Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Atheists, Want Concrete Proof?

My husband, for all intensive purposes is sort of an Agnostic. He believes that there is a God, supreme being, creator of the universe, etc. What he's not so sure about is does God still play a part in our lives today and has he ever. This actually makes a little sense to me. The reason is because when it comes to matters of faith, it's really hard to give irrefutable proof. Some will say the Bible is irrefutable testimony to the existence of Jesus as God as well as testimony from church fathers and disciples of the apostles. But a lot of people ignore that as delusional. Understandable. I believe that the Greek/Roman gods are myths despite all the texts and alleged eyewitness testimony. Heck, entire Protestant denominations ignore texts discussing the consecration of the Holy Eucharist. So I can fathom why a person would choose to ignore the obvious.

The difference between Hubby and an atheist is not their scientific thought/philosophy. My husband is a scientist, after-all. And what he does specifically is figure out the age of rocks from space. That's how we know how old the solar system is. Therefore one can conclude that the Fundamentalist/Creationist take on the age of the Earth is total bunk. Even the Church says that.

No, the difference is that after all the calculations are over Hubby acknowledges that something doesn't come from nothing. That's not science. It's not physics, which is what Hubby has a degree in. We learn from science that matter is neither created nor destroyed. Yet, somehow we're here. So at some point, we were created from nothing. That somehow something came into being.

There are a number of scientific theories about how stuff became: how were planets formed, humans formed, etc. That's how it was formed. The question that also should be asked is why or who did this. This is the question that Hubby has asked himself and naturally concluded, using science and reasoning, that the answer points to Creator God.

Now an Atheist would try to argue their way out of a paper bag using logic and science. But again they are forgetting that energy is neither created nor destroyed and matter is neither created nor destroyed. Something got here. It's not logical or scientific to assume that matter and energy just always was.

An Atheist might say, "where's the proof?" and I say, "Where's your proof?" And that's where faith enters the picture. An atheist can hide their heads in the sand and try to convince me that I'm the deluded one. But they offer no proof as to how something can come from nothing and go against science as we know it. That is a faith based philosophy. I'm sorry, Atheist friends, you're deluding yourselves into believing that God doesn't exists simply because you don't want Him to.

Where is my irrefutable proof? Look around you. Something did come from nothing. We aren't just a bunch of chemical processes and matter that sprung into being. We came from somewhere. And logic and science proves that.

5 comments:

  1. I completely agree with you. I studied science and when I look at certain things I feel that there is proof that there is some kind of creator. There isn't proof for faith (because it is faith) but it seems like a scientist should be able to say that there was some creator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A couple fine, but important points. (I'm going to break them up since I'm pretty sure I'll hit the word limit)
    1. The universe didn't have to be created from nothing. Matter and energy currently exist, and have existed as far back as we can measure. Hence, there's no reason to think there ever was a time when there was no energy or matter. Even before the Big Bang, the amount of matter and energy in the universe was the same as it is now, it's just that is was all concentrated into a single point (though there are problems with a singularity, and yes scientists argue profusely about what came before the Big Bang, that's the point of science). So science does assume "that matter and energy just always was."

    ReplyDelete
  3. 2. I don't believe in God because I think something had to have created everything. I believe in God because of personal experience/observation during prayer/meditation. That's actually what all of science is based upon, a measurement or observation of an event. The difference between my belief in God and science is that science is based on outward observation (which anyone can verify for themselves, and is repeatable) whereas belief in God is an internal observation (something I can prove to myself, but no one else can verify if it's true or not). Because the observation is not "out there" but "inside my head", there's not really a whole lot of science to be done, and there's no way I can prove to anyone else that I'm right (they might agree with me, but that doesn't PROVE anything).

    It's sort of like me trying to prove to you that I'm sad. You know what it's like to be sad, and you know how you behave when you're sad, so if you see me behaving the same way, you can ASSUME I'm sad. However, for all you know, I'm acting and lying through my teeth.

    So I know I'm sad, but I can't PROVE it to you. Hopefully that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 3. You've said atheists say, "Where's the proof?", but your response is "Where's YOUR proof?" The problem with this line of arguing is that it doesn't really lead anywhere. There's no proof that unicorns exist. There's also no proof that unicorns don't exist. A lot of people forget that it's okay to say, "We don't currently have an answer, but we'll keep looking." That actually happens ALL THE TIME in science. Now with the unicorn issue, I would say the chances of unicorns existing somewhere in the world is close to 0%. However, if someone finds a pack of unicorns living in some remote jungle (and it stands up to testing), then I would say the chances of unicorns existing are 100%. We've found packs of animals that we thought were extinct, so who knows? The point is, with new data, you can completely change your mind.

    If there's a lack of data, then the correct response is to say, "I don't know," or at the very least "I feel it's this way, but if you think the data doesn't support it, I can't argue with you."

    A lot of Christians have a hard time saying even that last one (I know I use to). But keep in mind that Jesus didn't tell his disciples to convince the world about God, he simply said to spread the Good News.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So in summary, if someone asks me if I believe in God I say "Yes." But if they ask me if God has influenced the world now or in the past, I say, "I don't know." What I can say is that all of the "miracles" I've looked into have perfectly reasonable and natural explanations. The problem with miracles is that they're not repeatable, so you can't study them (it also means you can't convince someone who thinks it's a miracle that it's actually normal). If mountains started disappearing or moving about from day to day for no discernible reason, and the sun rose some days but not other days, and priests could turn mud into doves, then I'd say, "You bet God influences the world."

    ReplyDelete

I love to read your thoughts. Thanks for sharing!