Debate Frank Michael Reality

When Debating Atheists: Those Who Lack A Belief Lack An Argument

,

I just had a two hour plus debate with Dr. Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic Magazine, on the question: “What better explains reality:  Theism or Atheism?”  Given the title of the debate, both of us had the burden of proof to detect the cause (or causes) for certain effects we all see. That’s what scientists, philosophers, and investigators do—they observe effects and attempt to discover their causes. Since science is a search for causes, I thought Dr. Shermer, who writes for Scientific American each month, would posit adequate causes for reality in this debate.  He didn’t.

But before I unpack where I think Michael went wrong, I want to commend him for his kind manner and for agreeing to engage in cross-examination. So many formal debates are nothing but dueling speeches where the two debaters never interact and can, therefore, ignore each other’s points.  This debate was not like that.  After we each gave 20-minute opening statements, the hour after that was a spirited back and forth, first between us, and then between us and the audience.  (We then took it to a restaurant where my friends Oleg and Karina treated us to the best steaks we ever had!)

In my opening statement, I gave evidence to support my conclusion that six major effects comprising reality—presented with the acrostic CRIMES—are better explained by God, and, in fact, wouldn’t exist unless God existed. I started with the most obvious effect that needs to be explained:  the Creation and fine-tuning of the universe itself.   Then I moved on to our ability to Reason, the Information found in the genome of living things, objective Moral values and obligations, the existence of Evil, and an orderly natural world that allows us to do Science. (If you want more detail than a 20-minute statement, there is a chapter on each of the CRIMES in my book Stealing from God: Why atheists need God to make their case.).

In his opening statement, Dr. Shermer assumed he didn’t have any burden of proof.  Instead of giving evidence how reality could be explained by causes other than God, he just claimed that science is superior and would one day find naturalistic causes for CRIMES.  But that claim is, ironically, a faith position. In fact, it is a blind faith position because it’s impossible in principle to find a natural cause for each of the CRIMES.

Consider Creation.  If the entire natural world (space-time and matter) had a beginning as most atheists admit, then the cause can’t be part of the natural world but must transcend it. The cause of nature must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful to create the universe out of nothing, and personal and intelligent in order to choose to create. In other words, we’ll never find a natural cause for all of nature.  Whatever created nature must be beyond nature (which is what the word “supernatural” means).

The rest of the CRIMES are not subject to the scientific method either, which means, despite Dr. Shermer’s charge, they are not “God of the gaps” arguments that can one day be overturned by some future scientific discovery. For example, we’re never going to find the cause of orderly natural laws or our ability to reason—including the laws of logic and the laws of mathematics—by running some kind of experiment.  We must assume those laws in order to do the experiment!  In other words, science is built on metaphysical principles that can’t be explained by science—they are needed to do science.

Objective moral obligations can’t be explained through science or materialism either.  If there is no God and we are all just moist robots dancing to our DNA (as Richard Dawkins put it), then how does a materialist explain the fact that love is objectively better than hate?  You can’t explain that running an experiment or by appealing to mere molecules in motion.

Dr. Shermer didn’t even try.  Instead, he shifted the problem by talking about how we know what’s right rather than explaining how an objective standard of rightness exists in the first place.  (This is a common and illicit move by atheists: they want to focus on epistemology—how we know morality or goodness—and ignore ontology, which seeks to identify the grounding of morality or goodness.)

Michael asked the audience to think of reasons, other than God, as to why we ought not sexually abuse children.  He said it’s wrong because it hurts other sentient beings and you wouldn’t want anyone to do that to you.

But those “reasons” merely appeal to other moral principles that need grounding themselves.  He’s merely shifted, not solved the problem.  Why is it wrong to hurt other sentient beings?  Why should we follow the Golden Rule?  Who said?  If we’re just overgrown germs dancing to our DNA and fighting for survival, what is the cause or source of such moral obligations?

They don’t come from science or the natural world. Science can help you discover how to create a bomb, but science can’t tell you whether or not you ought to use it.  You need a moral standard that transcends human opinion for that.  You need an immaterial, authoritative essence known as Goodness, Righteous or Justice.  You need God’s Nature (see our first debate for much more on that).

It might come as a shock to atheists, but science is not the only way of discovering causes.  In fact, in order to explain CRIMES, you need to use other disciplines outside of science. These may include philosophy, history, reason, and direct observation.

Dr. Shermer may scoff at philosophy, but he actually uses it as do all scientists.  It’s required in order to do science.  Why? Because science actually doesn’t say anything—scientists do. All data needs to be gathered and all data needs to be interpreted.  Science doesn’t gather and interpret the data; it’s scientists applying philosophical principles who do that.  The philosophical principle that Dr. Shermer applied was to rule out God in advance. Michael kept saying, “God is not an explanation.”  Well, how does he know that?  He’s assuming what he’s trying to prove.  He’s not showing it; he’s merely asserting it.

Perhaps Dr. Shermer thought he didn’t have to provide reasons for atheism because—according to him—atheism is just the lack of a belief in God. “It just means we don’t believe in God.  Full stop.” He said atheism entails no other beliefs. (By the way, that’s another philosophical position, not a scientific one).

But if Michael just “lacks a belief in God”, then he’s only making a statement about his psychological state and nothing about external reality.  Yet the cause of external reality is what we were there to debate!   So why did he even show up?

If two homicide detectives discover a dead body with a knife in his back, bloody footprints leading out the door, and a cryptic note from the killer, both should hunt down a suspect.  If one detective shows evidence that suspect A is the cause of this murder, the other detective isn’t doing his job if he merely says “I just lack a belief suspect A is the murderer,” and I’m not required to investigate anymore. He should give reasons why A isn’t the real murderer, and then provide evidence that another suspect had the ability, motive, and actually committed the murder.

Dr. Shermer did not do that.  He neither refuted the evidence for my suspect (God) nor did he identify another suspect who could account for CRIMES.  The materialistic causes he suggested—evolution, quantum vacuums, and speculations about aliens and bouncing universes— even if true require causes or preexisting laws themselves and have no ability to cause the immaterial aspects of CRIMES.

