Saturday, September 18, 2010

Rolling dice

Philosopher Thomas Nage said, " I WANT atheism to be true. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief; It’s not that I hope there is no God! I don’t WANT there to be a God; I don’t WANT the universe to be like that." Why would Nage want the universe to be like that? Many today don't want there to be a God primarily because they want to assume His role.

Things haven't changed much. Before the Big Bang evidence, many scientists wanted to hold to a an eternal universe, such as the Steady-State Theory. One of the reasons for this belief is that a God is not necessary. Thomas Nage is at least honest in his worldview assessment.

Presently it seems views are coming from everywhere to try and explain away the necessity for creation by God. These views, I might add have no scientific backing. The many worlds hypothesis tries to explain life by millions of universes that have existed. This view would explain how life finally came to be with unlimited factors being in place, so that one lucky universe could obtain the winning life lottery ticket. Problems, however, exist for the many worlds hypothesis. First and foremost, the hypothesis is just that - a guess - and a wild one at that. There is absolutely no evidence to show that it is true. Secondly, if you are willing to accept the hypothesis, then you have to explain where the first mother universe came from that spawned the others. Thirdly, it violates the principle of Occam's razor, where the simplest explanation is preferred.

A second recent view is one expressed by Stephen Hawking. According to Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing."[1] On this view the universe popped into existence by itself. Two glaring problems exist with Hawking's view. First, nothing we know of pops into existence from nothing. For Hawking to state this is nothing more than fanciful speculation without any scientific backing. The second problem, as pointed out by William Lane Craig is why would only universes pop into existence, why not other things popping into existence?[2] This begs the question if anything can pop into existence from nothing.

A third recent view counters that the laws of physics may be different for different parts of the universe.[3] If this is true, then the chances of producing a planet for life to evolve is increased. Somewhat similar to the many worlds hypothesis, this view helps with the odds for producing life without the need of God. Three problems exist for this argument. First, you still need one portion of the universe to be fine-tuned for life. Secondly, the question of the universe's origin needs to be explained. How did we get something from nothing? Thirdly, there is no scientific evidence to support this view. "According to Lennox Cowie, who works at the Institute for Astronomy in Hawaii - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."[4]

All these views have one thing in common - life is possible without the existence of God. The biggest challenge all of them face is the Big Bang. The many worlds hypothesis, along with the two new recent views have no scientific support. In essence the views are equivalent to illogical philosophy where one is rolling dice for a chance creation of life. No view listed has any support and can not match the explanatory power of a creation by intelligent design.

[1] Article of Stephen Hawking's view
[2] William Lane Craig's comments about Hawking's view
[3] Article dealing with the different laws of physics for different parts of the universe
[4] Ibid

No comments: