Many believe science has disproven God. This is not possible, even in principle.[1] The truth of the matter is that advances in science are providing more reasons to believe in God, not less. While scientific discoveries cannot prove God’s existence, they can be used to support premises in arguments that have theistic conclusions/implications. For example, science has discovered that the universe began to exist. Anything that begins to exist requires an external cause. Since the universe encompasses all physical reality, the cause of the universe must transcend physical reality. It cannot be a prior physical event or some natural law, because there was nothing physical prior to the first physical event, and natural laws only come into being once the natural world comes into being. Whatever caused the universe to come into being must be transcendent, powerful, immaterial, spaceless, eternal, and personal, which is an apt description of God.
Cosmological Argument
November 18, 2013
“That’s not science!” Translation: “That’s not naturalism!”
Posted by Theosophical Ruminator under Apologetics, Atheistic objections, Cosmological Argument, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Science, Theism, Theistic Arguments[22] Comments
October 23, 2013
What I’ve Been Reading: A Universe from Nothing
Posted by Theosophical Ruminator under Apologetics, Atheism, Book Reviews, Cosmological Argument, Naturalism, Science, Theistic Arguments[11] Comments
Last year theoretical physicist and atheist, Lawrence Krauss, wrote a book titled A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing. As the title suggests, Krauss wrote the book to answer the age-old question of why there is something rather than nothing. The book was heralded by many atheists as the definitive answer to theists who claim God is necessary to explain the existence of physical reality. Indeed, in the afterward Richard Dawkins claimed that Krauss’ book devastates theistic arguments based on cosmology just as Darwin’s On the Origin of Species devastated theistic arguments based on design in biology. Other reviewers, however – including scientists, philosophers, and theologians – beg to differ. Having read the book myself (not just once, but two times now), I can see why they were less than impressed with Krauss’ argument.
While my overall assessment of Krauss’ argument is not positive, truth be told, most of the book was quite enjoyable and informative. That’s because the first 2/3 of the book is a lesson on the historical development of modern cosmology. Krauss doesn’t make his case for why there is something rather than nothing until the last four chapters. Unfortunately, that’s where the book falls apart.
August 15, 2013
Visual depicction of the kalam cosmological argument for God’s existence
Posted by Theosophical Ruminator under Apologetics, Cosmological Argument, Theistic Arguments[6] Comments
April 23, 2013
Contingency argument for God’s existence
Posted by Theosophical Ruminator under Apologetics, Cosmological Argument, Theism, Theistic Arguments[7] Comments
While in discussion with A. C. Grayling on the March 25 edition of the Unbelievable radio program, Peter S. Williams provided a nice, concise presentation of the cosmological argument from contingency:
Once you’ve made the distinction between things that have causes and…things that don’t have causes, if something exists it either is the kind of thing that requires something outside of itself to exist, or it’s not. If it’s not possible for there to be an infinite regress of things that do require causes outside of themselves, and it is true that something exists which does require a cause outside itself [the universe, and everything in it]…,there can’t be an infinite regress of such causes, and therefore you have to have a termination of that regress. [God is the best explanation for the termination of that regress.]
For those of you for whom this to be a bit too concise, let me flesh it out a bit.
February 12, 2013
Illustrating the Necessity of a Transcendent Cause even in an Eternal Universe
Posted by Theosophical Ruminator under Apologetics, Cosmological Argument, Theistic Arguments[20] Comments
All of the scientific evidence points to the temporal finitude of physical reality, even if physical reality extends beyond the Big Bang (see here and here). And yet, scientists continue to come up with mathematical models that permit an eternal universe/multiverse, and atheists continue to promote them because both are under the mistaken presumption that if physical reality is eternal, then there is no need for a transcendent cause, and thus no need for God. As David Berlinski observed, “While an eternal universe makes it meaningless to ask when the universe began to exist, since its existence is not necessary it is still meaningful to ask why it exists.” The fact that physical reality is contingent means that even if the universe/multiverse is eternal, it still needs a cause.
January 4, 2013
The kalam cosmological argument is impervious to scientific refutation
Posted by Theosophical Ruminator under Apologetics, Cosmological Argument, Science, Theism, Theistic Arguments[30] Comments
The kalam cosmological argument (KCA) for God’s existence can be stated as follows:
(1) Anything that begins to exist requires a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Thus, the universe requires a cause
Additional logical inferences allow us to identify this cause as God. Whatever caused space, time, and matter to begin to exist cannot itself be spatial, temporal, or material. Furthermore, whatever caused our orderly, life-permitting universe to come into being a finite time ago must be immensely powerful, intelligent, conscious, and hence personal. These are apt descriptions of a being theists have long identified as God.
Both premises have been challenged on scientific grounds. Premise one is typically challenged on the basis of quantum mechanics, while premise two is challenged by new cosmological models that seek to restore an eternal universe. I am going to argue that neither premise of the argument can be undermined by scientific evidence, and thus the argument itself is impervious to scientific refutation. Only philosophical arguments are capable of undermining either premise of the argument.
December 11, 2012
New Scientist on why the universe must have had a beginning
Posted by Theosophical Ruminator under Apologetics, Cosmological Argument, Science, Theistic Arguments[19] Comments
New Scientist published an article last week explaining why the universe must have had a beginning. While they end the article with speculative physics that try to place that beginning so far back into the past so as to be virtually indistinguishable from an eternity ago, a beginning to the universe remains. And if physical reality began to exist a finite time ago, then it must have a transcendent, immaterial, eternal, spaceless cause.