Why i’m not an atheist


I find myself constantly torn between theism and atheism for two reasons. Firstly, I do not believe in a God of organised religion. Organised religion, for me, is both unnatural (in that, it’s a man made creation) and designed purely as a method of control and to legitimise prejudice and hatred. I even doubt the existence of Jesus himself. The only evidence we have for the existence of Jeus, comes from gospels written some forty years after his supposed death, many of which have been removed from history because certain Roman Emperors didn’t like their content, or early Christians considered them a little bit too far fetched. In short, I believe organised religion to be the realm of the ignorant, teaching dogmatic acquiescence.

However, dismissing organised religion does not necessarily mean dismissing theism on the whole. The argument for creation from cosmological point of view, is rather compelling, and cannot simply be explained away by saying “I don’t believe in a God“. This is where I think people like Professor Dawkins fall down.

Einstein’s general theory of relativity states that time, matter and space all came into existence at the exact same moment of creation. This in essence means that before the big bang, there was no time, no space, and no matter. Nothing. This theory is backed up by the dismissal of the steady state theory, which deemed that the universe was eternal, but was overtaken by the cosmic microwave background radiation theory by Nobel prize winners Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, proving the universe is expanding, which further proves that the universe, had a beginning. Matter, space and time sprang into existence at a single moment. Stephan Hawking himself stated that the discovery of cosmic radiation left over from the big bang was “the final nail in the coffin of the steady-state theory.” From observation we can then conclude that the universe had a beginning.

If there was nothing before the big bang, then it stands to reason that logic, nature, and reason itself also sprang into existence at the point of the big bang. The creation of something from nothing is rather illogical to human understanding. It may just be that humanity has not the capacity to comprehend such a notion, which renders any argument to the contrary depressingly futile. And so, we must conclude that something had to have kicked started everything. That “something” must have existed before existence itself had began. One cannot create something which has already started to exist. It had to have existed outside of the realm of time and space and matter, because time and space and matter had not yet been created. If it existed outside of time and space and matter, then it cannot possibly be affected by the trials of those three. It cannot decay. It cannot die. It cannot be bruised or hurt. It cannot have been created itself, because creation hasn’t yet been created, so to speak. It is above logic, and above reason, and above natural law. It is unrestricted by all the restrictions that the universe is under. Think of it like this; you make a snow globe. You put a house in the snow globe. You created the snow globe. Therefore, you cannot possibly be inside the snow globe, you aren’t restricted by the laws of the snow globe. You know that existence is not restricted to the snow globe, unlike whatever else exists in the snow globe. You cannot suddenly de-enlighten yourself and become ignorant to the “outisde World“. You can exist without the need for the snow globe. Similarly, whatever can be called the creator, exists outside of the laws of the universe, because it created the laws of the universe.
You cannot explain the natural universe, without concluding that the supernatural had a hand in it’s creation.

Secondly, the teleological argument is stunningly mind blowing at times. The argument from intelligent design. Professor Stephan Hawking states:

“if the expansion rate of the universe changed by 1 part in one hundred thousand million million a second after the big bang, we wouldn’t be here.”

Hawking goes on to say:

“The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. … The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”

The universe, in other words, was pretty precise in it’s less than chaotic beginnings.
At the moment of creation, natural law came into existence. The expansion rate of the universe, the strength of gravity, electromagnetic forces, among other natural constants are so beautifully fine tuned, that had the rate of any of those constants been 1/10000000000000th different, life could not possibly exist anywhere in the universe. The mass of a proton in comparison to an electron, is so finely tuned, if it were off by .0000001, the creation of molecular DNA would not have been possible. Gravity itself, was the perfect strength. If it were even slightly off, planets and galaxies would not have formed. Gravity brought matter together, to form rocks and planets and moons and stars. If it were all by random, it is the equivilant of me asking you to pick a single grain of sand that I myself had picked, and hidden on a beach somewhere in the World, but the catch is, there are now 100000 Worlds to search, not just one and you have to pick the exact same grain of sand that I picked. The odds are pretty much stacked against you. The history of the universe is a history of unlikely event after unlikely event, that to the best of my ability, I cannot simply just dismiss as random.

And so, that is why I am not an Atheist.

Advertisements

10 Responses to Why i’m not an atheist

  1. kingbiscuitpants says:

    great points I rambled about athism & parenting here

    http://kingbiscuitpants.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/atheism-child-rearing-hypocrisy-me/

  2. Asha says:

    It was good to read this. I understand now why you call yourself agnostic.

  3. Human Ape says:

    “The argument for creation from cosmological point of view, is rather compelling,”

    The argument for magic is compelling? Do you also think the argument for the Easter Bunny is compelling?

    You’re a retard, no better than Muslim scum and Christian extremists.