Instead of providing evidence for his position, Dr. Shermer did what most atheists do in debates. Despite being materialists, they grant themselves immaterial realities such as the laws of logic, math, morality, and orderly natural laws, and then extol the virtues of science that require those laws while making complaints about how God is running the universe.

Without an objective standard by which to judge, they steal a standard from God and judge that there’s too much evil in the world, God is evil, or if God existed He would do things differently (like heal everyone or write the atheist’s name in the sky).   And don’t forget—religious people are stupid and religion is evil.  None of that shows there is no God or explains reality in the absence of God. In fact, evil actually demonstrates God’s existence because there would be no thing such as evil unless there was an objective standard of Good, which is God’s nature.

In short, atheists don’t have arguments—they have complaints.  And complaints are not arguments.

So what best explains reality:  theism or atheism?  I gave my case for theism.  I’m still waiting to hear the case for atheism.

 

Frank Turek is an American Christian author, public speaker, radio host and the president of CrossExamined.org. He is the author of four books: Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to make their Case, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, Correct, Not Politically Correct and Legislating Morality. A former aviator in the US Navy, Frank has a master’s degree from the George Washington University and a doctorate from Southern Evangelical Seminary.

/by
Science And Imperialism

Science And Imperialism

, ,

By Terrell Clemmons

The Wall Street Journal commissioned Richard Dawkins and Karen Armstrong to respond independently to the question, “Where does evolution leave God?” Their answers became an article in the Life & Style section called Man vs. God.

Richard Dawkins said of Darwinian evolution, “We know, as certainly as we know anything in science, that this is the process that has generated life on our own planet.” Evolution, Dawkins concluded with his characteristic wit, is God’s “pink slip.” In other words, since science says Evolution is, we say God isn’t. (I discussed Dawkins’s argument for the non-existence of God in an earlier Salvo article.)

Karen Armstrong’s response was more artistic. She spoke of two complementary ways of arriving at truth, which the Greeks called mythos and logos, both of which were recognized by scholars as legitimate. Logos was reason, logic, intellect. But logos alone couldn’t speak to the deep question human beings ask like, What is the meaning of life? and, Why do bad things happen to good people? For that, she said, people turned to mythos – stories, regardless of whether or not they were true, that helped us make sense out of the difficulties of life. They were therapeutic. We could think of them as an early form of psychology.

“Religion was not supposed to provide explanations that lay within the competence of reason but to help us live creatively with realities for which there are no easy solutions and find an interior haven of peace; today, however, many have opted for unsustainable certainty instead. But can we respond religiously to evolutionary theory? Can we use it to recover a more authentic notion of God?

Darwin made it clear [that] we cannot regard God simply as a divine personality, who single-handedly created the world. This could direct our attention away from the idols of certainty and back to the ‘God beyond God.’ The best theology is a spiritual exercise, akin to poetry.”

Not only is the veracity of any religious story irrelevant, she seems to be saying, it is incorrect to believe any account concerning God as objectively true. To do so is to construct an idol of certainty. How do we know that? Because of the certainty of Darwinian evolution.

Her response, at bottom, isn’t much different from the atheist’s. Evolution is. God isn’t. But some of us like to imagine that he is.

Notice the source Dawkins and Armstrong consult for certain truth: Science. Why? Because Science proclaims what is.

The questions I’m pondering and posing are (1) At what point do the proclamations of science become imperialistic? and (2) At what point does an appropriate respect for science morph into worship?

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2w17uJN

/by
Q&A_ Answering Questions Of An Agnostic Brother

Q&A: Answering Questions Of An Agnostic Brother

, ,

By Evan Minton

Hi Evan,

I really like your work, really helped me.

But I have a brother, he is agnostic, and he has a few objections I can’t answer (it’s so uncomfortable), so I decided to ask you.

The first is on skepticism in general. Shouldn’t we be skeptical about anything? Since everything is subjectively perceived? Especially moral values? Also, in a pragmatic sense, shouldn’t we agree we can’t know and just follow Aristotle’s “man is a political animal”?
And then on the fine-tuning argument, well he has a weird objection, but I found it difficult (not very well read in this topic, only read on guard and Strobel), couldn’t a different type of life emerge in different universes with different constants?

I thought it was arguing from ignorance, but another thing he said fine tuning only works from the perspective that we are the final product (carbon-based life).

So, I hope you understood these questions, have any recommended resources that wouldn’t be to difficult for a 14-year-old?

Thanks, Evan.

Hugs

Thanks for your question. I’m glad you’ve found my work helpful in your walk with Christ.
On Skepticism

First, you ask “Shouldn’t we be skeptical about anything? Since everything is subjectively perceived? Especially moral values? Also, in a pragmatic sense, shouldn’t we agree we can’t know and just follow Aristotle’s ‘man is a political animal’?

Based on how you worded this section, it sounds to me like your brother has been reading Immanuel Kant. He seemed to make a similar argument that Kant made regarding the knowability of the world. In his weighty Critique of Pure Reason (1781) and his Religion Within the Limits of Mere Reason (1793) he argued that God is unknowable, and Kant also insisted that our mind and senses are so structured that we cannot know reality in itself (the noumenal realm) but only what appears to us (the phenomena). Thus, as Frank Turek humorously puts it: “According to Kant, you Kant know what the world is really like.”

The major problem with Kant’s argument is that it is self-refuting. That is to say, Kant, in claiming that the external world is unknowable is claiming to know something about the external world! Namely, that it’s unknowable! But how would Kant know that we cannot know reality in itself unless he knew at least one thing about reality? Thus, Kant’s view saws off the branch it’s sitting on. To affirm it, one needs access to the very thing the view says we can’t access.

So should we be skeptical about anything? Not if the basis of that skepticism is that all perception is subjective, for that relies on a self-refuting philosophy.

