This is brilliant. I’m saving it, hearting it, sharing it, and commenting on it! Excellent premise, excellent writing; and I hope you don’t mind if I share a link to the op-ed I wrote this AM for Easter:
I love what you said. That kind of honest wrestling is where real faith is forged. To be fully transparent, I only started digging into the historical evidence about 9 months ago myself—and it has been a full-on rabbit hole ever since.
It really does feel like He welcomes the challenge—clearly not because He needs to prove Himself, but because He knows the truth can handle the weight.
I go to a Christian church (UCC), so you would think I would call myself Christian or at least want to, but by theological definitions I’m more accurately described as a Unitarian Universalist (which of course originated in Christianity but has in more recent years become more agnostic). The main reason I don’t call myself Christian is because I see Christianity as one of many understandings of God and the divine, and that there isn’t one that’s more correct than the others. I know both can be true, ie just because someone identifies as Christian doesn’t mean they *have to* think that Christianity is correct and all the other religions are false, especially in one of the most progressive denominations that doesn’t subscribe to nor promote that view, but much of Christian scripture and culture more broadly seems to indicate that this is the desired belief. I read the Bible with more of a literary lens almost, like these are parables meant to teach moral and spiritual wisdom rather than the literal truth of the universe. I don’t believe in a literal Hell, virgin births, etc. As such, I’d make a pretty heretical Christian by most standards lol
Well, I think it's pretty great that you believe in God. I do understand why people sometimes take the view that scripture is more literary than literal, but when I read Gerald Schroeder's book 'The Science of God,' it convinced me that key aspects of the Old Testament--especially Genesis--can be taken literally and are compatible with modern science. That's what started moving me from general God-belief to more specific belief in the God of the Bible. From there, I moved on to the New Testament. There are some great books out there about why you can also take the gospels literally. If you're a logical, evidence-based person, I recommend reading J. Warner Wallace's book, 'Cold-Case Christianity.' I sent it to my non-Christian dad who found it very compelling.
Excellent piece. Humans need hope for their soul in the same manner they need air for their lungs.
Aristotle once concluded that everything in motion could not have begun by something that was in motion. But rather something that is an “eternal, unmoved mover.” Aristotle was speaking of the God you speak of (and subsequently contradictory to the gods of his time), he just didn’t realize it.
I'm Jewish and will swap out anything Christianity related with Jewish stuff however I really enjoyed both the content along with the witty & entertaining writing
Thanks, Nahum. I came to the Bible through 'The Science of God' by Gerald Schroeder, who's an Orthodox Jewish theologian and physicist. I bought and read books by Nachmanides and Maimonides because of him. It's all fascinating.
Thanks! Very well written, and I appreciate your spirit as you express your love for God who loves you and created you in His very own image. Thanks again!
This article does not contain one particle of evidence that God exists. It does contain the usual contradictions and stretches of logic that all such articles and books have in common.
The old “something can’t arise from nothing” argument. Therefore , since the universe undeniably exists, it must have been created by something, and that something is God.
Then when I ask fine then who or what created God the answer is that he wasn’t created, he has always existed. Which entirely negates the premise that something can’t come from nothing. Positing that god exists and has always existed outside the bounds of time and space is a farcical explanatory fiction.
That's an interesting point, though I didn't say "something from nothing." Rather, the idea is that anything that begins to exist needs a cause. So, you could counter that if God explains the universe beginning to exist, then what caused God to begin to exist? The Christian then says that God never began to exist, because He is eternal.
It's a sensible explanation. Why? Because if there is nothing eternal that is its own explanation, something that is ultimately the essence and ground of all being, then you end up with a turtles-all-the-way-down situation in which you get cause after cause after cause for all of eternity. That's generally considered an absurdity.
So, here's something to consider. For thousands of years, most scholarly people held to the Aristotelian view of the universe as being eternal and unchanging. You could say the universe needed no explanation, because it had always existed -- no beginning, no end. Would you consider that farcical?
You keep saying there is plenty of evidence God exists like it’s a mantra but not once have you supplied any.
You state that things that exist must have causes but then exempt God from that premise.
Yes, I’m aware that you are playing semantic Three Card Monty by saying the universe had a start and therefore had to be started by something else, but God didn’t have to be created or caused because he has just always been. This mental jiu-jitsu seems to be awfully persuasive to you but to me and my fellow atheists it’s laughably convenient. “Everything that has a starting point has to have been put in motion by something else, and everything that exists has to have been created by something else. Except one thing, and that thing is god.” Is this the argument? This is like when cops find drugs in someone’s trunk and the cars owner says someone must have stolen his car and left the drugs there. How truly, truly convenient. Laughably so.
Again, gaps in scientific knowledge are not evidence of God*, and, again, you have not, and cannot, provide evidence of God.
