Atheists Disregard Scientific Evidence of God

Updated on April 3, 2018
RonElFran profile image

Ron is a retired engineer and manager for IBM and other high tech companies. He specialized in both hardware and software design.

Source

Imagine this scenario: the Weather Service issues a tornado warning for your area, and all the people in town immediately seek shelter. Having had previous experience with how dangerous such a storm can be, no one stays above ground to watch the winds in action. That’s why everyone is so astonished when they emerge from their basements after the storm, and are able to see what the tornado did.

Right in the center of town, where before the storm there was an unsightly junkyard, all the junk has disappeared. And in its place sits a brand, spanking new Boeing 747 jetliner, with engines idling, apparently ready for takeoff!

Of course, everyone wants to know what happened to all that junk? And how did a 747 land in that small space?

Then the mayor of the city, the chief of police, and the principal of the high school all come forward with an incredible story. "We saw it with our own eyes," they say, "the tornado hit the junk, mixed it all up, and assembled it by the purest of chances into that 747!"

Here's the question: do you think anyone would believe that tale?

Boeing 747
Boeing 747 | Source

Remember: it's the mayor, the police chief and the high school principal who are making the claim - perhaps the highest status individuals in town. Let's make the town the state capital, and throw in the governor as an additional witness. Plus a Nobel Prize winning physicist at the state university. They all claim that when the tornado hit the junk yard, it produced, totally by accident, a fully assembled and functioning Boeing 747 jetliner. Do you believe them?

Of course you don't! The report they are making defies not only all common sense, but the laws of probability. No rational person with any understanding of science would believe such a claim.

Yet, according to British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, the scientist who coined the term "Big Bang" to describe the beginning of the universe, that's exactly the kind of story atheism would have us believe.

Atheism Is Bad Science!

In his book, The Intelligent Universe, Hoyle says:

The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard.

But that’s just what the logic of atheist beliefs would have us accept as the explanation for how life began in a complex yet orderly universe that, atheists say, came into being on its own with no Creator: it all happened by pure, blind chance.

Whatever that story may be, one thing it's not is science!

Atheist badge
Atheist badge | Source

Atheism Rejects Evidence It Doesn't Like

A fundamental premise of atheism is that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God. Theists (those who believe that God is real) counter that such evidence is all around us, and is so obvious that only willful blindness can avoid seeing it.

Having dispensed with the idea of a Creator, atheism must of necessity argue that the universe just came into existence on its own, and life arose spontaneously from inert materials. But is that what the scientific evidence really shows?

What the Scientific Evidence Says About the Origin of the Universe

Modern astrophysics is based firmly on the Big Bang theory, which says that the universe began with a huge, never to be repeated cosmic explosion. Almost the entire scientific community acknowledges that the Big Bang happened. But no scientist has yet put forth even a respectable theory of what could have caused it. Nor has anyone definitively demonstrated the process by which it could have occurred. Similarly, the way in which the enormous complexity and order that characterizes both the universe and organic life could have arisen from blind, random forces remains unexplained.

In 1929 astronomer Edwin Hubble (for whom the Hubble space telescope is named) published findings that have been called “the most important event in astronomy in the [20th] century.” His observations, embodied in what is now called Hubble's Law, proved that the expansion of the universe predicted by Einstein's relativity theory is real. Hubble demonstrated that every astronomical object in the universe is moving away from every other object, just as every point on the surface of an inflating balloon is moving away from every other point on the balloon’s surface.

The Universe Had a Beginning

The significance of Hubble’s findings is that they show that all the astronomical structures in the universe (stars, galaxies, etc) started their outward expansion from a single point. In other words, the expansion of the universe proves conclusively that the universe had a beginning.

That this massive explosion of matter and energy (called the Big Bang) that marked the beginning of our universe took place at a specific point in time and space is now almost universally accepted as scientific fact.

Hubble Space Telescope image of the spiral galaxy NGC 4414
Hubble Space Telescope image of the spiral galaxy NGC 4414 | Source

Will the Big Bang Ever Repeat Itself?

There are two major possibilities for the future of the universe. One, nicknamed "The Big Crunch," is that the universe contains sufficient mass that the force of gravity will eventually arrest the expansion and cause the cosmos to fall back in on itself. That means the cycle of expand/collapse could repeat itself over and over. Calculations indicate that if the shape of the universe is spherical, it does contain enough matter to bring this scenario to fruition.

