Let’s be intellectually honest regarding science’s lack of belief in God.?

Question

Okay, first of all people, we do live in life, we do live on a planet inside of a universe. So who created the universe??? It doesn’t matter if we know his name or intentions or even what it is, all that matters is we know something did it? And when I say something, I don’t mean something physical, something we can study, I mean language and common sense is pointing at “something” that had to have done it. I mean, any fool knows that nothing comes from nothing, so either this life and everything in it is nothing, which isn’t reasonable at all, or the only thing left, is that something did it. Even if you say that that “thing” is a substance different than something and different than nothing, then you are still pointing at it, so from our perspectives, it is something.

So my question is, isn't that enough to make it a scientific inquirery?

There is no difference between hard science and soft science so long as intelligence is involved. Philosophy and linguistics is the logical proof. My logical proof is: something can not come from nothing.

Breakfast, true, but if that "thing" had a creator, then who would that "thing's" creator be. I get what you're saying, but think about this: no matter how many dots you have along the "line of creation" there has to be the line itself which allows for all the other dots. So no matter how many dots there are, there is still one and only one line that they all rest on. If there are multiple lines, then there has to be one book that they are all contained on, multiple books, must mean there is one world, multiple worlds, meaning one universe, and so on. So we are running in circles, back to where we started. So either way, there must be One single reality that contains all those minor realities. How do we know which reality is the supreme reality? The one that caused all the other ones. The one that is impossible to have been caused, only to have caused.

One and only one, none other than one.

As soon as you understand that I guess we can keep talking, as you said so yourself.

Answer 1

This comes from the "Cosmological Argument" and I think it's pretty solid. The argument is this: The cosmos is here and must be explained as to how it got here. This argument is using the law of cause and effect, which states: Every effect must have a preceding and adequate cause. What does it mean by adequate? Well, the building didn’t collapse because a mosquito landed on it. The tsunami didn’t hit because someone threw a pebble into the ocean.

Now, when it comes to explaining the existence of the universe, you only get three possibilities: (1) the universe is eternal (it has always been here), (2) the universe created itself, or (3) something created the universe. There is no other possibility except to claim that the universe is simply an illusion and does not exist—but I don’t think you would buy that. So let’s examine these three possibilities to see which is the most reasonable.

First, is the universe eternal? Absolutely not. We know this is true because of the universally recognized second law of Thermodynamics (the law of energy decay or entropy). This law states that everything goes downhill from order to disorder, more usable energy to less. This law is the reason why heat flows from hot to cold and why this building will fall apart if it is not kept up with. If someone doesn’t believe in the second law of thermodynamics, just challenge them to live forever; even with this awesome machinery we have in our bodies, you will eventually wear out and die.

We can see that the universe is running down and wearing out; the stars are burning up, the radioactive atoms are decaying, etc. As Psalm 102:26 says, the heavens “will wear out like a garment.” Given enough time, the universe will experience what some call a “heat death” where there is maximum entropy; every part of the universe will be the same temperature, and no further work will be possible (speaking of energy transfer); all energy will be evenly distributed.

Eternal things obviously do not wear out because they would have had an infinite amount of time to come to their end. Since you cannot have an end without a beginning, the universe must have had a beginning. Evolutionary astronomer Dr. Robert Jastrow said, “Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning.” And everything that has a beginning has a cause. This building had a beginning, you had a beginning, therefore there must have been a preceding and adequate cause.

The evolutionists know this and so they came up with the “big bang” theory from that “cosmic egg” (the universe exploded into existence). But there is still a major problem—you have to explain where that “cosmic egg” came from. As it has been said, “There must be a cosmic chicken.”

Some scientists like Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov proposed the oscillating universe theory to avoid a beginning. This theory states that the universe acts like a yo-yo; it explodes and then gravity pulls it back in, and then the process repeats itself over and over. But the second law of Thermodynamics still refutes that idea, since each cycle would exhaust more and more usable energy. The universe is not eternal!

Ok, that brings us to the second possibility: Did the universe create itself? I think Hebrews 3:4 answers that pretty well, “...every house is built by someone...”

Let’s say I walk into my livingroom and see a crayon drawing of our family on the wall. When I ask my daughter where it came from, will I accept her answer of, “It just appeared there; it came from nothing”? Her grandparents might, but I won’t.

It is pretty clear that something cannot bring itself into existence. As R.C. Sproul has said, “It is impossible for something to create itself. The concept of self-creation is a contradiction in terms, a nonsense statement . . . It would have to have the causal power of being before it was. It would have to have the power of being before it had any being with which to exercise that power.” As it has been said, “Nothing scratched its head one day and decided to become something.” I’m sorry to have to drop this bombshell on you, but from nothing, comes nothing.