* Semantic wordplay and wishful inferences are also not evidence.
I see what you’re saying but it’s less farcical to say the universe is eternal and unchanging than it is to say God/Prime Mover is eternal and unchanging because we know the universe exists. There’s no evidence God exists, so if something has to be eternal and unchanging, let it be the thing that we know exists. It’s the insistence that God is involved that inevitably leads to the “turtles all the way down” absurdity.
Also, respectfully, when I hear “Christians say….” in a discussion such as this, it is anything but persuasive. It’s analogous to “but the Bible says…”. I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe the Bible is the word of God, and I don’t believe Jesus was anything more than a mortal man. So “the Bible says” or “Christians say” is like saying pigs can speak English because George Orwell said so.
Yes, we do know the universe exists, so it doesn't stretch our imagination to believe it could be eternal if that's what the evidence showed. But that's not what the evidence shows. The evidence is strongly in favor of the universe having a beginning a finite time ago. We know from experience and common sense that anything that begins to exist needs a cause. A logical argument can be made that God is the cause. And since you grant that it's possible for something to exist eternally and unchanging, why couldn't that apply to God?
There is quite a bit of evidence God exists, which is why I became Christian after growing up atheist. You may not find the evidence compelling, but it does exist. Also, I'm not sure how the "turtles all the way down" absurdity applies to God. Would you explain that to me, please?
(When I said "Christians say" above, that wasn't meant to be persuasive. I was describing how the conversation between atheists and Christians typically goes.)
There’s no evidence God exists. Gaps in our understanding of the universe, the cosmos, evolution, etc do not constitute evidence of God. “Well, something had to set all this in motion” is not evidence of God. “We don’t know what existed before the beginning of the universe so it must be God” is not evidence of God.
Our meager understanding of our universe isn’t evidence for God. Maybe there wasn’t a Big Bang. Maybe there’s an endless series of bangs with vast incomprehensible stretches of time between each. Is the Oscillating Universe theory correct? Is the Heat Death theory correct? Does dark matter exist other than on the blackboards of theoretical physicists? Is string theory correct and if so how could it ever be proven to be correct? Did our universe begin as an eruption or outpouching from a vastly larger multiverse?
See? These are legitimate questions that we can’t yet answer, some we will never answer, but saying “if we don’t know the answer then it must be the hand of God” doesn’t clarify anything. It muddies the water terribly. A logical argument cannot be made that God is the cause of anything because no evidence for God exists.
You keep saying there is no evidence God exists like it’s a mantra. There is plenty of evidence God exists. That’s why I’m no longer an atheist.
The problem isn’t gaps in our understanding. As a scientist, I labor to fill those gaps, because I believe many if not most of them are fillable. The problem is boundaries to our understanding. One impenetrable boundary is whatever lies beyond the universe.
We’ll never know what may or may not exist beyond the universe through scientific means, because science by definition can’t extend beyond the universe. But we can make some logical inferences. We can reasonably extend the premise that “things that begin to exist have causes” to the universe itself.
The universe had a beginning, so it must have a cause. So, what caused it? We can infer the properties of the cause using reason. If the cause transcends the universe, then it must transcend the properties of the universe and is therefore spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. It is also vastly powerful if it can create a universe. It must also have volition, because a process without volition doesn’t create a universe a finite time ago—it either does what it does eternally or not at all.
All of these properties correspond very well to a disembodied extremely powerful and intelligent agent. Another word for that is God.
The best scientific evidence we have indicates that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago. For a while, physicists wondered whether there could’ve been endless cycles of big bangs and big crunches, but the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem pretty much put that to rest. It says that any universe composed of classical spacetime, under general conditions, cannot be past-eternal if it’s expanding with time. As Vilenkin himself has stated repeatedly, we’re stuck with a beginning. That’s not a gap, that’s an impenetrable boundary. Science can never extend its domain beyond it. Science will never solve that riddle. But we can use reason to infer that God is substantially the best explanation for why the universe exists and with the properties that it does.
This was an interesting read! I’m adding my perspective, mostly so I can write it out and understand it myself.
I was raised Methodist and now am atheist. I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about faith and I feel solid in my disbelief. For each of your points my view is so different. I love human perspective.
My thoughts are almost opposite:
- The world is grand, wonderful, gorgeous. That is not a miracle. That is the result of time and coevolution. The beauty of the world has slowly been developing since Earth was barren. It is incredible that nature and life was able to build itself into what it is. I am appreciate each little bug, bird, flower and leaf because it has created itself in the version we encounter. How wonderful!!
- Jesus was real, his lessons are beautiful. He does not need to be the son of god to be an important teacher to society. I do not need to believe in God and afterlife to understand why Jesus would preach of a living and caring god. Societies across the globe utilize religion to teach moral lessons. Jesus was very very charismatic and did this better than anyone else! I can appreciate his teachings without idolizing him above his teachings.
