Tag Archives: Christian Apologetics

Is the vastness of the universe evidence against God’s existence?

Physicist Hugh Ross writes about it in Salvo Magazine.

First a quick blurb about Hugh Ross:

Hugh Ross launched his career at age seven when he went to the library to find out why stars are hot. Physics and astronomy captured his curiosity and never let go. At age seventeen he became the youngest person ever to serve as director of observations for Vancouver’s Royal Astronomical Society. With the help of a provincial scholarship and a National Research Council (NRC) of Canada fellowship, he completed his undergraduate degree in physics (University of British Columbia) and graduate degrees in astronomy (University of Toronto). The NRC also sent him to the United States for postdoctoral studies. At Caltech he researched quasi-stellar objects, or “quasars,” some of the most distant and ancient objects in the universe.

Now back to the topic “Is the vastness of the universe incompatible with God’s existence?”

Here’s Ross’ introduction:

Scientists seem more difficult to please than the golden-haired girl of fairy-tale fame. While Goldilocks troubled herself over the just-right porridge, chair, and bed, astronomers appear preoccupied with the size of the universe.

In the days before telescopes, when an observer could count a few thousand stars in the night sky, many considered the universe too small and unimpressive to be the work of an almighty, all-knowing Creator. Only an infinite cosmos, they said, would befit an infinite deity. But then, others argued, an infinite cosmos might eliminate the need for a Creator.

Thanks to the Hubble space telescope, scientists now see that the universe contains roughly 200 billion large- and medium-sized galaxies and about a hundred times as many dwarf galaxies. The stars in those galaxies add up to about fifty billion trillion, and they comprise a mere one percent of the mass of the observable universe.

Because of the travel time of light, the universe humans can observe is really the universe of the past. What researchers know about the expansion and geometry of the universe informs us that the universe of today is at least several hundred times more enormous than the universe we can see. The universe is trillions of trillions of times larger and more spectacular than what the earliest astronomers presumed!

And yet, this new knowledge of the vastness of the universe has led to new complaints. In his book, God: The Failed Hypothesis, Victor Stenger says, “If God created the universe as a special place for humanity, he seems to have wasted an awfully large amount of space.” Stephen Hawking, in the best-selling science book of all time, A Brief History of Time, shares Stenger’s view: “Our solar system certainly is a prerequisite for our existence. . . . But there does not seem to be any need for all these other galaxies.” So now the universe is too big to befit the all-wise, all-powerful God of the Bible.

I like how he quotes an atheist physicist to get the challenge right. No sense in caricaturing the claim of your opponent.

I formalized Stenger’s argument like this:

  1. If all things in the universe are done the way that Victor Stenger likes them, then there is a God.
  2. It is not the case that all things in the universe were done the way Victor Stenger likes them.
  3. Therefore, there is no God.

I would deny premise 1, there, since there is no reason to believe that’s it’s true.

Anyway, let’s see what Hugh Ross says:

The hot big bang model (now firmly established by observations) tells us that at the moment of cosmic creation, the universe was infinitely or near-infinitely hot and compressed, and all the ordinary matter existed in the form of hydrogen. As the universe expanded, it cooled. The rate at which the universe expanded and cooled depended in large part on its mass—the greater the mass, the slower the expansion and cooling rate. The slower the expansion and cooling rate, the more time the universe would spend in the temperature range (13–150 million degrees Centigrade) at which nuclear fusion can occur.

Because of its mass, the universe spent about twenty seconds in the nuclear fusion temperature range when it was between three and four minutes old. As a result, 24.77 percent of the universe’s hydrogen (by mass) fused into helium. Thus, when stars began to form—about 380,000 years later—they started off composed of about 75 percent hydrogen, 25 percent helium, and trace amounts of deuterium, lithium, and beryllium.

In the nuclear furnaces of the stars themselves, more hydrogen fused into helium, and, in addition to the extra helium, all the rest of the elements that appear in the periodic table were synthesized (created). The capacity of stellar nuclear furnaces to produce an abundance of elements heavier than helium (all but two of the elements) depended critically on how much of the universe’s initial hydrogen was fused into helium and heavier elements during the first several minutes after the cosmic creation event. How much fusion of the universe’s primordial hydrogen actually occurred at this time depended, in turn, on the universe’s mass or mass density.