As far as the affirmation of moral values, I have always defended the objectivity of moral values and duties in the same way that Craig has. William Lane Craig states that the evidence for the existence of objective morality is on par with the evidence for the existence of the external physical world. We recognize that both are real because we can sense that they’re there. He states “In moral experience, we apprehend a realm of moral values and duties that impose themselves upon us. There’s no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world.”

Craig argues that our moral experience is on par with our physical experience. Our five senses tell us that the physical world is real, that you are really sitting there reading this blog post. In a similar way, your moral senses tell you what is good and what is evil. Now, we can’t get outside of our moral senses to test whether they’re giving us reliable information, but neither can we get outside of our physical senses to test whether they’re giving us reliable information. Should we, therefore, conclude that we can’t know what the physical world is like? Of course not. But then, why should we deny the existence of objective morality because we can’t get outside of our moral perceptions to test their reliability? I’ve noticed that most skeptics, in trying to knock down the epistemological justification of the second premise of the moral argument, they tend to make arguments that would undermine our 5 senses if the same logic was applied to them. For example, some will point out that different people have disagreements on whether a certain action is morally right or wrong (e.g. abortion, the eating of animals). Based on this, they’ll say that we, therefore, can’t trust our moral intuitions. But what if this line of reasoning was applied to our sense of sight? No one could forget that a whole internet sensation was based on a debate as to whether a dress was black/blue or white/gold. People disagreed on what color “The Dress” was. I remember back in the day disputing with my friends on the playground whether James of Team Rocket from the Pokemon anime had blue hair or purple hair. However, would anyone argue that such disagreements on color render color a non-objective feature of reality?

I think the person is within his rational rights in affirming the objectivity of morality on the basis of his moral compass unless he is presented with a powerful argument that his moral compass has a spring loose, so to speak. However, I’ve never encountered such a refutation.

An Objection To The Fine-Tuning Argument

Your brother objects to the fine-tuning argument with “Couldn’t a different type of life emerge in different universes with different constants?” This is an objection to The Fine-Tuning argument that I get all the time in my conversations with non-theists.

Often these people make use of an illustration by Douglas Adams, the well-known author of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (although this quote is not from that book):

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’”

Richard Dawkins applied this to the fine-tuning at Adams’ eulogy. Now, these atheists argue that just as that man is a fool, so we would be fools to believe the universe was designed so that we could exist.

The problem with this argument is that it radically misunderstands the consequences of what would happen if the physical constants and quantities were off.  Take the expansion rate of the universe for example. If the universe expanded too rapidly, then gravity would not have had the opportunity to collect gas and dust and condense it into galaxies, stars, and planets. The universe would forever
exist as nothing but isolated pieces of matter, gas, and dust. Because if the universe expanded too quickly, then all of the stuff of the universe would fly apart too quickly for gravity to take them and to condense them into galaxies, stars, and planets.  If the ratio of the number of electrons to protons were off by a little bit, electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet
formation. Again, the universe would be completely devoid of galaxies, stars, and planets. If you don’t have galaxies, if you don’t have stars, and if you don’t have planets, you can’t have any life. One reason is that without a planet, there’s no hope for life to evolve and live on. A second thing is that, regardless of whether life must be carbon based, you need stars to “cook” the elements needed for life. No stars, no elements. No elements, no life. Even if one thinks silicon-based life forms are possible, stars are needed to make the silicon.

If the Strong Nuclear Force were slightly weaker, it would be too weak to bind together protons and neutrons inside the nucleus of the atom. Therefore, no atoms could exist in the universe except the hydrogen atom; the simplest atom there is, consisting of a single proton and a single electron. In the case of The Strong Nuclear Force being weaker, the only existing element would be hydrogen. You couldn’t possibly get to any higher levels of complexity in such a scenario.

So, it is my judgment that comparing the fine-tuning to a man waking up in a puddle is an analogy that…. doesn’t hold water.

Recommended Resources

“Have any recommended resources that wouldn’t be to difficult for a 14-year-old?”

Sure! First and foremost, I’d suggest my own Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods, a book that I’m currently working on upgrading in Google Docs. In the book, I talk about The Kalam, Fine-Tuning, Moral, and Ontological Arguments, as well as the historical evidence that Jesus died and was resurrected. According to one reviewer on Amazon, “His easy conversational style throughout the text reminds one of Max Lucado, and he presents material of great import in a comfortable manner that is a joy to read. This book is an excellent introduction to the most significant and well-founded Christian apologetics in the modern era and is well-suited to high school and college students, as well as adults interested in Christian apologetics and philosophy. I highly recommend this book.” another Amazon reviewer wrote “Mr. Minton helpfully surveys some of the best arguments for God’s existence, appealing to the most robust scholars and answering the most difficult challenges to the arguments. While some of the scholars who have written about philosophy of religion might be too academic and difficult to read, this author’s writing style makes the most complicated arguments (even the ontological argument) relatable. Recommended for those who are new to apologetics or those who want to brush up.” 

Another book I’d recommend is J. Warner Wallace’s God’s Crime Scene. Among books on Natural Theology, this one is really unique. Like his previous book Cold Case Christianity, it reads like a combination of a detective novel and apologetic book. He lays out the evidence for a Creator on the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of the moral law, the complexity of the cell, and even argues for the existence of the soul based on the phenomenon of consciousness, and he does it all from the perspective of a detective, in a very easy-to-read manner.

But I think the most accessible book on these topics would be Leslie Wickman’s God Of The Big Bang: How Modern Science Affirms The Creator. Wickman is an internationally respected research scientist, engineering consultant, author and inspirational speaker.and is also executive director of the American Scientific Affiliation (a non-profit organization promoting the dialog between science and faith), and as a Professor of Aerospace-Industrial-Mechanical Engineering at California Baptist University. Her book God Of The Big Bang should certainly be not “be too difficult for a 14-year-old.”

So,
1: “Inference To The One True God” by yours truly.

2: “God’s Crime Scene” by J. Warner Wallace

3: “God Of The Big Bang” by Leslie Wickman

are what I recommend.

God bless you.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/Dsiuae

/by
Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too!

Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too!