- There is much more to the world than good versus evil. I think the core of all is survival. For people who commit atrocities the survival they pursue is often for their ideas, their power, their influence. They want to dominate history. Racists want a certain lifestyle to survive. Bigots want to survive without having to talk to people they don’t understand. True evil is a label often given to sociopaths and psychopaths. Even then, I think it’s more complicated - they are not necessarily “evil”
- I decided I didn’t believe in God, because I don’t think I have a set fate. I don’t believe someone is guiding my path. I make my path, I create my challenges, I learn and build and strive to be better. If God judges me, so be. I am already judging myself.
Overall I find religion to be too contrived. Too many words, not enough actual action. For all the Christian who praise Jesus, how many volunteer? How many act as a Good Samaritan? How many love their neighbors? How many live with goodness? Not enough.
Hi Lauren. Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective. As I was raised atheist and came to Christianity later in life, our perspectives seem to be going in opposite directions.
"The world is grand, wonderful, gorgeous. That is not a miracle. That is the result of time and coevolution."
Well, the problem with this is that a few billion years may sound like an incomprehensibly long time, but it's nowhere near enough time for this to occur unguided. Things turn out to happen much more suddenly in the universe than we anticipate as the recent James Webb Space Telescope observations have shown. I have no problem with the concept of Darwinian evolution. It's such an elegant framework and on its own it makes a lot of sense. The problem is that the evidence and the math for it just don't work.
"Jesus was real, his lessons are beautiful. He does not need to be the son of god to be an important teacher to society. ... I can appreciate his teachings without idolizing him above his teachings."
I'm grateful you believe Jesus is real and that you appreciate His teachings. The challenge is to explain why 90% of what He taught in the gospels was about God, the kingdom of heaven, and equating Himself with God. That's what got Him crucified.
"There is much more to the world than good versus evil. I think the core of all is survival."
If it's about survival, then everything humans do is ostensibly coded for that purpose and you can't label any of it good or bad. The insufficient traits will die out, and the sufficient traits will live. That means liberalism is likely to die out, because wealthy, modern, liberal societies don't propagate themselves above the replacement rate.
"I decided I didn’t believe in God, because I don’t think I have a set fate. I don’t believe someone is guiding my path. I make my path, I create my challenges, I learn and build and strive to be better. If God judges me, so be. I am already judging myself."
That's actually one reason I appreciate God in my life. He endowed us all with free will and with the purpose of doing good works. That gives meaning to everything I do.
"Overall I find religion to be too contrived. Too many words, not enough actual action. For all the Christian who praise Jesus, how many volunteer? How many act as a Good Samaritan? How many love their neighbors? How many live with goodness? Not enough."
I 100% agree with you on this. This is a major reason people get turned off to Christianity, and it's a real shame. But, on average, Christians tend to be significantly more engaged in the community, civics, and charity than non-believers. Not because they're inherently better people, but because they're motivated by God's love and forgiveness and Jesus' second commandment to love other people.
It’s also majority Christians. I saw more hypocrisy Christians. Many likely were not good believers, but they still readily associated with a religion they did not follow the teachings of.
Again, I agree, Lauren. Sometimes Christians can behave in appalling ways. Many of them are hardly models of Christ's love. If I looked only to other Christians for motivation for my beliefs, I'd have given up on Christianity long ago.
I believe in God because of the evidence for His existence. But I look to Jesus Christ to define who and what I am. He is the only perfect Person to have ever existed, and His ministry, His sacrifice, His immeasurable love for each and every one of us is the only reason I say I'm Christian. If you ever think of coming back to Christianity, I gently urge you to focus on Jesus Christ and let Him be the reason you believe.
I appreciate your take on this subject and all of the points you made were well thought out and I can see how you arrived to those conclusions. However, the last paragraph displayed a slight disconnect to the actuality of Christ followers. How many volunteer? Act as a Good Samaritan? Love their neighbors? Live with goodness? By far most. So, if most is not enough, maybe we have an unrealistic standard to meet.
Also apologies for the earlier version of this comment, YouTube switched to some stupid political ad as I was getting the link and I think I posted that at first by mistake !
That's interesting, Ken. I've had other ex-Christians tell me that a man literally coming back from the dead was the top reason they couldn't believe Christianity. Talking animals seems kind of small potatoes.
The miracles described in the Bible do seem to be a stumbling block for many people. But it ends up being kind of a circular argument rather than a disproof. If you grant that an all-powerful God can exist, then He should have the power to perform miracles.
It is physically impossible for the Earth to stop rotating, and then start again. It is physically impossible for a man to walk on the surface of a body of water. It is physically impossible for a snake, or a donkey/ass/mule to form human speech.