The other possibility, called "The Big Freeze," would occur if the amount of matter in the universe is insufficient to bring about a gravitation-induced re-collapse. This will be the case if the shape of the universe is either flat or hyperbolic.

The latest observations, particularly those from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) show that the greatest probability is that the universe is flat. This confirms previous studies indicating that the universe will expand forever.

So the scientific evidence shows that the universe not only had a beginning, but its beginning was a single, unique, one-time event that never happened before, and will never happen again.

As Baby Bear Would Say, the Universe Is “Just Right” to Support Life

Not only was the Big Bang unique, but it produced a universe that is exactly the way it must be in order to support life. If any of a number of physical constants and values were different by even a few percentage points, life would be impossible.

As physicist Paul Davies, writing in the International Journal of Astrobiology, put it:

There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects “fine-tuned” for life.

Look, for example, at just a small sample of the factors that constitute the knife edge on which life in the universe rests:

  • If the force of explosion [the Big Bang] was only slightly higher, the universe would only consist of gas without stars, galaxies, or planets…The matching had to be to the remarkable precision of one part in 1055.

Dean L. Overman in A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization

  • If the strong nuclear force were even 0.3 % stronger or 2% weaker the universe would never be able to support life.

Astronomer John D. Barrow and Physicist Frank J. Tipler in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle:

  • The big bang, the most cataclysmic event we can imagine, on closer inspection appears finely orchestrated.

Astrophysicist George Smoot in Wrinkles in Time

  • How is it that common elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen happened to have just the right kind of atomic structure that they needed to combine to make the molecules upon which life depends? It is almost as though the universe had been consciously designed.

Richard Morris, a science writer with a PhD in Physics, in The Fate of the Universe

It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.

— Atheist theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking

Even theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, one of the most famous and influential atheists in the world, is impressed that the scientific evidence gives the appearance that the universe was deliberately designed to support human life. He says in his book A Brief History of Time:

The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.

It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.

Though Hawking doesn’t believe in God, he’s forced to admit that everything scientists have discovered about the structure of the universe appears to point directly to a Creator.

VIDEO: Our fine tuned universe

Poll

What do you think is the most probable explanation for the existence of a “fine tuned” universe?

See results

There Is No Naturalistic Explanation for the Universe We Live In

No scientist has yet formulated any widely accepted theory of how this finely tuned universe could possibly have created itself. But atheists are forced by their belief system to assert that it did exactly that. Moreover, by the purest chance, the universe, out of an infinite set of other possibilities, somehow created itself in exactly the way necessary to support life.

But, atheists argue, despite all the appearance of the universe having been created and designed specifically to be a hospitable environment for life, the idea that there may be a Creator and Designer who exists outside the universe, and who brought it into being for a purpose, is not a possible reading of the evidence.

The Evident Design of the Universe Indicates There Must Be a Designer

Believers in God take a much more rational view. The idea of a cosmos that had no existence but somehow brought itself into existence, and did so in such a way that it seems to have been precisely designed to nurture life, defies logic.

Design drawing
Design drawing | Source

The norm in all of human experience is to infer a designer from evident design. Therefore, the very existence of a complex and orderly universe, fined tuned in every way to support human life, speaks of a Creator and Designer. That conclusion arises directly from an objective analysis of the scientific evidence.

An Objective Reading of the Scientific Evidence Supports Belief in God

Let’s go back to where we started. If you claim that the 747 airliner that appeared in the center of town after a tornado was not created or designed but came together purely by accident, the enormous improbability of such an occurrence requires that you present some definite and empirically testable hypothesis as to how it happened. If no such hypothesis can be given, the inference that someone designed and built that machine must be accepted. There is no reasonable alternative.

This is the rule we all follow every day in every aspect of life – the fact of evident design unquestionably indicates the existence of a designer. But atheism can offer no empirically testable hypothesis of how an infinitely complex yet orderly and hospitable universe came into being on its own, without a creator or designer.

So, atheists must refuse, in this one instance alone, to apply that rule. It's only when they would have to acknowledge a Creator that atheists refuse to accept the kind of evidence they accept in every other area of life.

Clearly, atheists don’t disbelieve in God because there is no evidence for His existence. Rather, it is their refusal to believe in God that forces them to ignore evidence that is clear and compelling to anyone willing to examine it with an unbiased mind.

This is the second in a series on the reasonableness and necessity of belief in God. You can read the first in the series at Why Morality Requires Faith In God.