,

By Ryan Leasure

We’ve all felt it. The sense of guilt overwhelmed us. The pastor brings his sermon to a close, but before he concludes, he gives the congregation one final exhortation. Go tell others about Jesus. He says if Jesus was willing to lay down his life for you, the least you can do is proclaim that message to others. Gulp. As you slouch farther down into your seat and wipe the sweat off your forehead, you wonder if you’re a pathetic Christian because you struggle to share your faith.

It’s not that you don’t want to either — you really do. But you’re scared. You’re scared of people will think you’re that weird Jesus person who’s out of touch with reality. You’re afraid the friendship will end or that you’ll make everything awkward. Have you ever felt this way? Have you ever started a conversation with good intentions to talk about Jesus only to back out later? If so, you’re not alone.

Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too

I say you’re not alone because I’ve done the same. I’m a pastor. I have a seminary degree. I’ve studied the Bible a lot. Yet, at the same time, I get scared too. Do all my neighbors know about my Christian faith? Not even close. I’ve had intentions to share my faith, but my intentions often times fail to deliver the goods.

When I was younger, I owned a t-shirt and a hat that said “No Fear.” I wore them together so if anyone ever doubted my bravery after looking at my shirt, they could lift their eyes to my hat and have any lingering doubt removed. Wearing that slogan, however, only demonstrated my fear. It’s a lot like the kid who’s the first to say “Ewwww” when someone asks if they pick their boogers. The emphatic rejection often times reveals the opposite.

I’m fearful of how people will perceive me. And in my experience, just about everyone else is in the same boat. The Bible has a phrase for this — the fear of man.

Advice On Sharing Your Faith

While I struggle with the fear of man, God’s been kind to grow me in this area. I’m far from perfect, don’t get me wrong. Yet, sharing Jesus with non-Christians isn’t as daunting as it once was. And it doesn’t have to be a daunting task for you either if you abide by these principles.

Pray

Pray for your lost friends and neighbors consistently. Remember, God is the one who ultimately transforms people’s hearts and lives. Also, pray that God will give you a greater love for them because love compels us to share the Gospel more than anything else. And pray for boldness to share the Gospel despite the fear of rejection.

Personally, I find that when I pray for people to receive Christ, God gives me opportunities to share the Gospel with them in a natural way. Jesus says in Matthew 7 that when we ask God for good things — and evangelism opportunities are good — He will be faithful to give them to us.

Avoid Jesus-Juking

A Jesus-juke is when you try to smuggle Jesus into the conversation at any cost. For example, your non-Christian friend might say, “I’ve had a rough day.” To which you reply, “you know who had a rough day? Jesus, when he died on the cross for your sins.” If you want to make things awkward with your friend, Jesus-juking is the way to go.

As I think about evangelism, I think a lot of us feel as if we need to take this kind of approach. Sure, we won’t be as blatantly awkward, but we feel as if we need to look for any crack in the door in order to slip a Jesus foot through it. In my experience, forcing Jesus unnaturally never works.

Build Relationships

The days of door-to-door evangelism are long gone. Most people won’t even answer their door anymore, let alone talk with you for fifteen minutes on their front porch. We need a new strategy — one that will be effective. That strategy is cultivating relationships with non-Christians. Invite them into your home. Have dinner together. Have your kids play together at the park. Build a relationship with that person so that they know you care. And as you converse, ease into faith conversations.

As opposed to Jesus-juking, talk about Jesus at natural times. Perhaps they will bring up a difficult situation in their life. Express genuine compassion for them, and then ask them if they’ve ever wondered why this world is so broken? This could potentially lead to a conversation about Jesus dealing with our brokenness. You get the idea, but don’t feel as if you have to force Jesus into every conversation.

Be Ready To Give An Answer

One of the greatest fears we have when it comes to sharing our faith is that we’re afraid we’ll be asked hard questions we don’t know how to answer. For some, this might cause more fear than making things awkward. How do we fix this?

I would encourage you to know what you believe and why you believe it. This, of course, requires a bit of perspiration on your part because no one learns everything they need to know overnight. Read the Scriptures. Go through theology books. Think about the objections others have toward Christianity, and do your best to find the answers. You won’t ever know it all, but you can do your best. Peter says, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pet. 3:15).

You’re Not Alone

If you struggle to share your faith, you’re not alone. You’re not a pathetic Christian either. We all struggle. Pastors struggle. We’re in this together. Yet, by God’s grace, you can grow in effectiveness, though you will need to be intentional in your efforts. No one ever becomes an effective witness by accident. Just like anything else in your life, if you wish to excel, you need to plan to excel. Think about something you are really good at. Now think about how that happened. Chances are, you put a lot of thought and energy into excelling in that area. I would urge you to do the same with evangelism.

You’ll mess up along the way. You’ll chicken out again. It’s ok. God is gracious. He’ll give you more opportunities.

 

Ryan Leasure holds an M.A. from Furman University and an M.Div. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OBGzvR

/by
How The Discovery Of The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Falsified Atheism

How The Discovery Of The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Falsified Atheism

,

By Wintery Knight

Prior to certain scientific discoveries, most people thought that the universe had always been here, and no need to ask who or what may have caused it. But today, that’s all changed. Today, the standard model of the origin of the universe is that all the matter and energy in the universe came into being in an event scientists call “The Big Bang.” At the creation event, space and time themselves began to exist, and there is no material reality that preceded them.

So a couple of quotes to show that.

An initial cosmological singularity… forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity… On this view, the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe but also of spacetime itself.

Source: P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag).

And another quote:

[A]lmost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.

Source: Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 20.

So, there are several scientific discoveries that led scientists to accept the creation event, and one of the most interesting and famous is the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Here’s the history of how that discovery happened, from the American Physical Society website:

Bell Labs radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were using a large horn antenna in 1964 and 1965 to map signals from the Milky Way when they serendipitously discovered the CMB. As written in the citation, “This unexpected discovery, offering strong evidence that the universe began with the Big Bang, ushered in experimental cosmology.” Penzias and Wilson shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1978 in honor of their findings.