Any “god” that causes these things is obviously capricious.
Capricious means given to sudden and unaccountable changes. These are not unaccountable--there are reasons for all of them.
Think about an intersection with a stoplight. The law is that you cannot enter the intersection when the light is red. Maybe it's near a school, so a policeman is always nearby to make sure no one runs red lights. But does that mean the law can never be suspended? If the policeman allows an ambulance transporting a critically injured person go through a red light, does that mean the policeman is being capricious? Of course not. There's a reason he's momentarily suspending the usual course of things.
It's the same way with God. We have the usual course of things with the laws of nature. The Bible says that at times God temporarily suspends those laws--which, if God exists He certainly has the power to do--for a reason. It's not caprice. It's always to demonstrate something or to achieve a particular end.
Whatever. You are free to believe whatever irrational nonsense you choose; you are not free to force others to believe it or act according to its dictates.
And Christianity is filled with people seeking to do exactly that.
I don't think it's irrational or nonsense. I've spent years studying this, and of all the different philosophies, I believe Christianity's is the most sensible.
The problem, Ken, is that everyone wants to extend their values to those around them. That's not unique to Christianity. I grew up atheist in a liberal-left secular country that tries very hard to impose its values on others, both through indoctrination and by force. That's the norm.
Ken, I'm sorry, but this is absurd. I would tell you to look at the world around you as evidence of this, but your point of view and mode of thinking are so orthogonal to mine that there's no point continuing this conversation. I wish you well.
No, yours is the circular argument. If an all-powerful god can arbitrarily violate its own laws at any time, then nothing can be relied upon. You would never set foot on an airplane, or even a boat.
Yes, if God was capricious. But He's not described that way in scripture at all. In fact, the opposite. Moreover, your concerns are far more likely to be true if God doesn't exist. If we live in a multiverse for instance, there's no basis for us to believe we live in a universe with consistent and unchanging laws of nature. They could arbitrarily change at any moment.
Hi Chris. I find the multiverse interesting from an ideas perspective, but as a scientist I have major problems with it. First, it's scientifically untestable. Second, it becomes a lazy, catch-all explanation that de-incentivizes pursuing actual scientific explanations for phenomena. Like the attempts to explain the relative weakness of gravity as gravitons escaping to other universes or the oddity of the double-slit experiment as interference with photons or electrons from other universes. That's virtually indistinguishable from magic. Third, it introduces absurdities, and, if it's true, it renders existence a rather hideous and pointless experience where there are no consequences to anything that happens.
Thanks for posting your ten reasons...just one quibble...and I'm not sure if I'm correct or not...but, with regards to Reason 7, I can't remember Jesus ever saying he was God. Son of Man maybe and other similar stuff, but God? Maybe it's in the New Testament somewhere, but, if so, where?
He says, “The Father and I are one,” and “Nobody knows the Father, except the Son.” So, He is careful in what He says. Probably wanted to finish the work before he riled them up anymore.
Peter Hitchens' reasons (link above) were not entirely the same, but his conclusions developed similarly. His 2011 confession of Jesus Christ before an intensely hostile panel and audience (link below) is one of my favourite public confessions of all time, and makes me emotional
From my following of your writing, i wonder what you would make of the Ray of Creation. It resonated so strongly with me when i first learned of it, it’s become part of the way I see and experience G-d in the world. I discovered this through Cynthia Bourgeault about 5 years back (Eye of the Heart). I can get you some specific references if you are interested.
Wiki has a pretty good section on it. “Eye of the Heart” puts the technical into the spiritual. Here it is on Googlebooks — Click on Preview 50 PGS. I hope this link works.
This is brilliant. I’m saving it, hearting it, sharing it, and commenting on it! Excellent premise, excellent writing; and I hope you don’t mind if I share a link to the op-ed I wrote this AM for Easter:
https://thequillandmusket.substack.com/p/the-most-important-event-in-historyand?r=4xypjp
Link away. I don't think even Christians realize how much historical evidence there is for Jesus Christ.
I love what you said. That kind of honest wrestling is where real faith is forged. To be fully transparent, I only started digging into the historical evidence about 9 months ago myself—and it has been a full-on rabbit hole ever since.
It really does feel like He welcomes the challenge—clearly not because He needs to prove Himself, but because He knows the truth can handle the weight.
That's a good way to put it.
Very similar path to how I came to believe in God after 35 years of atheism (though I would not call myself Christian).
I just generally believed in God for years before I became Christian. Have you ever considered taking that extra step?
