A Short Reply to a Non-Believer

February 5, 2015 Asheville , Hendersonville 3532 Views
A Short Reply to a Non-Believer

letter_to_editor-300x182[1]

Let me expound just a little to clarify.

What is now understood is that the Universe is not expanding into empty space, but that space itself is expanding. Time, space and matter came into existence at the Big Bang. In other words, once there was nothing, and then, Bang, there was something.

I agree with the fact, that according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Universe is running out of usable energy. The First Law says that the total amount of energy is constant. This also lends credit to the Big Bang Theory. If the Universe had always been there, then it would have run out of energy by now, so it had to have a beginning according to these Laws.

No scientific belief or theory would support the fact that something came out of nothing. That would be pop-metaphysics. As Aristotle said, “Nothing is what rocks dream about.”

If you believe in science and not pop-science, then it must follow that everything that has a beginning and comes to be has a cause, and we know that the Universe came to be. Since it came to be , it must have a Beginner, which I call God.

We are left with only two possibilities: 1. The Universe has always existed and therefore is uncaused or 2. The Universe had a beginning and therefore was caused by something else. It cannot be self-caused because it would have had to exist already in order to cause anything.

This is the only place that reason and science can lead. I do know that what the causer was was an extremely intelligent being. Naming the first causer God does in no way mean that I do not know that He exists.

Let’s just look at a few physical facts that were required in looking at the physical scale of the universe:

Gravity. Newton showed that the force of gravity between two bodies is related to the product of their masses, divided by the inverse square of the distance between them. He developed an equation:

F= m1*m2/d (squared) * g

That is used to show the things about the RELATIVE strength of gravity.

But let’s talk about its ABSOLUTE strength. To find this, it is necessary to multiply the masses and positions of the bodies in the universe by the universal value of g, the gravitational constant, which determines the ultimate strength of gravity everywhere in the universe. The value of g, in case you are interested, is 6.67* 10 to the -11. This is a huge, huge number.

Now let’s go a little further. What if g were just a little larger or a little smaller? It turns out that it would have been very profound. According to Hawking (In A Brief History of Time), “If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million it would have re-collapsed before it reached its present size.” Conversely, if g were minutely smaller, the dust from the big bang would just have kept going, never coalescing into galaxies, stars, planets, or us.

The fact of the matter is that the gravitational constant is exactly and absolutely perfect for the existence of life.

But there are other factors at play. Gravity is only one of the four fundamental forces in the universe. If the powerful nuclear force were just a tiny, tiny bit weaker, no elements other than hydrogen would have formed after this big bang. If it were just a little bit stronger, all of the hydrogen in the universe would be gone by now, converted into helium and heavier elements. Without hydrogen, no sun, no stars, no water, and no us.

If another fundamental force, electromagnetism, were just a little tiny bit stronger, electrons would be so tightly bound to atoms that the formation of all chemical compounds would be impossible. A little weaker, and atoms would disintegrate at room temperature. If the resonance level of electrons in the carbon atom were just 4 (four) percent lower, carbon atoms themselves would not have formed in the interiors of stars. No carbon, no life as we know it. “Just 4%, mind you.”

What logically follows is that any non-believer who assumes creation exists by simple chance without a thinking Creator’s work requires a non-belief system that simply resembles little more than refuge from thought. Certainly, at the very least, it deserves a rational explanation and not just a dismissive wave of the hand, or else such non-belief should be relegated to the dream world of Alice in Wonderland.

God does exist.

Ciao,

David

Share this story
Email

About author

Related articles