We know the universe had an origin or a beginning. Science calls this singularity the "Big Bang" theory, a term originally coined by a very famous scientist (and atheist) named Fred Hoyle. Sir Fred Hoyle Hoyle was mocking the idea that our universe could have had an origin because at that time it was believed our universe was too complex to have had a beginning. The eternal or "steady state" universe was preferred by scientists and intellectuals because the universe with an origin required too much to explain. Hoyle had lots of company with him in agreement in their belief that the universe was eternal, including the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell. Even very smart people are humans, and all humans make mistakes, both honestly and dishonestly. However, after seeing the evidence for the Big Bang, Hoyle drastically changed his tune and said this: "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 miniscule. A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as 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." Hoyle, Fred, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. "Engineering and Science", November 1981. pgs. 8–12. I felt this quote by Dr. Hoyle was so important that I included it in my book The God … [Read more...]
Probability and odds
Probably (pun intended) the most difficult part of my argument for God is to properly convey the unlikelihood of our universe forming because of an unplanned and undirected sequence of events. The odds against the existence of our universe are literally astronomical. Even so, I may have finally stumbled upon a way to present the improbability in language anyone can understand, or layman's terms, using the NCAA basketball tournament popularly known as "March Madness." Recently, ESPN published a rather remarkable story about an otherwise unremarkable neuropsychologist named Gregg Nigl. What was Mr. Nigl's specific claim to fame? Had he made some innovative medical discovery that was some groundbreaking innovation in the world of sports? No. No skill was involved in his otherwise noteworthy "accomplishment." Did he break some unique sports record like hitting the most bullseyes in a game of darts, or somehow make his mark in the Guinness Book of World Records? Nope, that wasn't it, either. What did Gregg Nigl do in 2019 that was so remarkable? He was the first person known to have gone a perfect 48-0 in predictions through two rounds of the NCAA tournament. The odds against picking a perfect NCAA tournament bracket have been estimated as between a somewhat modest 1 in 120 billion for an experienced gambler to correctly guess all the tournament winners to treating the outcome of every game as a coin flip. Those "coin flip" odds have been estimated to be a stunning 1 in 9.2 quintillion. But in 2019 for the first time in history, Nigl's picks were perfect … [Read more...]
A reason for the problem of evil
I'm not a preacher. I like to write books. I've never claimed to be an evangelist and I have no formal training in theology. When people ask me questions and I don't know the answers, I'll just say, "I don't know!" because it's the truth. Of all the questions you could ask me, my least favorite is "Why does God allow people to suffer pain? What is the purpose of evil?" My go-to answer for that has always felt like sort of a cop out in my opinion, even though I believe it's true: free will. God has given us this tremendous gift of free will and permitted us the choice between good and evil. I've often said that without pain, we cannot understand pleasure. Without sorrow, we do not appreciate joy. If we've never experienced hate, we have no true concept of love. All this is true. But is that a sufficient answer to the question? Why does evil exist? Why are humans often cruel? Why doesn't God just turn the Earth into Heaven and make everything good? Earlier this morning I watched two short videos I shared on my Facebook page called The God Conclusion, and a "Eureka!" moment occurred to me, although I have managed to refrain from running naked down the street shouting about it at the top of my lungs. The two videos had the same basic message: when we ask God for strength, should God just magically make us stronger, or should He give us difficulties that will ultimately make us stronger? When we ask for wisdom, should God simply make us wiser or give us problems to solve that ultimately make us smarter? If we ask God for courage, should He … [Read more...]
A review of The God Conclusion
One of my atheist friends (yes, I really do have them) promised to read The God Conclusion and said he would publish a review when he finished. Amazon (as typically the case) refused to allow him to post the review, so my friend Tony sent his review to me and I'm posting it on my website. Tony is an honest broker, and fair. I like what he wrote, even when he disagrees with me, and we're going to talk about it in further detail on my next podcast. Here is his review of my book: The Introduction offers important context and sketches some of the arguments to follow. Chapters 1-10 of the book constitute a nearly point-by-point response to "The God Delusion" by biologist Richard Dawkins, with chapters 11-15 forming a positive argument in favour of the author's own position, "The God Conclusion".In his Introduction, Leonard recounts personal experiences that have led him to believe in the Christian God. This sets up the tone of the entire work - this is a book that mixes philosophy, science, and theology with personal thought. To my mind, that is what makes it worthwhile. He also sets up some of the themes he will return to later in the text, including that not believing in God is an act of free will rather than unbiased evaluation. He gives Dawkins credit where credit is due for intelligence and erudition, which is a notable thing contrasted to the generally toxic tone dominating the "God debate". He closes the introduction by pointing out that truth MATTERS. In our current age of "post-fact" discourse, this is also a worthy reminder.Leonard offers responses to … [Read more...]
The second best argument for atheism
When I try to think of what the best arguments for atheism might be, two immediate possibilities come to mind. The first is the problem of suffering and evil. How does a kind and loving God allow humans to suffer from natural disasters as well as our own evil deeds? Aren't murders, rapes, and incest bad enough without some innocent people enjoying a lazy day at the beach being suddenly swept away by a seismic wave? There is no valid human explanation for the problem of suffering because humans don't like pain but do like pleasure. People never want to experience sorrow; they only want to feel joy. But without sorrow, how do we understand and appreciate joy? Without pain, does pleasure even exist? For a moment let us consider the possibility of a supernatural Creator for this natural world we currently occupy...how could this Creator/God have some purpose for allowing pain and suffering in our imperfect world? Sure He could, and we would still not have the mental capacity to understand the Grand Plan. Naturally, this raises a new question--is there a Grand Plan, or only the illusion of a Grand Plan? To answer that question, I would ask the reader to read my book, The God Conclusion. If expressed in the correct language, the origin of our universe can be reduced to two basic, binary options: the universe was either planned or unplanned. If the universe was planned, we don't need a true multiverse hypothesis, where an unlimited number of failed universes exist only to reduce the improbability of the universe we have and still don't supply a cause for the … [Read more...]
