne.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Through Him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”
John 1: 1-3
“In the beginning You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.”
Psalm 102:25
“I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all.”
Bertrand Russel
“Long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being.”
2nd Peter 3:5
“The beginning of the universe doesn't need a cause.”
Steven Weinberg
“By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was NOT made out of what was visible.”
Hebrews 11:3
When the only possible cause is Creator God, atheism driven science must state the irrational and incoherent as fact. 2 + 2 = 5, because the number 4 does not exist.
“For this is what the Lord says - He who created the heavens, He is God; He who fashioned and made the earth, He founded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited.”
Isaiah 45:18
Einstein himself believed in the Steady State model of the universe. He had to in order to preserve his world-view. He was even willing to fudge the figures to get what his world-view demanded. The metaphysical implications of a universe with a beginning are so disturbing to atheists that they must adhere to the absurd.
- Astronomer Arthur Eddington - “The notion of a beginning is repugnant to me. I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang. The expanding universe is preposterous, incredible, repugnant, it leaves me cold.”
- Physicist Philip Morrison - “I find it hard to accept the Big Bang theory. I would like to reject it.”
- Physicist Victor Stenger - “The universe may be uncaused and may have emerged from nothing.”
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
Genesis 1:1
First Lemaitre, then Hubble, then scientists at Bell Labs showed empirically that the universe is not ontologically self-sufficient. The universe came into being from something infinitely small. What does infinitely small mean? I'll let cosmologist Alex Vilenkin explain.
“Imagine “space-time [the matrix we live in] has the surface of a sphere. Now suppose that this sphere is shrinking like a balloon that is losing its air. The radius grows smaller and smaller. Eventually the radius goes all the way to zero. Pause for a moment to think of a sphere whose radius has gone “all the way to zero.” No time. No space. The surface of the sphere disappears completely and with it space-time itself and even the laws of physics. We have arrived at nothingness. We have also arrived at a precise definition of nothingness: a closed space-time of zero radius. This is the most complete and utter nothingness that scientific concepts can capture. It is mathematically devoid not only of stuff but also of location and duration. Nothing is nowhere. It’s not anything like a chunk of vacuum because a chunk of vacuum has extension. It’s not anything like anything. It’s nothing.
“Imagine “space-time [the matrix we live in] has the surface of a sphere. Now suppose that this sphere is shrinking like a balloon that is losing its air. The radius grows smaller and smaller. Eventually the radius goes all the way to zero. Pause for a moment to think of a sphere whose radius has gone “all the way to zero.” No time. No space. The surface of the sphere disappears completely and with it space-time itself and even the laws of physics. We have arrived at nothingness. We have also arrived at a precise definition of nothingness: a closed space-time of zero radius. This is the most complete and utter nothingness that scientific concepts can capture. It is mathematically devoid not only of stuff but also of location and duration. Nothing is nowhere. It’s not anything like a chunk of vacuum because a chunk of vacuum has extension. It’s not anything like anything. It’s nothing.
Alex Vilenkin
What's a non-believer in the number 4 to do? As many an atheist has said to me, “It's only science. Science can be wrong.” What do the leaders in atheism do when the evidence points to a Creator who brought the universe into existence ex nihilo from literally nothing?
“It's not important to ask why.” Richard Dawkins.
There is a full length book dealing with this, written by an atheist: The Fallacy of Fine Tuning, V Stenger, 2011.
ReplyDeleteAnd I hat the heck is a "moral universe"?
What the heck is a moral universe?
ReplyDeleteIt's what you experience in probably 90% of your decisions. We are always weighing the moral implications of our decisions.
Mathematical precision implies right and wrong, correct and incorrect, it must be this way and not another way.
This right and wrong is not something we have to be taught. We know it instinctively. Even children as young as a year old have been observed in clinical studies to react negatively when they see something unfair taking place to other adults or children. No one has to teach a small child to hide behind h/her back a cookie that was not supposed to be taken. No one has to teach a child to hit the other toddler who “stole” a toy.
Humans have the ability to choose right from wrong. We have freewill choice to behave this way, and not that way. Because we have freewill choice we also know guilt when we don't do what we ought to do, or when we do what we shouldn't do.
We disobey this inner moral law at enormous psychological discomfort. So where did this knowledge come from? What is the origin of this law? A law every bit as powerful as the laws of mathematics or the laws of logic?
Just as a description of the immaterial cause of the material universe more resembles a Mind than anything material, so too does the origin of a moral law. For example, it is much more likely that guilt for allowing someone to die when we could have done something about it, comes from a moral law giver, than a chemical shooting across a synaptic cleft. This is especially true when our guilt or shame are not always tied to any human being that we have wronged. Feelings of shame for mere thoughts, and guilt for improper motives (even doing the right thing for the wrong reasons) suggests that there is something, or some One to whom we are responsible and to whom we will one day give an account.