The CMB is “noise” leftover from the creation of the Universe. The microwave radiation is only 3 degrees above Absolute Zero or -270 degrees C,1 and is uniformly perceptible from all directions. Its presence demonstrates that our universe began in an extremely hot and violent explosion, called the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago.

In 1960, Bell Labs built a 20-foot horn-shaped antenna in Holmdel, NJ to be used with an early satellite system called Echo. The intention was to collect and amplify radio signals to send them across long distances, but within a few years, another satellite was launched, and Echo became obsolete.2

With the antenna no longer tied to commercial applications, it was now free for research. Penzias and Wilson jumped at the chance to use it to analyze radio signals from the spaces between galaxies.3 But when they began to employ it, they encountered a persistent “noise” of microwaves that came from every direction. If they were to conduct experiments with the antenna, they would have to find a way to remove the static.

Penzias and Wilson tested everything they could think of to rule out the source of the radiation racket. They knew it wasn’t radiation from the Milky Way or extraterrestrial radio sources. They pointed the antenna towards New York City to rule out “urban interference,” and did an analysis to dismiss possible military testing from their list.4

Then they found droppings of pigeons nesting in the antenna. They cleaned out the mess and tried removing the birds and discouraging them from roosting, but they kept flying back. “To get rid of them, we finally found the most humane thing was to get a shotgun…and at the very close range [we] just killed them instantly. It’s not something I’m happy about, but that seemed like the only way out of our dilemma,” said Penzias.5 “And so the pigeons left with a smaller bang, but the noise remained, coming from every direction.”6

At the same time, the two astronomers learned that Princeton University physicist Robert Dicke had predicted that if the Big Bang had occurred, there would be low-level radiation found throughout the universe. Dicke was about to design an experiment to test this hypothesis when he was contacted by Penzias. Upon hearing of Penzias’ and Wilson’s discovery, Dicke turned to his laboratory colleagues and said: “well boys, we’ve been scooped.”7

Although both groups published their results in Astrophysical Journal Letters, only Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the CMB.

The horn antenna was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1990. Its significance in fostering a new appreciation for the field of cosmology and a better understanding of our origins can be summed up by the following: “Scientists have labeled the discovery [of the CMB] the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century.”8

It’s the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century.

In the New York Times, Arno Penzias commented on his discovery – the greatest discovery of the 20th century – so:

The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.

Just one problem with the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century: atheists don’t accept it. Why not?

Here’s a statement from the Secular Humanist Manifesto, which explains what atheists believe about the universe:

Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

For a couple of examples of how atheistic scientists respond to the evidence for a cosmic beginning, you can check out this post, where we get responses from cosmologist Lawrence Krauss and physical chemist Peter Atkins.

You cannot have the creation of the universe be true, AND a self-existing, eternal universe ALSO be true. Someone has to be wrong. Either the science is wrong, or the atheist manifesto is wrong. I know where I stand.

Positive arguments for Christian theism

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OyLGNv

/by
You Gotta Be More Specific

You Gotta Be More Specific

,

By Brent Hardaway

A blogger named MarkCC demonstrates a few common misunderstandings regarding Intelligent Design (ID).

First, we need to clarify some terms, as there is some jargon given in the post that the reader may not be familiar with.

Specified Event – The phrase “Go Take Out the Trash” is a specified arrangement of letters. The jumbled letter sequence “smets qwoand nduams iba” is not specified, as it is not a pattern that is recognizable. How this relates to the ID is that if you come to the dining room table and see some Alpha-Bits arranged in the first sequence (even if not perfectly straight), you’d assume that your housemate purposely arranged them as communication to someone else, quite possibly you. That would be a specified event. But if you saw the second sequence not perfectly straight, you would be pretty likely to assume that your housemate carelessly spilled some out of the box and didn’t bother to clean it up. That would be non-specified. And applying this to the origin of life, there are many features of life (like DNA and proteins), that exhibit sequences of code that are specific. For example, the work of MIT molecular biologist Robert Sauer came to the conclusion that for a protein chain that was 92 amino acids long, only 1 in 10^63 could perform some function in cellular life.[1] So language and proteins are pretty similar in that letters/amino acids form chains of readable sentences/working proteins.

Universal Probability Bound – What if we could spill some Alpha-Bits every second? Wouldn’t we eventually get the phrase regarding the trash? Well, if we were able to spill exactly the same amount, and the odds of a space appearing as often as a letter was equal, it would happen about once every 1.14 Octillion years.[2] So even if I live to be 100, it’s absurd to think I would ever achieve that sequence by randomly spilling Alpha-Bits. I’d have an astronomically far greater chance of winning the lottery. There are only so many “rolls of the dice,” in such cases. So, in other words, beyond a certain point, we have to rule out blind luck as an explanation and attribute an improbable event to design guided by some intelligence. That would be the “Universal Probability Bound.” Dembski suggests that this should be any odds around 1 in 10^150. This is what he calls the number of “probabilistic resources.” This is based on the number of possible events in the universe. And when he says “events,” he’s using the most minimal definition possible. It is the maximum number of times that all the elementary particles in the universe could have reacted with energy!

Now on to the post –

“Here’s the fundamental dishonesty: None of those numbers have *anything* to do with what he’s supposedly trying to prove. He’s trying to create a formal-sounding version of the big-number problem by throwing together a bunch of fancy-sounding numbers, multiplying them together, and claiming that they somehow suddenly have meaning. But they don’t. It’s actually remarkably easy to show what utter nonsense this is. I’ll do a fancy one first, and a trivial one second.”

Rather, MarkCC has not understood Dembski’s argument. As the second example is easier to understand, we’ll start with that one.

“Grab two decks of distinguishable cards. Shuffle them together, and lay them out for a game of spider solitaire. What’s the probability of that particular lay of cards? 104! , or, very roughly, something larger than 1×10166. Is god personally arranging my cards every time I play spider? Anyone who’s ever taken any class on probability *knows* this stuff.”

