A leap of faith
-
Think!
If you enjoy this, please share! Thinking is something that should be done by everyone and enjoyed.
Forward
For the better part of three decades I have been working on and off trying proving to myself whether we have a creator, or, that there is nothing that caused Universe to exist as the atheists claims to believe. Obtaining proof is extremely challenging, and this has taken me on a long journey of reading, thinking, thinking and reading. You see, I am an Philosopher. Philosophy in literal translation means "The Love of Wisdom".
"Why would anyone spend that much time on one question?" you may ask.
The reason for asking the question may seem obscure, but in reality it's very simple. Morality. You see, with a creator, we must think about morality and rules. With a creator we have right and wrong, and we have good and we have bad. Outside of the scope of this writing is whether or not we have potentially permanent consequences for our actions.
With an atheist belief, we have no morality to worry about. It's purely a matter of survival of the fittest. We take what we want ,and do what we want without consequences except for whether or not our position in society moves up or down. There is no right, no wrong, no good, and there is no bad. There is nothing beyond ourselves and our place in society, and where we wish to stand in society.
Since the answer to this question has obvious implications on how we live our lives, how we treat others, and how we view everything in the Universe it is extremely important. Yet many atheists will tell you that the question has no meaning, or that it's not relevant to science, or it's not relevant to how you live your life. Hopefully I have already given enough hint at reasons to be curious and see that those statements would be untrue if you believe in a creator.
I am not alone in seeking the answer to this question. In addition to a good percentage of the population that currently seeks the answer to this question, we have human history. This same question dates back to our earliest writings and the defining age of Philosophy. Socrates and Plato have numerous writings regarding both Morality and Creationism. Plato's "The Republic" is full of moral questions and dilemmas. Aristotle, Renee Descartes, and countless others have asked the same questions through our history. The debates may use different terminology and different examples but always get back to the same root question. Is there a creator?
Why do I want to teach this to anyone, and why do we care? The later question is probably the most common answer from an atheist when their belief becomes threatened. Also, currently, there is only one thought allowed in Public Schools and in Media. On Television shows, and in text books we are not teaching anyone to think about the question or the answer. Instead, people are paid to write papers on atheism and those are presented to the masses as factual. TV shows parade people in front of the screen that claim there is no God, and no need for a God. The creationist arguments are ignored, and in some cases have become outright illegal (Go ahead and try to lecture in a Public school for creationism, yet you can easily get gigs arguing atheism). Our society and government is legally telling people we live in a Godless Universe, and not giving any room for thought. Many that publicly question the belief in atheism are censored, ridiculed, and/or punished through legal means.
The biggest way atheism is being pushed is through a simple fallacy. I'm sure you will recognize this statement coming from thousands of people being paid to push atheism. "I don't need your silly superstition to have a Universe". The fallacy is rather simple, and a very old trick from Sophistry to propagate something untrue or not proven as factual. The statement is in essence that there is "no God". The rest of the sentence is a trick so that you are belittled in to not thinking about the answer for yourself. It also serves to ridicule anyone that thinks about the answer, and psychologically trains you to ridicule anyone thinking differently. It is subtle, yet effective brain washing. For this reason, Socrates and Plato had open despise for the Sophists. Yes, even thousands of years ago we knew how to brain wash people. We also had people thousands of years ago that were openly against this brain washing.
There is another common argument atheists use, which is reducto ad absurdum (argument from the absurd fallacy). This comes in the form of "If I tell you that I believe in pink unicorns or a flying spaghetti monster you can't prove me wrong!". On the surface, that is a true statement because we could not prove them wrong. On the other side, it distorts the actual question. The actual question is "Does the Universe require a Creator?"
Atheism is a belief just like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam or any other Religion. What most atheists don't realize is that they evangelize atheism with the same conviction the strongest evangelists from a named Religion do. They use similar fallacy arguments instead of tackling the question.
Goals
- What I will not be trying to do in this writing:
The purpose of this writing is not to convert you to any Religion. I won't be telling you my faith in a Religion is right and yours is wrong. You see, if you don't believe in a creator that debate becomes immediately moot. In fact, I will go so far as to say I will not even tell you that an atheist is wrong. I will show very plainly that with a high degree of probability they are wrong, but absolute proof is extremely difficult to obtain and most likely impossible. Why? For the same reason we can't prove many things. We have limited ability to observe and measure the Universe. We can only measure and be sure of what we can use tools on, the rest becomes speculation. We can however observe and measure enough of the Universe to make some rather good speculation. Most importantly, we can only measure the Universe from after it's inception, not the time of or before it's inception.
