Every so often I get random emails like this one from Paul Harris, not to be confused with the Paul that comments here. He’s now sent me at least three essays written so poorly that I would have been ashamed to have turned then in for a freshman English class in high school. Since I like my readers, I won’t be subjecting you to the entire email, just a few excerpts. I assure you, you aren’t missing anything worthwhile.
In this essay I want to argue that starting from Copernicus up to the present day scientists have done nothing so far that can conclusively, or decisively, prove that there is no God. I will also argue that the conclusive or decisive proof for God’s non-existence can only be a natural explanation for the origin of the universe (NEFOU), and nothing else.
Before proceeding to do this, I will have to settle another matter. In one of my earlier essays I have written that scientists’ ultimate aim is to prove that God does not exist. A famous American atheist has commented on this in an e-mail to me that that is not scientists’ ultimate aim. Their ultimate aim is knowledge. But I still hold that their ultimate aim is to prove that God does not exist. And here I will give my reasons as to why I think so… Scientist Paul Davies in one of his recent articles (available online) has written that this is still scientists’ stand on God, that is, they are in no need of any God-hypothesis. But why will scientists need any God-hypothesis at all? Obviously in order to explain certain things. When scientists say that they do not need any God-hypothesis, they are actually saying that God is not the explanation for the things we find in nature, and that God is not the explanation for the origin of the universe as well. By openly admitting that they do not need any God-hypothesis for explaining things, they are admitting that they are actually making God jobless…
He then goes on to explain what he would consider to be sufficient proof for the non-existence of god.
Therefore we must say that atheists’ attempts to prove that God does not exist have also failed…Therefore our ultimate conclusion is this: all the attempts of the atheists and the atheistic scientists so far to prove that God does not exist were in vain.
This is complete dribble. You cannot prove a negative. It is impossible to prove there is no god, just like it is also impossible to prove that Bigfoot and unicorns don’t exist. However, considering the lack of evidence, it is quite reasonable to go with life assuming they don’t. No scientists and no atheists are claiming to have proof that there is no god and to say they are is to create a straw man.
A god hypothesis in science is useless. We know how lightening works by ignoring the Thor hypothesis and how know how evolution works by ignoring the creation hypothesis. Science is inherently materialistic and naturalistic. To invoke a supernatural explanation is to admit to not knowing how something works and to give up on trying to figure it out. Such a stance brings further advancement to a standstill.
A god of the gaps doesn’t do anyone any good. So even if you believe in a god and even if you think that this god is a better explanation, don’t fault scientists for trying to figure out how it actually works.
Permalink
Does the universe need a God?
Does the universe need God? Yes, the universe needs God if it can be shown that everything in the universe cannot be explained naturally. Scientists claim that there is no fact, no event in the universe for which they cannot provide a natural scientific explanation. But this claim is untrue. We can show that there is at least one fact in the universe for which they will never be able to give any natural explanation. This fact is that light has got some very peculiar properties if we are to believe that the following two equations of special theory of relativity are not giving us bluff in any way:
t1 = t(1-v2/c2)1/2
l1 = l(1-v2/c2)1/2
The first equation shows that for light time totally stops, and the second equation shows that for light any distance it has to travel is reduced to zero. For light even infinite distance is reduced to zero. These two equations together show that as if light has no space as well as no time to move. But light cannot have these two properties naturally. Or, these two properties cannot arise in light naturally. Because like everything else light was also created after the big bang. Like everything else light was also placed in a universe full of space and time. And light has in no way been artificially deprived of space and time. A thing may naturally have the two properties of spacelessness and timelessness in following two cases only:
1) if it is placed in a world where there is no space, no time;
2) if placed in a world full of space and time it is artificially deprived of space and time.
