I plan on responding to this article and could use any and all help or info. How would you all respond?

The Astounding Evidence For God’s Existence: Cosmology/Astronomy

March 15, 2010

Set aside the many competing explanations of the Big Bang; something made an entire cosmos out of nothing. It is this realization–that something transcendent started it all–which has hard-science types…using terms like ‘miracle.‘ ” – Gregg Easterbrook

In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.” -Genesis 1:1. When we first open up our Bibles this is what we read but do we ever sit down and really think about what the implications of this verse means?  Do we truly grasp how amazingly profound it is that a God existed before time began and decided to display His glory by creating a physical realm that we call the universe? Philosophers, scientists, and people across all ages, cultures, languages, and tribes have asked the question: where did we come from? Some say it was all by chance and the universe came out of nothing. Others say the universe is merely an illusion and none of this is real. Yet another explanation is that the universe is eternal and has always been here. We’ll briefly look into why these three assumptions are false and why the cosmological argument makes logical sense.

The first illogical theory of the universe is that it’s an illusion. Simple logic will dispute this argument. An illusion by definition is something that’s deceptive, or unreal. If it’s an illusion it’s not really there, we can’t correspond it to reality.  Since we can touch, see, taste, smell, and hear the reality of the universe around us; this theory doesn’t have any substance to it.

The second illogical theory of the universe is that it’s eternal.  Again by looking at the law of Thermodynamics we can see that this is false:

  • 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
  • 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.


If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy causing a heat death of the universe. So the logical conclusion is that the universe began at a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy and is now slowly running down its energy. One final argument against this is by putting it this way: The universe cannot be self-caused by nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence. This is simply an absurd statement, but this is what atheists and secularists must cling to in order for their worldview to make sense.

The third and final argument is that the universe came out of nothing. Using the cosmological argument we can logical see that this is impossible. There are three simple reasons:

  • Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
  • The universe has a beginning.
  • Therefore the universe has a cause.

Once this begins to compute this into our minds, we then jump to the question of who made God? This question in itself is illogical because we would have an infinite amount of causes that would go on forever. An infinite regression of finite causes does not answer the question of source; it merely makes the effects more numerous. God unlike the universe, had no beginning so He doesn’t need a cause. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the universe, He is the creator of time. Therefore He isn’t limited to the time dimension that He created. God is infinite and eternal thus as an eternal being He can be demonstrated to be the uncaused First Cause.There are some things that can’t be explained no matter how hard we try! This is simply behind our comprehension and we must leave it at that.

Now let’s look at the astronomical reasons for God’s existence. The earth’s unique position in the universe has been debated throughout the centuries. With recent scientific studies the evidence that earth came into existence by mere chance becomes more and more absurd as we’re discovering how unique how planet’s location is in the universe.  This is contrary to what we’re told today. We’re told that life flourishes in countless locations across the universe and that water is the only essential element needed for life to exist. In summary, they state that Earth isn’t privileged and it’s quite average. The proclaimed atheist Richard Dawkins states: “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” The truth of the matter is that this statement is the exact opposite of what we find.

Earth’s location, its size, its structure, its atmosphere, its temperature, its internal dynamics, and its many intricate cycles are all essential to life. The oxygen cycle, the sulfur cycle, sodium cycle all testify to how fine tuned the earth is to life. While it is true that you need water for life it’s only one of 26 essential elements for human life to exist. Ongoing life depends on many other complicated interactions from the magnetic field to plate tectonics, to the carbon dioxide cycle. One example of this is the scientific fact that the solid state of most substances is denser than their liquid state, but the opposite is true for water. If water were like virtually any other liquid, it would freeze from the bottom up rather than from the top down, killing aquatic life, destroying the oxygen supply, thus making the earth uninhabitable. There are many more elements that must be in place for life to exist but let’s focus on two astronomical reasons:

The key to life on earth, of course, is the sun which provides us with consistent warmth and energy from 93 million miles away. First off, the sun is very unusual compared to most stars found in the universe. It’s among the ten percent most massive in the galaxy unlike 80% of stars, which are red dwarfs, which are much smaller in scale.  If our sun was a red dwarf, Earth would have to be much closer to it than its current location. Also our sun emits the right colors of radiation, a balance of red and blue. If we were orbiting a more massive star, called a F dwarf, there would be blue radiation and it would build up the oxygen and ozone layer faster causing a flood of highly intense ultraviolet radiation.  Finally, massive stars don’t live as long, about a few billion years. Our sun is estimated to last a total of at least 10 billion years on its main sequence.