- What I will be doing in this writing:
I will be trying to show you that the belief in Atheism is lacking in reasonable logic. I will also present some of the hypothesis currently being taught as proof that we live in a godless Universe. I will present a mental exercise, so that you can begin to think about the answer for yourself. If you can think about the answer for yourself ,you will eventually come to your own conclusions instead of being tricked or forced into a belief. Lastly, I will ask a few questions and provide a bit of feed back and commentary.
The ultimate goal of this writing is to get you to think for yourself and to ask questions, from which you should be asking others to think and ask questions. If I do my job, you should be questioning why our Government and Public schools are only teaching a single belief, and asking your friends, relatives and neighbors to do the same.
Think! Share! Debate! Discuss! It's healthy, and good for you!
Note to Believers and Atheists
In order to understand this writing, you need to lose your preconceived notions of what a creator is. Yes, that's correct. In order to try and prove creation, we must not look at anything taught in schools or a Religion. For our proof there are no scrolls needed, no books needed, and no narratives to be presented, and very little physical sciences are required. The question itself needs to be broken down to very simple terms, and becomes a logic puzzle.
The ability to drop preconceived notions is very difficult. In fact, in my case it took many years. Most of us have an image that pops in to our minds when we hear the term "Creator". It may be an elderly person with a beard, or a young man on a cross, or a large man sitting cross legged, or perhaps even a half man half bull, or a golden cow. This writing requires no such imagery, and in fact often those images are used by the atheists to argue that a belief in a creator is wrong. What ever comes to mind when someone says "Creator", for the time being, put those thoughts completely aside.
Recently, I had an atheist trying to argue against creationism from the vantage point that "I don't need some bully from the sky to believe in the big bang." You see, he had a very strong preconceived notion of what a creator was. As long as you think something like this, you will fail to see the question. You may have a belief, but that belief will override any logic. He was brain washed by the fallacy I previously demonstrated (reducto ad absurdum).
The same is true for someone that would claim "Because the Bible said so!". You have a belief, that is for sure. But how do you try to show someone that does not believe the Bible to be correct? While you may get lucky on occasion and get someone to believe based only on your belief, most of the time you will be preaching to deaf ears. What if you could logically prove that there is a creator without the Bible?
Note to Atheists and Believers
Now, as I ask people of faith to drop their preconceived notions I will also ask the atheists to drop their preconceived notions. In the past several years, there has been an increasing trend of trying to muddy the argument with Creationists with terms like "multi-verse" and "parallel negative universe". While great science fiction material, they do not add anything to the question or answer, but rather attempt to obscure them both. We must break things down in to very simple terms, and we will get to this in the great experiment shortly.
Hypothesis commonly used as alleged proof for Atheism:
- Evolution of the Universe
There are many hypothetical scenarios used, and often flaunted as "fact" by atheists, which are not factual and often irrational. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are the first two items to discuss. There is no proof that either exist, and most Scientists can not even agree on how to define them or what their properties would be. Some claim that the Universe is made up of as much as 90% dark matter and dark energy. Why would a Scientist claim that the 90% of the Universe is made up of invisible matter and energy? The only way we can claim working models for "The Big Bang" is by adding all of this invisible stuff. At least as important, and this is one to think very long and hard about - atheism requires this.
Now, I want you to think for a moment. Most atheists call people that believe in a Creator crazy since they believe in this entity that we can not see or detect with scientific tools. Yet they themselves are willing to claim a belief that most, yes most, of our Universe is made up of this invisible stuff that we have never seen and can not assign measurable properties to. In our expeditions to the Moon, years of microscopic review, years of telescopic review, and dozens of unmanned missions all over our Solar system we have never been able to detect this dark matter or dark energy. Yet theoretical physicists are teaching it as if it were fact.
One would think that the Scientific methods they claim to believe in would have a different result: Lets work on the theory and teach people that it's "Theory" because something is broken.
The invisible stuff does not change the question or answer. Even if there was proof positive that these things existed, we would need to know why it was here just like the rest of the Universe.
- Aging the Universe:
This one is a bit more difficult, since I think it should be obvious to most people that there is such a thing as evolution at least as a generic term. What do you mean "Generic Evolution"? We, like every object in the Universe, are moving and made of stuff. Our planet could collide with another planet, which may either make a new larger planet or crumble both to bits. Claiming there is no evolution, when evolution is used in this way, would be like claiming that there is no such thing as erosion. The impact of two massive objects could result in a new Star. We have not seen anything like this and it's not probable, but it is possible if the objects were large enough and had enough energy to kick start a fusion process. We know and can prove that under certain conditions Hydrogen atoms bond with Oxygen atoms creating water molecules.