© 2015 Ronald E Franklin

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      8 weeks ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Larry, thanks for your comment.

      You shared your philosophical outlook: "There is no scientific evidence of God and there never will be." But what you did not do is deal seriously (or at all) with the arguments actually made in the article. The central argument I make is summed up in this quote from the article:

      "The norm in all of human experience is to infer a designer from evident design. Therefore, the very existence of a complex and orderly universe, fined tuned in every way to support human life, speaks of a Creator and Designer. That conclusion arises directly from an objective analysis of the scientific evidence."

      The key is that the premise arises from "an objective analysis of the scientific evidence."

      Here's example that might make what I'm saying clearer.

      I live in a house. Because I live in a well designed house, I'm quite sure that somewhere there exists (or existed) a person we could call Architect. How can I be sure? Because the laws of physics and probability assure me that my well designed house could not have arisen by accident - it must have had a Designer.

      Architect is not in my house. From inside the house I cannot measure him or her by any of the tools of science. But the tools of science are entirely sufficient to establish that Architect exists.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      Larry Allen Brown 

      8 weeks ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      "Atheists Disregard Scientific Evidence of God"

      Ok, the very premise of this is self defeating. There is no scientific evidence of God and there never will be. Why not? Because Science studies the physical world, and God is not of the physical or natural world. God is Supernatural. That means very simply that God is not of the physical universe. Science has a lot of tools and mathematics and physics to apply to the physical universe. We can measure it from the Big Bang to where we are today. But science has no tools to measure the Supernatural. The metaphysical. Those things that are not part of the physical universe. God does not exist in the physical universe. He doesn't have an address somewhere in the far reaches of the universe. And furthermore, if God did live within the universe that would mean that he's contained within the confines of this universe. God contained?? Really. What kind of God can be physically contained? That would mean the universe is finite and God lives somewhere within that huge box called the Universe. So what's outside of that container? But God is not of the physical world. God is a metaphysical concept. God is supernatural and cannot be measured by any of the tools of science. Therefore Science could not and would not attempt to suggest any evidence of God. Science doesn't deal with the Supernatural. Period. Religion does. I think God would be better served through faith as opposed to some kind of proof of his existence. Science is not going to do that.

    • profile image

      Anonymous 

      2 months ago

      About the motives of some christians, you are right, but that also applies to atheist as well. In some places people are so elite that you can be arrested by the police just driving through it.

      The issue is, we are all equal in the sense that we come into the world with nothing and will go out with nothing, our family history can go back generations yet basically we are all "rootless" people deep down without permanent roots.

      When Jesus said "do not let you left hand know what the right hand is doing" he was talking mainly to people who had a faith. That means when believers give or help others, or whatever else they do, they should do it in secret, and God who sees in secret also rewards accordingly in secret.

      That's a very good way in testing the real motives and reasons behind what we do. Would we still do what we do if we thought we wouldn't get any recognition ?

      Same with the widows mite, all the rich people gave what they wouldn't miss, but that widows 2 coins was all she had, only Jesus knew that, and what we don't know is, she would not have been left without for doing what she did. Nobody can prove or disprove these things, but there's thousands of people who will testify that help came when it was needed.

      The actions and motives of others don't disprove the bible, sinse these are the very issues the bible deals with. The bible wasn't written to prove Gods existence either, but written to change people from within, and for other reasons to. Real faith is not about the "actions of others" that may be one of the biggest hurdles to overcome if anyone wants to have a faith in God, but that don't mean tolerating emotional or any other abuse coming from any religious organisation or faith group.

      Even though i said my own faith is not based on evidence, we can be looking at evidence all around us, yet keep dismissing it, not so much in scientific terms, but discoveries in museums throughout the world which support accounts that actualy took place in the bible. Accounts like the biblical flood which nearly every country has some record of. The detais may vary a bit, but they're all relating the same account that took place sometime in the distant past.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      2 months ago from Tasmania

      Sure, and belief in God does not seem to be a measure of intelligence, so I cannot say a believer is an idiot. I must respect that person's point of view.

      However, I do get the impression some believers are in it for ulterior motives like politics, making money, acquiring power and influence in society.

    • profile image

      Anonymous 

      2 months ago

      My mistake, meant to say "Electrons" orbit the nucleus.

    • profile image

      Anonymous 

      2 months ago

      I was just reading. Atheist are more likely to express a sense of wonder about our universe than those who believe in a God.

