Tag Archives: Universe

Exposing the Fallacy of “Supernatural”

Mehran Banaei

How many times have neo-atheists like Lawrence Krauss vociferously stated: “We [the scientists] don’t believe in any supernatural shenanigans”? In an attempt to refute the notion of the First Cause, Krauss ubiquitously refers to the Big Bang Originator as a “supernatural shenanigan”, hoping to convince his audience that it is science which leads to disbelief in a caused universe.

Krauss is not the only atheist scientist who appeals to gimmicks to score his point. Like Richard Dawkins, he claims not to believe in “supernatural shenanigans” because he is a man of science. I suppose a man with a hidden agenda has no choice but to appeal to deceitful tricks, when he tries to promote an unscientific personal opinion disguised as a research based academic exposition. Indeed, it boggles the mind as to why would a scientist, if he were truly objective, inordinately adopt unscientific language to brag about what he does not believe?

The term “supernatural”, particularly when paired with “shenanigans” unconsciously conjures up the image of a mystical fairytale, magic or superstition. Whatever is labeled “supernatural”, connotes it being a relic of the past, an outdated pre-scientific thinking, sitting right next to the paranormal. A “supernatural being” sounds like a fictitious mythological character that does not exist, i.e. Zeus, Vishnu or Superman. By using such a term the neo-atheists are trying to make their opponents look like idiots before even the debate begins. Krauss is trying to shape the reader’s attitudes towards what caused the universe before he even presents his case, by implying that belief in “God” for lack of a better word is stupid, and the one who adopts such a belief is at the zenith of stupidity.


An example of genuine supernatural shenanigan: the claim that one can levitate by meditation. Belief in the First Cause is put in the same category and then debunked by erroneous association.

Another example of this crafty scheme can be seen in the employment of the term “Brights” by atheists, who commonly use it to refer to themselves. I suppose, if you label yourself “Bright”, you are then percieved rational and enlightened, subsequently your opponents must all be dim, blindly following a credulous  belief.

Psychologically, people have a great aversion to being branded with terms that have a negative import. No one would wish to be stigmatized as having an antiquated belief. No one wants to have a negative title bestowed upon one, especially when it is often closely associated with some outlooks which indeed are primitive, superstitious, irrational or fanatical. This insidious attempt is deliberately used to disadvantage the other side at the very outset, by placing a negative label on them. This is nothing short of straw man labelization.

The strategy implies that whoever adopts a belief in “supernatural” is dogmatic. However, this type of stigmatization in essence, is a typical textbook case of cheap ad hominem attack and name calling, devoid of any substantiative arguments.

But, is the Entity which caused the universe supernatural? It all depends on the definition and our point of reference. Nothing is universally natural across the board. For instance, is it natural to be able to fly? For reptiles is not, for birds it certainly is. Is it natural to swim under water? For fish it is, for the cockroach it is not. Is it natural, to be uncaused, to be immortal outside of time and space dimensions, and not to have a face or physical body? For earthy beings it is not, but for the Big Bang Originator, the Creator of time and space it is. Who said that the Creator of the laws of physics must be subject to the laws of physics, and ought to be empirically verifiable? In fact, the Creator of the laws physics cannot be subject to them. Hence, impossible to verify the existence of the Imperceptible by perception or empirical means. That should be perfectly obvious to anyone with a modicum of logic. The Creator and creation cannot be of the same essence, not even close. One must be totally different than the other! How absurd to determine what is natural, unnatural or supernatural from a reductionistic self-centered point of view. Krauss ignores the limits of conceptualization of human understanding, and acts like he knows it all. For him what is universally natural, is what he perceives to be natural, anything outside of the limited realm of human perception is considered unnatural; therefore anything of such a unique attribute is categorized as nonsense. However, I guess revealing all of that information to the readers would have undercut Krauss’ attempt to dogmatize monotheistic theism.

Furthermore, note how Krauss subtly uses his academic status and the like-minded scientists to bolster the claim that God does not exist, even though the existence or non-existence of God falls completely outside the jurisdiction of science, the way modern scientists define science. This is a fallacy known as “Appeal to Authority” – we are supposed to believe the proposition just because someone who is supposedly an expert says so. However, it is Krauss the atheist, not Krauss the physicist who is stating his own opinion, and his personal opinion on God carries no more weight than the opinion of a hairstylist. Just as cutting hair in a barbershop does not lead to atheism, likewise working in a science lab does not lead to atheism. Surely, the opinion of another scientist could be diametrically at odds with his. Therefore, the appropriate thing for Kruss to say is that “We the atheists don’t believe in any supernatural shenanigans”, to which a thoughtful theist could rightly reply: Big Deal! We, who acknowledge the universe is caused, don’t believe in any supernatural shenanigans either.

But why should we be listening to Krauss? Do we know if he is trustworthy? Is he stating a fact, or merely his own slanted atheistic opinion? Indeed, why would a truly objective scientist assume that the universe is causeless, and degrade the theistic position as a “supernatural shenanigans”? If one is truly a man of science, then he does not need to appeal to these kind of cheap tricks. Atheists repeatedly use these tricks because they know well it is effective. The inappropriate usage of the term supernatural is now frequently picked up by the believers themselves to describe their faith.