The blogger has missed Dembski’s point. Yes, the odds of ANY one sequence with two decks of cards is 1 in 10^166, but what Dembski is looking for is a SPECIFIC sequence. To put it another way, what MarkCC must do to falsify Dembski’s point is either to 1) Predict a specific sequence of 104 cards or 2) Shuffle the cards randomly twice, and get them in the same sequence each time. The odds of that happening are indeed 1 in 10^166, but the percent chance of getting another result is 99.9999999999%, carried out to 164 decimal places. In other words, a non-specific sequence is virtually certain, and a specific one is virtually impossible.

One commenter named Corkscrew notes this, but then goes on to say,

“Of course, this presents two further problems. Firstly, as you’ve mentioned before, the whole concept of specification is complete bollocks. AFAICT it basically boils down to how cool something looks – if it makes Dembski go “whoa…” it’s specified.”

This is actually kind of humorous, as this very statement is itself an example of a specification. I don’t say that because it made me go “Whoa,” but because it’s recognizable as an English sentence. What would Corkscrew think if I said “I can’t tell if a person actually wrote this. Perhaps they’re just random letters generated by a computer”? And as we noted before, written sentences are a valid analogy to the coding required in DNA and proteins.

“Secondly, the whole concept of probabilistic resources is completely borked. It assumes a discrete universe. We do not live in a discrete universe. It assumes that every configuration has effectively the same chance of appearing. This is blatant bull.”

This is true enough – but that is only relevant if the bases that make DNA and the amino acids that makeup proteins are significantly (to an astronomical degree) more likely to group together in ways that make them actually function than not. Corkscrew does not provide any evidence that this is the case. And as we shall see that, in fact, Dembski’s estimation of probabilistic resources available to get life from non-life is far too generous.

Now, let’s move onto his “fancy” example –

“Let’s create an incredibly simplified model of a region of space. Let’s say we have a cube of space, 1 kilometer on a side. Further, let’s suppose that this space contains 1000 particles, and they are all electrons. And further, let’s suppose that each 1mm cube in this cubic kilometer can only have one electron in it.”

He goes on to calculate the number of possible configurations of these particles as 10^5232, way more than Dembski’s probability bound. He asks,

“So what Dembski is saying is that *every* possible configuration of matter in space in the entire universe is impossible without intelligent intervention.”

That isn’t at all what Dembski is saying. In fact, this moves us on to the next point of the ID argument. The number of possible combinations greatly outweigh the possible number of trials. As it relates to life forms, the late astronomer Fred Hoyle calculated that there are 10^40,000 amino acid combinations for the complete set of 2,000 actual known enzyme proteins that exist [3]– and this is just one of many features of life that need to appear. It isn’t that God is necessary to arrange any possible sequence of these amino acids. The problem is there are only 10^150 possible events. If each event was a complete trial arranging different combinations of amino acids, we still wouldn’t come close to finding the very few specific sequences that can form life.

But it’s actually much worse than that for three reasons –

1) Each event is only what one elementary particle does with energy. When molecules form, quite a few particles are involved – and each one would consume at least one event, reducing the number of available trials to form life.

2) In reality, no one believes that a cell or group of proteins came together all at once, but that these things formed via a step-by-step process. But a step-by-step process would take many events. This would also reduce the number of trials.

3) There are plenty of environments, such as the air that you are breathing, or the sun, that are not at all conducive to forming any of the building blocks of life. This reduces the number of trials even further.

Once these misunderstandings have been cleared up, Dembski’s argument stands.

Notes

[1] Meyer, Steven. Darwin’s Doubt, p. 180

[2] The calculation is 27 ^21 = 1.14 * 10^30.

[3] “Hoyle on Evolution” Nature, Nov. 12, 1981 p.105

 

Brent Hardaway is a Financial Analyst living in the Tampa, FL area. Originally from Northern CA, he has a B.S. in Accounting from San Diego State University and a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He is an avid baseball and football fan, and enjoys reading and playing golf in his spare time.

Original Blog Source:  http://bit.ly/2NzlYHx

/by
Why Do You Believe In God_

Why Do You Believe In God?

, ,

by Justin Steckbauer

If someone asks me, “Why do you believe in God?” I don’t necessarily say “I just have faith.”

Many might say that. But for someone who asks that question, I need to know how to defend my faith. So my response is this:

I think it’s very reasonable to believe in God. Let me tell you why:

  1. The universe exists, and it must have a cause, everything that begins to exist has a cause.  The universe began to exist. Evolution can’t create, neither can science. The universe needs a first cause that is timeless, outside the system and infinitely powerful.  God is the logical first cause (cosmological argument).
  2. The universe is finely tuned, there is order in the universe at work that allows for planets, stars, and galaxies. There are laws in the universe, constants like gravity, relativity, and so on. It’s reasonable that when we find mathematical laws and cosmological laws in the universe, that there is a powerful being that created those systems (argument from design).
  3. Within the human cell, we find massive amounts of information. When we look at the human eye, we see a system so incredibly complicated that it could never come about by chance. When scientists look into the human body, they see a complex yet harmonious system of machinery. We see cells and tissue, and DNA and systems that all function as one, and are irreducibly complex. (specified complexity, irreducibly complexity).
  4. The human mind intuitively knows that there is good and evil, right and wrong, good and bad. Objective moral laws exist, they are universal. If objective morals exist, then an objective moral lawgiver must exist; therefore God exists (moral argument).

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2KrDMHk

/by
Robin Collins And Atheist Peter Millican Discuss The Fine-Tuning Of The Universe For Life

Robin Collins And Atheist Peter Millican Discuss The Fine-Tuning Of The Universe For Life

, ,

By Wintery Knight

You might remember Peter Millican from the debate he had with William Lane Craig. I ranked that debate as one of the 3 best I have ever seen, along with the first Craig vs. Dacey debate and the second Craig vs. Sinnott-Armstrong debate.

Details:

Science has revealed that the fundamental constants and forces of the cosmos appear to be exquisitely fine-tuned to allow a universe in which life can develop. Is God the best explanation of the incredibly improbable odds of the universe we live in being a life-permitting one?

