Suppose there are two guys, let's call them
Tom and Joe, who walk into a room and find it empty, except there is a painting
of the Eiffel Tower hanging on the wall. Tom says, "I wonder who painted
that." Joe replies, "No one painted it." Tom asks, "How can you say that?
Someone must have painted it." To which Joe replies, "I don't see an artist
in the room. I've never personally met the one who painted it. I have never
seen, heard, or touched the one who painted it. Therefore, no one must have
painted it."
Ben, I think your approach to the question of a creator for the universe
is much like Joe's approach to the question of who painted the picture of
the Eiffel Tower. You say that because you have never seen any evidence for
the creator of the universe, the universe must not have a creator. But I
would say that, if the universe began to exist, then it had some sort of
creator. And like the identity of the artist, we can learn a lot about whatever
created the universe from the evidence within the universe itself.
Like with the question of who made the painting of the Eiffel Tower, we could
determine much about the artist's identity from the painting, even if he
didn't sign his name at the bottom. We could guess that the artist was a
good or bad painter, depending on the picture's quality. We could guess that
the artist had probably been to France, and perhaps was French, or at the
very least had seen a picture of the Eiffel Tower. We could also certainly
assume that the artist was a human being as opposed to a cat or a zebra.
And since we are relatively certain that the universe began to exist at some
point, we can determine much about the force that created it from the universe
itself, even if we cannot see, hear, or touch this force. We can certainly
determine that the force, if it created nature, is not a natural force itself.
And since time is dependent on nature, we can determine that the force is
a timeless one. Since there is much order within the natural laws, order
which made life not only possible but apparently inevitable, we can determine
that the force is intelligent and had a purpose.
You say that since God cannot be experienced using the five senses, God must
not exist. I will assume you believe that there are many other planets outside
of our solar system, but have you ever experienced these planets using your
five senses? No? Then does that mean that you believe no planets exist outside
our solar system? In this universe, there is much that exists that you have
not experienced using your five senses. You say, "A transcendent God is
by definition outside of all human universe, understanding, knowledge, and
experience. We literally have no way of figuring out what this sort of creature
is." That would be true if humans are purely material creatures, but
we're not. It will perhaps be impossible for me to convince you of this,
but we have spirits as well. And God, being a spiritual being, speaks to
the spiritual part of us. The question is whether or not we're willing to
listen. If one chooses to focus completely on the material part of himself,
and ignore the spiritual part, then one is not only denying God, but a major
part of himself.
You say that even if one could prove there is a cause for the universe, one
could not prove that there is a God. I beg to differ. As I pointed out in
my opening argument, if something created the universe, that in itself would
tell us a lot about it. You say, 'There are many sorts of ideas of beings
that could have created the universe.' Whatever the being was, it would
have to have the qualities I outlined above, just as someone who made a painting
of the Eiffel Tower would have to have specific qualities. If someone is
going to claim that the creator of the universe is a natural being, or one
subject to time, or a non-creative force, then such a claim would be wrong
given the evidence at hand, just like if someone made the claim that the
painting of the Eiffel Tower was made by a cat, or someone who had never
seen even a picture of the Eiffel Tower.
You made the comment that the universe could have been created by blue fairies,
just as easily as it could have been created by God. I have very little
experience with blue fairies, so I don't know if they would fit the criteria
necessary to have been the creators of the universe. Are they natural or
supernatural beings? Are they timeless or not? Are they able to create matter
from nothing, or not? I would say that being 'blue' as we know it suggests
that they are natural beings, since the color blue exists only in the natural
realm. To suppose that blue fairies do fit the criteria for the creator of
the universe, and then to suppose that blue fairies DID create the universe,
is like assuming that the painter of the Eiffel Tower painting is named 'Bob'.
We could say it's possible, but we have no reason to suppose it's true. If
there was some evidence that the painter was named 'Bob', then it would be
logical to assume his name was 'Bob'. If we're supposing that the universe
had a creator, I could give you reasons to suppose that the God of the Bible
is this being. I have evidence, though you certainly have the right to refute
the evidence, just as one could refute the evidence that the painter's name
was 'Bob', if we had any.
Regarding the second law of Thermodynamics, I think you misunderstood how
I was applying it to what we were talking about. You say that there is no
order in our universe, but then also admit that we are a catalyst creating
disorder. How can we be creating disorder, if order doesn't exist? What I'm
saying, and science will back me up on this, that the universe itself is
moving away from order towards disorder. If order does not exist, then the
second law of Thermodynamics would be meaningless. If the universe always
existed (and you seem to agree that it did not always exist), then there
would not currently be an order-to-disorder progression occurring, since
the process would have been completed by now. And if the universe began to
exist at some point, then where did the order that we are moving away from,
come from? It takes a lot of order for life to exist and be sustained on
Earth. There are hundreds of natural laws working in unison to make sure
that we continue to exist. I agree that gravity is helping to keep the sun
together for the time being, but you will not find one scientist who will
disagree that eventually the sun will burn itself out, which means that the
sun is moving away from order towards disorder, despite the attempts by the
law of gravity to salvage it.
You say, "You also keep referring to the natural world and alluding to
a supernatural realm. And my central question to you is why do think this
supernatural realm exists? The scientific evidence to which you refer is
just not there." First off, we would not expect science to be able to
prove the existence of a supernatural realm, since science deals only with
the natural. As I believe I said earlier, to ask science to prove the existence
of a supernatural realm is like asking someone to prove the existence of
Bill Cosby using only mathematics. But if all that is natural began to exist,
then something which is not natural had to have created it.
And by the way, I was surprised that you said I don't believe that there
are atheists who have determined that there is no God due to having analyzed
the evidence and using reason, since I consider you to be a part of this
group, and practically said as much in my response to your opening argument.
If I considered you to be a part of the first group you mentioned, those
who simply don't want to believe in God, I would not be discussing this with
you. And also, you suggested that I believe in God because of the Bible.
Actually, I believed in God for many years before I even began looking at
the Bible. In fact, most of those who believe in God do not believe in the
Bible. Of the theists in the world, Jews and Christians make up less than
half.
Besides, I said from the beginning of this argument that I didn't want to
discuss whether the 'God of the Bible' is the God who created the universe,
since discussing this is probably pointless unless we suppose that God exists.
Let's deal with one subject at a time here. If you refuse to believe that
the universe had a creator, there will be no point in arguing whether the
God of the Bible is that creator.
I was struck by something you said at the very end of your letter, which
was "the desire to believe is very similar to the desire not to believe,
but neither has any merit when compared to the desire of truth." I completely
agree with you that our primary obligation is to the truth. If God does not
exist, we shouldn't believe that He does. If God does exist, we shouldn't
believe that He doesn't. Many years ago, when I was an atheist, I decided
that I really wanted to know whether or not God existed. I was comfortable
in my belief that He didn't exist, but wasn't comfortable with the idea that
maybe He did exist and I just didn't know it. I wanted to know the truth,
whichever it happened to be. And, well, to make a long story short, here
I am.
| Continue |