I go to a Christian church (UCC), so you would think I would call myself Christian or at least want to, but by theological definitions I’m more accurately described as a Unitarian Universalist (which of course originated in Christianity but has in more recent years become more agnostic). The main reason I don’t call myself Christian is because I see Christianity as one of many understandings of God and the divine, and that there isn’t one that’s more correct than the others. I know both can be true, ie just because someone identifies as Christian doesn’t mean they *have to* think that Christianity is correct and all the other religions are false, especially in one of the most progressive denominations that doesn’t subscribe to nor promote that view, but much of Christian scripture and culture more broadly seems to indicate that this is the desired belief. I read the Bible with more of a literary lens almost, like these are parables meant to teach moral and spiritual wisdom rather than the literal truth of the universe. I don’t believe in a literal Hell, virgin births, etc. As such, I’d make a pretty heretical Christian by most standards lol
Well, I think it's pretty great that you believe in God. I do understand why people sometimes take the view that scripture is more literary than literal, but when I read Gerald Schroeder's book 'The Science of God,' it convinced me that key aspects of the Old Testament--especially Genesis--can be taken literally and are compatible with modern science. That's what started moving me from general God-belief to more specific belief in the God of the Bible. From there, I moved on to the New Testament. There are some great books out there about why you can also take the gospels literally. If you're a logical, evidence-based person, I recommend reading J. Warner Wallace's book, 'Cold-Case Christianity.' I sent it to my non-Christian dad who found it very compelling.
Excellent piece. Humans need hope for their soul in the same manner they need air for their lungs.
Aristotle once concluded that everything in motion could not have begun by something that was in motion. But rather something that is an “eternal, unmoved mover.” Aristotle was speaking of the God you speak of (and subsequently contradictory to the gods of his time), he just didn’t realize it.
what a fantastic article! Thanks.
I'm Jewish and will swap out anything Christianity related with Jewish stuff however I really enjoyed both the content along with the witty & entertaining writing
Thanks, Nahum. I came to the Bible through 'The Science of God' by Gerald Schroeder, who's an Orthodox Jewish theologian and physicist. I bought and read books by Nachmanides and Maimonides because of him. It's all fascinating.
Thank you so much!
Your ability to think through the issues and distill their useable essence is awesome. Your post is one of the best things I have read this year.
I am sharing it on.
Be blessed my sister!
Pierre-Louis Ours
Thank you so much, Pierre-Louis. I appreciate that.
Thanks! Very well written, and I appreciate your spirit as you express your love for God who loves you and created you in His very own image. Thanks again!
This article does not contain one particle of evidence that God exists. It does contain the usual contradictions and stretches of logic that all such articles and books have in common.
Thanks for your comment, Tony. Which contradictions and stretches of logic are you thinking of here?
The old “something can’t arise from nothing” argument. Therefore , since the universe undeniably exists, it must have been created by something, and that something is God.
Then when I ask fine then who or what created God the answer is that he wasn’t created, he has always existed. Which entirely negates the premise that something can’t come from nothing. Positing that god exists and has always existed outside the bounds of time and space is a farcical explanatory fiction.
That's an interesting point, though I didn't say "something from nothing." Rather, the idea is that anything that begins to exist needs a cause. So, you could counter that if God explains the universe beginning to exist, then what caused God to begin to exist? The Christian then says that God never began to exist, because He is eternal.
It's a sensible explanation. Why? Because if there is nothing eternal that is its own explanation, something that is ultimately the essence and ground of all being, then you end up with a turtles-all-the-way-down situation in which you get cause after cause after cause for all of eternity. That's generally considered an absurdity.
So, here's something to consider. For thousands of years, most scholarly people held to the Aristotelian view of the universe as being eternal and unchanging. You could say the universe needed no explanation, because it had always existed -- no beginning, no end. Would you consider that farcical?
You keep saying there is plenty of evidence God exists like it’s a mantra but not once have you supplied any.
You state that things that exist must have causes but then exempt God from that premise.
Yes, I’m aware that you are playing semantic Three Card Monty by saying the universe had a start and therefore had to be started by something else, but God didn’t have to be created or caused because he has just always been. This mental jiu-jitsu seems to be awfully persuasive to you but to me and my fellow atheists it’s laughably convenient. “Everything that has a starting point has to have been put in motion by something else, and everything that exists has to have been created by something else. Except one thing, and that thing is god.” Is this the argument? This is like when cops find drugs in someone’s trunk and the cars owner says someone must have stolen his car and left the drugs there. How truly, truly convenient. Laughably so.
Again, gaps in scientific knowledge are not evidence of God*, and, again, you have not, and cannot, provide evidence of God.
* Semantic wordplay and wishful inferences are also not evidence.
I see what you’re saying but it’s less farcical to say the universe is eternal and unchanging than it is to say God/Prime Mover is eternal and unchanging because we know the universe exists. There’s no evidence God exists, so if something has to be eternal and unchanging, let it be the thing that we know exists. It’s the insistence that God is involved that inevitably leads to the “turtles all the way down” absurdity.