      That says 2 things.

      1 All human beings are worthy of respect, regardless of beliefs.

      2 For many people, no amount of evidence is going to make them believers. Protons orbit the nucleus, Earth orbits the sun. These are just facts, but what makes one believe in a God and another be an athiest ?

      Even believers can become an atheist, while some atheist becomes believers.

      So many reasons behind that Free Choice, but all humans, and all life forms deserve respect.

    • profile image

      Anonymous 

      2 months ago

      Alan. Theres a saying by "Stephen R. Covey" "Most people do not listern with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply"

      Guilty of that myself.

      Whatever your stories are, whatever history people have, Only the individual knows what lead to what, only they know their own psychological make up.

      Courts and Judges can pass judgements on individuals based on their actions, but only God ultimately knows the reasons behind the actions. Theres a lot of people out there who are "victims of circumstances" in life, who am i or anyone to judge the other ?

      Sitting in a church meeting the one time, the person giving the speach said "We human beings have such a hard time forgiving others that it's just as well we don't know the history of the person sitting next to us"

      The world is filled with people ready to demonize others.

      This is one of those things which i said i would struggle to explain the reasons why i believe in a God, I'ts like our very conscience is condemning us, yet denying what i'ts doing to us.

    • profile image

      Anonymous 

      2 months ago

      Alan. You're right, it probably all comes down to choice in the end "regardless" of evidence. "Examples" is more likely to make believers than evidence, yet a lot of believers can have issues as well, which may be why they chose to have a faith.

      If i wasn't aware of that one detail, i would more likely be an athiest myself. Jesus said, "healthy people don't need a doctor" "sick people do" but I'm not going to allow anyone from any "organisation" or church to take our their frustration on me because of their issues so they can feel better. That's their issue to deal with.

      To be fair though, begining to notice a lot of good churches around as well, but wised up to the bad ones.

      I'm not that Anonymous as it happens.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      2 months ago from Tasmania

      So, Anonymous, "....Personally, I'm convinced God exist, but not because of any evidence..." thank you , very honest. It indicates that is what you choose to believe. I can live comfortably with that. You are a fellow human with free choice.

      The other day while sitting having a coffee at a table in the airport lounge, a man approached me and asked my name. He then proceded to give me a 10+minute account of his conversion to Jesus. I listened with kindness and respect to the story without interruption or criticism. Finally thanked him and went on my way to Departures.

      I hope that a Christian will give me a similar degree of respect if they hear my stories, without judging me.

    • profile image

      Anonymous 

      2 months ago

      To Ron. Respectfully speaking.

      Regardless of whether God exist or not, Alan is right.

      Personally, I'm convinced God exist, but not because of any evidence. If anyone was to ask me why i believe it then, i really would struggle to put it in words, so i don't think it's about evidence as such.

      There's a lot of things in the natural world, or lets say inconsistencies which gives the appearance that God never knew what he was doing when he created the world, even "Carl Sagan" noticed that, but i would never question his existence.

      One of my brothers once said years ago, "NOTHING" proves NOTHING" When i thought about why he said, he was absolutely right. You can argue the point any way you like, and even if all the evidence proved God's existence 100% you still Got to get past the human heart, meaning you've Got to want to believe.

      You, see, after my involvement in that religious organisation years ago, though i said i was talked into it, which i was, there was something in me nonetheless that was looking for deeper purpose and meaning to life, not everybody needs or wants that, but listerning to people in that organisation prove categorically with evidence that God exist, while knowing the psychological damage they were causing some of there members in other ways was enough to turn anybody into an atheist, and made me wobble a few times.

      I do struggle with religions and faith groups, since i think a lot of them are strange, but when i withdraw from them, my faith gets stronger again.

      I do understand the power of "influence" and "examples" but influence can be a dangerous thing if not used rightly. When i was involved in that religion, i lost all my sense of humour because of how self-rightious and pilitically correct they were in everything. They were "Forever" trying to correct your thinking, constantly infringing on your personality and trying to control your thinking. That's not faith, thats control, but when i left that religion my sense of humour returned.

