Over the past couple of weeks an especially determined atheist has been writing me, offering me $1000 if I can make God appear to Him in such a way that he can see and touch Him. The atheist just finished reading my book What's So Great About Christianity and it disturbed him, because it challenged his assumptions. Still, he demands unquestionable empirical confirmation. If I can only make God show his face, my correspondent sarcastically suggests, he would be happy to join the ranks of the believers.
In some ancient religions, where gods were considered to be made of the same material substance as other matter, this would be a reasonable (or at least a meaningful) challenge. But all the great religions, and certainly the Abrahamic ones, regard God as an immaterial spirit. If the atheist is willing to consider the possibility that such a God exists--as all open-minded atheists must do--then the question becomes: how can we know of the existence of immaterial things?
Scientists believe in immaterial things. How about gravity? I should write back my betting friend, offering him $1000 if he can make gravity appear to me in such a way that I can see and touch it. But of course he would indignantly reply that gravity is a force, and the existence of forces cannot be verified through direct sensory experience. Rather, their existence must be inferred through their effects. We know that something is making objects plummet to the earth. We know that something is causing the light from the sun in certain cases to bend. That something we call gravity.
Or consider dark matter and dark energy. I haven't seen them, and I bet you haven't either. In fact, no one has. The reason they are called "dark" is because they don't emit light. So how can we reasonably believe in such invisible, immaterial things? The existence of dark matter is inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter. The existence of dark energy is inferred from the accelerated rate at which galaxies are flying away from each other. Scientists reason that something is holding galaxies together, and something else is causing them (and space itself) to fly apart. These somethings we call dark matter and dark energy. Interestingly scientists believe that dark matter and dark energy make up more than 90 percent of all the matter in the universe.
Applying the same mode of reasoning, I would argue that some immaterial force caused the universe to come into existence. Here is the proof: a) All material things that have a beginning must have a cause, b) We know from the Big Bang theory that the universe (not just matter but space and time itself) had a beginning, c) Therefore the universe has a cause.
Now that cause can be natural or supernatural, but we can rule out a natural cause since the universe encompasses all of nature. It is simply ridiculous to say that nature, which once did not exist, somehow caused itself to come into existence. Some people like to talk about "multiple universes" or even an infinity of universes but they have to admit that they are just making those up: there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that any universe exists except our own. Much of this kind of talk seems to be a desperate way of trying to get around the idea of God. It's faith-based atheism.
It's must more reasonable--and, invoking Occam's razor, much more intellectually parsimonious--to believe that the universe came into existence because of a non-natural or (as theists would say) supernatural cause. That cause we call God.
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 33)
46. ATHEIST
More Nonsense from a silly boy named Dinesh
Reply to: c) Therefore the universe has a cause.
Now that cause can be natural or supernatural, but we can rule out a natural cause since the universe encompasses all of nature... Dinesh
______________
Every time a dimwit Christian says "we can rule out," I immediately know that a SCAM is being pulled.
Dinesh is trying to Dumb People Down.
This is how it works.
Several physicists working in the field... Linde, others.... use data from COBE and come up with a scientific theory that explains the evidence.
Dinesh says "we can rule those out."
Why? Because Dinesh grew up in a culture (Catholicism) where they WANT you to be DUMB. They don't want you to learn about inflationary multiple universes.
they want you to believe in god.
god does not exist. right now, the evidence for multiple universes seems pretty good.
where did the Big Bang come FROM? From a universe that existed before ours began.
Stephen Hawking has a different explanation, that eliminates "existed before" from the equation. If time began with our universe, then "existed before" is meaningless.
As usual, Dinesh reveals himself to be a silly little boy who posts nonsense in order to dumb other people down to the point where "god" seems like a good answer.
Stop it, Dinesh. You're hurting children. Let them grow up learning about science and 'real stuff' before you try to indoctrinate them with your Imaginary Friend... who thinks you're brilliant, of course.
I guess if you have an Imaginary Friend who thinks you're brilliant, you want everyone to believe in him. duh.
William Hays at 1:17PM on Jan 28th 2008
47. As ususal, nobody listens to the Christ. Just like the last time.
(sigh)
Jesus Christ Himself at 1:26PM on Jan 28th 2008
48. ATHEIST
Nobody listens to Jesus... because he's a DRUNK.
I mean, he goes down to a Festival called Passover.... a holiday that his people celebrate... and he winds up getting arrested and crucified.
the best explanation.... too much wine.
William Hays at 1:30PM on Jan 28th 2008
49. "dinesh, do you and other christians entertain the possibility that god DOESN'T exist? i don't see too many open-minded christians on here saying "well maybe the atheists are right and there is no god, but i still believe god exists.""
Richelle,
Two blogs ago is a video of part of his debate with Shermer. It has his infamous "I don't know God exists" statement. Many of us do recognize that we could be wrong but are compelled to believe through personal revelations, evidence, and a whole lot of thinking about it in the shower.
bigTuna at 1:33PM on Jan 28th 2008
50. #36
"seems to be a holdover from much earlier times - the paradigm, 'what it means to know something' is nearly wholly dependent on 'observable' results"
This section could be readily used by one side saying something exists without having to show proof that one can see.
While the opposing side says something cannot exist because they cannot see it.
M2D5 at 1:45PM on Jan 28th 2008
51. Galakto #23: It's not that both theories are sound and I have simply chosen one over the other.
These theories of physics are speculative and may provide answers to how the universe functions. If further research shows these theories to be fatally flawed, they will immediately be replaced by better explanations. There is no faith here, merely acknowledging that there is a limit to what humans have discovered about the universe. These theories also do not describe codes of behavior I must obey.
Belief in a God is absolutist: It is a speculation on the origin of existence that claims it alone is the truth. When our observed universe clashes with faith, the faithful bend their rules to accomodate the obvious (like the heliocentric vs. geocentric argument), but they stick to their core dogma. Science is the search for answers, faith is simply settling for any answer.
AndrewV at 1:42PM on Jan 28th 2008
52. bigTuna,
DD, JC and G-d are not the things I think about in the shower.
Mokele-Mobembe at 1:43PM on Jan 28th 2008
53. 47. ATHEIST
Nobody listens to Jesus... because he's a DRUNK.
I mean, he goes down to a Festival called Passover.... a holiday that his people celebrate... and he winds up getting arrested and crucified.
the best explanation.... too much wine.
William Hays at 1:30PM on Jan 28th 2008
----
I am the Truth and the Light. Unfortunately, I am also truly a lightweight. A little too much "in vino veritas" and I was telling Mary how nice her tits were. It all went downhill from there.
Jesus Christ Himself at 1:43PM on Jan 28th 2008
54. #48
"Many of us do recognize that we could be wrong but are compelled to believe through personal revelations, evidence, and a whole lot of thinking about it in the shower."
Big T
What do you consider a "personal revelation", seriously?
M2D5 at 1:47PM on Jan 28th 2008
55. ATHEIST
The problem with the idea of a God...
... STARTS with the age of the universe.
13.7 billion years.
Our sun, earth and other planets in our solar system are about 4.6 billion years old.
The people who wrote the Bible didn't know that.
Before 1859, a supernatural 'act of creation' was a perfectly acceptable explanation for how life began on earth.
Today, Evolutionary Theory explains the known facts better.
If a Creator wants a personal relationship with us, why did he wait 9 billion years to create our planet?
No, natural processes are the BEST explanation. NOT supernatural.
William Hays at 1:45PM on Jan 28th 2008
56. JC Himself,
What are your plans for Easter? Wanna "hang out"?
Mokele-Mobembe at 1:46PM on Jan 28th 2008
57. Dark matter and dark energy are hypothesized to exist.
xxx
tuna, it's demonstrated mathematically as you know, and there is also photographic evidence. It's on aol. Of course, it's the effect of dark matter, but it is exactly where the physics says it should be, isn't it?
M-theory and superstring theory are going on right now and have been for nearly thirty years, not 50-100 years from now and the math seems to be creating convergence in the past twenty years. The same is true for multidimensional time study.
Ed Witten's contributions haven't been in any way refuted that I've heard of, and that has caused the work to expand and to a large extent converge.
Quantum mechanics is old hat now and an integral part of our economy, yet I keep reading preinflationary big bang descriptions, as in the days of steady state v. big bang.
The point I made is the same: the work in cutting edge science may be weird and of course it is in formulative stages or it wouldn't be cutting edge, but it is not metaphoric.
It is as rigorous as it can be, and mathematics from earlier disciplines fits. Of course it's far from a clear picture yet, but understanding improves with perserverance. Quantum effects are only 'understood' vis a vis m-theory, but that doesn't stop it from being put to vast commercial use.
The knowledge of mankind doesn't improve with dissmissal of cutting edge science on the basis of inaccurate metaphors formulated to fit foregone faith-based conclusions.
The tragedy of religion is its need to control through suppression of science and information. Imagine if we were all victims of dominionism and had to dismiss whatever the church said was too complex for any human to understand.
This wouldn't stop the rest of mankind, and at some point we'd wind up being their servants since we couldn't produce anything anymore. The methods would be too complex for human understanding.
If it were to predominate, intelligent design would eventually destroy civilization and probably mankind, or at best devolve it back to early cro magnon standards. There is nothing positive about throwing one's hands up in surrender, and ID is precisely that, no more, no less.
Clif Kuplen at 1:46PM on Jan 28th 2008
58. Despite the quantum leaps of faith most scientists take in untested theories, most have great difficulty believing in the unseen God>>>>
This is wrong. In fact, Einstien didn't believe in God for most of his life. However, the design he found everywhere, and the elegant rules of the universe convinced him that there must be a God/designer.
There is nothing so horrible as the murder of a beautiful theory ... by a brutal gang of facts.
Caesar
Thomas J Gassett at 1:51PM on Jan 28th 2008
59. This section could be readily used by one side saying something exists without having to show proof that one can see.
While the opposing side says something cannot exist because they cannot see it.
M2D5 at 1:45PM on Jan 28th 2008
xxx
not even remotely true unless one postulates a primitive with no understanding of measurement who can only approach something metphorically.
I'd also say it would also suggest an intent to deceive since science is so readily at hand for detection and measurement.
The entire electromagnetic spectrum is easily detectable and made visible if need be, and that's only one source of measurement.
Clif Kuplen at 1:55PM on Jan 28th 2008
60. "DD, JC and G-d are not the things I think about in the shower."
Mokele,
I take pretty long showers, you'd be surprised who all joins me on an average morning.
bigTuna at 1:56PM on Jan 28th 2008