Also, respectfully, when I hear “Christians say….” in a discussion such as this, it is anything but persuasive. It’s analogous to “but the Bible says…”. I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe the Bible is the word of God, and I don’t believe Jesus was anything more than a mortal man. So “the Bible says” or “Christians say” is like saying pigs can speak English because George Orwell said so.
Yes, we do know the universe exists, so it doesn't stretch our imagination to believe it could be eternal if that's what the evidence showed. But that's not what the evidence shows. The evidence is strongly in favor of the universe having a beginning a finite time ago. We know from experience and common sense that anything that begins to exist needs a cause. A logical argument can be made that God is the cause. And since you grant that it's possible for something to exist eternally and unchanging, why couldn't that apply to God?
There is quite a bit of evidence God exists, which is why I became Christian after growing up atheist. You may not find the evidence compelling, but it does exist. Also, I'm not sure how the "turtles all the way down" absurdity applies to God. Would you explain that to me, please?
(When I said "Christians say" above, that wasn't meant to be persuasive. I was describing how the conversation between atheists and Christians typically goes.)
There’s no evidence God exists. Gaps in our understanding of the universe, the cosmos, evolution, etc do not constitute evidence of God. “Well, something had to set all this in motion” is not evidence of God. “We don’t know what existed before the beginning of the universe so it must be God” is not evidence of God.
Our meager understanding of our universe isn’t evidence for God. Maybe there wasn’t a Big Bang. Maybe there’s an endless series of bangs with vast incomprehensible stretches of time between each. Is the Oscillating Universe theory correct? Is the Heat Death theory correct? Does dark matter exist other than on the blackboards of theoretical physicists? Is string theory correct and if so how could it ever be proven to be correct? Did our universe begin as an eruption or outpouching from a vastly larger multiverse?
See? These are legitimate questions that we can’t yet answer, some we will never answer, but saying “if we don’t know the answer then it must be the hand of God” doesn’t clarify anything. It muddies the water terribly. A logical argument cannot be made that God is the cause of anything because no evidence for God exists.
You keep saying there is no evidence God exists like it’s a mantra. There is plenty of evidence God exists. That’s why I’m no longer an atheist.
The problem isn’t gaps in our understanding. As a scientist, I labor to fill those gaps, because I believe many if not most of them are fillable. The problem is boundaries to our understanding. One impenetrable boundary is whatever lies beyond the universe.
We’ll never know what may or may not exist beyond the universe through scientific means, because science by definition can’t extend beyond the universe. But we can make some logical inferences. We can reasonably extend the premise that “things that begin to exist have causes” to the universe itself.
The universe had a beginning, so it must have a cause. So, what caused it? We can infer the properties of the cause using reason. If the cause transcends the universe, then it must transcend the properties of the universe and is therefore spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. It is also vastly powerful if it can create a universe. It must also have volition, because a process without volition doesn’t create a universe a finite time ago—it either does what it does eternally or not at all.
All of these properties correspond very well to a disembodied extremely powerful and intelligent agent. Another word for that is God.
The best scientific evidence we have indicates that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago. For a while, physicists wondered whether there could’ve been endless cycles of big bangs and big crunches, but the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem pretty much put that to rest. It says that any universe composed of classical spacetime, under general conditions, cannot be past-eternal if it’s expanding with time. As Vilenkin himself has stated repeatedly, we’re stuck with a beginning. That’s not a gap, that’s an impenetrable boundary. Science can never extend its domain beyond it. Science will never solve that riddle. But we can use reason to infer that God is substantially the best explanation for why the universe exists and with the properties that it does.
This was an interesting read! I’m adding my perspective, mostly so I can write it out and understand it myself.
I was raised Methodist and now am atheist. I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about faith and I feel solid in my disbelief. For each of your points my view is so different. I love human perspective.
My thoughts are almost opposite:
- The world is grand, wonderful, gorgeous. That is not a miracle. That is the result of time and coevolution. The beauty of the world has slowly been developing since Earth was barren. It is incredible that nature and life was able to build itself into what it is. I am appreciate each little bug, bird, flower and leaf because it has created itself in the version we encounter. How wonderful!!
- Jesus was real, his lessons are beautiful. He does not need to be the son of god to be an important teacher to society. I do not need to believe in God and afterlife to understand why Jesus would preach of a living and caring god. Societies across the globe utilize religion to teach moral lessons. Jesus was very very charismatic and did this better than anyone else! I can appreciate his teachings without idolizing him above his teachings.