If the universe’s mass (or cosmic mass density) had been even the slightest bit less than a hundred times the fifty billion trillion stars occupying the observable universe, nuclear fusion during the first several minutes of its existence would have proceeded less efficiently. Thus, the cosmos would have been forever incapable of generating elements heavier than helium—elements such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sodium, and potassium—all of which are essential for any conceivable kind of physical life.

On the other hand, if the universe’s mass had been even the slightest bit greater, nuclear fusion during the first several minutes after its beginning would have been too productive, and all the hydrogen in the universe eventually would have been fused (after just two generations of stars) into elements as heavy as iron or heavier. Again, all the most life-essential elements, including hydrogen itself, would have ceased to exist.

Basically, your body is made up of heavier elements, and if the universe was not as massive as it is (and as old as it is), then there would not be enough heavy elements to make you, or to make massive stars like our Sun which burn steady for long periods of time. We need the heavy elements and we need the steady source of heat. And while we are waiting on these heavy elements, the universe is expanding.

Dr. Ross has another reason why God would use vast space and long periods of time, and if you want to read that, you can click here. I think that it’s important for us all to get used to the idea that we all need to understand science apologetics. God put these evidences into the universe for us to discover and use.

Cold Case Christianity: best posts, podcasts and videos of 2014

This assault rifle is OK, but apologetics is better
This assault rifle is pretty cool, but apologetics is even cooler

J. Warner Wallace has posted the top 10 blog posts, podcasts and videos for 2014.

Blog posts:

10. 10 Important Questions for the Jehovah’s Witness Worldview
There are a number of philosophical and theological questions exposing the internal contradictions of the Jehovah’s Witness worldview.

9. How the Book of Abraham Exposes the False Nature of Mormonism
By taking an evidential approach to Christian and Mormon scripture, I confirmed the veracity of Christianity and guarded myself from the falsity of Mormonism

8. Ten Principles When Considering Alleged Bible Contradictions
If we objectively examine the Scriptures with these principles in mind, we’ll grow in our understanding of the Bible and better resolve the difficulties

7. Is Jesus Simply a Retelling of the Horus Mythology?
Is Jesus simply a retelling of the Horus myth? How similar is Horus to Jesus upon close examination? Do these similarities invalidate the historicity of Jesus?

6. Why Are Young Christians Leaving the Church? It’s Simple Math
Why Are Young Christians Leaving the Church? Three powerful forces are driving the current departure of young Christians from the Church.

5. The Inevitable Consequence of An Atheistic Worldview
What are the inevitable consequences of an atheistic worldview? A summary from an honest (if not politically correct) comment from an atheist.

4. Investigating the Evidence for Mormonism In Six Steps
Given the evidence, there is more than enough reason to conclude Joseph Smith was a fraud and the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction.

3. Is the Bible True? The Cumulative Case for the Reliability of the Gospels (Free Bible Insert)
Is the Bible true? The case for the reliability of the Gospels is strong and substantive.

2. The Difference Between “Natural Talents” and “Spiritual Gifts”
Natural talents are the result of our genetic inheritance and the training in our family environment. Spiritual gifts are given to us by the Spirit of God once we are saved.

1. Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?
The ancient non-Christian interpretations (and critical commentaries) of the Gospel accounts serve to strengthen the core claims of the New Testament.

And the podcasts:

10. Is the Christian Faith Evidentially Reasonable?
J. Warner makes a case for the reasonable nature of the Christian Worldview. Does Christianity require blind faith? Are we to accept the claims of Christianity without evidence or even in spite of the evidence? Or are we called, as Christians, to place our trust in Jesus because of the evidence? Jim also examines the way Jesus responded to those who had doubts.

9. The Problem with the Problem of Evil
J. Warner talks about the challenge we face, as Christian Case Makers, when trying to respond to the problem of evil. If God is all-powerful and all-loving, why is there so much evil in the world? Jim talks about the need for a cumulative response and explains why the problem of evil may be a bigger problem for atheists than for Christians.

8. The Case for Christian Case Making
J. Warner makes a case for an evidential, reasoned, case-making form of Christian belief. Using the New Testament gospels and letters as a guide, Jim articulates the foundation for a reasonable faith in Jesus and our common calling as Christians to a life of case-making.

