Scientific Atheism

[geoformeo]

I explained why you cannot use “he created science” or “he’s outside the universe” as an excuse.

Why not? If you made a system of rules that you personally did not have to abide by, but subordinates to you did have to abide by the rules, would you note be “outside” of that “universe”?

You are somewhat incorrect. The difference is not as concrete as you think, though I did say “a law is like a theory” not identical to. But, for example, a theory is also proven by observation and experimentation time and again, and laws have predictive and explanatory power, and most importantly, laws most certainly can be falsified. But you are missing the point. Scientific laws are the result of our observations about how the world functions. Knowing that, asking “who enforces these laws” makes no sense.

Name a scientific law that has been falsified. Also, you say that “scientific laws are the result of our observations.” So are you implying that if we were not here to observe them, they would not exist? I’m afraid you are gravely mistaken. The natural laws are physical truth, not anything we humans made up. They simply are (exist). Just like 1+1=2 whether or not you or I are here to objectively verify it. So asking why these natural truths exist and why they are unchangeable makes perfect sense.

Science can certainly address that. Natural laws are immutable because if we find them to be wrong, then they’re not laws. That’s simply how they’re defined. That’s like asking why squares have 4 sides.

Name the natural law that explains why natural laws are immutable. And I thought you just said that natural laws “most certainly can be falsified.” So let me get this straight: you believe that natural laws are immutable, but can be falsified? How exactly does that work?

Before you start insulting other people, you better make sure you’re not the one in error.

I was not insulting you, I was merely pointing out your error, which is what you do in a debate. If you’re not okay with that, I can find someone else to debate with.

Again, given what natural laws are, it makes no sense to ask how natural laws were brought into existence.

It makes no scientific sense to ask that question, because it is beyond the scope and domain of science to address it, because it is by its very nature supernatural. Yet given our human experience and the fact that everything we know that begins to exist has a cause, and knowing that the natural laws began to exist (Big Bang), it is very reasonable and sensical to ask that question. You simply have to realize that the answer will not come from science.

No, I’m not going to provide links to prove psychology and neurology exist. You are clearly not arguing honestly if you are demanding that.

So now I’m not honest? Please, you are clutching at straws Since when is it dishonest to ask you to cite your evidence in a debate?

YOU should actually check out the field of neurotheology, and not just take the claims of psuedoscientists as fact. Check out some accepted established neuroscience and psychology. It’s very interesting stuff, and far more complicated and fascinating then this ghosts and goblins ****.

Wow. Your ignorance is telling. And if “it’s very interesting stuff”, then why aren’t you going out of your way to provide a link for me to enlighten myself?

No, why are there waves in the ocean, why is the sky blue, etc; are all perfectly valid scientific questions. Your insistence that starting a question with “why” automatically makes it theological is just absurd.

Asking “why” with those questions may be valid scientifically, but are misleading. The more appropriate question is “how come?” (ex: How did it come to be that there are waves in the ocean?) The question “why” demands a sense of purpose. Or are you willing to admit that there is purpose to the natural laws?

That wasn’t my premise, that was my conclusion.

My mistake. The point still stands that it cannot be verified, and thus cannot be considered logically true.

Wrong

Excellent rebuttal.

Nope, I argued with logic. Ignoring my logic and simply claiming I argued from incredulity is a lie.

No, arguing with logical fallacies is not arguing with logic. Here we go again, I guess I’m lying and being dishonest. I take it you would rather retreat to attacks on my character rather than attempt to logically justify your position?

I would imagine so! Which only furthers my point. I hope we continue to get smarter, and that science and morality continue to advance, civil rights get better, and the standard of life continues to increase. I would be profoundly disappointed if future generations decided, for no reason, “let’s rewind the clock and only listen to a bunch of sexist, racist, unenlightened boobs about how to run the world.”

My only question is, why? If you believe there is no purpose to the universe, and that all morality is a physical construct and subject to individual interpretation, then why do you have any concern at all for the future? Why do you have the hope that “science and morality continue to advance, civil rights get better, and the standard of life continues to increase” if there is no purpose to existence?

Sounds to me like you realize that you have the same hopes as us religious folks that are “written on the hearts of men” by God. You only need to open your mind to the Truth. Keep searching and keep questioning. God bless you, Mersenne.

 

[geoformeo]

This thread would make an excellent laboratory specimen of exactly why Christians, especially Catholics, should eschew trying to engage Atheists and Agnostics through rational arguments using some variation of intelligent design. Religion is a matter of Faith, and Holiness. It is not irrational to the believer, as all things are possible with God. However, for Christians to take the argument from intelligent design against the scientific community is a complete waste of time as it is not convincing. It is only useful to confirm and strengthen one’s own Faith. But that Faith must come first.