Robin Collins is a Christian philosopher and a leading advocate of the argument for God from cosmic design. Peter Millican is an atheist philosopher at Oxford University. They debate the issues.

From ‘Unbelievable?’ on ‘Premier Christian Radio,’ Saturday 19th March 2016.

The debate:

As usual, when the atheist is an expert, there is no snark or paraphrasing in the summary.

Summary

Brierley: What is the fine-tuning argument?

Collins: the fine-tuning is the structure of the universe is extremely precisely set to allow the existing of conscious, embodied agents who are capable of moral behavior. There are 3 kinds of fine-tuning: 1) the laws of nature (mathematical formulas), 2) the constants of physics (numbers that are plugged into the equations), 3) the initial conditions of the universe. The fine-tuning exists not just because there are lots of possibilities, but there is something special about the actual state of affairs that we see. Every set of laws, parameters and initial conditions is equally improbable, but the vast majority of permutations do not permit life. The possible explanations: theism or the multiverse.

Brierley: How improbable are the numbers?

Collins: Once case is the cosmological constant (dark energy density), with is 1 part in (10 raised to a 120th power). If larger, the universe expands too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form after the Big Bang. If smaller, the universe collapses in on itself before life could form. Another case is the initial distribution of mass energy to give us the low entropy we have that is necessary for life. The fine-tuning there is 1 part in (10 raised to the 10th power raised to the 123rd power).

Brierley: What do you think of the argument?

Millican: The argument is worth taking very seriously. I am a fan of the argument. The other arguments for God’s existence such as the ontological and cosmological arguments are very weak. But the fine-tuning argument has the right structure to deliver the conclusion that theists want. And it is different from the traditional design argument tended to focus on biological nature, which is not a strong argument. But the fine-tuning argument is strong because it precedes any sort of biological evolution. Although the design is present at the beginning of the universe, it is not visible until much later. The argument points to at least deism, and possibly theism. The argument is not based on ignorance; it is rooted in “the latest results from the frontiers of science” (his phrase).

Brierley: Is this the best argument from natural theology?

Collins: The cosmological argument makes theism viable intuitively, but there are some things that are puzzling, like the concept of the necessary being. But the fine-tuning argument is decisive.

Brierley: What’s are some objections to the fine-tuning argument?

Millican: The argument is based on recent physics, so we should be cautious because we maybe we will discover a natural explanation.

Brierley: Respond to that.

Collins: The cosmological constant has been around since 1980. But the direction that physics is moving in is that there are more constants and quantities being discovered that need to be fine-tuned, not less. Even if you had a grand unified theory, that would have to be the fine-tuning pushed into it.

(BREAK)

Millican: Since we have no experience of other laws and values from other universes, we don’t know whether these values can be other than they are. Psychologically, humans are prone to seeing purpose and patterns where there is none, so maybe that’s happening here.

Brierley: Respond to that.

Collins: It is possible to determine probabilities on a single universe case, for example using multiple ways of calculating Avogadro’s number all converging on the same number makes it more probable.

Millican: Yes, I willing to accept that these constants can take on other values, (“principle of indifference”). But maybe this principle be applied if the improbability were pushed up into the theory?

Collins: Even if you had a grand theory, selecting the grand theory from others would retain the improbability.

Brierley: What about the multiverse?

Millican: What if there are many, many different universes, and we happen to be in the one that is finely-tuned, then we should not be surprised to observe fine-tuning. Maybe a multiverse theory will be discovered in the future that would allow us to have these many universes with randomized constants and quantities. “I do think that it is a little bit of a promissory note.” I don’t think physics is pointing to this right now.

Brierley: Respond to that.

Collins: I agree it’s a promissory note. This is the strongest objection to the fine-tuning argument. But there are objections to the multiverse: 1) the fine-tuning is kicked back up to the multiverse generator has to be set just right to produce universes with different constants, 2) the multiverse is more likely to produce a small universe with Boltzmann brains that pop into existence and then out again, rather than a universe that contains conscious, embodied intelligent agents. I am working on a third response now that would show that the same constants that allow complex embodied life ALSO allow the universe to be discoverable. This would negate the observer-selection effect required by the multiverse objection.

Brierley: Respond to that.

Millican: I don’t see why the multiverse generator has to be fine-tuned since we don’t know what the multiverse generator is. I’m not impressed by the Boltzmann brains but won’t discuss. We should be cautious about inferring design because maybe this is a case where we are seeing purpose and design where there is none.

Brierley: Can you negate the discoverability of the universe by saying that it might be psychological?

Collins: These things are not psychological. The selected value for the cosmic microwave background radiation is fine-tuned for life and discoverability. It’s not merely a discoverability selection effect; it’s optimal for discoverability. If baryon-photon value were much smaller, we would have known that it was not optimal. So that judgment cannot be explained by

Millican: That’s a very interesting new twist.

Brierley: Give us your best objection.

Millican: I have two. 1) Even if you admit to the fine-tuning, this doesn’t show a being who is omnipotent and omniscient. What the fine-tuning shows is that the designer is doing the best it can given the constraints from nature. If I were God, I would not have made the universe so big, and I wouldn’t have made it last 14 billion years, just to make one small area that supports life. An all-powerful God would have made the universe much smaller, and much younger. 2) The fine-tuning allows life to exist in other solar systems in other galaxies. What does this alien life elsewhere mean for traditional Christian theology? The existence of other alien civilizations argues against the truth of any one religion.

Brierley: Respond to those.

Collins: First objection: with a finite Creator, you run into the problem of having to push the design of that creature up one level, so you don’t really solve the fine-tuning problem. An unlimited being (non-material, not composed of parts) does not require fine-tuning. The fine-tuning is more compatible with theism than atheism. Second objection: I actually do think that it is likely that are other universes, and life in other galaxies and stars, and the doctrine of the Incarnation is easily adaptable to that because God can take on multiple natures to appear to different alien civilizations.