7. Are the Gospels Eyewitness Accounts?
J. Warner makes a case for the eyewitness status of the New Testament Gospel accounts. Is it appropriate to evaluate these accounts as eyewitness statements? Were they intended to be read in this manner? Jim provides several reasons to accept the accounts as eyewitness testimony.

6. Four Ways to Strengthen Your Kids Faith
J. Warner reviews the statistics related to young people leaving the church and then offers four simple ways parents can help make sure their kids stay in the Christian faith. Jim also discusses the simple math behind the problem and illustrates the challenges facing young Christians.

5. Did Jesus Claim to Be God?
J. Warner examines the statements of Jesus to see if He ever claimed to be God. While skeptics may acknowledge Jesus’ existence and even the value of His teaching, any assessment of Jesus’ instruction must account for his obvious claims of Deity. Jim looks at the cumulative case and assembles the evidence from the Gospels to demonstrate Jesus’ claims to Deity.

4. What (and When) Were the Earliest Claims About Jesus?
J. Warner examines the history related to the eyewitness observations of Jesus. How early are the eyewitness accounts and what precisely was being said about Jesus prior to the creation of these written documents?

3. Four Lies the Culture Tells About the Truth
J. Warner examines four popular misconceptions and misstatements about the nature of objective truth, tolerance and our over-reliance on science. If there are no objective truths (or they can’t be known) there is little reason to examine the truth about God. We need to get to the truth about truth before we can ever know the truth about anything else.

2. Conversations with Atheists: Four Observations
J. Warner provides four observations from his youth ministry trips to UC Berkeley. These simple observations may help you improve the quality of your discussions with non-believers and help you better understand the underlying issues in some of these conversations. J. Warner also answers viewer email related to the disagreements between Christian denominations and the need for personal research.

1. Is Jesus a Copycat Savior?
In this inaugural Cold-Case Christianity video broadcast / podcast, J. Warner re-examines an atheist objection related to the historicity of Jesus. Is Jesus merely a copycat of prior mythologies like Mithras, Osiris or Horus? How can we, as Christians, respond to such claims? Jim provides a five point response to this common atheist claim.

And the videos:

10. The Case for Truth
In this video, J. Warner Wallace teaches high school and college students at Summit Worldview Conference in Manitou Springs, CO. What is the nature of truth? What is the difference between objective and subjective truth and why does it matter? J. Warner talks about three lies related to truth and offers a proper definition of truth for his students.

9. When Do We Have Enough Evidence to Know Christianity Is True?
J. Warner Wallace was interviewed by Bobby Conway and discussed the role of evidence in determining truth claims. When we can be certain we have sufficient evidence to believe something is true?

8. The Apostle John’s Chain of Custody
J. Warner Wallace provides a detective’s perspective related to the New Testament and the Christian Life as he talks with Rob Melnichuk of “It’s Your Call”

7. Making a Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
J. Warner Wallace was interviewed on 100 Huntley Street and talked about the case for Easter by examining the Resurrection of Jesus through abductive reasoning.

6. Laura Ingraham Interview with J. Warner Wallace
Laura Ingraham interviews J. Warner Wallace about his book, Cold Case Christianity

5. Why Some Skeptics Deny the Credibility of the Gospels
J. Warner Wallace provides a detective’s perspective related to the New Testament and the Christian Life as he talks with Rob Melnichuk of “It’s Your Call”

4. Were the Gospel Authors Really Present?
J. Warner Wallace spoke at the University of Kentucky Christian Student Fellowship in November 2014 about the reliability of the New Testament. In this portion of the talk, J. Warner examines the dating of the Gospels.

3. The Difference Between Objective and Subjective Truth
What is the difference between “Objective Truth” and “Subjective Truth”? How can mastery of the distinction between these two definitions help us to think clearly before we begin to examine the case for the Christian Worldview? (from J. Warner’s talk at Calvary Chapel Bangor)

2. Why Does Every Christian Need Abductive Reasoning?
J. Warner Wallace was interviewed by Bobby Conway and discussed the importance of Abductive Reasoning and its application to the Resurrection of Jesus.