If Krauss says that we the scientists don’t believe in the Uncaused cause, we believe that the universe is self-created, he would then have a hard time defending his position without looking dim-witted. For one, he is in no position to speak for all scientists. Prominent scientists, past and present like Isaac Newton, and all the Muslim scientists of the Golden Age who introduced science and scientific investigations to the Europeans, emphatically believed in the Uncaused cause. They openly believed in the existence of a Grand Designer.

Does Krauss the scientist believe in a rudimentary deductive logic and a priori reasoning? He should if he is truly objective. We now know that the universe had a beginning. Time, space, matter and energy suddenly came into existence from oblivious nonexistence. An Entity, call it God or what have you, must have triggered the creation of the universe. This God far from being “supernatural” the way it is suggested, is the Necessary Being, which is impossible not to exist. By Its nature, such a Being ought to be uncaused, singular, intelligent and powerful. His “Godly” nature is natural for what this Being is – as natural as water being wet.

What Krauss does not wish to acknowledge is that the alternative so-called “scientific” theories posed to refute the Uncaused cause seem more shenaniganic than any pre-historic religious dogma. For example, the multiverse theory operating on unguided automated natural selection, Dawkins’ postulation that complex organisms in nature are not designed, but have the illusion of design. Or Stephen Hawking’s assertion of chance hypothesis that the creation of the universe was “the ultimate free lunch”. All these are implausible loopy theories nicely packaged as scientific facts. The truth is the atheist scientists indeed believe in the ultimate supernatural shenanigan, they believe that out of “Nowhere”, for no reason, “Nothing” caused a massive explosion. Out of this explosion, everything somehow arranged itself in an orderly fashion, and then without any purpose a complex interrelated self-supporting web of life with an astonishing degree of diversity spontaneously came into existence. I suppose, atheist apologists feel they can believe and promote sheer nonsense, if it is labeled “science”.

Neo-atheists have hijacked science, turned it into a right-wing industry for manipulating public opinion, rather than appealing to objective rational judgments, and the sincere and noble pursuit of the truth. The industry’s whole aim is to market a peculiar Godless religion in order to make a fast buck. These atheist evangelists have made a lucrative career ironically revolving around the “nonsense” of what they themselves purport they could not have cared less about.



Filed under Philosophy of Science and Religion

Can “Science” Legitimately Dismiss “Non-science”?

Mehran Banaei

For years the Greek philosophers in ancient Greece were debating which part of our daily food actually feeds us and turns into energy, and which part is useless and purged after digestion. To end the debate, one Greek intellectual came up with the assertion that the part that feeds us is “the nutritious faculty of the food.” His seemingly fancy assertion was an interesting explanation, but it did not offer anything new. The subsequent question which immediately comes to mind is: which part of the food we eat is “the nutritious faculty of the food.” What was proposed only begged the question. The offered explanation is tautological. It is like saying, the part that feeds us, is the part that feeds us.

If you think perhaps this was the characteristic of scientific inquiry in ancient time, not of the modern era on more vital issues, you are mistaken. This approach is still prevailing today in scientific inquires. Consider the following case:

From the early dawn of civilization, the oldest existential question ever asked by Mankind is that why is there ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’. Some consider this basic question philosophical, others think it is scientific, a few think it is inherently theological. The fact of the matter is, this is a simple commonsensical question, naturally occupying Man’s mind worthy of serious inquiry. Indeed, why is there ‘something’ when there could be ‘nothing’? The ‘something’ refers to an entire universe with bewildering complexity intelligently fine-tuned where the earth and the whole of mankind is only an insignificant speck of dust in the grand scheme of creation. A delicate sequential creation which gradually evolved from the moment of inception of time, space, matter and energy to the present state of nature. Indeed, what is the underlying cause of the universe’s marvelous rhythms and regularities?

Each group has proposed a solution for this deep-seated enigma. However, the solution offered by the scientists is continuously nothing short of begging the question. Indeed, from physicists, cosmologists to biologists, their explanation of why is there ‘something’ as opposed to ‘nothing’ is anything, but satisfactory. The theologians and philosophers who attribute creation to an anthropomorphic cause are not in a better predicament.

Some ardent scientists would like us to think that they have unlocked the secrets of the universe and have totally eliminated the role of the First Cause or the Prime Mover. The creation of the universe is attributed to existence of gravity, quantum particles, Higgs boson, laws of physics, natural selection and so on. Some scientists attack ancient fairytales, yet propose modern fairytales like “multiverse”, or to say the least push a weak theory as though it is an established fact.

