A good argument that atheists use, and one that fumbles me

[CuriousSoul]

Hi, I’m new here, and I thought that this was an interesting topic, as it has been on my mind lately.

I’m undecided in my faith, and so far many arguments have made me lean toward one religion, but then a counterargument is made and I just keep getting myself confused. But my curiosity and young age have brought me to this forum. The argument at hand is one that is used to disprove theology and used to describe creation in the atheist’s eye. The Big Bang Theory is one example of this, and on paper it sounds very believeable. Atheists point out what are interpreted as “errors” in the Bible, and use these as a defense in their lack of faith. But what makes me scratch my head is that what science teaches us is that everything comes down do coincidence after coincidence after another, all leading to humanity and existence itself. But this seems just too fishy to me, and I’d like to know what counter there is to this argument that just seems flawed?

Thanks, everybody.

 

[edward_george]

Hi, I’m new here, and I thought that this was an interesting topic, as it has been on my mind lately.

I’m undecided in my faith, and so far many arguments have made me lean toward one religion, but then a counterargument is made and I just keep getting myself confused. But my curiosity and young age have brought me to this forum. The argument at hand is one that is used to disprove theology and used to describe creation in the atheist’s eye. The Big Bang Theory is one example of this, and on paper it sounds very believeable. Atheists point out what are interpreted as “errors” in the Bible, and use these as a defense in their lack of faith. But what makes me scratch my head is that what science teaches us is that everything comes down do coincidence after coincidence after another, all leading to humanity and existence itself. But this seems just too fishy to me, and I’d like to know what counter there is to this argument that just seems flawed?

Thanks, everybody.

I would check out St. Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways of the Existence of God. If you look at them and what he has to say about motion and causation–namely that God is the first mover and the first cause, then you’ll see that the Big Bang Theory is not at all contradictory with our faith. In fact, not only was it formulated by a Belgian priest, Msgr. Georges Lemaitre, he was criticized for being too theistic in his approach to science!

Go here, to Peter Kreeft’s website, and check out the articles on God’s Existence. You might also check out his books “A Summa of the Summa” and “A Shorter Summa” for more information on Aquinas, and especially what he has to say about the Five Ways in there.

-ACEGC

 

[buffalo]

Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God

    [More Featured Writing](http://www.peterkreeft.com/featured-writing_more.htm)

1. 
   *] The Argument from Change
   *] The Argument from Efficient Causality
   *] The Argument from Time and Contingency
   *] The Argument from Degrees of Perfection
   *]The Design Argument
   *]The Kalam Argument
   *]The Argument from Contingency
   *]The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole
   *]The Argument from Miracles
   *]The Argument from Consciousness
   *]The Argument from Truth
   *]The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God
   *]The Ontological Argument
   *]The Moral Argument
   *]The Argument from Conscience
   *]The Argument from Desire
   *]The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
   *]The Argument from Religious Experience
   *]The Common Consent Argument
   *]Pascal’s Wager

 

[CuriousSoul]

Wow thanks for the information. Interesting to know that the Big Bang Theory is directly tied to theology!

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Hi, I’m new here, and I thought that this was an interesting topic, as it has been on my mind lately.

I’m undecided in my faith, and so far many arguments have made me lean toward one religion, but then a counterargument is made and I just keep getting myself confused. But my curiosity and young age have brought me to this forum. The argument at hand is one that is used to disprove theology and used to describe creation in the atheist’s eye. The Big Bang Theory is one example of this, and on paper it sounds very believeable. Atheists point out what are interpreted as “errors” in the Bible, and use these as a defense in their lack of faith. But what makes me scratch my head is that what science teaches us is that everything comes down do coincidence after coincidence after another, all leading to humanity and existence itself. But this seems just too fishy to me, and I’d like to know what counter there is to this argument that just seems flawed?

Thanks, everybody.

Is evolution and a belief in God totally incompatible? I do not think they are. You might wish to watch this video. It is, I believe, a good explanation by an Orthodox bishop on evolution.

 

[Louishacker]

Curious,

You might be interested to know that the man who came up with the “Big Bang Theory” was a Catholic priest. If you are interested in a scientific approach to tthe existence of God rather than in a philosophical approach, I recommend the Magis Center of Reason and Faith. You can find it at:

magisreasonfaith.org/

At the homepage it says:

"Does Contemporary Science Point to an Intelligent Creator?

Does a beginning of our universe imply a creation? What if our universe is part of a multiverse? Does a multiverse have to have a beginning and a creation?

Could the initial conditions and constants of our universe have occurred by pure chance?

What’s more reasonable and responsible, a Creator or a physical universe without a Creator?

The answers to these questions can be understood by students and adults who do not have a background in physics.

Join us on a journey to the very origins of our universe – and beyond."