  4. co says:

    You put a lot of difficult scientific aproaches together, but also look at it in a symbolic way. Something smaller or equal to zero cannot exist…according to the laws of nature, it explodes…like the bigbang. Maybe one day our universe colapses and you have a new bigbang, a cycle of bigbangs in fact, like the seasons that return. What I want to state symbolically is that something unther to much pressure must make way for a new situation, thanks to that pressure. So we evolved from radiation to atom, to cel…to us…and still, we as well, even our society, ‘explode’ unther the force of different kind of circumstances. That is why agnostics keep on believing that the real thing is not between choosing to be a theist or an atheist.
    octo

  5. Rich says:

    I am curious what is wrong with something not being “natural”. If there is a transcendent being, “God”, wouldn’t such a being be more than natural, or supernatural? Myself, I would prefer to find something “supernatural” rather than just “natural”. Nature is full of death and decay. True wonders we see transcend the natural state, if it go from the areas of technology, to genuine charity, to intelligence and sentience, it isn’t natural. Even now, my writing this is not natural (natural = no Internet).

    So, I personally hold out hope for miracles rather than the mundane, if I am trying to seek something that in the natural order.

  6. brakedown says:

    I am here looking for something that probably doesn’t exist – why Hawking Radiation has any significance to atheism. I am doing this to try to defeat my own rebuttal to somebody else’s assertion. In general, I like to try and play devil’s advocate against my own perspectives sometimes. this site doesn’t help my devil any, but it is interesting of its own accord.

    I generally find Dawkins’s arguments to be well thought out enough to outweigh his arrogance – although I am entertained by his arrogance, much like I am entertained by the television series House. So from what I’ve seen, I seriously doubt Dawkins rebutted any argument for creation from a cosmological point of view by saying “I don’t believe in a God” because it is both non-responsive and boring, not in his character. Further doubt is cast because you don’t say which cosmological argument that was.

    The next major point of contention is “If there was nothing before the big bang, then it stands to reason that logic, nature, and reason itself also sprang into existence at the point of the big bang. ”

    How does that stand to reason? Does it also stand to reason that math, ecology, and emotion also sprang into existence at the point of the big bang? No, none of these things sprang with the big bang. All of these things came into existence gradually, from the same place where God came from. All of these were created in the mind of Early Humanity.

    The concepts of Time, Matter and Space are a much different thing then the manifestations of time, matter and space. The substances may have been coextant with the big bang, but the concepts were codified by mankind. Does math have an existence outside of the imaginings of humanity? Math, nature, and logic are systems man has developed to conceptualize, model and explain the observable and postulated universe around us, but they are not real. They are not objective phenomenon independent to human existence. They are merely ideas, if ideas count as “something”, then something is created from nothing every moment a human lives, dreams, creates beleifs, creates ideas. God was an idea man created from nothing. The idea that a universe is anything like a snowglobe with an inside and an outside and a boundary twain the two is an idea that somebody created from nothing.

    I also find the snowglobe analagy to be flawed. “Imagine you created a tautology. You wrote that tautology on paper, and added punctuation marks. But your speech isn’t confined to that paper, and you don’t just forget that you have other ideas that you didn’t yet write on the paper. Therefore, no tautology can exist on that paper if you didn’t write it there. Likewise, nothing can be true unless somebody wrote it on paper somewhere.”

    Is your snowglobe argument the compelling one? I’m sorry I read past my second point of contention, because after that everything falls apart in a major way, I should have had the sense to stop there. But at least I see the possible mistake that drove me here in the first place. Hawking stating that leftover radiation from the big bang further disproves the preceding steady state theory… this radiation being distinct from Hawking Radiation which comes from black holes sublimating away. I can imagine how somebody conflated these forms of radiation, and perhaps assumed that steady-state theory of cosmology necessitated a creator god. Anyway, that does it for me. Thanks for the babble.

  7. Mr S. Pill says:

    That “something” must have existed before existence itself had began.

    Why? It could be that our universe was created by the end of a past universe (and so on) and all life is constantly in a state of flux and renewal (which may be something the Buddhists have cottened on to…hmm), which would require no “start” or prior existence as known in human terms, it simply is. As for the bit about how if the mass of a proton was different by X we’d not be here, that much is obvious and doesn’t mean there is a designer, simply that we can observe it because we are here to observe. The laws of probability mean that somewhere at some point we had to come along, and thus we did/do/will be (depending on where we are on the space/time axis).

    But my head hurts now, so thank you for making me think. And I like your blog a lot! 🙂

  8. Mr S. Pill says:

    oh one more thing:
    You cannot explain the natural universe, without concluding that the supernatural had a hand in it’s creation.

    Can so explain it! Natural selection. Pow!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: