Rug Vs. Best Proof that God Exists
It's time once again for me to look at what a christian is saying is proof of God and see how it holds up to logic, reason, and science. Peter Guirguis over at notashamedofthegospel.com posted an article called "This is the Best Proof that God Exists (in My Opinion)" that seems to do just what the title says. Sadly, after reading the article I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Guirguis does not understand logic, reason, or science.
In the first couple of paragraphs Peter talks about his amazing conversion from Christian to Atheist and back to Christian. Then goes on to spout how this is the proof that changed his mind. Then he goes on to say he's not going to use the Bible to prove God, and then immediately starts quoting the Bible. Then he talks about why it's important. Like anyone reading this doesn't already know why. Ugh.
After all the hoopla he finally gets to the point. Then I am woefully disappointed with the first line of his so called proof.
So I guess I should now show what the argument is for those of you not familiar with it. In fact, let me just quote Mr. Guirguis.
Premise 1 states that something exists. Well, normally I would grant this without question, but I feel kinda assholely today so I will not. Exactly how do we know anything exist? To quote a rather infamous christian apologist William Lane Craig (Who used this cosmological argument all the time.) "How could you prove that you are not a brain in a vat ...?" Well, none of us can. None of us can prove that anything at all exist. Therefore, premise 1 may in fact be incorrect. However, for the sake of argument, I'll grant it.
Premise 2 states nothing cannot create something. At first glance this seems to make sense. At least in our normal, midsized, everyday lives. However, in quantum mechanics particles pop in and out of existence all the time. They are not created by anything as far as we can tell. This whole concept is explained rather well by this article posted on a PBS website. Therefore, it would seem that premise 2 is also incorrect. To go even further, this premise also injects without reason or cause the idea that the universe was created. This is like asking someone, "When did you stop smoking meth?" without ever knowing they did in the first place. No matter if they say "I didn't" or give a time frame is still seems as though they are meth smokers.
The conclusion of this argument states something must have always existed. Well, that does seem to be the logical conclusion from the first two premises. However, since I've already shown premise 2 to be incorrect and premise 1 possibly incorrect then this conclusion is more than likely also incorrect.
Mr. Guirguis goes on for a while as to why each premise leads to the invalid conclusion. He even goes into detail about how premise 1 and the conclusion must be true. Talking about M-theory (not really a theory....yet), string theory (M-theory by an old name but he doesn't seem to know that), how God doesn't need a creator, blah blah blah, second law of thermodynamics, blah blah blah, universe is expanding, blah blah, cosmic background radiation, blah blah blah, and basically every misunderstanding of scientific theories that we commonly hear from christian apologist. You can read the article yourself from the link in the first paragraph. The only time he tries to booster premise 2 is by disputing what "nothing" is. He even links to a video with Alexander Vilenkin talking about a false vacuum which Mr. Guirguis has confused with nothing. To which I can only say, before you start spouting off with your keyboard you might want to learn what the hell you're talking about.
Now, what is the basic misunderstanding that is causing Peter Guirguis and many others to think something cannot come from nothing? It's because they don't seem to realize that even the fabric of space didn't exist before the big bang and no one (including scientists or apologists) know how physics work without space. Every bit of knowledge the human race currently has is from studies being done on, or around Earth. Therefore, every single bit of science and human common sense comes from within space. No one currently knows and possibly will never know what is beyond space if anything at all. Before the big bang, there was no space. There was no time. There was nothing that we know anything about. Therefore, the only answer to the question of what was before the big bang is, "I don't know". However, it would seem that a large portion of the human race does not like that answer. I just have three words for them. Get over it.
Granted, I'm not a scientist, philosopher, or even anyone important. However, I have spent my life studying science in all of it's forms. I don't pretend to be an expert by any means. Nor would I want you to take my word as "Truth" on anything. I'm just a guy named Rug, but that is what I think.
 |
| From yadayadayadablahblahblah.com |
After all the hoopla he finally gets to the point. Then I am woefully disappointed with the first line of his so called proof.