 

[Peter_Plato]

But what makes me scratch my head is that what science teaches us is that everything comes down do coincidence after coincidence after another, all leading to humanity and existence itself. But this seems just too fishy to me, and I’d like to know what counter there is to this argument that just seems flawed?
Thanks, everybody.

If “everything comes down to coincidence after coincidence,” then why are the connections between the coincidences also not coincidental? Why does one coincidence lead in some intelligible way to a coincidence that follows it? Why aren’t the connections also coincidental and random if the coincidences themselves are? Apparently the connections are not coincidental but in some way purposeful.

This seems pretty obvious from the fact that according to the second law of thermodynamics entropy should be increasing in a closed system (the universe) so we ought to be seeing a breakdown in the organization of the universe, but evolution of life demonstrates the opposite: increasing complexity. Why should that occur under a strictly coincidental view of the causal structure of the universe?

 

[thewanderer]

Another book you might find interesting is Fr Roberrt Spitzer’s “New Proofs for the Existence of God”

amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833

I haven’t read it yet but I hear it is very well argued and compelling, relying upon modern Science throughout.

 

[KP3243]

Things are too ordered to come from a random event man is too sophisticated to be random and why do we have a conscience and every other living thing does not? You should also be aware there is a difference between atheists who cannot wrap their beds around a supreme being and atheists who hate God. The first group dosen’t typically attack anything that has to do with religion. The second group have only been around for about 10 years they are the Christopher Hitchings crowd who see religion as the source of all evil and so they must get rid of it. It is post 9/11 thinking. They will say Mother Theresa was the biggest sinner. You must point our that between Nazis, the Soviets, Chairman Mao and Pol Pot who were all atheists, the past 100 years were the deadliest in the history of mankind. The Catholic Church opposed all of them and all of their ideologies. Over 100 million human beings were killed in the name of ideology in a hundred year span. Also no group that has persecuted the Catholic Church both the clergy and the laity has ever lasted the test of time. The Caholic Church always stands for the truth.

 

[trapper1]

Another book you might find interesting is Fr Roberrt Spitzer’s “New Proofs for the Existence of God”

amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833

I haven’t read it yet but I hear it is very well argued and compelling, relying upon modern Science throughout.

Just read it…it is really an excellent book.

Stephan Barr, a professor of physics from University of Delaware, wrote a similar book a few years ago…also excellent.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Hi, I’m new here, and I thought that this was an interesting topic, as it has been on my mind lately.

I’m undecided in my faith, and so far many arguments have made me lean toward one religion, but then a counterargument is made and I just keep getting myself confused. But my curiosity and young age have brought me to this forum. The argument at hand is one that is used to disprove theology and used to describe creation in the atheist’s eye. The Big Bang Theory is one example of this, and on paper it sounds very believeable. Atheists point out what are interpreted as “errors” in the Bible, and use these as a defense in their lack of faith. But what makes me scratch my head is that what science teaches us is that everything comes down do coincidence after coincidence after another, all leading to humanity and existence itself. But this seems just too fishy to me, and I’d like to know what counter there is to this argument that just seems flawed?

Thanks, everybody.

A Catholic Priest is one of the primary people credited with the Big Bang Theory. I believe he was a professor at the world prestigious university MIT.

Not unlike a monk that was also a Catholic Priest - named Gregor Mendel - is regarded as the “father of genetics.”

From my point of view one of your best counter arguments is that science is self correcting.

Consider a few things too:

(a) The Bible is a particular genre of literature that is not regarded as science. Primarily it is a work of theology and not systematic theology at that. Its date precedes the birth of “science” anyways.

(b) Any era of science is only as good as the technological advancements of its time. This is pretty much regarded as a truism within the science community. Therefore, the knowledge ancient man had of the natural world should not be judged by our contemporary standards - and our standards today may fall short of what mankind understands about the natural world 1,000 years from now.

(c) Science tends to use inductive reasoning whereas theology tends to use deductive reasoning. Both are valid forms of reasoning. Basically, in the inductive model you will will conclude a high probability but never a certainty of 100%. In the deductive model you will conclude that **If the (or a given) world was this way, then it only follows that this can be concluded."

So, contrary to what many atheists outside the sciences think, science does not speak dogmatically, and all hypotheses and theories are required to be falsifiable (meaning they must be able to be proven false). Therefore, science is self correcting. A benefit it has.

(d) Scientific hypotheses and theories are not only falsifiable some of them have been adjusted or discarded when proven to have certain inaccuracies or to be false altogether.

The model of the electron orbiting around the nucleus of an atom to the newer model (supposedly more accurate) of the electron cloud is an example of self correction in science in light of new evidence or better theoretical constructs.

(e) Science itself was birthed in Italy under Catholic culture and not in Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, animist lands. The Soviet Union the official atheist state also did not advance as well in the sciences as the more Christian believing United States its arch enemy.

 

[thewanderer]

Just read it…it is really an excellent book.