Besides, the First Law of Thermodynamics (the law of energy conservation) argues against it. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system (without a God, this Universe would have to be a closed system) the amount of energy present in that system is constant (it cannot be created or destroyed), it can only be converted from one form to another. So, if the Universe initially contained no energy, and then it spontaneously generated all of the energy in the Universe, the First Law would be violated. Without intervention from an outside force, the amount of energy in the Universe would have remained constant and unchanged at zero.

And now the third possibility: Did something create the universe? If the universe is not eternal and could not have created itself, then the only remaining alternative is that the universe was created by something or Someone. This would have to be a transcendent, eternal, self-existing being. I can find only one satisfactory explanation to our conundrum, and that is found in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Someone may argue, “If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause; who created God?” The answer is, everything that has a beginning has a cause; God, unlike the universe, did not have a beginning. Time is linked to matter and space (as we can see from Einstein’s general relativity). If God created the universe, then He created time along with matter and space. If God created time, then He is outside of time and doesn’t need a beginning.

What is more absurd, to believe that God Created everything out of nothing or that nothing turned itself into everything? The fact is, we live in a Universe that is an effect. There must be a preceding and adequate cause for it. The only thing that makes sense is a Creator who is more powerful than anything we can imagine.

I have to agree with Lord Kelvin (the Father of Thermodynamics), “Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion.”

Answer 2

The problem is that we assume the universe had a beginning point, that it was not there at some time and then became there. That's actually not an intelligent assumption to make.

Yes, we have evidence that the universe is expanding and, from what we know and have tested with the various forces, that the unvierse was collapsed to a tiny speck of energy that exploded in the Big Bang. What we don't have evidence of is what happened prior to the Big Bang. We can only theorize about what happened during Planck's Epoch because we don't really understand Gravity as much as we need to. If we don't know Planck's Epoch, how can we begin to scientifically theorize the universe prior to that?

Can we assume that the universe is not infinite and must have a beginning? No, we actually cannot assume that and be correct. We can assume that the universe as we know it now began with the Big Bang. We cannot assume that prior to the Big Bang, there was "nothing" or there was "something" there. We have no evidence in either direction.

String theory, while based in mathematics and astrophysics, has a philosophical (read, untestable at our level of technology) model of the universe as it exists prior to the Big Bang.

Infinity exists between the spread of two fingers. Why? You can cover half a distance, then half a distance, then half a distance forever and you will never reach the other side. The universe, for all we are able to figure out now, is infinite. It has neither beginning nor end, just points that make logical beginnings and logical endings.

Based on the demand for measurable and independently verifiable evidence required by the scientific method, no, a creator's existence is neither assumable nor is it feasible in scientific enquiry. You can't measure it. You can't find evidence of it. That means it's philosophy, an unsupported system of describing reality. The nothing comes from something argument isn't even viable because there's no evidence that there ever was "nothing," just unsupported assumption.

Answer 3

What is "obvious" is only obvious from the viewpoint of your own basic assumptions. If you never question your basic assumptions, you cannot understand that there are other views that are completely consistent and workable, that are based on other assumptions entirely.

Even within your own worldview, sooner or later back along the chain of events, SOMETHING "just happened." If there is any point along the chain at which you can arbitrarily say, "This is the first," then you contradict your own reasoning that all things have a cause. For someone to say that the "first thing" was the Big Bang, with no prior cause, is as logical as saying that the cause of the Big Bang was God, Who has no prior cause.

One very workable worldview is that there is no chain of cause-and-effect except in a limited sense. The universe-as-a-whole is a complex system of interacting elements, each of which is affected by the things it affects. Spacetime is one thing, that grew from a small simplicity to a large complexity. Before spacetime exists, there is nothing, no cause, no effect; once spacetime exists elements affect each other in observable and predictable ways. Watching natural phenomena, deducing natural patterns, amd testing our deductions by prediction, has proved the most effective way to understand, and therefore work with, the natural universe.

There is no need of God to explain science, and no need of science to explain God. Science is about explaining "what happens," religion is about "what should happen." Even if a God created the Universe, that would not imply that God knew best what *should* happen. Some parents tell their children to steal and to kill, and the children have to turn to other adults to guide them to a better future.

Science can tell us what will happen when a rock hits a human head. Science cannot tell us whether those consequences are "good" or "bad." The goals and values by which we decide whether or not to throw the rock do not depend on what *has* happened, they depend on what we want to happen in the future.

