The first post in this series introduced the theme and possible positions regarding the existence of God. The second post then determined what would be considered as acceptable scientific evidence. Through that process we discovered that to scientifically prove God’s existence one cannot necessarily give positive evidence because there must always exist the possibility of being proved incorrect. In other words, scientific proof is actually never 100% sure. Rather than fall into the trap of giving an endless list of evidence in support of the existence of God, it is more prudent to take up the task of looking at those things which would demonstrate that God could not exist. The first of these is the universe.

Turning to the universe, the first question to answer is whether or not the universe has always existed or if it had a beginning? There is no middle ground because the universe exists, so it either had a beginning or it does not have a beginning. The atheists does not typically view the universe as coming from nothing but that it is self-evident and eternally exists. The theists argues this is not possible, as it would create an infinite regress of causalities. Dawkins argues in his book, The God Delusion, that invoking God to terminate an infinite regress is “at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading.” The problem is not Dawkins’ statement but his explanation of why it is the case that it is unhelpful or misleading. He explains if one were to cut gold into its smallest possible pieces, then one could only slice it to the atomic level. Anything smaller than this and it ceases to be gold. The atom, therefore, acts as a “natural terminator to the Crumboblious Cutlets type of regress.” Dawkins’ argument is flawed however, because the regress that he cites does not explain an infinite regress. Furthermore, it deals with division of matter and not causal events so his explanation is not sufficient to do away with the need for a first cause, and he offers no explanation of how it is possible to have an infinite regress of causalities.

Infinities are not a problem when one speaks of them as possibilities or potentials only. The problem arises from following an actual infinity to its logical conclusion. Without a beginning, then there must necessarily exist an actual infinite number of events in the past. Problems abound when one begins to apply this with reason to reality.

One popular example is known as Hilbert’s Hotel. Suppose that there exists a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and all of the rooms are full. Whenever a new guest arrives and requests a room, the desk clerk happily supplies a room because there are an infinite number of rooms. Now after the guest checks in, there are no more people in the rooms than before he checked in the hotel—there are still an infinite number. Assume that all of the guests in the odd numbered rooms decide to check out and leave the hotel. After they all leave, there will still be an infinite number of rooms people in those rooms. One asks, “How can that be when half of them checked out?” Because there still exists the same number of rooms and people—that is an infinite number of people and rooms.

Another example is that of the eternal counter. Imagine there is a person who counts from infinity past to infinity future, starting in the past. He counts each individual day as a single integer. Now if one were to go to him today and he reached zero, the most likely question that person would ask is “Why did the counter reach zero today? Why not yesterday? Why not tomorrow?” The answer is because for an actual infinite number of past events to exist there has to equally be an infinite number of possible future events, so the counter always reaches zero.

Therefore, at any given point in time, the counter will reach zero. Even if one goes tomorrow, the next day, or in a hundred years, the counter will reach zero. Why is this? It is because of the nature of infinity and not because of the amount of time given to the counter. These absurdities demonstrate the problems associated with an eternal universe.

Science provides evidence that the universe had a beginning and it is, therefore, not eternal. The first source of evidence that the universe had a beginning was in 1929 when Hubble discovered redshifting in the light from other galaxies, which indicated that the universe is expanding. The natural inference was then made that if the universe is expanding, it was together at some point. This gave way to the theory commonly known as the Big Bang, which is the theory that the universe exploded from an extremely dense volume.

Another popular alternative is that the universe is eternally oscillating, that it goes through a cyclical series of explosion, expansion, contraction, explosion, etc. The second law of thermodynamics makes this alternative unreasonable because it explains things in a system move toward disorder or entropy rather than order. Some will counter that the second law does not apply to the universe, as it is not a closed system. However, this is not the case because the universe consists of all energy and so it is not receiving energy from any external source and energy cannot be created. An external source or the creation of energy would be necessary for an oscillating universe. Another problem arises if by chance the universe did collapse, it would not expand once again due to the extreme gravitational forces that it would have to overcome.

