|
Original Message
|
Introduction
One of the most common objections to the existence of God comes from arguments about the existence of Santa Claus, invisible pink unicorns, and the flying spaghetti monster. Although it is not possible to prove absolutely the non-existence of Santa Claus, most people cease to believe in his existence by age 10. Although the existence of Santa Claus has not been disproved, the weight of evidence suggests that he does not exist. Likewise, although we cannot prove invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters do not exist, we tend to reject their existence, since none have ever been detected. Shouldn't the same logic apply to the existence of God?
God created by mankind?
Most skeptics believe that humans invented God as a means of comfort against an uncertain world that is filled with peril and disappointment. However, if people were to have invented the God of Christianity, it is unlikely that it would be the demanding God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is described as holy1 - without sin and without the ability to commit sin.2 The holiness of God is described as being above anything that humans can attain, such that no human can stand before Him as holy.3 Behaving more morally upright than most other people is not sufficient to escape from the punishment of the God of the Bible.4
It also seems unlikely that people would believe in the existence of a being who is known not to exist. For example, most of us believe in Santa Claus as small children, but give up that belief by age 10.5 People do not believe in false things, even if those things make them feel better. If people routinely believed in things just to make them fell better, we would all continue to believe in the existence of Santa Claus. Liberal atheist Sam Harris even debunks such claims in The Moral Landscape, giving the following example as being unrealistic of human belief:
I believe Jesus was born of a virgin, was resurrected, and now answers prayers because believing these things makes me feel better. By adopting this faith, I am merely exercising my freedom to believe in propositions that make me feel good. (Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape, page 137.)
In addition to the above problems, believing a lie contradicts the beliefs and teachings of the Bible. In fact, Luke, in the introduction to his gospel, says that he has carefully investigated everything so that the truth may be known.6 Christians are told to believe and practice only truth,7 and warned against believing and practicing lies.8 So, the idea that they would violate their conscious and beliefs just to feel better makes no sense.
Invisible pink unicorns?
Can we determine the existence/non-existence of invisible pink unicorns? Actually, the answer is "yes." Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term "invisible pink unicorn" is self contradictory. Therefore, we know absolutely that they could not exist. I don't know who invented the term "invisible pink unicorns," but they were obviously deficient in their physics education.
However, for the sake of argument, let's change the term and drop the "pink" part. Is it possible to determine whether or not invisible unicorns exist somewhere in the universe? Technically, it would be very unlikely that any organism would be invisible. The only reasonable chemical basis for living organisms in this universe is carbon-based life. This would ensure that unicorns would always be visible. Although possible that unicorns might be invisible due to being made of anti-matter, such existence would be problematic, since their interaction with ordinary matter would result in their immediate and spectacular destruction. Could unicorns be made of exotic matter? While possible, there is no evidence from physics that any creatures could be made of exotic matter. At present, it is possible to detect exotic matter only indirectly through particle physics and through its ability to bend light (only detectable through gravitational lensing of distant galaxies). At this point, we would be unable to detect a unicorn made of exotic matter. So, although we can be fairly certain that invisible unicorns do not exist in the universe, we could not take the strong aunicornist stance.
Is it possible that pink unicorns might exist somewhere in the universe? As of today, we don't know if life exists outside of our Solar System. No rocky planets have been discovered outside of our Solar System, although the ability to easily detect such planets will not be available until later this decade. Some scientists believe that life is common throughout the universe, while others think that all life or only advanced life is rare in the universe. The origin of life by naturalistic means seems extremely improbable. In addition, the earth seems to exhibit unusual design, since the existence of tectonic activity on such a small planet for such a long period of time is probably the result of an extremely unlikely collision event early in its history. Without tectonic activity, the earth would be a waterworld, since continents would not form. Advanced life (beyond fish) cannot exist on such a planet (hence no unicorns).