It does not matter to science what you want to have happen in the future, it will tell you the same things about the past, regardless. It does not matter to religion what happened in the past; we will desire the same future, regardless. If we love others and desire good for all, regardless of what they have done in the past, then we can love God and desire to do what is good, regardless of what God has done in the past.

Answer 4

Big Bang theories abound, so there is 'inquiry'. Scientists don't really have enough testable material to conduct significant "inquiry" however. Physicists don't usually take leaps of faith like that.

A Cosmologist or Physicist will ask what caused the Big Bang, but not what caused the Universe, because they know the Big Bang caused the beginnings of our Universe.

Also, asking if 'something' caused the universe is presumptuous. It could be a set of conditions which caused the universe, and not something. For example, what causes a computer to function? Answer - a set of things: power, processor, cooler, memory, user interface. "Something" should be replaced with 'cause(s)'.

Finaly, assuming the Universe needs a cause is also presumptuous. Study a little bit of 20th century physics, and the need for a cause dissipates a little bit, because you realize that for cause and effect to occur, there must be a flow of time happening. If time doesn't exist, there's no temporal change from cause to effect. Asking what happened before the Universe is like asking what happens outside the boundaries of the Universe. The answer: there is no outside of the Universe, and there is no such thing as before. The Universe created time too.

Answer 5

There are two main flaws in almost all arguments regarding creation:

1. The assumption that something must have caused the universe to exist.

2. The assumption that it is possible to know how the universe came to be.

Before the big bang there was no matter, no space, and no time. There was no existence as we understand it. You can't even say that nothing existed before the universe, as nonexistence is defined by existence. This is something that cannot be conceived of or understood.

It can't be said that something must have caused the universe to exist because cause and effect don't apply until after the big bang. Even to say "after the big bang" is at least partially mistaken, as there was no "before the big bang."

In the face of this there can be no knowledge of what caused the universe to be, because until the big bang occurred, nothing existed for there to be knowledge of.

Answer 6

first of all science is a method of study and not a religion or philosophy. Those who use science well would say there is no clear evidence supporting a belief for or against a higher power or creator. Scientist are a pretty eclectic bunch of people and I would hypothesize that you will find just about every type of belief system represented by their collective community.
I am not a scientist but do have a background in philosophy and religion. I get really peeved by religious conservatives that bad mouth science on one hand and then try to corrupt science to support their particular belief on the other. Believe on God or not like every scientist decides for themselves, just don't whine about people having a differing view.

Answer 7

The notion of who or what created the universe is an unwarranted assumption. You are free to posit a god that laid down the rules by which the universe has run since the big bang, but it is provably useless to do so. For something to be a legitimate scientific inquiry, it has to be demonstrably true or false based on evidence; the big bang obviously qualifies, and that there might have been a god behind it all obviously doesn't.

Answer 8

(Unfortunately), there are many scientists who believe in God, although more in the 'soft sciences' and *less* in the 'hard sciences'. ... And the Big Bang - a *natural* phenomenon, expanded the Universe - note: *no* 'create' - for the Big Bang Singularity was the opposite of "nothing", it was *everything.*

No, it's *not nearly enough*. Science needs evidence. Logical explanation. Experimentation and testing. Falsification criteria. Predictive (& discovered) elements, logical self-consistency. To quote Wiki: "It follows that for scientists 'theory' and 'fact' do not necessarily stand in opposition."

[Edit]: My 'soft/hard sciences' point was two-fold: ... 1. Hard scientists outnumber soft scientists considerably, and 2. Hard scientists have more relevant *training and knowledge* to objectively and intelligently assess (which they do.)

Your "nothing" regurgitation just amazes... did you not read my: "the Big Bang Singularity was the opposite of "nothing", it was *everything*??? ... That is, the BBS contained *all* the matter/energy in the Universe... I repeat: *all of it.* There was nothing at all to "create" - it was merely an expansion or inflation of the Universe (yeah, yeah, it's more complex that that, but your "nothing" shows gross misunderstanding.) ... Re: your "Logical Proof" - Pfffft! ... It simply does not exist.

Answer 9

Wow, that took me a few times to read to understand, all the "somethings" and "nothings" were a touch confusing the first time around. At any rate, it all seems very logical to me so the answer I will give is yes.

Answer 10

I thought you said intellectual? Science doesn't prove or disprove god's existence, but you people seem to want to see it this way. The answer to your question is, NO - that does not make it a scientific inquiry, it's a philosophical inquiry. That's it. No wonder science in the U.S is suffering...