The beginning of the universe has posed somewhat of a problem to the atheist stance. Carl Sagan expressed it so succinctly it deserves quoting in full.

In the previous post, I discussed the possible stances regarding belief about the existence of God. The three possibilities were agnosticism, atheism, and theism. Agnosticism was ruled out as a truly viable option leaving only atheism (there is no God) and theism (there is a God) as tenable positions on the existence of God. That led us to the next obvious question, is the evidence in favor of God’s existence or is it the opposite?

Before one can answer whether there is sufficient supporting evidence or not, some details must be determined. For starters, who has the burden of proof concerning God’s existence, is it the atheist or the theist? In discussing this, it is important to first understand the nature of scientific proof. In order for evidence to be submitted as scientific proof, the one making the hypothesis moves forward under the assumption that the hypothesis is correct. Before a theory or hypothesis is deemed reasonably proven, a succession of tests or evidence that agrees with the hypothesis must be present. There must always exist, however, the possible falsification of the hypothesis by a subsequent test or evidence. Without the ability to disprove the hypothesis, it does not meet the criterion to be truly scientific, according to Karl Popper. When there is an absence of contradictory evidence or evidence that proves the hypothesis false, this validates the hypothesis as true since one could theoretically run an infinite number of confirming tests.

The theists argue there is much evidence to support the case for God’s existence. In court proceedings after the one making the claim has provided sufficient evidence in support of that claim, it is then left to the opposition to disprove the evidence and subsequently the claim. The theists have brought forth evidence to support the claim that God exists, and the burden of proof has, therefore, been shifted to the atheists.

I will now take up the case of the atheist rather than simply state or provide an endless supply of evidence that proves God’s existence; it is more convincing if the only available sources of falsification are shown to be without substance. Three sources of falsification of God’s existence are: the universe, evolution, and the resurrection of Jesus.

Concerning the universe, Victor Stenger wrote:



links to other posts in this series:

• Part 1: Three possibilities about God's existence
• Part 3: Is the universe eternal?
• Part 4: Does the evidence support evolution?
• Part 5: What about the resurrection?
• Part 6: Where does the evidence lead?

Links to other posts in this series:

• Part 2: What is acceptable evidence?
• Part 3: Is the universe eternal?
• Part 4: Does the evidence support evolution?
• Part 5: What about the resurrection?
• Part 6: Where does the evidence lead?

I was given the great honor of reviewing another book for the folks over at sbcIMPACT! The book I reviewed this time is entitled Sunday School in HD by Allan Taylor. It was an excellent book. I encourage everyone to look at my full review by clicking here or the image on the left.

I have known for some time that there was discussion and hope to bring in a branch of the Bethany Christian Services into Pensacola, Florida. Bethany is touted to be one of the largest adoption agencies, if not the largest, in the United States. The services that Bethany provides truly are amazing. Not only does Bethany deal extensively with adoptions, but they also provide post-adoptive services only to families as well as churches and birth families. They also offer free counseling to pregnant women needing answers about parenting, adoption, and abortion.

There is something that makes Bethany stand out to me though—they are not afraid to tackle the tough topics. They also deal in embryo adoption and even have an infertility ministry to assist couples in working through their options. I wrote a post back in March entitled “Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Where will this road lead us?” In that I post I addressed a question I was asked. It was one of the questions that Bethany is talking about and doing their best to come to a biblical conclusion about. I know this because the man who asked me serves on the panel/board/committee (not exactly sure what he serves on, but I know he was brought on for his expertise) dealing with those tough questions.

I am excited to see this ministry coming into Pensacola. I am even more excited that they are not afraid to deal with the “hot-button” issues in our culture in order to continue carrying out their mission of “manifest[ing] the love and compassion of Jesus Christ by protecting and enhancing the lives of children and families through quality social services.”