A second main reason that astronomy affirms that Earth is in a unique position is the moon. Without the moon, the Earth wouldn’t be able to stabilize the tilt of its axis. Without a tilt, there would be no seasons and without seasons the Earth’s climate would be very unstable. This would result in major temperature swings and one pole of the earth (north or south) would be exposed to sun while the other in darkness. The moon also helps to increase tides. Tides serve an important role of flushing out nutrients from the continents to the oceans, which keeps them more nutrient-rich than they would be otherwise.  Finally, if the moon were more massive the tides would be too strong, thus resulting in slowing down the Earth’s rotation. By slowing down the rotation of the Earth, they temperature differences between night and day would be much greater, creating devastating results.

In conclusion there are many reasons why Earth is in the perfect location for life to exist and that we indeed are the privileged planet. There are many, many more scientific facts to that confirm this that I don’t have the time or space to address: plate tectonics, solar eclipses, geology, the earth’s mass, or the perfect amount of oxygen in our atmosphere.  For more information on cosmology or Astronomy check out these websites: www.christiananswers. net, www.alwaysbeready.org, or the following books: The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norm Geisler, or The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards.  The Privileged Planet goes into detail on not only why Earth is so fine tuned to support life, but also why it gives us the best view of the universe as if it were meant to be discovered. I highly recommend this book!  I’ll leave you with this quote by John A. O’Keefe, a planetary scientist, with NASA from 1958 to 1995: “We are by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted,  cherished group of creatures; our Darwinian claim to have done it all ourselves is as ridiculous and as charming as a baby’s brave efforts to stand on its own feet and refuse his mother’s hand. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”

**Next week we’ll look at intelligent design and how amazing the complexity of life really is.  In two weeks, We’ll conclude this short series by looking at the morality argument and how we know what’s right and wrong. Feel free to give comments, questions, and feedback and I’ll try to answer them. God Bless.  **

Tags: Agree, Atheists, Christian, Cosmology, Disagree, God, Science

Views: 27

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Wow, that's a lot of interesting science name dropping to completely disregard facts.  The glaring error here (there are many) is the idea that Earth has been "tuned" for us.  I've just finished an exam with many proofs in linear algebra so excuse my choice of angle here:

 

Suppose we have a universe, with no underlying intention.

In this universe, suppose all of the 6 crucial numbers are exactly tuned as they are in our universe.

This universe will manifest itself much in the same way as ours:

Similar distribution of elements

Similar development and cycles of stars

Similar galaxies

Similar planets

Now, suppose in this universe that (at least!) a planet-moon-sun combination arises with just the right crucial conditions to give rise to life, and this happens.

(Now you may be thinking this is quite a lot of supposing, but it must be supposable to be possible, and possible to be true, which is our argument)

If on this insignificant, lucky planet,  life reaches a point through evolution that a being may ponder the "cause" of its own existence, it will seem to its limited scope that it was all planned, perfectly for it:  For "the conditions have been perfectly tuned to give rise to such life and a being!" But having the benefit of being the ones who "supposed" this entire thought experiment, we know it was not guided and was just a matter of chance that this creature came to be.

 

This mostly sounds like babble, but it gets to this real point:  That humans have happened to come into existence to a capacity that we may ponder our "purpose", and that we have done so in such a perfectly tuned sandbox, is no testament to an outside force.  We must realize simply, that in order for us to come along, we must find ourselves in such a perfect environment.  If it were not perfectly tuned, we wouldn't be here wondering why it wasn't.  

 

That is: For us to be able to question our existence, we must first exist, which is contingent on a perfectly tuned environment, not the other way around.

 

It's as if a child claims that the entire world is here and has come to be just perfectly so he could be born, rather than the fact that the only place a child would ever be born is a world perfectly tuned for it.

