-1

The discoveries in modern science by Einstein and Hubble assert that the universe is expanding, and that if the "clock" were rolled back, the universe would come to a "Singularity Point." They stop, scientifically, and cannot speak as to where the "plasma" of that Point came from. But they do raise the inescapable need for a "Cause."

The scientific Law requires one: Every thing that came to be must have a Cause for its coming onto being. (Law of Causation) And common sense dictates: ex nihilo, nihil fit (From nothing, nothing comes.)

Of course, science does not name the Source (God) even though it does require a Cause with the attributes of a "Cause" that matches the Christian God.

In the Beginning God is the beginning of the revelation by God to mankind. In this statement lies the Cause, purpose, and meaning of all creation! And this revelatory FACT is the basis for the Christian doctrine in Christianity.

This query asks nothing about the mode or method of Creation nor the process of speciation, nor the development of stars, planes, galaxies, etc. But only focuses on the original Source, Cause, Creator of this vast universe. And if modern science gives any factual input that would help settle this dilemma that perplexes the human mind. This question asks neither for opinion or traditional folklore, but only for the application of scientific Laws recognized by modern researchers, that confirm the biblical Doctrine of Creation.

This question is neither philosophical nor sociological but references well-accepted scientific facts in relates them to well-taught Christian doctrines in Christianity.

11
  • I suspect this question is overly broad. In general, the answer is "no", but there is not a straight-forward answer. I can state that there is no other rational explanation for life, but explaining why that is so is not straight forward. I could go so far as to note that a historical reading of Genesis 1-11 is the most scientifically consistent, but again, same problem. In any case, someone opposed to God is going to believe what they want to believe, regardless of whether those beliefs are rational.
    – Matthew
    Commented Mar 21, 2023 at 20:10
  • 2
    Faith is the incontrovertible rebuttal to unbelief. 'Logical' arguments depend on the 'logic' of the arguer. But faith has a different logic altogether from the unbeliever. There is no 'proof' that will convince the unbeliever - until he sees, for himself, the wrath of God : and experiences it.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Mar 21, 2023 at 20:32
  • @Nigel - Rules of logic are universal. One does not make up his own set of rules. Many misconceptions of "faith" are bandied about; but true faith is not contrary to logic or reason or plain thinking...God made them all. "Come, let us reason together"--God. There is no doubt the Holy Spirit must work on the "will" of a man, but He is not unfriendly to wisdom in the process.
    – ray grant
    Commented Mar 21, 2023 at 21:12
  • @Monitor - Is the Doctrine of Origins (Creator) no longer a major Christian doctrine? And is not this an important area of contention between Christians and unbelievers that Christians need to be able to answer to keep the faith confidently?
    – ray grant
    Commented Mar 22, 2023 at 22:56
  • 1
    @Moderator - See the new title. Is the Doctrine of Creation (Origins) no longer a major Christian doctrine? And is not this an important bone of contention between Christians and non-christians? Where does this question fail?
    – ray grant
    Commented Mar 23, 2023 at 20:42

2 Answers 2

6

I am an ex-atheist Christian. I think I can safely promise you that no line of reasoning presented by another person will convince an atheist against his will. Logical "proofs" of the existence of God don't really work, because they might tell us that a God exists, but they don't tell us enough about what kind of God exists.

The only thing I can offer is this argument which went through my own mind before I was converted, and which certainly helped to pave the way;

"You decided to be an atheist because you said there was 'no evidence' for the existence of God. But that is not a sufficient reason. There is no evidence against him either. If there is no evidence either way, that just leaves the question open.

In other words, you cannot claim that your decision to become an atheist was forced upon you by rational necessity. It was a choice. It was an expression of personal preference.

If it was your personal preference, then you can be held morally accountable for it. You wouldn't be able to offer any excuse. You need to think about that."

2
  • @StephenDisraeliThe line of reasoning that brought you to God is amazing! But I imagine that you will discover that there are "many" other ways that men have come to believe in the existence of God. The "Will" is definitely the final arbiter of the soul. But the way the Will is transformed is multitudinal ministers and priests will aver. For example, Anthony Flew, a confirmed skeptic, was convinced to believe in God, by the obvious Design in the universe. His Will was brought around by scientific evidence. Others are convinced by the compassion shown by the self-sacrificing Lamb of God.
    – ray grant
    Commented May 4, 2023 at 22:51
  • @StephenDisraeliUsually a person's Will is transformed by the evidence gleaned from an individual's Epistemology: rationalism, evidentialism, empiricism, mysticism, etc. This question wonders about the effect of scientific empiricism on the atheistic ideology. Does it establish a "fact" by which the Atheist can compare ideas?
    – ray grant
    Commented May 4, 2023 at 22:57
-1

Syllogisms are a common device in the discipline of logic that helps scholars arrive at truth, as well as correct erroneous thinking. Here is a syllogism that is applicable to the dilemma of Atheism, and helps refute its posture as a philosophy denying a Creator:

  1. If the Atheism with no Creator is true, there could be no atheists.
  2. But atheists exist.
  3. Therefore Atheism is not true.

This is a "Denying the consequent logical exercise of the form: if A, then not B; but B, therefore not A. It is a valid proposition. And its premises are solid.

Explanation The Atheist philosophy posits no Creator, Source, or Cause for the origin of the Universe. They presume that everything in the Universe came from Nothing!

But "From nothing, nothing comes." (ex nihilo, nihil fit). There could be no universe, no life, and no atheists in existence, without a Cause(Creator). But living Atheists do exist! So there must have been a Cause, after all.

Any philosophy that denies the existence of a Cause would be a false worldview. Atheism is therefore a false worldview (philosophy). Nihil sine Deo. "Nothing exists without God."

Einstein and Hubble showed scientifically that the material universe had a beginning, and Steven Hawking showed that Time had a beginning. And the Law of Causation requires a Cause (Source, Creator). Therefore, Atheism which denies a Cause, is flawed fatally! Atheism is not a logical, reasonable, intellectual worldview. And Christians need not cower in their presence. Modern science opens the door for a Creator of the universe, and slams the door when Atheists try to enter!

The "cause" that science demands for the Creation of the universe, has the Attributes of the Christian (biblical) God: It must be outside of time (eternal), and outside of physical matter (spirit). Eternal Spirit is the God that Jesus revealed to the woman at the well (John 4:24).

10
  • 2
    There is nothing Christian in this answer : no Christian experience, no Christian faith. It is merely philosophical - and not very well informed philosophy at that. One could do better just mulling through some Wikipedia articles.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Mar 21, 2023 at 20:34
  • @Nigel - This valid syllogism (as atheist have admitted) gives Christians a respite from the anxiety of atheistic attacks, and proves to Christian believers that it is logical to believe in a Cause, (Creator)! And that it is not logical to believe in no Cause.
    – ray grant
    Commented Mar 21, 2023 at 20:46
  • My Christian experience and my Christian faith are a stronger foundation than what you propose. It is illogical, to me, to muddle terminology thus - 'proves to Christian believers that it is logical to believe . . . '. I believe because I have been convicted of my own sins and have been made aware of the wrath to come and have received the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Mar 21, 2023 at 20:50
  • @Nigel - There are many ways people come to faith in Jesus (e.g. "the goodness of God leads to...). One way is a recognition of the human condition. But another battlefield that some struggle with is logic and reasoning (mind is a part of the human makeup) and they need Answers in that area, This is for them.
    – ray grant
    Commented Mar 21, 2023 at 20:57
  • . . . the world, by wisdom, knew not God . . . . 1 Corinthians 1:21.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Mar 21, 2023 at 23:04

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .