Why Atheism Fails: The Four Big Bangs

From Frank Pastore and Townhall.com.

“Their titles sound so confident:

• The Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism and Islam by Michel Onfray.

• God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens.

• Letter to a Christian Nation: A Challenge to Faith by Sam Harris.

and of course,

• The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Yet, like all atheists before them, they still can’t answer the fundamental questions of origins.

1) What is the origin of the universe? Why is there something rather than nothing? How do you get matter and energy from nothingness? How do you get a rock out of nothing?

2) What is the origin of life? How do you get life from non-life? How do you go from a rock to a tree?

3) What is the origin of mind? How does a living thing become a self-conscious being? How do you go from a tree, to an animal, to a human?

4) What is the origin of good and evil? How does an amoral being become morally aware?

Atheists respond to all these types of questions with essentially the same style answer. “We know God doesn’t exist. Therefore, since we’re here, though, it had to have happened this way. Thus, like the universe itself, life, mind, and mo-rality all ‘just popped’ into existence out of nothingness.”

I call them the Four Big Bangs:

1’) the Cosmological (the universe “just popped” into existence out of nothingness).

2’) the Biological (life “just popped” into existence out of a dead thing).

3’) the Psychological (mind “just popped” into existence out of a brain).

4’) and the Moral (morality “just popped” into existence out of amorality).

For their many obfuscating words, the authors still don’t improve much beyond the “just popped” thesis, if at all.”

To read more click here.

Advertisements

5 Responses to Why Atheism Fails: The Four Big Bangs

  1. Gimly says:

    Are you christian, muslim, hindu, budhist, taoist, and which sect among these are you a part of? Prove why your belief is better than any of the former and then I’ll discuss atheism with you.

  2. Roger says:

    This is so easy to respond to.
    1) The Cosmological. Why is it the atheists job to prove how the universe came into being? Science has proved the Big Bang itself—if you are current with your astrophysics—and is working to learn more. In the meantime, the question is unresolved, just like the cure for some cancers. Atheists will will wait for the answers, and many are scientists working on the answers. But, in the meantime, were not going to posit such a remote possibility as an unproven God. It’s religion that insists on coming up with wild ideas to explain what we do not yet know.
    2) The Biological. The science surrounding the Big Bang has discovered how the elements required for life were created. Biological science has proven that if the right elements and molecules are available under the right conditions, basic proteins will form, and proteins are the basic building blocks of life. How long will it be until the rest of the puzzle is solved? Atheists don’t know, and its not our job to come up with the answers. But again, this is no reason to posit a God.
    3) The Psychological. Though I have not read the literature recently, a theory of consciousness has been advanced and tested with success by Noble Laureate George Wald and others in 1994. I expect that there have been advances since then. No God needed here either.
    4) The Morality. This is self-evident. Man has learned that living together requires mutual respect and concern. To assume that man must have the threat of punishment or the promise of reward to act morally is just plain absurd. Several religions have developed moral codes without reference to a God. Many philosophers, going back to 500 years before Christ discussed right action, and developed moral codes. Atheists brought up in loving and nurturing homes develop strong morals without God beliefs. Maybe if some religions did not constantly focus on Man, The Sinner, their believers would think better of themselves. In any case, religious belief is dominate throughout the world, and I do not see rampant morality breaking out because of it.
    Atheism means “without God beliefs.” If you want to make the philosophical argument that the existence God cannot be disproved, you would be right, but you would be straining at nats. There may be a tea cup orbiting Neptune, too, but it’s no reason to send up a tea service. It’s the multiplicity of contradictory, totally without evidence, and absurd religious beliefs that are religions problem, not atheists; and religions chief enemy is education.

  3. Chris says:

    Thank you for your comments.