1. Did Jesus Think Jesus Was God?
J. Warner Wallace, was interviewed by Bobby Conway and discussed the Deity of Jesus. Did Jesus make claims about His nature as God? Did He intend for others to believe He was God?

If you see one you think is interesting – well, they are all interesting – then click through and take a look. He produces so much material and it’s fun to listen to a guy who solves murder mysteries and shoot guns at criminals.

Is the definition of atheism “a lack of belief in God”?

First, let’s see check with the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Excerpt:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Stanford University is one of the top 5 universities in the United States, so that’s a solid definition. To be an atheist is to be a person who makes the claim that, as a matter of FACT, there is no intelligent agent who created the universe. Atheists think that there is no God, and theists think that there is a God. Both claims are objective claims about the way the world is out there, and so both sides must furnish forth arguments and evidence as to how they are able to know what they are each claiming.

Philosopher William Lane Craig has some thoughts on atheism, atheists and lacking belief in God in this reply to a questioner.

Question:

In my discussions with atheists, they  are using the term that they “lack belief in God”. They claim that this is different from not believing in God or from saying that God does not exist. I’m not sure how to respond to this. It seems to me that its a silly word-play and is logically the same as saying that you do not believe in God.
What would be a good response to this?
Thank you for your time,

Steven

And here is Dr. Craig’s full response:

Your atheist friends are right that there is an important logical difference between believing that there is no God and not believing that there is a God.  Compare my saying, “I believe that there is no gold on Mars” with my saying “I do not believe that there is gold on Mars.”   If I have no opinion on the matter, then I do not believe that there is gold on Mars, and I do not believe that there is no gold on Mars.  There’s a difference between saying, “I do not believe (p)” and “I believe (not-p).”   Logically where you place the negation makes a world of difference.

But where your atheist friends err is in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.

There’s a history behind this.  Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist.  Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.

So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken.  For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.”  Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does.  It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God’s existence.  He confesses that he doesn’t know whether there is a God or whether there is no God.

But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist.”  So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists).  As Antony Flew confesses,

the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way.  Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford:  Blackwell, 1997], s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew)

Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view.  It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all.  On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists!  In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.

One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.

So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position?  Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists.  If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view.  But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof.  So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions.  They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.

This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, “So is there a God or not?”

So there you have it. We are interested in what both sides know and what reasons and evidence they have to justify their claim to know. We are interested in talking to people who make claims about objective reality, not about themselves, and who then go on to give reasons and evidence to support their claims about objective reality. There are atheists out there that do make an objective claim that God does not exist, and then support that claim with arguments and evidence. Those are good atheists, and we should engage in rational conversations with them. But clearly there are some atheists who are not like that. How should we deal with these “subjective atheists”?

Dealing with subjective atheists

How should theists respond to people who just want to talk about their psychological state? Well, my advice is to avoid them. They are approaching religion irrationally and non-cognitively – like the person who enters a physics class and says “I lack a belief in the gravitational force!”.  When you engage in serious discussions with people about God’s existence, you only care about what people know and what they can show to be true. We don’t care about a person’s psychology.

Dealing with persistent subjective atheists

What happens when you explain all of that to a subjective atheist who continues to insist that you listen to them repeat over and over “I lack a belief in God, I lack a belief in God”? What if you tell them to make the claim that God does not exist, and then support it with arguments and evidence, but instead they keep leaving comments on your blog telling you again and again about their subjective state of mind: “I lack a belief in cupcakes! I lack a belief in icebergs!” What if they keep e-mailing you and threatening to expose you on Twitter for refusing to listen to them, or denounce you via skywriting: “Wintery Knight won’t listen to me! I lack a belief in crickets!”. I think at this point you have to give up and stop talking to such a person.

And that’s why I moderate and filter comments on this blog. There are uneducated people out there with access to the Internet who want attention, but I am not obligated to give it to them. And neither are you. We are not obligated to listen to abusive people who don’t know what they are talking about. I do post comments from objective atheists who make factual claims about the objective world, and who support those claims with arguments and evidence. I am not obligated to post comments from people who refuse to make objective claims or who refuse to support objective claims with arguments and evidence. And I’m not obligated to engage in discussions with them, either.

Related posts