Other resources (from WK)

If you liked this discussion, be sure and check out a full-length lecture by Robin Collins on the fine-tuning, and a shorter lecture on his very latest work. And also this the Common Sense Atheism podcast, featuring cosmologist Luke Barnes, who answers about a dozen objections to the fine-tuning argument.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2kN27rF

/by
God’s Origin Story

God’s Origin Story

, ,

By Timothy Fox

In my last article, I compared superhero origin stories to the beginning of the universe. Every superhero needs an origin story, and so does the universe. We need a reason why it exists. I argued the best explanation is a God who caused the universe to come into existence. But doesn’t that just push the origins problem back one step? What is God’s origin story? Why is he here? That’s the focus of this article.

Whenever cosmic origins is discussed and God is offered as the explanation for the beginning of the universe, the skeptic is near certain to object “Yeah, well, who created God?” as the ultimate refutation. But this just shows the skeptic doesn’t understand who God is.

God’s Superpowers

When Billy Batson, an ordinary boy, says the word SHAZAM! he is transformed into the superhero Shazam (formerly Captain Marvel – it’s complicated). Shazam has the wisdom of Solomon, the strength of Hercules, the willpower of Atlas, the lightning blasts of Zeus, the invulnerability of Achilles, and the speed of Mercury. (An alliteration of all of their names spells Shazam.) That’s a pretty awesome list of superpowers, isn’t it? But even with all that, Shazam still isn’t God.

In fact, superheroes aren’t even in the same league as God. God isn’t just really strong; he is infinitely powerful. God isn’t just smart; he has infinite knowledge. God isn’t just good; he’s morally perfect. Take everything that makes superheroes great and crank it up to infinity. That’s God. God isn’t just great; he’s a Maximally Great Being. God can’t be beaten; he can’t be killed; he can’t not exist. He lacks nothing, needs nothing. God is the standard of goodness.

Maximally Great

Now look at how silly the question “Who created God?” is. If something created God, that thing would be greater than God. But nothing could be greater than a Maximally Great Being; therefore, nothing could have created God.

But couldn’t there be two Maximally Great Beings? No, as then neither one would be maximally great; it would be a tie. Which one would win an arm wrestling contest? Which would beat the other in a race? Which one would win at chess? Each might be a great being, but neither would be maximally great. Thus, there can only be one Maximally Great Being.

Last time we saw there were only two options for the existence of the universe: either it has always been here or it came into existence at some finite point in the past. If it came into existence, it needed a cause. God never came into existence; therefore, he doesn’t need a cause. He is what Aristotle called the First Cause, or Unmoved Mover. God set the universe into motion.

God’s Origin Story

I’m sorry if I’ve disappointed you, but God has no origin story. He simply is. God is eternal. As the Bible describes: “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Psalm 90:2). God is a Maximally Great Being, having every great-making property to the maximum.

Superheroes are strong. They’re brave. They’re fun to read about and watch. But God is no mere superhero. God is the greatest being in the universe, and as such he is the only one worthy of our worship.

“Who among the gods

     is like you, Lord?

Who is like you—

    majestic in holiness,

awesome in glory,

     working wonders?” – Exodus 15:10

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2LEWYOJ

/by
Comics and Cosmic Origins

Comics and Cosmic Origins

, ,

By Timothy Fox

Every superhero has an origin story. Spider-man was bitten by a radioactive spider. Batman’s parents were murdered before his very eyes as a child. Superman’s parents sent him on a rocket to earth where he was discovered and raised by the Kents. Origin stories tell the tale of how a superhero gained his powers or what event drove him to fight for truth and justice.

However, we don’t just like origin stories. We need to know how these heroes were created. Why did the Avengers first assemble? How did Wolverine get those awesome claws? We won’t accept a superhero has powers just because. There needs to be a reason why.

And it isn’t just superheroes. We need an origin story as well. Why are we here? How did the universe begin? But while you get to pick your favorite superhero – or even your favorite version of that superhero – that doesn’t work for reality. The universe can have only one true origin story.

Origin of the Universe

So what are our options? One story may start with a God (or gods) who created the universe. Another story may tell that the universe – or at least the materials that formed into the universe as we know it – has always been here. A third option is that there was absolutely nothing in the beginning – no matter, no deities, nothing – but that it still somehow came into existence at some time in the past.

Those are our three options for the universe’s origin story: the universe is eternal, it was created by some deity, or it simply came into existence. How do we know which is the true origin story of reality? Let’s look at the facts:

Big Bang cosmology teaches us that the universe came into existence at some finite point in the past. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states the universe is running out of usable energy, so if the universe were here forever, it would have run out of energy by now. It hasn’t; therefore, the universe must have a starting point. From a logical standpoint, the impossibility of an infinite regress also makes it impossible for the universe to be past-eternal. Thus, our universe must have a definite time of origin.

Now, we would never accept a superhero simply having powers for no reason. Something had to cause The Flash to gain super speed. Something must cause Bruce Banner to become The Hulk. We need some kind of explanation, no matter how bizarre or farfetched. Likewise, would you accept the universe coming into existence without a cause? I should hope not!

The Best Explanation

So then what would be an adequate explanation for the universe coming into existence? It would have to be pretty powerful to create a universe. It must be pretty smart too. It wouldn’t be made up of any of the same stuff of the universe, so it must be immaterial. Since the beginning of the universe is also the beginning of time, the cause of the universe must also be timeless. It must also have a mind to be able to willingly create something. If you put all of these properties (superpowers?) together, it becomes clear that the universe must have a personal creator, one that we would simply call “God.”

The same way that superheroes must have an origin story to explain how they got their powers and decided to battle the forces of evil, the universe must also have an origin story. But unlike fictional stories, there can be only one true origin story for the universe. If we look at the facts of reality and understand that all effects – and superpowers – need causes, the origin story of our universe becomes clear: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

…

But wait!

If every superhero needs an origin story, if the universe needs an origin story, what about God? Doesn’t God need an origin story too?!

To be continued…

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2kzbjQB

/by