      Going to Quote ( Carl Sagan ) again "Human beings have a demonstrated talent for self-deception when their emotions are stirred" I think he was talking from experience on this since he contradicted himself as well in his book ( Cosmos ) the point is, we all use self-deceptions. Everytime i hear people trying to prove themselves or argue a point, i think it's going against the message of Jesus as Alan mentioned, and also feel they don't understand the true concept of "Agape" love and why God sent his son into the world. One thing a lot of us lacks is "Humility" it's all about us and the need to "prove our Knowledge" But like paul said, "knowledge puffs up, Love builds up"

      I don't know you Ron, and don't know Alan or Nellie, but respect everybody. If they feel strongly about a point, there's usually a reason.

    • profile image

      Anonymous 

      2 months ago

      To Ron. Thanks for deleting the comments under my name.

      Just want to say now, yes, you are right, unbelievers being disparaged "is not typical" but over a period of time i have heard them kind of words used against unbeleivers.

      In fact i would say it's far worse than just the words used against unbeleivers, the way they treat their own members in some religious organisations and some churches is worse than that.

      I can cite many examples of the treatment and words used agaist their own members, but will say when i left that organisation and went to normal churches, the words used against me by normal church members because of my involement in that organisation was even worse.

      My situation is, years ago, i never went looking for religion, i was talked into a well known organisation, and because of the mistreatment i seen going on, i could have become an atheist myself, but never, in fact i found my own faith because of what i seen going on, and because of my questionings of faith the bible and religions which a lot of people did not even want me asking.

      I'ts more than just words people use against unbelievers at times, how they treat their own members in big religious organisations is even worse. I don't feel this is very common within normal churches towards their own regular members, but i do know from experience the words and treatment i myself received from some churches because of my involement in that organisation was harsh mistreatment of unbeleivers or someone not of their own fold, when i was genuinely seeking and trying to break free from that organisation i was involved in.

      I also know there are a lot of good churches that would be discusted to hear how people get treated in some faith groups.

      I do believe "Atheist can disregard evidence for the existence of God" but the way i see things, thats their choice, none of us really knows the reasons behind their own rejections, but to say they disregard evidence is a bit belittling knowing some organisations and faith groups also disregard that harsh treatment of their own members does go on.

      Thanks for deleting my previous post.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      2 months ago from Tasmania

      Since "God" is infinite and therefore cannot be measured, photographed, recorded in any way that is evidential and "provable," then what is the point of arguing existence or otherwise?

      If your needs are for there to be a God, believe whatever you wish to believe.

      If you have no need or any wish to accept such an existence, then you are free to adopt other focus or focii. That is not going to do the other person's God any harm....unless that person's beliefs are so flimsy they can be blown of the perch with a feather.

      There is room in this world for each of us, just so long as we have respect and chose to "live and let live."

      Is this not one of the messages you receive from that person called Jesus?

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      2 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      The experience you recount, of being in a church service where unbelievers were disparaged, is not typical. I've been in a lot of services and don't remember seeing that done, though I'm sure it happens sometimes.

    • profile image

      Anonymous 

      2 months ago

      About Nellies comment Mr Ron.

      All views are valid, let all flowers bloom.

      In the past i have sat in churches were the person giving the speach was also calling unbelievers "laughable" "ridiculous" "uninformed" and "ignorant" I'm sure they would have used "despicable" and "deceptive" if they had the opportunity to do so.

      Don't tell me that's engaging on a level.

      Any religion or faith group that don't treat people as humans worthy of respect is not worth anything.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      2 months ago from Tasmania

      Knowing just a little about Nellie and her background; being more informed about her philosophical points of view and her reasoning, would be helpful.

      Why do we need to take sides, Nellie? Like it was a win-or-loose football match?

      Have the honesty and openess to sign into HP with your full identity. Then you can share and learn.

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      2 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Thanks for reading and commenting, Nellie.

      Your statement is a good illustration of exactly the point the article is making. Instead of actually dealing with the evidence to make a point, you resort to name-calling and ad hominem attacks on the author. In my experience, that is quite representative of the approach atheists usually take - they tend to try to discredit those with opposing views as being shallow and lacking knowledge, understanding, or integrity, all without dealing directly with the evidence themselves.

      If you believe you can make evidence-based arguments (rather than unsupported put-downs such as “laughable,” “ridiculous,” “uninformed,” “despicable,” “ignorant,” and “deceptive”), please present them and I’ll be happy to engage with you on that level.

    • profile image

      Nellie 

      2 months ago

      This article shows such a lack of understanding of the way in which (atheist) scientists approach the subjects of the beginning and development of the universe and life... it's almost laughable. The Boeing 474 analogy is rediculous, because no one claims that is how the universe was created, nor life on earth for that matter.

