Once upon a time, some of the smartest people in the world thought the universe might have always existed in its current state, hence the name steady state theory was given to the idea of an eternal universe that has always existed in more or less its current form. Aristotle. Bertrand Russell. Sir Fred Hoyle. These men were certainly not stupid. In fact, they were among the most brilliant intellectuals of their respective eras. Coincidentally, all three of these men were atheists. They believed our allegedly "fine-tuned" universe was eternal in part because there was insufficient scientific evidence, at least in their minds, for them to believe otherwise. But they also believed the universe had always existed as it currently is because of the implications created by the alternative, a fine-tuned universe that once had a beginning. Hoyle famously said, Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom; otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. Clearly, the idea of an eternal universe has more appeal than the idea of a fine-tuned universe produced from absolute nothingness, possibly because it is less complex. Fred Hoyle … [Read more...]
To whom would an atheist pray?
I can understand how a person can become an atheist -- after all, in my book Divine Evolution, I described how I came to believe in God, after at least a decade of materialistic, apathetic agnosticism created by my advanced education. Like many atheists have done, I came to believe that much of what I learned in school conflicted with the "Young Earth Creationism" worldview to which I was indoctrinated at an early age, and so I discarded my previously held religious beliefs in favor of nothing. Strangely enough however, at any point during this period I now call my apathetic agnosticism, if you'd asked me if I believed in ghosts, my answer would have quickly been something along the lines of, "Absolutely. My friend's family owns a house that I'm sure is haunted, and I've been there many times. I have personally experienced ghosts." Personal experience can have a very powerful impact on someone's worldview, I can attest. At the same time, I would have equivocated on the same question asked about God and given a much different answer because of my lack of personal experience with God at that time. In retrospect, it now occurs to me that my acceptance of the "reality" of a supernatural ghost and simultaneous rejection of a supernatural God seems a bit silly. To be brutally honest though, I really wasn't putting a whole lot of thought into existential questions at that point in my life. Quite frankly, furthering my professional career and raising a family were much higher priorities for me. Rarely if ever did I go to church during that extended period of my … [Read more...]
On the formation of the universe, by C. W. Bobbitt
Unfortunately, I decided to begin my book Counterargument for God with my criticisms of Darwin and worked backward, instead of beginning with the Big Bang, the beginning of the universe and working forward. As a result, many atheist readers stopped reading before they reached my observations on the evidence for the Big Bang, because they couldn't accept the truth when I shed light on what I believe to be the obvious flaws in Darwin's theory of evolution. After reading my book and corresponding with me, professor C. W. Bobbitt was kind enough to allow his personal thoughts in regard to the existential questions to be published here on my website. He offered this excellent suggestion as he wrote, "I think it best to have you read and mull on it for a day or so. I will just mention a couple of things to pique your interest: visualize God commanding "nothing" to split into two universes of matter and anti-matter (some might think of this a right-handed and a left-handed system) with each flying away from the other to its pre-assigned space and each experiencing an initial behavior which we mortals call the Big Bang. Thus our universe comes into being in a way consistent with scientific thinking... after God initiates it." Without further ado, here are Professor Bobbitt's thoughts on the Big Bang theory. ON THE FORMATION OF THE UNIVERSE by C. W. Bobbitt We suppose that the universe had a beginning, that it came into being by an act of creation, that the creating agency was (is) God. As mortal men we seek to know how it came into being, how God performed this … [Read more...]
A pleasant surprise
Of my six published books, none have inspired more readers to offer negative feedback than my Counterargument for God. Perhaps this is due to the fact that I routinely offer a free electronic copy to every atheist whom I encounter online -- not in an attempt to antagonize them, but with the sincere hope that my book might inspire future conversation. If there is a viable alternative to rather stupendous good luck to possibly explain our existence without invoking a supernatural God, I'd like to know what that alternative might be. I appreciate fair but constructive criticism and value it as much or more than positive feedback because I believe it is important to learn from my mistakes, so that I won't be doomed to repeat them. As an author it's always nice to know that someone took the time to read what I consider to be a labor of love, even if they agree with me. Naturally, I was quite pleased to receive the email below from C. W. Bobbitt, a retired professor from Mississippi State University: John, I read your book Counterargument for God, some parts several times. It's hard to believe that two people so separated in space and time could have thoughts so nearly coincident on a given subject. No doubt about it, we're on the same page. I would not presume to tell you why you are wrong because I don' know that you are wrong (although I call my paper a hypothesis, and I think that name is defensible, I really see it as a scenario---it could have happened this way.) I need to state up front that my analysis of this subject is based on two propositions which I … [Read more...]
The Pearl: 30 March 2015
The only source of knowledge is experience. – Albert Einstein Albert Einstein was arguably one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century. This quote is particularly interesting because there are some renowned modern scientists who would try to convince you the opposite is true -- they actually claim that careful inference is superior to personal experience. However, seeing is indeed believing. In my book Divine Evolution, I wrote about my personal experiences -- yes, I do mean to imply there were multiple occurrences -- with ghosts. Many of these paranormal experiences were witnessed by other people. And in another chapter, I wrote about my personal encounter with the risen Christ on the night I connected the dots that linked Matthew 7:7 and Revelations 3:20. Then in my Counterargument for God, I sought to examine what I perceive to be a connection between the near death experience, or NDE, and ghosts, which of course could be called ADES, for after death experiences. My personal experiences were not hallucinations. They were nothing less than evidence that strongly indicates that the mind and brain are actually separable entities. There is scientific evidence to support my claims, known as corroborated veridical NDE events. These events involve a person who has a medical emergency of some nature that puts them temporarily in a state near death, and they claim to have out-of-body experiences. What makes these claims of particular interest are two facts: their medical condition can be verified, and these people make a specific claim of acquiring … [Read more...]
