Googling ‘evidence for God’, the first suggestion Google gives(at least in my location) is the official website of The Institution for Creation Research. The title seemed quite interesting to me, probably because I thought that here I will get most of typical theistic arguments, well presented. It didn’t disappoint me in that sense. I got what I expected. There are three ‘lines of evidences’ ICR has proposed. The law of causality, “the triune universe” and “design and purpose”. So, I am introducing this series, through which I will try to refute the proposed arguments from ICR. So, let’s begin.
1. Everything has a cause.
The article starts with “In ordinary experience, one knows intuitively that nothing happens in isolation”. This statement is true, as it clearly mentions ‘ordinary experiences’ and ‘intuition’. Of course, our ordinary experiences always tell us the an effect must have a cause, like when you make a cup of tea, it does not just pop out into existence, you have to make it. Your TV doesn’t automatically turn on, you have to press the switch.
But then, “A scientific experiment specifically tries to relate effects to causes, in the form of quantitative equations if possible. Thus, if one repeats the same experiment with exactly the same factors, then exactly the same results will be reproduced”, this is a blunder. One of the fundamental pillars of modern physics, is Quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics tells us a fascinating thing about nature, it is not possible to exactly predict the consequences at any given set of circumstances. Don’t get me wrong here, the idea tricked me as well when I first heard of it. It is not necessary that every time I perform the very same experiment, same results will come out. Is it likely? Yes. But is it necessary? No. It might trick the philosophers, they might say that there are any internal ‘wheels’ in which we haven’t looked close enough. No, there are no such ‘internal wheels’, that claim is baseless. The uncertainty principle is a good example for this, you can’t exactly measure or predict two qualities of a given particle simultaneously, the more accurate measurement or prediction a quality gets, the more inaccurate the other one becomes. That implies that if we perform the same experiments measuring only one of the qualities first time and measuring another in the latter, different consequences may come out(and that is actually confirmed).
“Science in the modern sense would be altogether impossible if cause and effect should cease”, this statement should alternate the word ‘classical mechanics’ with ‘science’, it is a terrible strawman (as I explained earlier). But classical mechanics has almost nothing to do with this topic, because we are obviously going to be resorted to the ‘Big bang’, which was a quantum event.
” This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives: (1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes (nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects); or (2) an uncaused primary Cause of all causes (the One absolute Cause that initiated everything)”, since the derivative logic used in this article isn’t valid, I don’t I have to care what the conclusion it got.
2. The effect problem.
The site claims that there are two ‘universal laws’ which is demonstrated in every observation we make of the universe:
i. There is no new mass/energy coming into existence anywhere in the universe, and every bit of that original mass/energy is still here.
This is simply untrue, because it is neglecting the random popping out of virtual particles in and out of existence inside an atom as well as in empty space. They stay for a very short time(so short that you can’t observe them), but they are there. In fact most of the mass in your body comes from those ”virtual particles” continuously popping out inside the atoms in your body.
ii. Every time something happens (an event takes place), some of the energy becomes unavailable.
This also is true in the classical sense, but is untrue at the quantum level, you know radioactive decays in a particle…
From these premises, the author concludes that some ‘first cause’ must have caused all the causes and effects. Since the premises(or so called ‘laws’) are invalid on themselves, I will leave it just here.
As you would understand, modern physics questions every one of the fundamental aspects of our ordinary life and takes it to a purely analytical level. Ordinary experiences don’t work, specific experiments and critical thinking does.
Thanks for reading and understanding, any counter-arguments are welcomed. Leave a reply.
You can find us on facebook: Refuting God