Like the above-mentioned ancient Greek thinker, these scientists do not seem to understand this rudimentary question too well and clearly have nothing to offer. Stephen Hawking for example states that “One cannot prove that God does not exist, but science makes God unnecessary… The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a Creator.” Really! Indeed, what an incredibly petulant and tautological argument coming from an eminent scientist! Similar to Richard Dawkins who asserts that natural selection did it, Hawkins reductionistic solution is that gravity did it all. In his revolutionary contribution, Hawking takes the liberty to avoid elaborating, I suppose from his perspective, on a minor issue: where did the laws of physics come from? Once again we see another scientist who looks for the cause of the universe within the already created universe. More so, he neglects to explain why the universe is programmed to gravitate. Is gravity self-created? How is it that gravity is acting up with an intended goal?

drawing-hands-by-escherThe drawer of this drawing is not in the drawing, likewise the cause of the universe cannot be within the universe

In answering the question, why is there ‘something’ as opposed to ‘nothing’, any proposed mechanism for what caused the universe and how it came to be is still an invalid remedy. For one would still ask why is there, for example gravity, where there could be no gravity. Where did the precise required laws of physics come from? Why is there natural selection as opposed to unnatural rejection? Their utter inability to tackle this and other similar questions have forced them to declare that all “Why” questions are silly questions unworthy of pursuit. To cover up the irrationality of their position and to silence their critic, they do their best to belittle philosophy. Ironically, in so doing, they give philosophical arguments to elevate science above philosophy.

The reason for the inability of science to answer this fundamental question emanates from the fact that existential questions are not at all scientific questions, the way empirical science defines itself, i.e. the process of observation, experimentation, quantification, falsification, prediction and empirical verification. Thereby, any proposed explanation offered by any scientist is unscientific and a matter of personal opinion, particularly when such a scientist steps into realm of non-science and metaphysics such as the debate on if there is or there is not a “God”. In this regard, an opinion of a scientist is no more valuable than an opinion of a chef or an auto mechanic. Is there any relationship between the validity of an opinion on metaphysics with what the person who expresses it does for living? What is the connection between cooking and the proclamation that there is, or there is not a God? Absolutely nothing. Likewise, what is the connection between science and atheism? If all the chefs in the world claim to be atheists, does this make the idea of God and cooking mutually exclusive, incompatible with one another? Scientists like Dawkins and Krauss have built a career outside of their respective field and would like us to think that their opinion on why there is ‘something’ as opposed to ‘nothing’ is more valuable than the opinion of the community of auto mechanics or chefs. Undoubtedly, their opinion is not the only possible explanation, or the best explanation.

These evangelical atheists have hijacked science and conveniently use their authority in biology and physics to give Fatwa in an area that they have no expertise in, i.e. there is no God. There is nothing scientific about the proclamation that there is no God. Where is the scientific objectivity here? No one would take these two scientists seriously if they ever give a Fatwa on economic matters, since neither one knows anything about economy. So why would anyone think that they their atheism is anything more than their personal opinion emanating from their inner desires and agenda?

Atheist scientists claim that they go where the evidence leads them. While there is plenty of evidence against religious dogmatism, there is nothing via science to conclude atheism. They project their own subjective opinion on non-existence of a Creator as though it is a fact of logic derived from science, while paint the belief on the First Cause as though it is fact of psychology derived from gullibility and insecure emotions, like it cannot be the other way around.

The modern scientists can have a better understanding of the universe if they do not narrowly compartmentalize human knowledge into science and non-science, and not easily dismiss anything, which cannot be subject of empirical verification. Existence of the First Cause does not require empirical verification in a science lab. For lovers of the truth, the ultimate criteria should be the usage of reason in its fullest sense and the overarching law of non-contradiction, to examine all claims, be they deductive or inductive in order to assess the possibility of existence or non-existence of anything.



Filed under Philosophy of Science and Religion

Naturalism: A Fishy Perspective on Causality

Mehran Banaei

There is a famous Persian proverb about a curious little fish who confronted his father with a burning question: “Dad, what is this thing called water?” The young fish asked inquisitively. His father helplessly replied, “Son, I heard about it too, but to tell you the truth, I have absolutely no idea, no one has ever encountered water.”

The intended message behind this proverb is that while any question may seem valid to pose, one ought to be equipped with sufficient brainpower to comprehend the answer. Reality has to be accessible to the observer’s intellect and conceptualization is the key to understanding. While our brain can absorb many things, it certainly cannot conceptualize and absorb everything, simply because it does not have the capacity to comprehend the nature of all that exists.

One of the most frequent questions posed by atheists is that, if everything has a beginning and cause, then who caused the First Cause; that is to say where did the Originator of the Big Bang come from, and who created Him.

As a theist, I find this ubiquitous reductionistic approach unworthy of analysis, merely fitting for tabloids and gossip magazines. The question posed is irrelevant and totally unnecessary to put forth. For one, the Creator’s “personal life” does not really interest me, nor do I think I am equipped with enough cognitive capacity to understand His infinite uncaused nature. For mortal beings like us, trapped in a finite universe of cause and effect, it may seem difficult to envision that there could be an uncaused cause outside time and space dimensions who is not bounded by the laws of cause and effect. However, what I can easily grasp which matters most, is that I am here, did not need to be here, was not here at one point, and will not be here further down in time. While I am busy to make sense of my own existence, I have no interest to dwell on the nature of the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause. Deductive logic and inductive extrapolative evidence sufficiently attest to existence of an intelligent conscious Being outside of this universe; indeed, without Him the universe could not have existed. What is known to our intellect is enough to establish His existence; thus what do we need to know His “biography” for, which is inaccessible to our cognitive apparatus?