Stephan Barr, a professor of physics from University of Delaware, wrote a similar book a few years ago…also excellent.

Oh I intend to, as soon as my friend finishes with it.

 

[KP3243]

Things are too ordered to come from a random event man is too sophisticated to be random and why do we have a conscience and every other living thing does not? You should also be aware there is a difference between atheists who cannot wrap their beds around a supreme being and atheists who hate God. The first group dosen’t typically attack anything that has to do with religion. The second group have only been around for about 10 years they are the Christopher Hitchings crowd who see religion as the source of all evil and so they must get rid of it. It is post 9/11 thinking. They will say Mother Theresa was the biggest sinner. You must point our that between Nazis, the Soviets, Chairman Mao and Pol Pot who were all atheists, the past 100 years were the deadliest in the history of mankind. The Catholic Church opposed all of them and all of their ideologies. Over 100 million human beings were killed in the name of ideology in a hundred year span. Also no group that has persecuted the Catholic Church both the clergy and the laity has ever lasted the test of time. The Caholic Church always stands for the truth.

That should be heads. I won an iPad and it likes to change words I type.

 

[revert_jen]

The Big Bang Theory

I once heard this humorously described as, “In the beginning, there was nothing, and then it exploded.”

But what makes me scratch my head is that what science teaches us is that everything comes down do coincidence after coincidence after another, all leading to humanity and existence itself.

It is very important to understand the difference between what “science teaches us,” and what scientists say. I would be extremely interested to find out how the scientific method could prove conclusively that everything is coincidence (especially given the mathematical unlikelihood of that).

Otherwise, all scientists can say is that they don’t know what caused everything to happen the way it did, and because of that they think it was probably random. That’s not science showing us anything, that’s just people being arrogant and assuming that if they don’t understand the cause, there mustn’t be one.

I’m all for science doing its job. I just wish people didn’t try to make it do philosophy’s job as well.

–Jen

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I once heard this humorously described as, “In the beginning, there was nothing, and then it exploded.”

It is very important to understand the difference between what “science teaches us,” and what scientists say. I would be extremely interested to find out how the scientific method could prove conclusively that everything is coincidence (especially given the mathematical unlikelihood of that).

Otherwise, all scientists can say is that they don’t know what caused everything to happen the way it did, and because of that they think it was probably random. That’s not science showing us anything, that’s just people being arrogant and assuming that if they don’t understand the cause, there mustn’t be one.

I’m all for science doing its job. I just wish people didn’t try to make it do philosophy’s job as well.

–Jen

Where does science say that everything is a coincidence and happens randomly? Could you, please, give a concrete example.

 

[revert_jen]

Where does science say that everything is a coincidence and happens randomly? Could you, please, give a concrete example.

That was the OP’s premise, not mine.

–Jen

 

[johnnyjones]

God made man as he is. Not a lower life form.

Also keep in mind that Atheists often believe in infinite matter (the universe always was). Sound “religious” ? Of course it does.

 

[pmccombs]

But what makes me scratch my head is that what science teaches us is that everything comes down do coincidence after coincidence after another, all leading to humanity and existence itself. But this seems just too fishy to me, and I’d like to know what counter there is to this argument that just seems flawed?

Actually, I think it boils down to the First Cause. Did it require some sort of intelligence in order that things should “exist?” And if it did, then what is the nature of that intelligence? What could be said about God?

Thomistic theology is generally well-defended in Orthodox circles. I’m particularly impressed with the Radical Orthodoxy movement. Look into John Milbank and his ideas. It’s solid theology and very rationally explained.

On the other hand, atheism relies a lot on arguments from parsimony. Atheists are inclined to say that existence is attributed to natural phenomena rather than intelligence and that there is no need to introduce a God into any of it since nature is sufficient to explain everything. Wolframm has a model that demonstrates how complexity and order can indeed arise spontaneously from chaos given the existence only of very simple rules and entities. Atheists also point out other logical problems with the teleological arguments or arguments from order (one of Aquinas’ five pillars). Dawkins criticizes Thomistic theology for “running away” to an abstract, philosophical safety zone where the issue can’t be proved one way or the other. Then Russel’s Teapot is invoked to place the burden of proof on the theists.

What about you? Are you inclined to see things as miraculous or mundane? There are no definitive answers to be found in reason or evidence. I find myself persuaded by arguments on both sides (admittedly, I do think the atheists have a little more Reason favoring them). It seems that, as far as God is concerned, we are meant to walk more by faith than by sight–at least for a time. I think these religious quests for truth require more of the mind than mere logic.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I like the The Big Gang Theory. I not sure who coined the phrase, but I see it first in the bible :
1In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth.
3Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light. Gen1:1,3

I mean think about there is nothing not even a sound, then God spoke, can you imagine the bang that caused?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I like the The Big Gang Theory. I not sure who coined the phrase…

Gang? A conspiracy theory of the universe? Interesting premise.