Evolution (as in erosion) aside, scientists claim to know the age of the Universe. This has grown from a few hundred thousand years a bit more than a century ago, to a couple billion years in the 1950s, to few billion years in the 1970s to more recently a staggering 17 billion years old. The claim is made using the big bang models.
That is correct ladies and gentlemen! The same models that can require upwards of 90% invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy are being used to age the Universe, and this is being taught as fact. I hope you see an obvious problem in the logic when it's claimed that "We know how old the Universe is! Yeah yeah, we know that 90% of our model is made up, but we can use it to tell for sure how old everything is." is not rational.
The correct answer, and what we should be teaching, is that we don't have any idea how old the Universe is. What we can say as fact is: "It looks like everything is moving". We could also state factually "It looks like when stuff bumps around in space stuff happens." We could even go a bit further and say "It's at least as old as humans are, so it's been around for at least a little while.".
The "Age of the Universe" is another argument often used as proof that atheists are right and believers in creation are wrong.
- Evolution of Species Theory
Many scientists will point at genetic mutations and say "See, evolution is 100% real". There is a problem however, which is that we have yet to see any natural mutations of species in to other species. We do see variations of species. We have short dogs, tall dogs, muscular dogs, long hair, short hair, different jaw sizes, etc.. We know that if we breed a long haired dog with a short haired dog, we can eventually get medium haired dogs. We have also seen bad mutations where a dog may have an extra ear, or be missing a foot.
We also know that a cat could not mate with a dog and produce offspring. Their genetic make up is too different to create anything even if you forced mating. We have never seen a species become anything other than the same species. A bird may grow a slightly different beak in order to support their diet, but this does not make it a new species. It makes it the same bird with a different beak. (There is a claim of a new species, but compare the two birds they say mutated to a new species. The difference is only in their beaks. Height, weight, coloring, eyes, feather count, etc.. are nearly identical.)
Scientists have even gone so far as to create mixed species in a laboratory. These experiments are usually failures, and the mutant's usually die very shortly after being created. Of course they have not been able to make a Bananake (half banana, half snake) or even a Crawfox (Half crawfish half fox). That is a bit of reducto ad absurdum of my own. What we make must be made up of similar enough genetics that the genes can replicate properly, often we have to add or remove segments to make this work.
The point here is that the evolution of species requires a lot of speculation. We have no proof, so any argument against creation based on evolution is based on a false premise. In other words, it's wrong to say it's factual. Is it possible? Sure it is. It it probable? I believe that it is probable. Possible and Probable do not mean the same thing as "proven" which most atheists will claim.
- Fossil Aging
Fossil aging in various methods is often cited as the single most important indicator that creation is wrong.
The problem with the argument is that we have numerous cases where dating has been proven to be incorrect. Live animals have been dated to hundreds of thousands of years old, and things with known dates have been dated to much older than they are.
Now, to keep things in a rational realm of thought I will try to be clear. I'm not stating that the method is always wrong. One day, we may have a fool proof method of determining the age of everything. Since we know the methods we currently have don't always work, we can not say that it's fact. Is it possible that the dating is correct? I never rule out possibilities as long as they are based on logical assumptions.
Saying "This thing is so old it's pressed in to rock" says quite a bit as to it's age. At the same time, since our scientific method has dated 1 year old penguins to between 1,000 and 1,300 years old, we know our method has some problems. Living Muscles have been dated to over a hundred thousand years old.
Something rather interesting happened when dating live subjects. Instead of stating the obvious "Well, we have some problems so lets work on our method" many atheists claimed that the logic points to a rounding error of 1,000-3,000 years in carbon dating. As with the Big Bang models, this thought is not rational. Instead of teaching that there are problems, carbon dating is treated as fact by nearly all scientists that get published. Even though there are numerous other methods of dating, we generally only hear about carbon dating.
Get ready
Now, I'm hoping that everyone by this point will at least try to keep preconceived notions of creation out of their head. I also hope you realize that I have some knowledge to back my position. Does that make me right? No it does not make me right, but it should add some credibility to my writing. So, without further delay...
The Great Creation Experiment
To make our experiment, we must set up a hypothetical scenario. This is usually the point where an atheist yells "Hey, if you can't build the experiment physically and I can't see it then it must be false!". To which I have a very simple response. Please build me a working model of "The Big Bang", or it's false. How about "Build me a working model for a Black Hole"? You can't do either, so we set up simulations and use logic to figure out what's going on.
So you know, someone could easily build this experiment mathematically and in simulation software, which is how we handle complex issues when we can't build working physical models.
- The 3 Boxes
Our experiment requires 3 boxes. Size, shape, and wall thickness really don't matter but for posterity lets assign them some properties. The inner dimension is a 1 cubic foot of open space, and the outer walls of the box are 10 feet thick. The thickness is required to handle our hypothetical scenario. We need to assume that the boxes can shield the center from all forms of matter and energy. That's correct. No magnetism can penetrate our box, no heat, no light, and not even a neutrino can pass through the box (a Scientist may find humor in that last one). We also need to somehow remove all space from the box, space as in the Vacuum we know exists outside of our planet. Our boxes are devoid of everything we can't control.
We need to make 2 more assumptions to get our experiment going. First, lets assume time was not a factor. Lastly lets assume that we could somehow place materials inside the boxes without adding any energy or materials we did not desire. What goes in to boxes is all they contain.
- Box 1
Box 1 we are going to leave empty. The inner cube is going to be set to absolute zero temperature. 0K for those that prefer Kelvin. A completely empty box devoid of everything including space.
- Box 2
For box 2, like box 1 we are going to set the inner cube to 0K or absolute zero. Inside that box, we are going to place 10 atoms of each stable element. 10 Carbon atoms, 10 Iron atoms, 10 Sodium, etc... The order and arrangement does not matter. We are at 0K so there would be no atomic or sub-atomic movement. Remember, we have no space here, just the atoms.
- Box 3
Like Box 2, we are going to place 10 of each stable element. But in this box, we are going to set the internal temperature to 1C. So we will have some energy (heat) and movement at the atomic and sub-atomic level. But, remember we have no space here. There is no vacuum full of quantum energy and particles to interfere with our atoms.
Now, let all of the boxes sit for longer than the Universe has been here and wait.. lets say 1 trillion years.
What do we have when we open each of the boxes? I'm going to go in reverse order here very intentionally, so stay with me.
- Results
In box 3, we would have some changes to our original components. Sodium may have merged with Chlorine so we may find a molecule of Salt forming. Our Hydrogen may have mixed with Oxygen to begin forming a water molecule. What ever the result may be in the end, we can rest assured that our atomic count did not change. You see, we had no ability to add materials so anything inside the box would have to be made from our original 10 ea. elements. Our boxes temperature would have dropped also, since energy is required to form molecules. Our box may be at 0K like the other two boxes, and we are left with a final merging of atoms frozen for all eternity.
In box 2, we would have our 10 of each atom exactly where we left them when we started. There was no energy, and no ability to add materials. Nothing would have happened in our hypothetical trillion years.
For Box 1, we would still have nothing. The box would be empty.
Our experiment shows what Physical Sciences have been showing for as long as we have been performing "Science". Nothing, can't create something. We know absolutely that it takes both matter and energy to have reactions and make something new.
Box 1 and Box 2 are exactly the reasons why atheism is not logical. Box 3 also hints at a really big problem with the logic of atheism. While we may be able to get new formations from what was in Box 3 to start with, we don't find anything more than what we started with. Eventually, we will run out of energy, but we will always end up with the same number of atoms.
No matter how many times you run the simulation, the results will come out exactly the same. Never will you end up with a whole new Universe springing from Box 1, Box 2, or Box 3.
An atheist would like you to believe that Box 1, Box 2, and Box 3 can all pop up Universes just like ours full of materials, energy, and even life. This is what they are teaching your children in school, and this is what they are showing everyone on TV and in other forms of media.
Think about this for a minute. If nothing was required for the Universe, then we should have been ripped apart by other Universes springing up within our Universe. Universes would be springing up all over ourUniverse, it would be never ending destruction and creation of a cataclysmic nature. What we see observing the Universe is very very different. If you want a visual of the destruction this would cause, define 2 adjacent and parallel planes in a 3D OpenGL CAD program (many graphics drivers will not allow, or can auto-correct, perceived misplaced geometry). Place a point on a plane with on location on the 2nd point in the 2nd plane, to invert the position.