Atheists believe that nothing exists beyond the natural world. They make an incorrect assumption that outside of this caused universe, there could not be an Uncaused Entity, and that the Causer of the universe must also be caused, subject to His own laws. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that the First Cause of the universe was caused by a bigger cause than Himself, if so, then who caused the “First Cause”, and so on. This erroneous approach would obviously lead to an infinite regression and unsettled conclusion, thus dismissible at the outset, yet it is continuously brought up by likes of Richard Dawkins. These atheists fail to understand that the cause of the universe cannot be within this universe, subject of the very laws of physics within the universe. That which creates cause and effect cannot be the subject of cause and effect. That which creates time and space cannot be the subject of time and space. That which creates time must be timeless. That which is timeless and eternal must be Uncaused.

It is now well established that the universe and time have had a beginning some 14 billion years ago. In discussing the origin of this created universe, what becomes inescapable is that causality has to be attributed to something, i.e. to mythological gods, a cosmic luck, blind processes of cosmic natural selection, a self-created universe aimlessly fashioned out of nothing, extraterrestrial more advanced than us, or to A Singular Uncaused Cause. It is our task to explore all explanations and determine which explanation is rational and makes more sense.


By way of analogy, while fish do not have the capacity to deductively or inductively comprehend the existence of water, the existence of fish alone is a sufficient proof for the existence of water, whether the fish comprehends water and its dependence on it, or blatantly denies the existence of water. Yet atheists feel content with attributing the existence of 28,000 different stunning species of fish, each playing a role in the intricate balance of ecosystem to a keeper of an aquarium. The keeper being natural selection, laws of physics, mindlessness, etc. without articulating where did they come from. Thereby, blatantly committing the notorious fallacy of passing the buck.

1 Comment

Filed under Philosophy of Science and Religion

True Crime: The Prevelance of Perjury in Science and Theology

Mehran Banaei

To testify in a court of law, the witness is obligated to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. To arrive objectively at the truth, it is essential that all these three components go together hand in hand. One has to first tell the truth, not concocted fabrications. While disclosing the truth, one has to tell the whole truth, not just half of the truth and be selective to bits and pieces of what is desirable and what is not. Often, while much has been said, is there anything, which has been left unsaid? If so, the concealed information once revealed may force completely a different conclusion. In this respect, half of the truth is as effective as half a parachute. Lastly, in the process of telling the truth, the witness ought not to contaminate the truth with added impurities. Only through the employment of such a fact-finding process can a valid judgement be made.

This is how things are in a court of law, but how should things be in the trial of life? What could one testify with certainty in a lifetime of interactions in this universe? Can we ever ascertain if the universe is created by an external Agent, or is the universe the creator itself?

In analyzing popular discourse between atheists and theists from a Judeo-Christian background, it could be noticed that both sides do not follow this basic tribunal requirement. Both sides vigorously engage in only telling the truth. Yet, both sides with the intention to be triumphant in the debate deliberately ignore the two other concomitant requirements, that is the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as if there is such a thing as half reality. Thus, committing the notorious crime of perjury. Both groups need to be reminded that those who jump with half a parachute are not going to have a safe landing.

What is the truth that both sides constantly broadcast? The truth is the outright flaws in their opponent’s view, hoping by embarrassing their opponent, they would score a point to rest their own case. What is left out to say, is the lack of evidence in their own view presented in form of faith, or presented in the name of science having nothing to do with reality.

For example, Christian apologetics like C.S. Lewis, John Lennox, Richard Swinburne, John Polkinghorne and Alvin Plantinga are a few among many theists who confront the atheist camp with the weapon of scientific truth, the truth about the inescapable implications of fine-tuning. They well demonstrate that the universe must have a cause and the cause of the universe is not within the universe. Yet, they never mention that there are blatant scientific errors in the Bible, the countless inconsistencies and historical blunders in that which is claimed to be a perfect divine revelation. What is further added to the truth is the baseless claim that the cause of the universe is an anthropomorphic Entity. Is there a shred of evidence in this universe to attest to this claim? While there are compelling reasons to believe in the First Cause, there are no compelling reasons to believe that the entire Bible is word by word dictated by the First Cause.


On the other hand, atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens rightly argue that religious teachings have been used by the elite to control the masses. Organized religion discourages free inquiry and stands at odds with scientific facts. What they do not say is that, this dreadful state of affair is utterly contrary to the teachings of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, neither one had any interest in wealth or power. It is a historical fact that all these three men went head on with the atrocious regime of their time to liberate their community from mental and physical slavery. It is a historical fact that all these three men taught mankind to use reason and expand their knowledge. What Dawkins and Hitchens do not say, is abuses and crimes committed in the name of religion do not disprove the Divine causality. In fact, when a crime is committed, it is irrelevant in what name it is committed, be that in the name of “religion”, “western values”, “self-defense”, etc. What they do go ahead to falsely add is that science has buried the idea of a created universe, and what science discovers about the origin and functioning of the universe would have no implications beyond science.


Such a misleading presentation offered by the two sides often causes confusion among unwary audiences, leading many to agnosticism that the truth cannot be knowable, or it is relative. Thus, one can never be certain about the nature of reality. When it comes to causality, the state of human knowledge is ever inconclusive.