 

This has been exhausted extensively now.  Maybe not in the best, most concise manner, but please excuse me as I've been awake since yesterday morning and in that time have since taken two exams and written five (yes f'ing five) papers.  I'm fried and now just trying to hold off going to sleep until a time that I won't wake up at 4 am. :P  

 

I hope this is useful to you and that others comment as well.  If you have any criticisms of me or my arguments, do your thing.  I'm not a christian: if my claims are false, I'll gladly adjust them to the true ones. :)  There's no pride in refusing to learn.

 

-B

 

P.S.  The third claim of the author that it is a claim by his opponents that the universe came from nothing would be an ill-advised opponent.  It by definition must have come from something.  What?  We don't know...yet.  But as with science, we'll keep trying theories until one of them fits (such as multiverses, a previous entire universe existence followed by a "big crunch" that upon compressing sufficiently gave us our "big bang" and various other theories.)  

The key here is to read.  Actually read and educate yourself.  Don't look just for the materials you agree with, but for those that oppose you.  If your ideas or concepts can't stand up to their opposing arguments, they probably aren't true, and certainly aren't worth ignorantly holding on to. *coughreligioncoughcough*

 

P.P.S.  That was a long P.S.

Thank you for your response Benjamin. I don't think I have heard the "fine tuned" argument so elegantly addressed. I will definitely borrow it in my response, if that is okay? 

 

As for the argument that something can't come from nothing, I enjoy this video. I think it shows one possibility of how this claim could be falsifiable.

 

I am attempting to break this post up into sections and address each individually. Here is my first selection:

“In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.” -Genesis 1:1. When we first open up our Bibles this is what we read but do we ever sit down and really think about what the implications of this verse means? Do we truly grasp how amazingly profound it is that a God existed before time began and decided to display His glory by creating a physical realm that we call the universe? Philosophers, scientists, and people across all ages, cultures, languages, and tribes have asked the question: where did we come from? Some say it was all by chance and the universe came out of nothing. Others say the universe is merely an illusion and none of this is real. Yet another explanation is that the universe is eternal and has always been here. We’ll briefly look into why these three assumptions are false and why the cosmological argument makes logical sense.

The idea that "God existed before time began," is self contradictory and easily dismissible. Time is eternal and Aristotle best illustrated this when he said:
1. Time must be eternal because to refer to a time "before" time began implies that there was time before time, making the concept self-contradictory.
2. Time is by definition a series of "moments." The nature of a moment is "a beginning of the future and an end of the past." The assumption of an absolutely first moment would consequently carry with it the implication of a period of time which is terminated by, and prior to, that first moment, and the prior time would itself contain moments. The assumption of an absolutely first moment is thus self-contradictory.

I would also like to point out that there are a lot more theories than those you chose to highlight.

 

The first illogical theory of the universe is that it’s an illusion. Simple logic will dispute this argument. An illusion by definition is something that’s deceptive, or unreal. If it’s an illusion it’s not really there, we can’t correspond it to reality. Since we can touch, see, taste, smell, and hear the reality of the universe around us; this theory doesn’t have any substance to it.

While I do not personally hold the theory that the universe is an illusion to be true, I think your dismissal of the idea is incorrect and ill-formed. You are forgetting that we are as much a part of the universe as it is of us. We are composed of the same materials you can find through all of the universe. You also forget that our senses that we use to observe and interact with reality are all results of bio-chemical and bio-electrical reactions that take place in the brain. Trigger these reactions in the brain and you trigger the senses. Now, ponder for a moment on dreams. A dream is completely contained in the mind and is thus a concept and not true reality. In a dream you seem to be able to use all of your senses in the same way you do in what we call reality. Theoretically, if this is true then what we perceive as reality could simply be a form of a dream state where we exist purely in and of the mind. As I said before, I personally don't hold this to be true, but it is not something that should be just easily shrugged away in the manor you did. Just a thought.

RSS

Atheist Sites

Blog Posts

Rounding Up?

Posted by Carol Foley on November 20, 2014 at 3:17am 2 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service