Atheists: Why do I get thumbs down from you for answering your question?

Question

I routinely see questions asking for proof of God. So I found some logical proof. But to my surprise, every time I use it, I get at least one thumbs down. WHY?

- Proving the Existence of God -

THE BEGINNING

If we do indeed exist, there can be only two possible explanations for such a phenomenon. Either we had a beginning or we did not. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of atheistic belief.

In order to decide whether the theist or atheist is correct we must ask after science to discover what it says regarding this question. In the local 'brane' of the cosmos are a number of galaxies like our own Milky Way. These galaxies are accelerating away from each other with every passing moment. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger with every passing day. Now if we suppose that time can run backwards, we could see that all galaxies must come together at a beginning, at a point of universal expansion which scientists call a singularity. This puts the lie to the idea of an eternal universe. It had a beginning.

A second proof is seen in the energy sources that fuel the cosmos. Like all stars, the sun generates its energy by a process known as thermonuclear fusion. In every second, the sun compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen, fusing its components into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had on the day it was born. This incredible furnace is not unique. Indeed, this process takes place in every single star in the universe, as well as some gas giant planets such as Jupiter in our own solar system.

Now for a simple logical question: Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thus reducing the total amount of hydrogen existing in the cosmos. Now if everywhere in the cosmos, hydrogen is being consumed, and if that process has been going on 'forever', how much hydrogen should be left? Obviously, the universe should have run out of hydrogen long ago. The fact is, however, that our sun has 98% of its original hydrogen still available.

Hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe. Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21 cm line in the spectrum - a frequency of light only given off by hydrogen. This would not be possible unless we indeed had a beginning.

A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is never repaired, for example, it will become so disordered that it will eventually cease to run.

Getting 'old' is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to this aging process as 'heat death'. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan was so fond of saying, then nothing can be added to it to improve its order, or to repair it. Even a 'bouncing' universe that expanded and collapsed forever would eventually die because it would lose light and heat with each expansion and rebound.

The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically impossible. The biblical assertion that there was indeed a beginning is in complete agreement with scientific principals.

THE CAUSE

If we know that creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question - was creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause - a creation - but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem: In order to say that matter can come from nothing, we would need to invalidate all scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy, including those of chemistry. Aand conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics. In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard most if not all known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.

The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and self-existing is also incorrect. The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which had a cause is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.

THE DESIGN

If we know that creation had a beginning, and that the beginning had a cause, there is one last question for us to answer - what was this cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that this God did the causing with planning, reason and logic. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know who God is "through the things he has made."

The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of Chance. Julian Huxley once said: "We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents."

The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are indeed the product of an intelligent God.

Most of my answers ARE mine, although this one I only modified, which makes links problematic. I cut and paste because the question is asked SO OFTEN.

Actually, strings are not mathematical. They are vibrational. We can, however USE mathematics to measure those vibrations. Numbers have no physicality.

Historic arguments do not become 'straw men' just because science figures out that it was wrong. The fact that atheists have to keep changing their stance merely strengthens the Bible's position.

Answer 1

You get thumbs down for a number of reasons.

1) your post is too long ( but atleast you are trying to provide the proof requested)

2) your proof, although looks good on the surface, has some major holes.
for example:
a) You use the example of an automobile without repair becomes unusable. Suggesting that things can only decline from their"beginnings". You are forgetting that many thing initially improve before they decline. Also there are forces at work,evolution, that can perform the maintence that is needed.
b) You mention that in an ever expanding and contracting universe that the light and heat would eventually decrease with each rebound. Where is that light and heat going? Energy doesn't just cease to exist, so where is it? what was it converted into? Nothing comes from nothing and something can not turn into nothing. So you are jumping to conclusions.

You tried, I will give you that. Go back and try again and let us know what you come up with.

Answer 2

like others say it's way too long. And it's also jumping from making "the" atheist belief that the universe has existed forever to that it exploded out of nothing and back again.

"Even a 'bouncing' universe that expanded and collapsed forever would eventually die because it would lose light and heat with each expansion and rebound." Just look at that for a second and think about it. Does that actually make sense? No, a bouncing universe would reabsorb all light before exploding again. And the last chapter makes huge mistakes about the difference between chance inside a universe, which does exist, and chance looking at the universe from outside of it, which is meaningless.

Answer 3

Your argument is extremely naive. What you do not consider is that our understanding of reality is layered.