In discovering the truth about the universe and human existence, one has to detach oneself from personal desire and all socio-cultural beliefs without any affinity to or pressure from the external sources. Then tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. If one abides by this simple principle of fact-finding, one can easily arrive at the ultimate reality about the origin of the universe.

The fact is, one may not be able to figure out what is beyond death, or if there is heaven and hell. One cannot know what is the nature of this Entity who caused the universe and how It came to be. But by observing the universe, there are countless assertions that one is indeed able to attest with certainty. The prime evidence of nature is before every man and woman. Nature’s immediacy and simple language are timeless and universal. Our own existence alone testifies to a cause. We know better that nothing can be spontaneously created out of nothing. There is no case in point to falsify this assertion. Everything in the universe is evidently designed and functions based on specific defined laws. From a tiny atom to the most complex celestial system, everything follows a certain order. The idea of a perfectly functioning accidental universe with no beginning or end is impossible and improbable, thus it is irrational to advocate such a position. It is so absurd as well as dishonest to argue that this incredibly complex web of life in the vast space is a result of random chance. One should know better that chance is not a cause. Even chance requires some pre-requisites. The alternative explanations such as materialist explanation are inadequate. The existence of consciousness and free-will refute the materialist position on causality. All exhibits confirm that the universe is somehow created and is pursuing a goal. The creation of the universe is not by accident, but is by intention.

Judging by the ubiquitous effects, the Causer of the universe is evidently infinitely powerful, creative and intelligent. Even most atheists do not dispute these attributes; however, they rather ascribe these attributes to “Mother Nature”, “Natural Selection” or pure chance. From this single assertion one can autonomously extrapolate that the Entity who is intelligent must necessarily be compassionate, merciful and just or He is not intelligent at all. His degree of compassion ought to be proportionate to His power and intelligence. Furthermore, the Causer of the universe must be singular, eternal and there can be nothing like Him.

To say the very least, in the trial of life, one should be able to bear witness that the universe is caused by this Entity for a purpose.

Leave a comment

Filed under Philosophy of Science and Religion

Battle of Dogmas, a Mug of Beer vs. an Egg: The Commonality of “Atheistic Science” and “Trinitarian Christianity”

Mehran Banaei

Those who adhere to science and logic take a strong position against the Christian doctrine of Trinity. They protest as to how on earth can 1+1+1 be equal to 1, and consequently hold that the nature of God in Christianity is totally incomprehensible and inaccessible to the human intellect. They further argue: how can a being be both human and God, mortal and immortal, finite and infinite, fallible and infallible, contingent and incontingent, caused and uncaused, possessing these attributes simultaneously or consecutively? How can God be in human flesh, and further, how can the Divine God have a human son? These critics have argued for centuries, that the notion of Trinity cannot be rationally possible, since if God has a son, His son then must have the same nature as his Father, otherwise he cannot really be his Son. If so, how could the Son have the same nature as his Father, when the nature of the Father is that he has no Son or Father and no one gave him life? After all, He is the God that begets not, nor was He ever begotten.

Trinity is so blatantly irrational, that many well-known Christian thinkers such as Joseph Priestley, John Locke, Isaac Newton, and Ralph Waldo Emerson openly rejected it and adopted the Biblical Unitarian version of Christianity that regards Jesus as just a human being. Historically, the classical response from Christian theologians has been anything but satisfactory. Many Christians today continue to struggle with the perennially irreconcilable notion of a triune God.

Trinity is commonly defended by employing four different strategies, all of which are invalid. Trinitarians blatantly bypass the basic law of non-contradiction through the usage of these techniques, either separately or combined.

Firstly, the argument by analogy. Analogies are frequently provided to explain complex and indefensible concepts; often the analogy used is fallacious and is nothing close to the concept being defended. In defense of Trinity, an analogy of egg is provided to explain this indigestible concept, claiming that Trinity is just like an egg having three layers. The shell, white, and yoke are all parts of one egg, but at the same time they are all separate components of an egg. God is like an egg in that He is 3-in-1, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This analogy is expected to clarify how divinity and humanity can be the unified characteristic of a single entity, forgetting at the outset that an explanation is not a proof. The approach employed leaves further questions unanswered such as: why is the nature of Divine like an egg, but not for instance like an onion unsettled. Can Trinity be truly the Divine nature of the Big Bang Originator?

Secondly, the irrationality of the proposed concept is covered up by clouds of worthless terminology and convoluted language. The Christian God is claimed to be a “Hypostatic Union” between man and God, an invented terminology by the First Council of Ephesus held in the year 431, a fancy term that conveys absolutely no meaning but pontifical gobbledygook.

Consider the following example, through natural processes, a silkworm can turn into a beautiful butterfly, but once it becomes a butterfly it can no longer return to being a worm again. Metamorphosis is a unidirectional process. Such a species cannot be both worm and butterfly at the same time. If God becomes man in every sense of the word, He then loses His power to become God again. If He is still able to regain His divinity, then He never was truly a man.

Thirdly, Trinity is a mystery that has to be accepted based on blind faith; it is a matter of personal belief. Faith excuses evidence. A thing that cannot be subject of rational scrutiny could still be justified since the good Lord can do anything. How many times have we heard Christian theologians claim that “you cannot question everything”? They come up with disingenuous vocalizations and slogans such as: God is love, the love of God can overcome mystery and irrationality; when we meet the Lord in the heaven He will eventually explain His mysterious nature to us. In explaining the Biblical causation to the scientific community, the Trinitarian position is that “Jesus did it”, “the Holy Spirit did it”, and the anthropomorphic “God the Father, the old man up in sky did it.” Then they look surprised why scientists dismiss the Biblical account of creation.

Fourthly, when clergies are confronted with an unanswerable question, they use the same technique commonly used by trained politicians on how to dodge a difficult question by answering a different question so brilliantly.  They never write off the point raised and always acknowledge that the issue raised is justified and deserves scrutiny. The technique requires manipulation of the audience, by first creating a little distraction to sideline the questioned issue and then gradually moving on to a different topic that is easy to handle, the position taken is something which everyone would agree with. At the end, if the unsuspecting questioner feels the issue is still unclear to him, he may conclude that he is just too unintelligent to understand the issue well explained to him.

Ravi Zacharias on the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Trinity

Needless to say, none of the above approaches would quench the thirst of truly rational individuals, all those who seem to have had enough of the Christian dogma and long for a little bit of a breeze of rationality. Many scientists as well as philosophers claim to be among this group. However, they too have equally abandoned rationality and throw the baby out with the bath water. They reject God the First Cause with the notion of Trinity, Christianity, all manmade and altered religions. The illogical Christian theological doctrine has given excuse to the rise of atheistic science. Their first error is that, since the existence of God is not subject to empirical analysis, it must be excluded from science. Thus, in looking for an alternative Godless worldview, scientists fail dreadfully. Their solution is no different than that of Christianity and they ultimately fall into the same pitfall.

At first atheist scientists came up with the idea of the Steady State universe. They argued against theists that if God has no creator and has always been there, why not the same be true about the universe, that the universe had no cause, and has always been there. If God is said to be eternal, why not to say that the universe is eternal. Furthermore, with respect to the notion of the fine tuning of the universe and the astounding variety and complexity of life, materialists proposed “Natural Selection” to rebut William Paley’s notion of Watchmaker. However, after the discovery of the Big Bang, the dominant Steady State universe could no longer be defended. The Big Bang confirmation established that the universe had a beginning and a beginning universe suggests that there ought to be a creator. Further discovery of the Double Helix geometric shape of DNA, the molecule of life comprized of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences made defense of atheism a silly attempt. Atheists suddenly found themselves in trouble and started looking for a remedy, ideas such as Multiverse, parallel universes, M theory, String Theory and other dimensions, etc. started to develop without any inductive supports, contrary to the very basic tenet of empirical science. None of these theories have arised based on evidential discoveries; on the contrary they all have been developed with a specific objective, which is to eliminate the need for a Creator in explaining the causality.

To an impartial objective observer, the similarities between the two views presented by respected atheist physicists and Trinitarian Christians are evident: both are unsupported, illogical and based on faith that is blind faith. The Christians rather believe in the trinity of God, than in the unity of one God. The atheist scientists rather believe in an absurdity of a self-made accidental universe, or in a more bizarre idea of infinite number of undetectable self-created universes than believe in a single Creator of all that there is. If this belief is not based on blind faith, I then wonder what is. The atheist scientists confused science with science fiction, have coined terms such Multiverse for a fictional concept, then like Christians, appeal to a faulty analogy to justify their pseudo-science. For example, claiming that the whole of existence is like a mug of beer full of bubbles. A beer mug being a vast hyperspace, the mother of all universes and the individual bubbles are like the individual universes popping into existence. Subsequently concluding, not all universes would be conducive to complex life; we were just the lucky one to live in the universe that hosts life. We are the winners of the jackpot of a cosmic lottery. Really! How practical? Isn’t that nice, winning the ultimate prize without even buying a ticket?

BeerRiddles of the Multiverse

God and the Universe

Indeed, what a useless and dogmatic effort by atheists. The idea of the Multiverse cannot exclude the role of God the Creator. Not only does the Multiverse theory not eliminate the need for God the creator or the First Cause: rather, it makes the matter even somewhat more complicated. As if having to explain one origin and one causation is not hard enough, now multiply that by infinite causes. Let’s suppose that the Multiverse theory is accurate, the question of who created the hyperspace, the mother of all universes and then set the physical laws to govern it, still remains blatantly unanswered. Did the Multiverse not have an initial cause? Who said that God cannot create a Multiverse? How does the notion of the Multiverse lead one to conclude atheism is warranted? The atheists position on the creation of the Multiverse is no different than that of the creation of the universe. They defend the irrationality of their belief by claims such as, “Nothing did it” (Lawrence Krauss); “It did itself”; “The universe created itself” (Daniel Dennett), “Mother nature did it”, “Natural Selection did it”, “The Selfish Gene did it”, “a blind watchmaker did it” (Richard Dawkins).

