False Arguments That God Exists

In 1963, my metaphysics professor at the university was W. Norris Clarke, SJ. According to him, the cosmological argument for the existence of God began historically with Aristotle’s concept of the “prime mover.” Following Aristotle blindly, Thomas Aquinas called the “prime mover” the “first cause.” In the 1920s, Etienne Gilson made the cosmological argument logical and persuasive by drawing attention to Aquino’s metaphysics. The cosmological argument is this: a finite being needs a cause, therefore there is an infinite being. It is an argument, not a proof, because it is based on the assumption that humans are finite beings and the hope that the universe is intelligible. In western religions, we call the infinite being God.

In the early 1960s, it was discovered that the universe, with all its galaxies and stars, began to exist 13.7 billion years ago as an infinitesimally small particle (the Big Bang). This is a reason to believe that God inspired the human authors of the Bible because the Bible says many times that God created the universe out of nothing. Since human authors knew nothing about the expanding universe and the cosmic background radiation, the Big Bang is a sign or reason to believe the Bible.

Another reason to believe the Bible is that atheist-agnostics generally do not discuss the cosmological argument in a reasonable, intelligent, and honest way. Instead of saying that the cosmological argument for God’s existence is unconvincing, they say, “I don’t know if God exists or not.” Suffering from cognitive dissonance, atheist-agnostics do not like to think about the cosmological argument.

Brother Spitzer believes that the Big Bang is proof of the existence of God. I think it is evidence that God does not exist because it is evidence that the universe is not intelligible. If two jurors reach different verdicts after a long trial, one juror has better judgment than the other. But if one juror says some evidence indicates guilt and the other says it indicates innocence, then one juror is more informed, intelligent, rational, or honest than the other.

Fr Spitzer also believes that the “fine tuning” of the physics constants is evidence of a “clever designer.” This nonsense is based on the fact that physicists do not understand why the mass of an electron and the speed of light are what they are. If these numbers were different from what they are, the universe would not be the same as it really is and there would be no mammals. Since human beings are mammals, we would not exist.

Another example of this reasoning arises from the fact that the Earth is exactly 93 million miles from the Sun. If this number were 92 or 94, it would have been too hot or too cold for living organisms to have arisen and evolved. This is not evidence of an intelligent designer because we know what caused the number to be 93. What caused this distance are Newton’s laws of motion and random probability. If someone does not understand the concept of random chanceYou can explain this by pointing out that there are many planets that are not 93 million miles away from their star.

In “fine-tuning” reasoning, physicists don’t know why the numbers are what they are. Pro-religion and anti-religion enthusiasts, however, debate whether or not there are many other universes with different physical constants. They do not even consider the metaphysical question of whether the universe is intelligible or not.

There is a passage in the book that appears to be consistent with belief in God, but actually supports atheistic ignorance and stupidity:

Acts of self-awareness (awareness of consciousness) are difficult to explain through regular spatiotemporal patterns (an act of consciousness that captures itself, so to speak). (rental 2211)

I agree that our ability to turn on ourselves and catch ourselves in the act of our own existence proves that humans are incarnate spirits and the existence of other humans proves that we are finite beings. But, compare Spitzer’s quote to a quote from the most widely used biology textbook in the United States:

And certain properties of the human brain distinguish our species from all other animals. After all, the human brain is the only known collection of matter that tries to understand itself. For most biologists, the brain and the mind are the same; we will understand how the brain is organized and how it works, and we will understand conscious functions such as abstract thinking and feelings. Some philosophers are less comfortable with this mechanistic view of mind, and find Descartes’s concept of a mind-body duality more attractive. (Neil Campbell, Biology, 4th ed., P. 776)

Father Spitzer confuses two different methods of investigation: physics and metaphysics. Many atheist-agnostics will admit that human consciousness is a mystery. But if you ask them what caused the Big Bang, they’ll say the same thing: it’s a mystery. There are no mysteries in science. There are only unanswered questions because science has an extraordinary track record of success. If scientists didn’t assume this, they wouldn’t work so hard and for so long trying to answer scientific questions. There are only mysteries in metaphysics. We must stop trying to understand what a human being is because that gives us a reason to believe that there is a transcendent reality and our freedom is before that reality.

In the cultural conflict over intelligent design theory for evolution (ID), both sides misbehave in different ways and for different reasons. In the Wikipedia title scandal “Sternberg Peer Review Controversy,” the editor of a biology journal published an article promoting identification behind the backs of his fellow editors at the Biological Society of Washington. His colleagues at the Smithsonian Institution were so outraged that they misbehaved him and caused a Congressional committee to write a report entitled “Intolerance and Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian: Senior Smithsonian Officials Allow Demeanor and Harassment of a skeptical Darwinian scientist “. Evolution.”

There is another example of pro-religion and anti-religion enthusiasts who disagree with science. In this case, the God-fears are models of reason and the atheist-agnostics are behaving in a very irrational way. According to the second law of thermodynamics, heat flows from hot to cold objects, not the other way around. By thinking that a cold object is more orderly and complex than a hot object, some God-fearing people say and think that evolution violates the second law. In 2008, the American Journal of Physics published an article on evolution and thermodynamics with an absurd calculation showing that evolution does not violate the second law. Tea American Journal of Physics refuses to take corrective action because it would become news. The American public would then discover how irrational and unintelligent people can be about science and religion.