Personally I believe reality is ultimately mathematics. It only looks like space and time because we see so little of it. Nothing is ever really created. The key here is a powerful selection effect (our existence ) which selects the portion of reality we find ourselves in.

Our understanding of reality is layered. You see the world in terms of large physical objects. But you are aware that those are illusions made up of atoms, and atoms in turn are made of smaller particles. Many believe that these so called "fundamental" particles are not fundamental but are built on a layer of mathematical objects called strings. My belief is that all reality is built upon mathematics and mathematics is what is fundamental.

The reason why we see top layers instead of lower layers is due to our inability to see all of the the details in the lower layers.

The reasons for my belief are way too involved to cover here so I will just post a link to something simple enough that you might understand it. I fear my actual reasons are likely to be well beyond your comprehension unless you have a very advanced gaduate physics background.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0646v1.pdf


As mathematics ( necessary logical truth ) is fundamental and necessary it is not created. Existence simply equals necessary truth. Mathematics "just is" because it is necessary and tautologically simple ( Zero complexity ). But Mathematics does not create reality. Mathematics is reality.

The problem with the design hypothesis is your god needs to be more complex and hence more unlikely than the reality you are attempting to explain. Saying your god just is, leaves a much bigger question than you had to begin with.

Since I have taken graduate level cosmology I will tell you how mass and energy are thought to have formed because most people do not know.

As most people are aware total mass/energy are thought to be conserved.

However most people do not know Gravitational potential energy is negative.

Rapid inflation results in large amounts of both normal mass/energy and gravitational potential energy which cancel each other.

Most of mass/energy you observe today formed in the first few milliseconds after the big bang as a direct result of the extremely rapid inflation which produces normal energy balanced with gravitational potential energy summing up to zero.

The anthropic principle was created by an atheist physicist (Brandon Carter) by the way. He simply argued that reality must be sufficiently vast ( a multiverse) and that apparent complexity is due to the selection effect of our existence.

Further your argument is riddled with logical fallacies.

Strawman -- atheist's assertion that matter is eternal
More Strawman -- chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life

False Dichotomy -- If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are indeed the product of an intelligent God.

Maybe if you stopped with the dishonest logical fallacies people wouldn't give you a thumbs down.

Answer 4

There aren't any proofs here. You are stating large events that are difficult to understand and putting forward the false notion that it has to be either god or randomness, disputing the random explanation and claiming that therefore it must be god.

It is the god of the gaps theory you are expounding, and this is a theory both obvious in it's flaws and already satisfactorily debunked. On top of that you are trying to support the already flawed god of the gaps argument with the logical fallacy that the explanation must be one of the limited ones you have shown.

You get thumbs down because your postulates are unsupportable.

Incidentally, you could not have researched your 'proofs' very well (if at all) because the points you have brought up have already been brought up and answered many times. In future if you wish to present 'proofs', research them thoroughly and prepare your arguments convincingly. You will not be allowed to get away with anything less.

Answer 5

Five washed up arguments (cosmological argument, teleological argument, thermodynamic argument, energy, and misunderstanding of what is meant by the anthropic principle).

Four minutes of my life I'll never get back.

Three sentences until your first big whopper (strawman that atheists insist that this current universe has always existed, as if we don't know about the Big Bang).

Two sides to your false dilemma.

And a partridge in a pear tree.



I give thumbs down to answers that are blatantly incorrect. This sort of "logic" wouldn't pass my test.

Answer 6

Because you seem so convinced that you are answering the question logically when all you are doing is spewing a bunch of nonsensical BS.

What's the big deal with getting thumbs down anyway, I think it's funny when I do.

Answer 7

The thumbs-down come because when you reach a wall in your understanding of how something occurred, you revert to "It was God." We are not content to settle for a lazy answer, or an answer that shows that we are content with remaining ignorant, and that's what "Goddidit" is. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there IS a God, or that some magical being made a decision to "create" the universe.

Answer 8

you give thumbs down to the ones you don't like and thumbs up to the ones that you like....and the good thing is that you dont have to give points for the thumbs

Answer 9

First of all, did you write that uninformed piece of carp? If it is not your original work, then you should properly attribute it.

Second, it is wrong. Throughout, it demonstrates a fundamental MISunderstanding of cosmology and physics. It casually crosses domains, comparing things that are unrelated. It would take more space that this long-winded mistake takes to explain every detail of why it is wrong.

That is why it gets the thumbs down. It is complete and utter carp.

Answer 10

Actually, the initial contadiction you make is generally not true.
There are very few people who still hold with a steady state theory of the universe.
Sorry.