It is true by relying on science we can learn so much about the universe, the proposed Darwinian explanation on how A evolved to B, may be satisfactory to those who are only concerned about the origin of B, but not A. But, why stop at B? Why be only concerned about where and how the bubbles in the beer come from? The more important question is where did the mug that holds the beer come from. How did the whole of the grand existence begin?

Furthermore, the atheist scientists seem to forget something rather pivotal to their field here. This forgetfulness is that explanation is not a proof. An explanation is not an argument and cannot be taken as justification or proof. Why on earth should the Multiverse be like beer and not like water, totally flat and bubbleless? Did the atheist scientists forget what really gave birth to backlash against religious institutions? Did they forget their own arguments against faith-based beliefs, and what distinguishes science from religious belief in fairytales? What must be considered is a religious man who believes in the notion of Trinity, is painted by scientists to be closed-minded, an obtuse religious fanatic, as Richard Dawkins describes it: “an enemy of reason”. If this is who he is, then in a way he is licensed to believe in Bronze Age superstition and nonsense. However, how can an academic man of science, a lover of reason and rationality, a graduate of a prestigious university and author of numerous books come up with a similar argument and invalid conclusion as a religious fool? Why are the lovers of truth using the same techniques to dodge questions which their proposed science is paralyzed to answer?

What is strikingly shocking is to see blind faith arguments coming from scientists, those who have already criticized the faulty analogy of Trinity and further unfairly picked on William Paley’s Watchmaker analogy.

Practically in every textbook or website on logic and science when the fallacy of faulty analogy is discussed, the example of Paley’e argument is cited as a typical fallacy of faulty analogy, arguing that this analogy does not demonstrate the existence of an intelligent designer. Consider the following diatribe,

“…the analogy doesn’t succeed because of faulty comparison. In false analogy, constructiveness of the argument gives way to deceptiveness and triviality, where the falseness in the analogy can be understood by the absurd construction of the argument. This can be best understood by the ‘watchmaker analogy’, which is used as an argument for the existence of God. According to this particular analogy, the complexity of the universe is similar to the complexity of a watch. Since every watch has a watchmaker, so the universe too must have a maker or designer, in short God. This analogy falls flat, because of the fatuousness of the comparison and is, today, considered to be the best example of false analogy. This will become clear when the argument is given an absurd turn. It can be accepted that the universe is as complex as a watch. But while the watch can be taken around in the pocket, the universe cannot be. Thus, an analogy becomes false when there are many characteristics that highlight the differences between the comparisons.” (Reference)

Using this logic, that the universe and a watch are not the same thing, I suppose one can comfortably argue that the comparison of Multivers with a mug of beer is likewise unwarranted; thereby the Multiverse cannot exist, simply because unlike a mug of beer, you cannot drink the Multiverse.

The atheist scientists erroneously think that scientific inaccuracies in the Bible are a good proof that there can be no God. They conclude from the fact that the followers of each religion claim that their religion is the Truth with capital T, therefore there can be no such a thing as absolute Truth. They deduce from the fact that there are so many different concepts of god, therefore there can be no God. How unscientific? It is a pity to see such conclusions are made by those who are systematically trained to discover the truth by the process of elimination, those who are trained to separate fact from competing theories.

The fallaciousness of scientism is well exposed and counter-attacked by Christians who were bashed relentlessly by scientists for the last couple of centuries. However, Christians should be reminded that it was the dogmatic outlook of Christianity in the very first place and its hostile attitude towards knowledge that gave rise to atheism. Christians among all people are in no position to complain about why scientists have an aversion towards religion, and should know better why people are driven in droves towards the abyss of relativism and atheism.

The debate between atheism and Christianity has turned into a boring dispute between the pot and the kettle, both sides calling each other black, each side guilty of the very fault identified in the other side, both sides being guilty of mixing sense with nonsense.

Leave a comment

Filed under Philosophy of Science and Religion

From Big Bang to Big Crunch

Mehran Banaei and Nadeem Haque

From Big Bang to Big Crunch

From the emerging dawn of human civilization, Man has always reflected on the origin of the universe. He has marvelled at the beauty and the order manifested in it. Like an earnest child asking inquisitively why the canopy of the sky has the hue of blue, mankind, in general, has always sought answers to such seemingly perplexing questions, having to do with the origins and destiny of the whole of existence. In a state of deep yearning, he stares at a starry sky and wonders: where does this universe start, where does it end? Does it have an actual edge, and if so what lies beyond it? He wonders: why does nature behave the way it does? As he contemplates, he sees the pattern of birth and death in the animate as well as in the inanimate world. In addition, he knows that his own body is not immune from this scheme either. But, what about this universe as a whole? Did this vast universe have a beginning in time, and if so would it ever finally come to an end?

With the progression of scientific knowledge in this century, we have been able to gain a better understanding of the immensity of the cosmos. We have become privileged witnesses to the beginning of creation. It is now well established that space is rapidly expanding as all the countless galaxies, which are sprinkled in the stretching fabric of space are receding from each other at tremendous velocities approaching that of the speed of light. This would mean that once, the entire universe had been a single dimensionless point where there was absolutely no space and absolutely no time, for these were originated in a flashing instant when that singular point exploded to form space and time. For beings like us, who have always been engulfed within the dimensions of space and time, it is indeed difficult to visually conceptualize that somehow space and time were simultaneously brought into existence from oblivious non-existence.