"In My Opinion, the Best Proof That God Exists is This
The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of God that says that God is the First Cause that created the universe."That's right folks, the argument that changed his entire life and perspective thereof is the same old argument we have been hearing since Aristotle's first rendition of it in ancient Greece. Doesn't it seem odd that Christians use this argument to prove the christian god exist? When it was originally spouted to prove Zeus.
So I guess I should now show what the argument is for those of you not familiar with it. In fact, let me just quote Mr. Guirguis.
"It’s also known as the argument from first cause, the causal argument, or the argument from existence.
The argument below is a variant of the cosmological argument, and it states:
Premise 1 – Something exists
Premise 2 – Nothing cannot create something
Conclusion – Something must have always existed"The entire argument comes down to the something that always existed is God. Nothing to show how you get from something to God. However, I don't even have to go that far to prove this guy is completely lost to the realm of reason. Let me break this down for each premise first. Then I might complain about the "Conclusion" such that it is.
Premise 1 states that something exists. Well, normally I would grant this without question, but I feel kinda assholely today so I will not. Exactly how do we know anything exist? To quote a rather infamous christian apologist William Lane Craig (Who used this cosmological argument all the time.) "How could you prove that you are not a brain in a vat ...?" Well, none of us can. None of us can prove that anything at all exist. Therefore, premise 1 may in fact be incorrect. However, for the sake of argument, I'll grant it.
Premise 2 states nothing cannot create something. At first glance this seems to make sense. At least in our normal, midsized, everyday lives. However, in quantum mechanics particles pop in and out of existence all the time. They are not created by anything as far as we can tell. This whole concept is explained rather well by this article posted on a PBS website. Therefore, it would seem that premise 2 is also incorrect. To go even further, this premise also injects without reason or cause the idea that the universe was created. This is like asking someone, "When did you stop smoking meth?" without ever knowing they did in the first place. No matter if they say "I didn't" or give a time frame is still seems as though they are meth smokers.
The conclusion of this argument states something must have always existed. Well, that does seem to be the logical conclusion from the first two premises. However, since I've already shown premise 2 to be incorrect and premise 1 possibly incorrect then this conclusion is more than likely also incorrect.
Mr. Guirguis goes on for a while as to why each premise leads to the invalid conclusion. He even goes into detail about how premise 1 and the conclusion must be true. Talking about M-theory (not really a theory....yet), string theory (M-theory by an old name but he doesn't seem to know that), how God doesn't need a creator, blah blah blah, second law of thermodynamics, blah blah blah, universe is expanding, blah blah, cosmic background radiation, blah blah blah, and basically every misunderstanding of scientific theories that we commonly hear from christian apologist. You can read the article yourself from the link in the first paragraph. The only time he tries to booster premise 2 is by disputing what "nothing" is. He even links to a video with Alexander Vilenkin talking about a false vacuum which Mr. Guirguis has confused with nothing. To which I can only say, before you start spouting off with your keyboard you might want to learn what the hell you're talking about.
Now, what is the basic misunderstanding that is causing Peter Guirguis and many others to think something cannot come from nothing? It's because they don't seem to realize that even the fabric of space didn't exist before the big bang and no one (including scientists or apologists) know how physics work without space. Every bit of knowledge the human race currently has is from studies being done on, or around Earth. Therefore, every single bit of science and human common sense comes from within space. No one currently knows and possibly will never know what is beyond space if anything at all. Before the big bang, there was no space. There was no time. There was nothing that we know anything about. Therefore, the only answer to the question of what was before the big bang is, "I don't know". However, it would seem that a large portion of the human race does not like that answer. I just have three words for them. Get over it.
Granted, I'm not a scientist, philosopher, or even anyone important. However, I have spent my life studying science in all of it's forms. I don't pretend to be an expert by any means. Nor would I want you to take my word as "Truth" on anything. I'm just a guy named Rug, but that is what I think.
Comments
Post a Comment