Did you know that God has been proven not to exist?
It was on the eve of the nineteenth century that renowned scientist Pierre-Simon Laplace met with Napoleon to discuss his research. On review of Laplace’s work, Napoleon remarked that there was no mention of the Creator. Laplace famously replied, “I have no need of that hypothesis.”
Startled? You should be! That this would be taken in any way as an argument against the existence of God is asinine. We may as well argue that there is no need to talk about an artist in regard to a painting, because the brush is explanation enough.
In his book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking says, “spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.” His statement almost sounds like an explanation, much as Laplace’s comment. But it is clear that calling the existence of the universe “spontaneous” is no explanation at all. Rather it is the absence of all reason; ironic for such a brilliant scientist.
Likewise, a new book called A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins, argues that even the nothingness of space has weight and mass. They also describe a process by which particles spontaneously appear from literal nothingness. “Oo!” they say, “here is evidence that God did not create, but it randomly appeared.” Sorry, guys, but that is not a reasonable or logical conclusion to make; in fact it is no conclusion at all. It is simply a sophisticated way of saying, “Duh, we don’t know.”
No, what Laplace said, whether he meant to or not, is that he does not need to give a supernatural explanation to fill in the proverbial “gaps” of his research. He found a logical and natural process.
Logical and natural does not mean that God is not involved. Somehow somewhere someone decided that God only could do the supernatural, when in fact, the Bible teaches that God is intimately involved in all natural processes as well, essentially writing all the laws of the physical universe.
God does not only stand in the gaps. He is all in all. The gospel of John, Colossians, and Romans all teach that creation, all of it, was created for him, by him, through him, to give him all glory and honor.
A special note to my readers: my break for the last four months has given me time to rest, recharge, and refocus my purpose in writing this blog. Thanks for hanging with me. What better way to start back in with a post on something from nothing?
As I picked up The God Delusion a few years ago, I have to say I was intimated. Richard Dawkins is well-known and well-established as not only an atheist and intellectual, but he is also a sort of crusader for the cause of New Atheism. While I do not doubt his intellect, his arguments against there being a God (we can’t explain Him, we can’t ascertain His origin, we can’t locate Him) and against religion in general (all religion leads to violence) are laughable at best.
In extremely accessible language, Alister McGrath finds these and other gaping holes in the New Atheist rhetoric. These are not your typical atheists. While classic atheism simply argued against any sort of “higher power” and practiced religious tolerance, often even embracing it for its propagation of morality and community, the New Atheists see religion as only leading us off a cliff.
Several years ago (not telling how many) I was at a hotel at the end of youth convention, awaiting our leaders to check out and the bus to arrive to whisk us back home. Since the convention was over there were so many people in the lobby that there were no places to sit. So I decided to lean against the glass wall at the front of the hotel for a good vantage point.
Suddenly I felt a full body WHACK! Startled I looked around and saw no one and nothing that could have done the damage. In fact there was no one even close. I thought nothing of it and continued to wait.
“Science is fact. And since fact is superior to your holy book, then science is right and you are wrong.” How many times has that argument been foisted by people who cannot acknowledge their own biases? It would be way too simple to think that because it is based in fact, any time science seems to contradict faith then it must mean that faith is wrong. But the question is in the word “fact,” which has its own set of definitions and connotations that may intentionally mislead even its supporters.