Further knowledge confirmed this astonishingly unique event, when it was detected on a radiowave antenna that a constant background radiation permeates the whole of space. This background noise was no doubt the primeval remnant of that explosion which took place less than 15 billion years ago, commonly referred to as the Big Bang — the singular moment in the creation of the totality of the universe.

But from this explosive expansion it was not disorder which resulted, but rather a deep penetrating order. Unlike any explosion that results in destruction, this explosion resulted in construction, of an imaginable scale –- the universe. Through the course of time, as the universe cooled, many structures arose: galaxies were formed that were comprised of immensely dense clusters of stars, flowing relentlessly across a vast cosmic ocean of space. In time, planets formed and subtle processes came into effect which allowed the emergence of life on earth. Subsequently, biological life developed due to the vital presence of the water-cycle and similar processes, producing a great diversity of plants and animals. Without water, there would have been no life springing from the dry earth. Remarkable balances between the living and non-living components of our planet allowed for the preservation, sustenance and continuation of life. The nurturing rays of the sun provided growth for life. Plants started to give off oxygen, which was necessary for all breathing beings, and animals returned carbon-dioxide which was necessary for the plants. Furthermore, each animal arose to be specialized and functioned to maintain the balances in nature. Without these processes life would not have been possible.

By reflecting on the interpenetrations of origins and destiny, we may fully appreciate that so many are the celestial bodies that permeate space that they remain countless within its ever-expanding horizon. Yet even within this cosmologically stretching fabric, strewn with innumerable galaxies, we have not, thus far, conclusively been able to empirically determine the existence of any other ecosystems and extraterrestrial life.

It was with the advent of these biological processes on earth, that there came a time when the most complex organism arose: the human being. Yet in essence, a human being, within his own lifetime, issues from the very processes inherent within the vastness of cosmic order. Human life begins with conception, and then, in just nine months, a nearly microscopic fertilized egg-cell is transformed through a truly remarkable process into a human infant, possessing heart, brain, eyes, muscles, lungs, and all the biological systems needed for survival outside the mother’s womb. It is indeed amazing to envisage that in the combination of such a tiny, minuscule part of drop of male semen and a female egg there exist specific parts responsible for the development of our complex body, mind and social being. In just a few years after birth, this newborn baby has grown into a human being well capable of learning a multitude of languages, of familiarizing himself with his environment, and has the capacity to be creative, learning to interact with others of his own kind and other species.

As this human being is maturing and aging, the process of intellectual development and questioning continues actively, and as a sense-making creature he ponders on his origins and about his place in the universe. He becomes aware of the fact that the omnipresent face of death is an inescapable consequence of life. He also becomes aware of the rapidity with which the dead body deteriorates, when in time, it will be turned into nothing but a pile of rotting bones, and then face a further reduction from bones to dust — dust to dust … under the dust to lie. This appears to be our common heritage and unavoidably our common destiny, the transition of man from birth to death, the journey of mankind from noble extraction to a hopefully noble extinction. He came from nothing and, finally, will merge back into nothingness, for in nature, just as things began, so too will they end. He knows that he is residing on this earth for only a short while and once he is departed, shall return no more. Thus, he curiously looks up at the starlit sky, seeking to know if there is anything beyond his death.

Just as our sun had its own birth billions of years ago, so too is it eventually destined to extinguish itself into a shrunken, collapsed dead star and with it our earth will be rendered devoid of life, where once it had been so profuse. Life on earth is crucially dependent on the sun; indeed, had the earth’s orbit been even slightly offset in either direction, water and the resulting forms of life would not have emerged. Yet, our sun is only one tiny speck of light amidst an ordered scattering of billions upon billions of objects distributed throughout the vast reaches of space in time, which are all experiencing the same patterns of birth and death in the cosmos.

But will the universe, which had its birth with the emergence of space and time, also have its fate sealed with the end of space and time? It is now well established that depending on the density of the universe, it will either fade away into an infinite void as the stars disintegrate into a sea of obsolete radiation, or conversely, it will collapse into a Big Crunch as it reaches the limits of its expansion. In the Big Crunch, the overwhelming density of matter and energy would have the effect of contracting the universe back into one singular point due to immense gravitational forces. Nevertheless, whatever the outcome is, it appears certain that the universe will end up either in the emptiness of space, where time will not be significant, or in the nothingness of absolutely no space and time, just as it was in the beginning. This is not obscure fantasy nor is it far-fetched science-fiction. It is derived from facts and scientific knowledge, even though it is not visually conceptualizable that space and time will simply vanish into the Nothingness of Nowhere.

We have seen that this universe has originated from the non-existence of space and time. The emergence of life into the intelligent consciousness of man has been facilitated and is dependent on the unfolding of time by precisely arranged, intelligently structured laws of nature. We have also seen that the universe will eventually devolve into a realm of nothingness. But why did it originate in the first place? And then why should it disappear again? From nothing to something and then from something to nothing with no meaningful purpose and no purposeful end? Is this a cosmic joke? Is this all there is?

1 Comment

Filed under Big Bang, Philosophy of Science and Religion