Using scientific methods to “prove” religion actually undercuts and weakens religion. It takes one down a path that looks for scientific explanations for everything in religion, when in fact religion is surrounded with miracles. So one is either embarrassed by these miracles, or tries to explain them in a scientifically acceptable fashion. This is no good.

Faith comes from within and ultimately from God. Reread Post #12 by Coles_Law. He has a better idea.

AmbroseSJ,

I agree that Coles_Law had a most excellent post. However, I must disagree wholeheartedly with your post. If you force science and religion to retreat to their respective domains, then there is no dialogue. By their very nature, science (natural truth) and religion (spiritual truth) cannot be at odds with one another. As God is the Author of both domains, aren’t we missing part of God’s revelation and truth when we omit one and cling to the other?

I personally find the union of science and religion in the search for Truth to be extremely fruitful in my walk with God. Keeping science and religion separate will only continue to polarize the camps and keep the false dichotomy going strong. It has been my experience that today’s young people need to know how to reconcile religious faith with scientific fact.

With as overtly critical of religion as the New Atheists are in popular media, we need to be able to confront them head-on, even on their own turf (science). After all, what they don’t understand is that their turf is actually our turf because the universe was created by God

May God bless, my friend.

 

[Mersenne]

Why not? If you made a system of rules that you personally did not have to abide by, but subordinates to you did have to abide by the rules, would you note be “outside” of that “universe”?

I’ve already explained this in a previous post. You clearly have very little interest in reading what I’m actually writing, and that’s a game with no conceivable end.

Name a scientific law that has been falsified.

Newton’s laws were shown to be incorrect in certain contexts, but it’s not about pointing to any particular law that has been falsified, the point is they could be. In fact, if they couldn’t, they would not be scientific laws at all.

Also, you say that “scientific laws are the result of our observations.” So are you implying that if we were not here to observe them, they would not exist? I’m afraid you are gravely mistaken.

The events would exist, but our description of them would not.

The natural laws are physical truth, not anything we humans made up. They simply are (exist). Just like 1+1=2 whether or not you or I are here to objectively verify it. So asking why these natural truths exist and why they are unchangeable makes perfect sense.

No, it doesn’t, it’s again, like asking why a square has 4 sides. If the observed event wasn’t consistent, then we wouldn’t consider it a law. You’re getting your causation backwards.

Name the natural law that explains why natural laws are immutable.

My claims do not rely on such a thing existing, in fact, that would disprove my point.

And I thought you just said that natural laws “most certainly can be falsified.” So let me get this straight: you believe that natural laws are immutable, but can be falsified? How exactly does that work?

Laws can be falsified. Laws are almost always never changed, because we only label something a law if we have good reason to believe it won’t be falsified. We can be wrong in our assessment. We have been in the past. Laws have changed. They are not immutable in the sense I now realize you are using it.

I was not insulting you, I was merely pointing out your error, which is what you do in a debate. If you’re not okay with that, I can find someone else to debate with.

If you’re going to lie, then I’m done. You said

"If you’re arguing for atheism using science, you’d better get your science right. "

Which is not “pointing out my error.” You just lied, obviously, and purposefully. Don’t you have any sense of decency?

It makes no scientific sense to ask that question, because it is beyond the scope and domain of science to address it…

I demonstrated that it makes no sense to ask the question at all. If you are not going to address my argument, then I guess we’re done.

So now I’m not honest? Please, you are clutching at straws Since when is it dishonest to ask you to cite your evidence in a debate?

You are asking me to prove that the field of psychology exists. That is a dishonest request. You know that the field of psychology exists. You are pretending like you don’t. That’s dishonest. Which means arguing with you is pointless. Nothing you say can be taken seriously.

Wow. Your ignorance is telling.

Your argument is non-existent.

And if “it’s very interesting stuff”, then why aren’t you going out of your way to provide a link for me to enlighten myself?

Because I’m not your mom. It’s not my job to go out of my way to educate you, and I don’t think a single internet link is going to bring you up to speed on modern psychology and neurology and philosophy. Go to a library or get on google.

Asking “why” with those questions may be valid scientifically, but are misleading. The more appropriate question is “how come?” (ex: How did it come to be that there are waves in the ocean?) The question “why” demands a sense of purpose. Or are you willing to admit that there is purpose to the natural laws?

Why doesn’t demand a sense of purpose, and even if it does, studying purposeful behavior is part of science.

My mistake. The point still stands that it cannot be verified, and thus cannot be considered logically true.