But light is neither placed in a world having no space, no time, nor is it artificially deprived of space and time. So there is no apparent reason as to why light will have these two properties. In spite of these facts we find that light is having these properties. So if it is having these properties, then it is having them not naturally, but by some unnatural means. And here I am challenging the whole scientific community all over the world: let them bring any damn scientific theory here – relativity theory, quantum theory, string theory, M-theory, multiverse theory, parallel universe theory, or any other theory that they can think of – and let them show with their theory how there can naturally arise in light those two properties of spacelessness and timelessness. And I am saying with full confidence here that they will never be able to do that. This is only because there will always be two constraints due to which the properties of light can never have any natural explanation, and these two constraints can never be overcome by any scientific theory. I have already mentioned what are those two constraints: a) light is placed in a universe full of space and time, and b) light is not artificially deprived of space and time. This is the only gap that can never be bridged by any scientific explanation. This is the only gap that will require a supernatural explanation.
Permalink
You're response is that we need a god of the gaps. Are you serious? What will you have to say for yourself when science answers what you claim is your only question?
Permalink
Was it predetermined that space and time in our universe would be relative? Was it predetermined that light being placed in a universe full of space and time would still exhibit such characteristics as if it were having no space, no time? I believe that in both the case scientists will say "no".Therefore there must have to be some natural explanation for both the two cases. And I am very much eager to get these explanations from them. But I know very well that they will never be able to give them. I think that I have already given reasons as to why they will never have a success here. If it is the case that I have not been able to make my points sufficiently clear, then I will have to try again.
Like everything else light was created after the big bang. Like everything else light was placed in a universe full of space and time. Being placed in this universe light has not been artificially deprived of space and time. Last of all it was not predetermined that light will behave in this universe as if it was having no space, no time. When a prisoner is put in a prison cell, he is deprived of all the space lying outside of his prison cell. But he cannot be deprived of the space lying inside his cell. Being inside the universe light should naturally have all the space available in the universe. If the universe is infinite, then light should also have infinite space. Why should it show such characteristic as if this infinite space is no space at all for it? How does light naturally acquire such characteristic if it was not predetermined that it would have such characteristic?
One may think that perhaps multiverse theory will rescue us here. But even if there are an infinite number of universes, still then there will not be a single universe out of these infinite number of universes which will be without space, without time. So in each and every member of these infinite number of universes light will be placed in space and in time, and in each and every member of these infinite number of universes light will not be predetermined to have such characteristics as if it were having no space and no time. So for each and every universe one will have to explain how such characteristics can naturally grow in light.
Permalink
Knowing why something works isn't always necessary, especially if how it works is understood. It has to be accepted that somethings have their fundamental properties and that's just the way it is. The alternative is a never ending string of why questions. Kind of like what happens when you talk to a 5 year old.
You think that God is required to have established the laws of physics, but this just moves the question further back:Why did God want to create things in the first place? Why were the laws of physics established as they are?Why weren't the laws of physics established in a way that is more conducive to life?Where did God come from or alternatively why does God exist?If any of those answers are essentially because that's just the way it is, then you have not progressed any further than the physicists have in determining why the laws of physics are the way they are. No, you've done worse because you have proposed a mystery that cannot be demonstrated to explain a mystery that can be demonstrated.
"Why" is the wrong question when trying to understand the cosmos, "how" will actually get you somewhere.
Permalink
Your reply creates a false impression that as if in my reply I have posed the “why” questions only. But this is definitely not true! There are at least two instances when I have asked the question “how”:
1) How does light naturally acquire such characteristic if it was not predetermined that it would have such characteristic?
2) So for each and every universe one will have to explain how such characteristics can naturally grow in light.
Whereas I have asked the question “why” in one instance only:
1) Why should it show such characteristic as if this infinite space is no space at all for it?