- There is much more to the world than good versus evil. I think the core of all is survival. For people who commit atrocities the survival they pursue is often for their ideas, their power, their influence. They want to dominate history. Racists want a certain lifestyle to survive. Bigots want to survive without having to talk to people they don’t understand. True evil is a label often given to sociopaths and psychopaths. Even then, I think it’s more complicated - they are not necessarily “evil”
- I decided I didn’t believe in God, because I don’t think I have a set fate. I don’t believe someone is guiding my path. I make my path, I create my challenges, I learn and build and strive to be better. If God judges me, so be. I am already judging myself.
Overall I find religion to be too contrived. Too many words, not enough actual action. For all the Christian who praise Jesus, how many volunteer? How many act as a Good Samaritan? How many love their neighbors? How many live with goodness? Not enough.
Hi Lauren. Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective. As I was raised atheist and came to Christianity later in life, our perspectives seem to be going in opposite directions.
"The world is grand, wonderful, gorgeous. That is not a miracle. That is the result of time and coevolution."
Well, the problem with this is that a few billion years may sound like an incomprehensibly long time, but it's nowhere near enough time for this to occur unguided. Things turn out to happen much more suddenly in the universe than we anticipate as the recent James Webb Space Telescope observations have shown. I have no problem with the concept of Darwinian evolution. It's such an elegant framework and on its own it makes a lot of sense. The problem is that the evidence and the math for it just don't work.
"Jesus was real, his lessons are beautiful. He does not need to be the son of god to be an important teacher to society. ... I can appreciate his teachings without idolizing him above his teachings."
I'm grateful you believe Jesus is real and that you appreciate His teachings. The challenge is to explain why 90% of what He taught in the gospels was about God, the kingdom of heaven, and equating Himself with God. That's what got Him crucified.
"There is much more to the world than good versus evil. I think the core of all is survival."
If it's about survival, then everything humans do is ostensibly coded for that purpose and you can't label any of it good or bad. The insufficient traits will die out, and the sufficient traits will live. That means liberalism is likely to die out, because wealthy, modern, liberal societies don't propagate themselves above the replacement rate.
"I decided I didn’t believe in God, because I don’t think I have a set fate. I don’t believe someone is guiding my path. I make my path, I create my challenges, I learn and build and strive to be better. If God judges me, so be. I am already judging myself."
That's actually one reason I appreciate God in my life. He endowed us all with free will and with the purpose of doing good works. That gives meaning to everything I do.
"Overall I find religion to be too contrived. Too many words, not enough actual action. For all the Christian who praise Jesus, how many volunteer? How many act as a Good Samaritan? How many love their neighbors? How many live with goodness? Not enough."
I 100% agree with you on this. This is a major reason people get turned off to Christianity, and it's a real shame. But, on average, Christians tend to be significantly more engaged in the community, civics, and charity than non-believers. Not because they're inherently better people, but because they're motivated by God's love and forgiveness and Jesus' second commandment to love other people.
I grew up in the US South. Wonderful place.
It’s also majority Christians. I saw more hypocrisy Christians. Many likely were not good believers, but they still readily associated with a religion they did not follow the teachings of.
Again, I agree, Lauren. Sometimes Christians can behave in appalling ways. Many of them are hardly models of Christ's love. If I looked only to other Christians for motivation for my beliefs, I'd have given up on Christianity long ago.
I believe in God because of the evidence for His existence. But I look to Jesus Christ to define who and what I am. He is the only perfect Person to have ever existed, and His ministry, His sacrifice, His immeasurable love for each and every one of us is the only reason I say I'm Christian. If you ever think of coming back to Christianity, I gently urge you to focus on Jesus Christ and let Him be the reason you believe.
I appreciate your take on this subject and all of the points you made were well thought out and I can see how you arrived to those conclusions. However, the last paragraph displayed a slight disconnect to the actuality of Christ followers. How many volunteer? Act as a Good Samaritan? Love their neighbors? Live with goodness? By far most. So, if most is not enough, maybe we have an unrealistic standard to meet.
Also apologies for the earlier version of this comment, YouTube switched to some stupid political ad as I was getting the link and I think I posted that at first by mistake !
"The universe is not eternal. "
Is that the current conclusion of the experts ?
"I believe in good and evil. Like, in an objective way. "
How do you counter moral anti-realist accounts of morality ?
"Atheism sucks"
In short , how/why does it suck ?
"The universe is too special."
It could be necessarily like how it is ?
Top ONE reason I can’t go back to being a Christian:
Talking animals
That's interesting, Ken. I've had other ex-Christians tell me that a man literally coming back from the dead was the top reason they couldn't believe Christianity. Talking animals seems kind of small potatoes.
There are several physical impossibilities in the Bible. Talking animals takes only two words to describe, and is also essential to the faith.
The miracles described in the Bible do seem to be a stumbling block for many people. But it ends up being kind of a circular argument rather than a disproof. If you grant that an all-powerful God can exist, then He should have the power to perform miracles.