I verified it using logic. Unless you go back and find the error in my logic, my conclusion still stands.

Excellent rebuttal.

You made a factually incorrect statement, that I have shown time and time again to be wrong. “Wrong” is a valid enough response to you continuing to make the same statement without proof, and ignoring the fact that I have countless times already shown it to be false.

No, arguing with logical fallacies is not arguing with logic. Here we go again, I guess I’m lying and being dishonest. I take it you would rather retreat to attacks on my character rather than attempt to logically justify your position?

I’m not attacking your character, I’m attacking your lies. And you have yet to once show where I have used a logical fallacy. You continue to ignore what I say, falsely claim that I was making arguments I clearly wasn’t, and lie almost constantly.

My only question is, why? If you believe there is no purpose to the universe, and that all morality is a physical construct and subject to individual interpretation, then why do you have any concern at all for the future? Why do you have the hope that “science and morality continue to advance, civil rights get better, and the standard of life continues to increase” if there is no purpose to existence?

There is no objective purpose to existence. There is no sky fairy telling me what my purpose must be. There is no “inherent” purpose to the universe that I should adhere to. I can choose freely whatever purpose I wish.

 

[wanstronian]

Emily Bronte writing Wuthering heights really happened just as St Paul writing Romans. Both are credible.

Neither means the events depicted therein actually happened. This is a very weak defence.

:coffeeread: I did one better, I let St Paul make the point.

I think that when theists claim the bible as evidence, they open themselves up to all the ridicule which they then claim is unfair. Your vacuous stance here just undermines any credibility the theistic community might otherwise have had.

 

[steve_b]

Neither means the events depicted therein actually happened. This is a very weak defence.

What Paul wrote, that I quoted, DID happen
want:

I think that when theists claim the bible as evidence, they open themselves up to all the ridicule which they then claim is unfair. Your vacuous stance here just undermines any credibility the theistic community might otherwise have had.

When atheists deny God they open themselves up to all the criticism recorded in sacred tradition from the beginning. From OT to NT

Ps 14:
1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

Rm 1:
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21 their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

 

[djeter]

Some of these arguments get painful to read.

I’ve always found that by simply quoting Dr. Steven M Barr, you can keep the dialogue on a higher plane. One may choose to disagree but disagreement is not “lies.” If you know what I mean.

Anyways here is a series of 6 posts that highlight Dr. Barr’s religion and science writings and highlight how scientific materialists have hijacked the story of Christianity’s deep involvement and relationship with Science.

payingattentiontothesky.com/category/catholicism-for-atheists/science-and-religion/

Take some time and go through them and then copy and paste when needed. Highly enjoyable stuff…unless you’re an atheist.

Regards

dj

 

[steve_b]

You don’t say what you are quoting,

It was the CCC.

ambrose:

but I hope you haven’t missed the point of my post. I am NOT saying that Faith and reason are incompatible, just that one can not prove beliefs through scientific arguments like those from intelligent design. That tactic actually weakens and debases Faith. It also is scoffed at by scientific Atheists and Agnostics.

Here’s the quote again

***159 *Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”
**
here’s the search engine
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Mersenne]

I’ve always found that by simply quoting Dr. Steven M Barr, you can keep the dialogue on a higher plane. One may choose to disagree but disagreement is not “lies.” If you know what I mean.

Disagreement isn’t lies, but lies are lies. If I said for example

“you’ve never mentioned Dr. Steven Barr in this thread”

that’s not a disagreement, and there’s really nothing to be done from that point but say “that’s a lie”, and wonder about the state of the world.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

It was the CCC.

Here’s the quote again

***159 ***Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”
**
here’s the search engine
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Ok, so we haven’t made any progress. Are you quoting that for some reason? If so please explain. My comments have no bearing on your quote.

 

[Donald45]

-----]

Hi, Ambrose ~

The quotation in your signature is excellent. Can you tell me where the quote is from, which writing, page number, etc.? Thank you.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[steve_b]

Ok, so we haven’t made any progress. Are you quoting that for some reason? If so please explain. My comments have no bearing on your quote.