Atheism requires that abiogenesis (a naturalistic origin of life) is at least possible, if not likely, and that habitable planets are common throughout the universe. Such a scenario, if true, would make it likely that pink unicorns do exist somewhere in the universe. Therefore, an atheist would be illogical to assume a strong aunicornist stance. The unicorn argument as an argument against the existence of God fails logically, since it is not possible to definitively show that unicorns do not exist somewhere in the universe.
Flying Spaghetti Monster
The Flying Spaghetti Monster was an invention of Bobby Henderson in response to the State Board of Education of Kansas's attempt to promote intelligent design. It makes for a very humorous picture, although it provides virtually no analogy to God's character. Spaghetti and meatballs are the physical creation of intelligent beings and could never exist outside of a human domain.
God vs. unicorns and Santa Claus
Is the existence of God comparable to the existence of Santa Claus, spaghetti, or unicorns? According to tradition, Santa Claus is a man who lives at the North Pole on planet earth. Explorers and satellite images have failed to detect the dwelling place of Santa Claus, so we can be fairly certain that he does not exist. Since the polar ice cap is likely to melt within the next 100 years, we will have further evidence that nobody actually lives at the North Pole.
The existence of an invisible pink unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster has been discussed above. The existence of such creatures has been hypothesized to occur within our universe. However, the God of the Bible is transcendent to the universe, since the universe cannot contain Him.9 The Bible says that no one can see God in His glory,10 since He is invisible.11 God is a non-physical being.12 In addition, God created the entire universe,13 including time itself,14 which did not exist prior to God creating it. Santa Claus, unicorns and flying spaghetti are contingent beings, whereas God is non-contingent. Therefore, to make an analogy between God and either Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti is logically flawed from the outset.
Atheists tend to believe that the universe is a function of the time in which it began. However, the Bible says that time is a function of the universe, both of which were created by God.15 What does the science indicate? Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, demonstrating that time began at the formation of the universe (i.e., Big Bang).16 So, God is not confined by time or the universe, in contrast to invisible pink unicorns, a flying spaghetti monsters, and Santa Claus - all of which are dependent upon the existence of the universe. The atheists' analogy between God and these mythical creatures is shown to be incongruent, so their argument is fallacious.
No evidence for God's existence?
Skeptics love to claim that there is no proof or evidence that any kind of God actually exists. However, such claims represent mere hand waving to avoid critically examining the evidence. I was raised as an agnostic, but became a deist in a secular college (University of Southern California) as a result of my training in biological sciences. It was obvious to this honors student that the "scientific" explanation for the origin of life was completely unreasonable. Since those days (the early 1970's) the evidence contradicting a naturalistic origin of life has become much stronger. Even more compelling than the evidence against abiogenesis is the evidence for the design of the universe. The scientific evidence shows irrefutably that the universe had a beginning. In contrast, atheism would predict that the universe would be eternal. In fact, this belief was prevalent among atheists until the evidence against the steady state theory became overwhelming last century. Although it is possible that the universe could arise by itself, the level to which it is fine tuned is contrary to this hypothesis. In fact, the degree of fine tuning is up to one part in 10120.
Further evidence for divine design can be found in our own species. We are the only species of mammal that exhibits consciousness, the ability to appreciate art, and the ability to make moral judgments.
Conclusion
The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe our fears makes no sense, since we reject the existence of other made-up figures that might, likewise, make us feel better. A comparison between the existence of God (a non-contingent being) and the existence of Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns (contingent beings) fails on many levels, not the least of which is that their fundamental natures (non-physical vs. physical) are vastly different. The idea that there is no evidence to support the existence of God is clearly false. The evidence was clear enough for me to convert from agnosticism to deism in the absence of efforts by theists. Anthony Flew, a lifelong proponent of atheism became a deist on the basis of evidence for design. In subsequent interviews, Flew stated that he "had to go where the evidence leads." Philosophical arguments like invisible pink unicorns are great ways to avoid examining evidence, but such an approach is ultimately dishonest.
[link to www.godandscience.org]
|