    1) The Cosmological. Scientists now believe the Big Bang to be the theory for how the universe came into existence. Scientists have not come up with any explanation as to what caused the Big Bang. We know that something cannot come from nothing. Previously, scientists thought the earth was eternal (“steady state model”), which fit nicely with scientists since most of them are presupposed to atheism/naturalism and this did not point to the Creation story in the Bible. As stated we now know the earth coming into existence at a specific point in time and that does point to the Creation story in the Bible. This does not prove God exists but it does point to the Creation story in the Bible as possible. I think you would agree that most scientists are presupposed to atheism/naturalism so it is their desire to try to find ways to prove that God does not exist.
    2) The Biological. Your statement is false. Scientists have not come up with how proteins formed from nothing thus forming life. Scientists do not know how life began.
    3) The Psychological. Another false statement. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. Just as you basically stated. You basically said “there is some article I haven’t read but it proves a theory of consciousness which disproves God exists”. Please provide sound logic and backup to your statements.
    4) The Morality.
    I would argue this point using the argument from the great philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig.

    1) If God does not exist than objective moral values and duties do not exist.
    2) But, objective moral values and duties do exist.
    3) Therefore, God exists.

    Thanks for the dialogue.

    Chris

  4. Chad says:

    Chris,

    Awhile back I posted my thoughts on the Four Big Bangs in my blog. I welcome any comments or criticisms you may have:

    http://chadmacspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/05/four-big-bangs-wtf.html

    I’m not going to repeat any points I make in my blog here, but I did want to comment on a couple of your points.

    I do not necessarily agree with you when you say that “…most scientists are presupposed to atheism/naturalism so it is their desire to try to find ways to prove that God does not exist.” The very nature of the scientific method prohibits proving that a particular hypothesis is absolutely true. Instead, we investigate falsifiable hypotheses to see if the evidence and experiments prove them wrong. So, the goal is not to “prove” anything but rather to refine current theories by finding evidence that either supports these theories or shows that competing theories are incorrect/incomplete. If that evidence leads to a purely naturalist worldview that rejects the notion of God, then so be it….. the rejection of God is simply a byproduct of scientific inquiry and not the goal of research.

    Also, I could easily turn your statement around to read: “…most religious people are presupposed to theism/supernaturalism so it is their desire to try to find ways to prove that God does exist.” So, even if I agreed with your statement, the exact same point could be made against religious viewpoints.

    As for Dr. Craig’s argument about morality, I believe that the whole thing is rather circular since the first premise presupposes the third in that it assumes that moral values and duties cannot exist without God. Also, in light of the scientific evidence, his first premise is simply not correct. Research into biological and cultural evolution has shown that moral behaviour is possible without deference to God. For more information you can check out the following post on Kin Selection and Reciprocal Altruism. Also, as I mention in my blog entry, a purely mind-based view of self-consciousness leads nicely to a source for moral edicts such as the Golden Rule.

    Cheers,
    Chad

  5. Chad says:

    Chris,

    I do not necessarily agree with you when you say that “…most scientists are presupposed to atheism/naturalism so it is their desire to try to find ways to prove that God does not exist.” The very nature of the scientific method prohibits proving that a particular hypothesis is absolutely true. Instead, we investigate falsifiable hypotheses to see if the evidence and experiments prove them wrong. So, the goal is not to “prove” anything but rather to refine current theories by finding evidence that either supports these theories or shows that competing theories are incorrect/incomplete. If that evidence leads to a purely naturalistic worldview that rejects the notion of God, then so be it… the rejection of God is simply a byproduct of scientific inquiry and not the goal of such research.

    Also, I could easily turn your statement around to read: “…most religious people are presupposed to theism/supernaturalism so it is their desire to try to find ways to prove that God does exist.” So, even if I agreed with your statement, the exact same point could be made against religious viewpoints.

    As for Dr. Craig’s argument about morality, I believe that the whole thing is rather circular since the first premise presupposes the third in that it assumes that moral values and duties cannot exist without God. Also, in light of the scientific evidence, his first premise is simply not correct. Research into biological and cultural evolution has shown that moral behaviour is possible without deference to God. For more information you can read about the concepts of Kin Selection and Reciprocal Altruism.

    Cheers,
    Chad

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: