Prove it!

In order to prove something you need evidence.  Commonly, evidential proof does not have to be 100% in your favor, for this is difficult in almost all fields.  The laws of chemistry and physics might be an exception of where evidence can be shown to line up consistently for all known situations.  For example, the speed of light is a constant at 186,000 miles per second.  We have no evidence of light speed varying.  It must be noted, however, that the hard sciences cannot answer all questions.  If fact, science has its limitations.

Proving your point can also be in the form of non-empirical evidence.  For example, the law of non-contradiction.  A cannot equal A and non-A at the same time, or an object cannot be both a square and a triangle at the same time.  When talking of evidence to prove a point, both reasoning and science can be used to arrive at an answer that has the best explanatory power.

Recently, Stephen Hawking's  made two bizarre comments.  One of the comments made is that the universe caused itself.  The second statement of Hawkin's is that heaven does not exist.  What's really interesting is that both statements are not statements based on the field (science) that Hawking's holds to so dearly, but are philosophical in nature. 

It is Hawking's belief that science should trump all other fields, so why would he make two non-scientific statements?  This belief system of science being the ruler of all knowledge is referred to as scientism.  Scientism comes in a couple of forms but basically states that science is the one and only worldview that can answer all the questions of life.  However, when you look at Hawking's two statements, there is absolutely no way he can prove either by way of science or the scientific method.  This empirical worldview assumes that only that which can be observed should count as knowledge.  But, what about our conscious awareness, how is this explained by ways of science?  What about the objective moral law that exist, does science have an answer to this?  The laws of logic which we know to be true, can in no way be tested in a laboratory.

To prove an argument, evidence must be given to tip the scales in your favor.  Various views can be examined to determine which has the best explanatory power.  When Hawking's made the statement that heaven does not exist, a buzz was generated on-line.  One questioner rightly asked of Hawking's - Prove it!

The absurdity of chance beginning

I encourage everyone to read a post by Joe Carter (click link below) titled, "When Nothing Created Everything." Joe weaves a narrative that speaks to the scientific absurdity of nothing creating everything, which is supported by Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and others. It seems the more scientific discoveries that are made, the more the evidence points towards God's fingerprint, and not to a chance beginning.

One of the dangers of this type of thinking is that life is ultimately meaningless and no one has self worth. The truly scary realization of this is what kind of world would ensue if the masses of people adopted this philosophy? As Nietzsche eloquently stated not so long ago, ""Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him." [1] Ultimatly, a life from nothing means that life is worth nothing.

[1] Nietzche's, The Parable of the Madman

• Joe Carter's blog, When Nothing Created Everything
  
• Joe Carter's blog site, First Things

The Hype Over Stephen Hawking's "The Grand Design"

In this short audio, Dr. Craig address problems with Dr. Hawking's recent comments that the universe created itself.

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

Hawking is out of his league

Recently renowned scientist, Stephen Hawking stated that God is not necessary for the creation of the universe. [1] According to Hawking, physics can explain things without the need for a "benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit." There are two main problems with Hawkins assertion.

First, Hawking assumes that you can get something from nothing. Everything must have a beginning, including the universe. The Kalam Cosmological Argument eloquently shows that all things have a beginning and cause, if it begins to exist. The universe had a beginning, commonly known as the big bang, and therefore was caused to exist. Nothing in science pops into existence from nothing. From nothing, nothing comes. Science cannot even address this question, as it falls into the realm of philosophy, and this brings up the second problem.

One of the charges laid at the intelligent design community is that ID has nothing to do with science. Opponents of ID claim that ID is nothing more that repackaged creationism or just simply philosophical musing. Hawkins' belief that physics brought about the creation of the universe is no different than the charge that is leveled at the ID community. Hawkins second big problem is that his statement is nothing more than a philosophical leap of faith or pseudo-science at best. Where did the laws of Physics come from Mr. Hawking? If Physics is responsible for creation, then we have to go back another step, and another, and so on. Not only does Hawking present an infinite regress, but he has dabbled in a realm where scientist don't usually want to go. Because Hawking offers a non-scientific approach to creation and has no evidence to support the reasoning of his claim, he is clearly out of his league.

[1] Article concerning Stephen Hawking's view of creation.