- But.. the Big Bang
Some Atheists will go a bit further, and claim that there was a big giant ball of mass spinning at an incredibly fast rate which exploded. This of course does not solve the puzzle of "Who put the mass there and why was it spinning." Yet this is one of the answers an atheist will give you, and they will refuse to debate the obvious question of "What put it there and what made it move?". Usually, this comes in the form of ridicule.
- But.. the Multi-verse
A multi-verse simply throws more material on top of the question of "Who put the mass there and why was it spinning." Now we change the question to "Who put the masses there and why were they spinning"? I answered the question already above with "No matter how many times you run the simulation, the results will come out exactly the same." Nothing, can not make something. A hundred Nothings can not make a hundred somethings. An infinite amount of nothings can not make an infinite amount of somethings. The logic never changes.
-Expanding Vacuum/Particles in a Vacuum Quantum Theory
There has been some marvelous work showing that a vacuum actually contains particles that spring in and out of existence. It is speculated that eventually matter and energy could form from those particles, and space would begin to expand. As space expands, more and more matter and energy would begin to fill in the space.
Interestingly, the theory would discount the Big Bang theories and render it useless. There is no need for a Big Bang with this theory. Hopefully I don't have to reiterate that we still have a problem with that theory, which is "what caused the initial vacuum to exist? What put all the laws of physics in the vacuum, what put the quantum particles and energy in the vacuum?". All of those questions still exist, just like they do with the Big Bang.
Something had to start all of these processes moving, good theory or bad. This is where we need a "Creator" to step in and start the motor.
Closing and Questions
If you really stop and look at logic, there is no logic to back the atheists claim. If you are now as I hope thinking, "Hey, maybe there is something to this creator idea" then share your thoughts with people and ask questions. Just stay open minded when you do, and don't be offended by the various answers you will get. You have gotten through a very basic Philosophy lesson, but Theology is a different subject.
Why are we not taught to think about the answer for ourselves? The answer to this is obvious, and the question is rather rhetorical in nature. This is the question you should be asking your schools and political officials passing laws guaranteeing your children learn atheism while banning creationism.
Why are certain political movements trying to ban all Religion except for Atheism? Certainly the easiest answer to this comes from Adolf Hitler, Stalin, and numerous other dictators. Control the Media and Education systems, and you control the people. Also something a bit more theological comes to mind. If there are no ultimate consequences to their actions who can claim that they did something wrong? Do you really want a leader with no morality? Lastly, for those that believe in a creator and Theology: Evil does not have to make you evil to win, they just need to make you believe that there is no Creator and make you doubt your own faith.
Is it harmful to believe in a Creator? This is kind of a comical, yet sad question I am often presented with by many atheists. Atheist often try and claim that "Belief in a creator harms everyone". Generally this is followed by "Look at the Crusades, and Religious wars and Religious revolutions.". My answer to this is that they are confusing being human with belief in a creator and choosing to ignore facts. In recorded history far more people have been killed by godless people than those that have a belief. If you doubt that, I'll simply point you to Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. From there you can go look up the rest of the dictators and look at their body counts. Since an Atheist will then usually say "Well, those guys are recent.". I'll tell you then to also look further to the Mongols and other Barbarian tribes that believed in no creator, or believed that their leaders were gods. It's a fallacy to believe that Religion is the reason people are bad, when we have way to many bad people that were not Religious for that to be a logical truth.
If you want a deeper philosophical answer to that question, I can point you to something called Pascal's Wager.
It is true that humans by nature can be extremely unpleasant, but this becomes more true when the person believes there are no consequences to their actions or they believe themselves to be gods.
Who's belief do we teach? This is another question I get when debating atheists. This one is actually a very good question but easily answered. We don't have to teach any specific belief, but rather we teach the art of thinking. From there, if a person chooses to learn a specific faith let them! If you don't believe in a creator will you care about a school of Theology? If you are never taught to think about it for yourself why would you want to look? On the other hand, if you believe and can think for yourself I'm sure you will find answers to your questions. I personally won't try and answer that for you.
As a thinker it is my honest and sincere hope that you go search for information yourself. Learn Philosophy and the art of Rhetoric, learn Logic and Ethics. Do so with an open mind, and don't be fooled by people that hide things from you or use fallacy to prevent you from learning. Question everything someone tries to teach you, find fallacy and debate it properly!
Having wisdom is not just knowing a piece of information, it is the understanding that comes with the information such as where it came from and what you can do with the information. It is the difference between being able to recognize the names of numbers by picture and being able to work with those numbers to perform addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.