It is physically impossible for the Earth to stop rotating, and then start again. It is physically impossible for a man to walk on the surface of a body of water. It is physically impossible for a snake, or a donkey/ass/mule to form human speech.
Any “god” that causes these things is obviously capricious.
QED
Capricious means given to sudden and unaccountable changes. These are not unaccountable--there are reasons for all of them.
Think about an intersection with a stoplight. The law is that you cannot enter the intersection when the light is red. Maybe it's near a school, so a policeman is always nearby to make sure no one runs red lights. But does that mean the law can never be suspended? If the policeman allows an ambulance transporting a critically injured person go through a red light, does that mean the policeman is being capricious? Of course not. There's a reason he's momentarily suspending the usual course of things.
It's the same way with God. We have the usual course of things with the laws of nature. The Bible says that at times God temporarily suspends those laws--which, if God exists He certainly has the power to do--for a reason. It's not caprice. It's always to demonstrate something or to achieve a particular end.
Whatever. You are free to believe whatever irrational nonsense you choose; you are not free to force others to believe it or act according to its dictates.
And Christianity is filled with people seeking to do exactly that.
I don't think it's irrational or nonsense. I've spent years studying this, and of all the different philosophies, I believe Christianity's is the most sensible.
The problem, Ken, is that everyone wants to extend their values to those around them. That's not unique to Christianity. I grew up atheist in a liberal-left secular country that tries very hard to impose its values on others, both through indoctrination and by force. That's the norm.
Imposition of one’s whim by force is never the norm.
Ken, I'm sorry, but this is absurd. I would tell you to look at the world around you as evidence of this, but your point of view and mode of thinking are so orthogonal to mine that there's no point continuing this conversation. I wish you well.
No, yours is the circular argument. If an all-powerful god can arbitrarily violate its own laws at any time, then nothing can be relied upon. You would never set foot on an airplane, or even a boat.
Yes, if God was capricious. But He's not described that way in scripture at all. In fact, the opposite. Moreover, your concerns are far more likely to be true if God doesn't exist. If we live in a multiverse for instance, there's no basis for us to believe we live in a universe with consistent and unchanging laws of nature. They could arbitrarily change at any moment.
God IS described as being capricious in Scripture. That is the whole point.
How so?
These points have all been explained by either the multiverse theory or one fallacy or another.
Atheism is simply not believing in one more god, and I'm fine with that.
Hi Chris. I find the multiverse interesting from an ideas perspective, but as a scientist I have major problems with it. First, it's scientifically untestable. Second, it becomes a lazy, catch-all explanation that de-incentivizes pursuing actual scientific explanations for phenomena. Like the attempts to explain the relative weakness of gravity as gravitons escaping to other universes or the oddity of the double-slit experiment as interference with photons or electrons from other universes. That's virtually indistinguishable from magic. Third, it introduces absurdities, and, if it's true, it renders existence a rather hideous and pointless experience where there are no consequences to anything that happens.
And even when I was an atheist, I found the "one less god" argument uncompelling. See #14 on this list: https://sarahsalviander.substack.com/p/faq
Thanks for posting your ten reasons...just one quibble...and I'm not sure if I'm correct or not...but, with regards to Reason 7, I can't remember Jesus ever saying he was God. Son of Man maybe and other similar stuff, but God? Maybe it's in the New Testament somewhere, but, if so, where?
He says, “The Father and I are one,” and “Nobody knows the Father, except the Son.” So, He is careful in what He says. Probably wanted to finish the work before he riled them up anymore.
I love stuff like this. Points 4, 8, 9 and 10 fascinate me and make me happy.
https://youtu.be/jQkSxdAS3MI?si=-dfX3JyiQe6uihh2
(2 minutes)
Peter Hitchens' reasons (link above) were not entirely the same, but his conclusions developed similarly. His 2011 confession of Jesus Christ before an intensely hostile panel and audience (link below) is one of my favourite public confessions of all time, and makes me emotional
https://youtu.be/TxQUMUseGag?t=83
(Cut to 1.5 minutes)
From my following of your writing, i wonder what you would make of the Ray of Creation. It resonated so strongly with me when i first learned of it, it’s become part of the way I see and experience G-d in the world. I discovered this through Cynthia Bourgeault about 5 years back (Eye of the Heart). I can get you some specific references if you are interested.
I don't know what the Ray of Creation is.
Then i will share some things. I hope it intrigues you.
https://consciousharmony.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/TJS-12022-Ray-of-Creation-2.pdf
Wiki has a pretty good section on it. “Eye of the Heart” puts the technical into the spiritual. Here it is on Googlebooks — Click on Preview 50 PGS. I hope this link works.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Eye_of_the_Heart.html?id=vqrpDwAAQBAJ