An argument for the existence of God
14 Jan '06 01:371 editThe scientists and skeptics on this site have tried to use science to show that there is no God, but can science actually show that there is a God?
1. Can science show that there was a so called beginning?
Most of us are willing to accept that we exist, but the question is were we deliberately created, or are we a chance accident? Atheists are generally of the opinion that the biblical account of our creation is false because matter has always existed in the form of matter or energy.
Science tells us that the universe is expanding. The stars and galaxies are moving away from each other. If we were to reverse this process the cosmos would converge at a point. This point is referred to as a singularity. According to science this would be the beginning.
The energy that fuels the universe is another argument for a beginning. Stars such as our sun produce energy through a process called thermonuclear fusion whereby hydrogen is converted to helium. All stars are fueled this way, so it’s logical to assume that there was a beginning. The amount of hydrogen in the universe is finite. If everywhere in the universe hydrogen has been converted to helium for all eternity, there wouldn’t be any hydrogen left.
A third scientific argument for a beginning is seen in the second law of thermodynamics which states that in any closed system, things tend to become disordered. In short, things get old. A vehicle requires regular maintenance to keep running, and this principle is carried over to the cosmos. The aging process of the cosmos is referred to by astronomers as “heat death.” A universe that cycles through expanding and collapsing would not exist forever because it would loose heat and light through every cycle. According to Dr. Carl Sagan “If the cosmos is everything that ever was or is or ever will be nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it.”
There is far more scientific evidence that there was a beginning as the book of Genesis states.
2. Can science show that there was a deliberate cause to creation?
Typically the atheists claim that “matter is not created, but it is self-existing.” For this statement to be true, it is necessary for matter to have been generated out of nothing. If we assume that matter had a beginning and that it wasn’t deliberately created by a supreme intelligence, it would have had to appear out of nothing and by accident. This flies in the face of everything we know about science thus far.
3. If creation had a beginning, the question is what caused it?
The scripture tells us of coarse that God made creation. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God through the things that he made, so God must also have made science. It is therefore logical to assume that one day science and religion will merge and support each other.
What does science tell us thus far about an intelligent creator? The still controversial “anthropic principle” attempts to scientifically explain that the universe must have been designed. Basically, the anthropic principle says that random chance is not adequate to explain life. There is lots and lots of material on this topic and it is still being debated. Here is a link that gives a very general outline of it.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm
In conclusion, we can say that science supports the theory that matter is not eternal, and that the universe is not self-existing but in fact has a cause. Unless we are to believe that something can emerge out of nothing, we can also say that science supports the theory of an intelligent creator. The anthropic principle is one of the ways that science has tried to justify this.
1. Can science show that there was a so called beginning?
Most of us are willing to accept that we exist, but the question is were we deliberately created, or are we a chance accident? Atheists are generally of the opinion that the biblical account of our creation is false because matter has always existed in the form of matter or energy.
Science tells us that the universe is expanding. The stars and galaxies are moving away from each other. If we were to reverse this process the cosmos would converge at a point. This point is referred to as a singularity. According to science this would be the beginning.
The energy that fuels the universe is another argument for a beginning. Stars such as our sun produce energy through a process called thermonuclear fusion whereby hydrogen is converted to helium. All stars are fueled this way, so it’s logical to assume that there was a beginning. The amount of hydrogen in the universe is finite. If everywhere in the universe hydrogen has been converted to helium for all eternity, there wouldn’t be any hydrogen left.
A third scientific argument for a beginning is seen in the second law of thermodynamics which states that in any closed system, things tend to become disordered. In short, things get old. A vehicle requires regular maintenance to keep running, and this principle is carried over to the cosmos. The aging process of the cosmos is referred to by astronomers as “heat death.” A universe that cycles through expanding and collapsing would not exist forever because it would loose heat and light through every cycle. According to Dr. Carl Sagan “If the cosmos is everything that ever was or is or ever will be nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it.”
There is far more scientific evidence that there was a beginning as the book of Genesis states.
2. Can science show that there was a deliberate cause to creation?
Typically the atheists claim that “matter is not created, but it is self-existing.” For this statement to be true, it is necessary for matter to have been generated out of nothing. If we assume that matter had a beginning and that it wasn’t deliberately created by a supreme intelligence, it would have had to appear out of nothing and by accident. This flies in the face of everything we know about science thus far.
3. If creation had a beginning, the question is what caused it?
The scripture tells us of coarse that God made creation. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God through the things that he made, so God must also have made science. It is therefore logical to assume that one day science and religion will merge and support each other.
What does science tell us thus far about an intelligent creator? The still controversial “anthropic principle” attempts to scientifically explain that the universe must have been designed. Basically, the anthropic principle says that random chance is not adequate to explain life. There is lots and lots of material on this topic and it is still being debated. Here is a link that gives a very general outline of it.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm
In conclusion, we can say that science supports the theory that matter is not eternal, and that the universe is not self-existing but in fact has a cause. Unless we are to believe that something can emerge out of nothing, we can also say that science supports the theory of an intelligent creator. The anthropic principle is one of the ways that science has tried to justify this.
Back to Top