You were making the following distinction

“one can not prove beliefs through scientific arguments like those from intelligent design”

That’s why I posted the quote

**159 **Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

 

[steve_b]

Hi, Ambrose ~

The quotation in your signature is excellent. Can you tell me where the quote is from, which writing, page number, etc.? Thank you.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

From John Cardinal Newman

archive.org/stream/a6001202rs02newmuoft/a6001202rs02newmuoft_djvu.txt

 

[AmbroseSJ]

You were making the following distinction

“one can not prove beliefs through scientific arguments like those from intelligent design”

That’s why I posted the quote

**159 **Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

You don’t see the inappropriateness? Your quote has no bearing on my comment. Let me put this in simpler terms. Terms that John Henry Newman might use. Science (meaning arguments from intelligent design) is the reward of Faith NOT the foundation. Do you see the difference yet?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Hi, Ambrose ~

The quotation in your signature is excellent. Can you tell me where the quote is from, which writing, page number, etc.? Thank you.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

Thanks Don! steve b answered correctly. It is from John Henry Newman’s Historical Sketches Vol. II, Antony in Conflict. Chapter V.

In context:

If the primitive Christians are to be trusted as witnesses of the genius of the Gospel system, certainly it is of that elastic and comprehensive character which removes the more powerful temptations to extravagance, by giving, as far as possible, a sort of indulgence to the feelings and motives which lead to it, correcting them the while, purifying them, and reining them in, ere they get excessive. Thus, whereas our reason naturally loves to expatiate at will to and fro through all subjects known and unknown, Catholicism does not oppress us with an irrational bigotry, prescribing to us the very minutest details of thought, so that a man can never have an opinion of his own; on the contrary, its creed is ever what it was, and never moves out of the ground which it originally occupied, and it is cautious and precise in {96} its decisions, and distinguishes between things necessary and things pious to believe, between wilfulness and ignorance. At the same time, it asserts the supremacy of faith, the guilt of unbelief, and the divine mission of the Church; so that reason is brought round again and subdued to the obedience of Christ, at the very time when it seems to be launching forth without chart upon the ocean of speculation.

See my sig for the link to the official John Henry Newman reader website. It is very easy to search for quotes there.

 

[wanstronian]

What Paul wrote, that I quoted, DID happen

Right - so prove it.

When atheists deny God they open themselves up to all the criticism recorded in sacred tradition from the beginning. From OT to NT

Ps 14:
1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

Rm 1:
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21 their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

So, in a nutshell: The bible, within itself, contains the repeated paraphrase: “Some people won’t believe this, but when that happens, they’re foolish because this book is right.” And you think that’s enough? That someone wrote something down once, makes it true by virtue of the fact that they’ve anticipated that someone else may claim it isn’t? QED, everybody go home and start believing in God?

Come on - if you can’t contribute other than by groundless assertion of unprovable conjecture, then save your finger skin. You’re just wasting everybody’s time.

 

[steve_b]

Right - so prove it.

Prove what?

• That Bronte wrote Wuthering Heights, or S Paul wrote Romans?

want:

So, in a nutshell: The bible, within itself, contains the repeated paraphrase: “Some people won’t believe this, but when that happens, they’re foolish because this book is right.” And you think that’s enough?

That someone wrote something down once, makes it true by virtue of the fact that they’ve anticipated that someone else may claim it isn’t? QED, everybody go home and start believing in God?

Come on - if you can’t contribute other than by groundless assertion of unprovable conjecture, then save your finger skin. You’re just wasting everybody’s time.

LOOOOOOOOK who’s talking!!!

The subject is scientific atheism. I quote St Paul, and you quote Wuthering Heights and Emily Bronte…as YOUR big guns…and I’m thinking … this is YOUR contribution to the subject?

Cause and effect (a basic law of science) shows us that

• intelligent design necessitates an intelligent designer. i.e. a watch necessitates a watchmaker. Parts don’t magically appear, they have to be created. After this, they won’t form themselves into a watch no matter how much time you give them, they must be acted upon by the designer. There is no way around this.
• The universe and all that is in it, is infinitely more specific, complex, and intelligent in its design, than a watch, and it absolutely necessitates an intelligent designer

No matter how hard science tries, there is no way around this point.

Our very existence proves the existence of a Supreme designer, a Creator God.

THAT’s why I quote Paul when he said

:

Rm 1:

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20* Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Scientific Atheism? Why scientific? What does science tell us to prove (which is what science is supposed to do) that God does not exist?

 

[edwest2]

And what has guided Richard Dawkins and scientists like Sam Harris besides the evidence they claim to see in science? Yes, those who reject God have rejected the truth, but for many, the knowledge that they believe can only come from what science has discovered justifies them. In fact, there are those who post here claiming that scientific evidence discredits some of God’s work as recorded in the Bible.

Peace,
Ed

 

[wanstronian]

Prove what?

• That Bronte wrote Wuthering Heights, or S Paul wrote Romans?

That what St Paul wrote, did happen. Prove it.

LOOOOOOOOK who’s talking!!!

