re atheist s views on christianity was re accepting jeesus in your heart in article apr athos rutgers edu kempmp phoenix oulu fi petri pihko writes jason smith jasons atlastele com wrote the discussion begins why does the universe exist at all one of the laws of nature specifying cause and effect seems to dictate at least to this layman s mind there must be a causal event no reasonable alternative exists i would argue that causality is actually a property of spacetime causes precede their effects and i must concede here cause before effect implies time time is part of spacetime hense the argument would be valid i could return and say that this does not infer the cause and effect relationship being unique to this spacetime but i won t because the point is moot doesn t address why which petri pikho addresses below i also concede that i was doubly remiss as i asserted no reasonable alternative exists an entirely subjective statement on my part and one that could be invalidated given time and further discovery by the scientist i also understand that a proving a theory does not necessarily specify that this is how it happened but proposes a likely description of the phenomena in question am i mistaken with this understanding but if you claim that there must be an answer to how did the universe our spacetime emerge from nothing science has some good candidates for an answer all of which require something we christians readily admit to faith the fact that there are several candidates belies that none are conclusive with out conclusive evidence we are left with faith it could even be argued that one of these hypotheses may one day be proven as best as a non repeatable event can be proven but i ask what holds someone today to the belief that any or all of them are correct except by faith a couple of paragraphs deleted summary we ask why does the universe exist i think this question should actually be split into two parts namely why is there existence why anything exists and how did the universe emerge from nothing it is clear science has nothing to say about the first question however is it a meaningful question after all i would say it isn t consider the following apparently it is for many persons hence we have religions the question why anything exists can be countered by demanding answer to a question why there is nothing in nothingness or in non existence actually both questions turn out to be devoid of meaning things that exist do and things that don t exist don t exist tautology at its best carefully examine the original question and then the counter question the first asks why while the second is a request for definition it doesn t address why something does or does not exist but asks to define the lack of existence the second question is unanswerable indeed for how do we identify something as nothing aren t they mutually exclusive terms how do we identify a state of non existence again this is nearing the limits of this simple layman s ability to comprehend and i would appreciate an explanation i might add the worldview of things that exist do and things that don t don t is as grounded in the realm of the non falsifiable as does the theist s belief in god it is based on the assumption that there is not a reason for being something as ultimately un supportable as the position of there being a reason its very foundation exists in the same soil as that of one who claims there is a reason we come to this either i am therefore i am or i am for a reason if the former is a satisfactory answer then you are done for you are satisfied and need not a doctor if the latter your search is just beginning i seriously doubt god could have an answer to this question time will tell some christians i have talked to have said that actually god is himself the existence however i see several problems with this answer first it inevitably leads to the conclusion that god is actually all existence good and evil devils and angels us and them this is pantheism not christianity agreed it would lead me to question their definition of christianity as well another answer is that god is the source of all existence this sounds much better but i am tempted to ask does god himself exist then if god is the source of his own existence it can only mean that he has in terms of human time always existed but this is not the same as the source of all existence this does not preclude his existence it only seeks to identify his qualities implying he exists to have qualities btw the best answer i have heard is that human reasoning is incapable of understanding such questions being an atheist myself i do not accept such answers since i do not have any other methods like the theist we come to a statement of faith for this position assumes that the evidence at hand is conclusive note i am not arguing against scientific endeavor for science is useful for understanding the universe in which we exist but i differ from the atheist in a matter of perspective i seek to understand what exists to understand and appreciate the art of the creator i also have discovered science is an inadequate tool to answer why it appears that m pihko agrees as we shall see but because a tool is inadequate to answer a question does not preclude the question asserting that why is an invalid question does not provide an answer as far as i can tell the very laws of nature demand a why that isn t true of something outside of nature i e super natural this is not true science is a collection of models telling us how not why something happens i cannot see any good reason why the why questions would be bound only to natural things assuming that the supernatural domain exists if supernatural beings exist it is as appropriate to ask why they do so as it is to ask why we exist my apologies i was using why as why did this come to be why did pre existence become existence why did pre spacetime become spacetime but we come to the admission that science fails to answer why because it can t be answered in the realm of modern science does that make the question invalid i don t believe any technology would be able to produce that necessary spark of life despite having all of the parts available just my opinion this opinion is also called vitalism namely that living systems are somehow fundamentally different from inanimate systems do christians in general adopt this position what would happen when scientists announce they have created primitive life say small bacteria in a lab i suppose we would do the same thing as when galileo or capernicus was vindicated before someone starts jumping up and down screaming inquisition note i said vindicated i certainly hope we ve gotten beyond the shooting the messenger stage m pihko does present a good point though we may need to ask what do i as an individual christian base my faith on will it be shaken by the production of evidence that shatters our sacred cows or will we seek to understand if a new discovery truly disagrees with what god said and continues to say in his word why do i ask why apologies to budweiser and company jason jason d smith jasons atlastele com i m not young enough to know everything x
