It is a normal practice for a theist to attribute everything to god from creation of the universe to its day to day running and finally destruction. His attitude towards science is that it should prove that there was no such thing as god. That shows a crisis of confidence in the theist mind.

Science believes in inquiry and experimentation in order to validate something. Science relies on testing of hypotheses or theories. If some theory is not testable it is abandoned and something new propounded. It starts with probability and doesn't use certainty in any of its theories unless thoroughly tested and found sound. Say, water is made up of 2H and 1O is a certainty but overall on the cosmological level science is still working on probability. As an atheist I feel proud of a testable probability of science rather than an untested 'certainty' of a so called god.

I have read and heard people say that science and religion mean the same. I disagree. Science and religion are not compatible nor is science in conflict with the so called god. Science lays stress on believing after testing while religion means blindly following some unproven concept. 'God did it' is enough for a theist to shut out his reasoning ability and start believing without questioning.

Origin of the universe is one issue where the principle of causity comes into play. Ironically, both science and religion recognise the cause and effect theory. A cause must have an effect and vice versa. Only perceptions differ. According to science the universe came into existence some 13 billion or so years ago with a big bang which was not caused by any entity. The universe caused itself when the matter spatially condensed to a single point got critical mass so as to burst with a bang. It would be appropriate to mention here that the universe / matter didn't lie there in a zero dimensional state for millions of years or for one year or for one second for that matter. How long that state of void would have lasted is factually very small.

It would have taken a minuscule fraction of a second to gain critical mass and in a caused void (shunya) which lasted only for that smallest amount of time where everything appeared hypothetically falling 'dead' (including time) only for that long fraction of time before bursting out.

The theist argues that there was an entity called god which caused the big bang so as to create the universe. However, not all religions support the big bang theory. But those theists who support the big bang somehow give an impression that the state of void (shunya) from which the god caused the bang perhaps had existed for a long time. How long? Can any one tell?

According to the theist god is uncaused. A question then arises as to who caused the uncaused? If an uncaused can come to be then it is quite possible that an effect can also come to be without any cause. The underlying principle being that a cause has an effect which in turn becomes a cause from which emerges another effect. Father, child, grandchild and so on. Each one is a cause as well as an effect at different points in time. Will the idea of an uncaused effect be sustainable from a theistic viewpoint? If yes, how? Well, again the theist, to prove this point, will have to resort to god for making this chain and then breaking it.

The issue doesn't end here. It gets more complex and uncomfortable for the theist when the god hypothesis is tested on the parameters of godly laws. "God is perfect, he runs a universe he has himself created by the laws he himself made" - no theist can deny this statement. Why are there so many religions then? If there is one Absolute god, he must have one Absolute doctrine for all to follow. Why then different prophets and preachers spread his word in different ways? Why did a perfect and Absolute god create an imperfect universe? Did he intend someone else give it perfection? If yes, where is his omnipotence? Darwin has proved that evolution is an ongoing process like the ever expanding universe. God's creation is not perfect.

If god is omniscient and omnipresent then he must have a definitive life span of his creation - the universe. Neither an atheist nor a theist can deny that this ever expanding universe will one day retrace itself into that void from which it emerged and self destruct. But when? Only god knows. But how do I know that god knows that unless the god tells me about that. Since I have no direct contact with him, only a lucky chosen one (a prophet or preacher) who has some form of contact with him can tell. Can any one or did any one? If none can put a numerical figure on the life span of the universe then anyone or all of the following inferences could be drawn:

1) The all knowing god himself doesn't know when he will destruct his creation.
2) He never trusted his prophets so didn't tell them.
3) These prophets have lied to us that they were the messengers of god. They knew nothing but only exploited us.

I would like to mention here, given my memory doesn’t fail me that science has put the age of the Sun at approximately ten billion years, five of which is remaining.

I have read some wise men of the Hindu religion claiming that our body is made up of five elements (panch tatvas) and that after its destruction the five will get back to their respective places. What are those five elements made of? Why not simply say that this perishable body is made up of single matter?

Views: 38


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by R K Sudan on February 27, 2011 at 9:14pm


Hope you'll find time to complete your comment.

Comment by R K Sudan on February 27, 2011 at 9:13pm

Thanks zavier.


Comment by R K Sudan on February 27, 2011 at 7:17am
Thanks John. Sure, I'll be waiting for your next comment particularly on my lines related to the concept of first cause, cause and effect theory and the duration of the void in which the condensed matter stays before erupting again.
Comment by John Camilli on February 26, 2011 at 8:49pm

I'm at work, so I only read the first two paragraphs of your post. I will come back to read the whole thing later and comment, but I wanted to post something brief regarding the first sentence of your second paragraph.


I think that does encapsulate most people's idea of what science is, but it is not what science really is. A scientist is only rightly an observer, an experiementor and a recorder. But scientists quickly encounter the limits of observation, so they leave the conjectures to theists; people who believe. A scientists is, at times, a believer as well, but he is not both at the same time: he is one or the other.


Some might argue that when a scientist fits his or her observations with a particular model of reality that they are making a conjecture, but I differentiate this process from the conjectures of a theist. I can use a simple analogy to explain it best. Each observation a scientist makes is like a piece of a puzzle, some of them fit together (as a model) while others stand by themselves because they do not seem to fit anywhere. The scientist has no idea what the dimensions of the border are. It could be much larger than we think or it could be nearly filled in, so he or she does not know each piece's ultimate value as part of the whole. The pieces are just there. A theist, on the other hand, conjectures about the dimensions of the border, and so thinks to know the ultimate value and placement of each piece they find. Therefore, theism is required for judgement, which is required for decisions, which means all people must sometimes be theists if they are to stay alive. But when we are merely curious observers, not needing to know the meaning of our experiements or their outcomes, then we are scientists.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service