I’m not asserting anything, I’m just asking for your evidence. You are unable to provide any.

The subject is scientific atheism. I quote St Paul, and you quote Wuthering Heights and Emily Bronte…as YOUR big guns…and I’m thinking … this is YOUR contribution to the subject?

Apologies if the analogy passed you by - I was illustrating that there is no more reason to believe in the bible than in Wuthering Heights. They’re both story books. Neither constitute evidence of factual events. Is it clear now?

Cause and effect (a basic law of science) shows us that

• intelligent design necessitates an intelligent designer. i.e. a watch necessitates a watchmaker. Parts don’t magically appear, they have to be created. After this, they won’t form themselves into a watch no matter how much time you give them, they must be acted upon by the designer. There is no way around this.

• Okay, so you’ve shown you have a basic grasp of logic

• The universe and all that is in it, is infinitely more specific, complex, and intelligent in its design, than a watch, and it absolutely necessitates an intelligent designer

Oh dear, and it all goes wrong at the last. Prove to me that the universe is intelligently designed. Or, if you prefer, we can take that as read and you can explain to me who designed the designer?

No matter how hard science tries, there is no way around this point.

Apart from there’s nothing to try and get round, of course, you’re just hypothesising based on bare assertion fallacy.

Our very existence proves the existence of a Supreme designer, a Creator God.

Again - who designed him then? You can’t say, “He just exists” because then the statement would be equally applicable to the Universe. You really need to think before you go making illogical statements like this.

THAT’s why I quote Paul when he said

Yes. Now I completely understand why you said what you said.

 

[steve_b]

That what St Paul wrote, did happen. Prove it.

It’s all history
newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm
w:

I’m not asserting anything, I’m just asking for your evidence. You are unable to provide any.

Apologies if the analogy passed you by - I was illustrating that there is no more reason to believe in the bible than in Wuthering Heights. They’re both story books. Neither constitute evidence of factual events. Is it clear now?

That’s true for Wuthering Heights because it’s a work of fiction. That’s the genre.

However;

• St Paul wrote to the Church of Rome, a real Church. That’s historical fact.
• All the people Paul wrote to and about in his book to the Church of Rome, are real people, in their historical context.
• All attested to by eyewitnesses and confirmed by Tradition for 2000 years

w:

• Okay, so you’ve shown you have a basic grasp of logic Oh dear, and it all goes wrong at the last. Prove to me that the universe is intelligently designed.

NASA puts age to the universe of 13.7 B years +/- 1%. And they stand by this age.

Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, agrees. The universe has not existed forever. He said the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang,

So the universe, i.e. everything you see, is not eternal. It is not infinit. It had a beginning from NOTHING. And it all will have an end. Therefore because it had a beginning, before it was there, there was NOTHING.

So;

• how did NOTHING + NOTHING or NOTHING x NOTHING = SOMETHING?
• how did purpose enter into the process to make ANYTHING from NOTHING in the first place? iow, who caused the first cause and why do it?.

w:

if you prefer, we can take that as read and you can explain to me who designed the designer?

infinite regression of causes leads to the uncaused cause.
w:

you’re just hypothesising based on bare assertion fallacy.

And all you’re doing is denying.
w:

Again - who designed him then? You can’t say, “He just exists” because then the statement would be equally applicable to the Universe. You really need to think before you go making illogical statements like this.

Something coming from nothing

• requires creation. It won’t/can’t happen on it’s own, Creation requires a creator with purpose.
• Life coming from nothing, demands a Life-Giver. Scientists can’t create life from non-life. Life can only come from life.
• Laws Demand a Lawgiver. That’s by definition, design. everything from the values of fundamental forces like electromagnetism and gravity, to the relative masses of the various subatomic particles etc etc etc The slightest tinkering with a single one of scores of basic laws and relationships in nature would have resulted in a universe very different from the one we inhabit…all the precise values and relationships, and laws existing exactly as they are from the beginning. That didn’t happen randomly but on purpose. It took a designer. putting all this just right, from the beginning. To sustain the universe from the beginning shows incredible design and purpose by its maker… Scientists recognize that laws had to be in place from the very beginning. As Hawking acknowledged in The Nature of Space and Time: The only way to have scientific theory is if the laws of physics hold everywhere, including at the beginning of the universe. That shows design, and design requires a designer. Is it reasonable, then, to assume that these laws came about from nothing…from random chance? NOPE! The existence of such design and predictable laws in nature makes clear a master intelligence and Lawgiver. That’s why Paul said there is no excuse for one to deny God.
• Design Demands a Designer. And predictable physical laws throughout the universe, is evidence of intelligent design.