Light in our universe possesses some most bizarre, most peculiar properties that nothing else in this universe does possess. For light even infinite distance becomes zero, and for it a time period of an eternity also becomes zero. If an event A takes place now, and if another event B is going to take place after an eternity, then light will perceive as if both the events have taken place simultaneously. If the two events are going to take place at two different locations separated by an infinite distance, then also light will perceive as if both the events have taken place at the same location! If this is not to be called bizarre, then what is the definition of “bizarre”? If light were having consciousness, and if it could speak, then perhaps it would have said something like this to us: Human beings are in permanent illusions. That is why they see infinite space where there is no space at all, and they perceive that an eternity is lying ahead of them when actually there is no time at all. And you are saying that if science fails to explain as to how light does become the possessor of these most bizarre properties, then “it has to be accepted that some things have their fundamental properties and that's just the way it is”. Then where goes the claim of the scientists that they will explain everything without invoking God? Where goes their claim that they do not need any God hypothesis for explaining anything? Why should they stop us asking any further question when they fail in any particular case, and then say that it has to be accepted that some things have their fundamental properties and that's just the way it is? Is science authoritarian? Will they dictate to us when we should ask questions and when we should not? Why will not they examine our hypothesis at least once if and when each and every hypothesis they propose to explain some event or fact fails to explain that particular event or fact? Why such arrogance that they only possess the key to all the truth?
Regarding the following questions of yours: Why did God want to create things in the first place? Why were the laws of physics established as they are? Why weren't the laws of physics established in a way that is more conducive to life? Where did God come from or alternatively why does God exist?, I will only say that some of these questions have already been answered by an unknown author Himangsu S. Pal, and his articles have already been published in an online journal Scientific God Journal (http://www.scigod.com), Volume 1, Issue 6, 7 & 8, and Volume 2, Issue 2. If you are really interested, then you can go through them.
Permalink
Sorry for the misunderstanding. My formal education was not in physics, it
was in Theology. All you are doing is applying God of the Gaps Theology. I'm
sorry, but that is not now and never will be science.
Permalink
In your reply you have written: My formal education was not in physics, it was in theology. Perhaps you have studied astrology also, that is why the near and distant future as well
Permalink
Just looking at the last 200 years, science and technology have advanced at an astounding pace. Considering the track record of natural explanations replacing supernatural explanations, no I put that too mildly, obliterating supernatural explanations, I see no reason to think that this will slow down. This is not divined through astrology as that's a supernatural phenomena that has already been obliterated by science.
You seem to be making the prediction that science will soon (or has already) come to a grinding halt in its quest for natural explanations of the cosmos. What do you base that on?
Permalink
You did it again. You have made a straw man out of Hawkin's work. If all
"God" is needed for now is starting gravity, then that's a really, really
weak god of the gaps.
WARNING – This is a comments section, not a "copy and past your essays"
section. Comments are welcome, but future full essays will be deleted.
Permalink
I think you have missed the point here. When Hawking's book was out, Dawkins commented something like this: Hawking has kicked God out of physics the way that Darwin kicked God out of biology. So scientists' only aim is not to acquire knowledge, their other aim is to kick God out of Physics. Another reviewer on Hawking's book has written about ousting God from science. Now it can be seen how God has been kicked out, or ousted. They have already taken it for granted that the void artificially created by them is a real void, and therefore virtual particles are appearing practically from nowhere. We who are God-believers will try to say here that it is not yet an established fact that the void is a real void, because our God is everywhere. In reply to that they will perhaps say that there is no evidence for God so far, and therefore they do not find any reason as to why they will have to think otherwise. So they start with a premise that contains the following: God does not exist, or God has been ousted/kicked out. Yes, if they do not admit that God has already been kicked out, they cannot come to the conclusion that the void is a real void. So the premise with which they start for ousting God already contains the conclusion they want to arrive at, that God has been successfully ousted/kicked out. Is it a logically sound procedure?
Permalink
Not believing in a god or gods would make "kicking out" such a being irrelevant and illogical. Hawking no more kicked your god out of physics than I kicked Santa out of Christmas when I realized that it was my parent's, not Santa Claus, who left the presents under the tree.
You have yet to make a point for anything except a god of the gaps, which is an inherently weak position which halts discovery and provides no explanatory power. If people hadn't questioned the "God's wrath" theory of disease we never would have discovered germ theory and if people hadn't questioned the traditional creation myth then we never would have discovered evolution. Similarly to understand the origin of the universe requires at least tentatively rejecting the "God did it" answer to find the real answer.
Permalink
Phenomenon of quantum entanglement fully supports our belief that there is a God who is spaceless, timeless and all-pervading. The link is here:
http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/173