      Please read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It is impressive how he not only refutes every single claim made in this article - by actually referring to evidence -, he also very intelligently shows how so many people, including the author of this article, misrepresent the views of atheist scientists.

      The author of this article either lacks sufficient understanding of the subjects he discusses ( in which case I would expect him to do a bit more research, instead of making such uninformed and rediculous claims), or he is deliberately misrepresenting his opponents' positions and than trying to score a view easy points (which is a despicable way of trying to win a debate). I suspect the latter, since he uses several fallacies (I detected at least a few examples of an argumentum ad ignorantiam and a tertium non datur), which are usually signs of an author deliberately trying to deceive his audience. But he may just simply be this ignorant (which is less deceptive, but still unforgivable).

      For anyone with some basic understanding of the Big Bang Theory and Evolution Theory this article is not worth reading.... the fallacies and lack of logical reasoning will make you cringe

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      3 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Thanks, Alan. I think you've explained your outlook very well.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 months ago from Tasmania

      Thanks Ron.

      I am not against the idea of some kind of "intelligence" being involved with the gradual creation of the world and existence we know now. Like you and many others, I am awestruck by the intricacy and beautiful way in which biological organisms, of so many kinds, are constructed. Not just the anatomical aspects but also the interactive chemical processes, right down to the minutest atomic level.

      Our human minds, as logical as we every try to be, can only assimilate such knowledge by "hooking" it on to something we already know. It takes a very capable, gymnastic mind to detach enough for it to look beyond into the totally abstract possibilities. I suggest most of us are not in that category.

      So, the mysteries will always be there. We can argue on any point until we are blue in the face, influences by what we want to believe, and never even get near to the absolute, incontrovertible "truth."

      Each of us will probably find rest in whatever perception makes us feel comfortable; the point where our individual mind and life circumstances can find some degree of rest.

      Each of us, again, will then move into the mode of acceptance: let be what is. If the individual inclination is to take on a "belief system," that will serve a purpose in life. Like putting an envelope with Address Unknown into a pigeon hole to await further information, a belief can allow one to leave-it-there-get-on-with-life.

      Others will have the attitude of wanting to convince others, get them onside, thus bringing on a sense of justification, mutual support, strength and safety in numbers. This, for me, is how I see any of the religiously evangelical pressures. And it's where I draw the line in my own life: there is no such thing as Universal Morality. So much is dependent on such aspects as cultural tradition, local circumstances, familiarity, politics, desire to bully, etc.

      Remove the imperatives and we can all live side by side, with tolerance and understanding to lift our sense of community.

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      3 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Alan, let me set your mind at ease. No, I never intended or believed that the arguments I make in this article and in the comments would convert anybody. That's because true conversion is almost never the result of getting somebody to agree intellectually to a logical argument. What I do intend is to challenge the position frequently asserted by atheists - that their convictions are based on evidence, while those who believe in a Creator do so only based on blind faith.

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      3 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      chriscamaro, thanks for the link. Evolution is not a focus of this article (it has come up only in the comments), but I'm planning an article specifically on that subject. The video you recommend should be useful to help me understand opposing arguments when I'm doing my research for that article, and I plan to watch it then.

    • chriscamaro profile image

      chriscamaro 

      3 months ago from Ontario, Canada

      Ron, at this point I feel I'm reaching, since I'm no expert in evolution. However I have found someone who is. His videos are rather blunt and may irk you to watch but bear with it because he is bloody smart on this topic and he says we have all the transitional evidence anyone could ever ask for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 months ago from Tasmania

      Yes Ron, but you apply that term "purposeful" because it rings true from your human perception. It's the way your mind works as an engineer. You have no idea how a non-physical, non-human entity could manage to create such a universal system as we know.

      You used an argument in this hub that stretches logic beyond honesty:

      "Though Hawking doesn’t believe in God, he’s forced to admit that everything scientists have discovered about the structure of the universe appears to point directly to a Creator." Stephen was not forced to admit anything. He had an open mind to possibility. And he did not "admit that everything scientists have discovered"...that is your erroneous interpretation. Why would you do such a thing if it was not to support what you wish to teach in your congregation - a religious exercise?

      I have no atheistic agenda of wishing to convert you or anyone to atheism. But tell me truthfully that your intention is NOT to convince me of your christian beliefs.

      It is true that we can never fully know how this physical universe came about. We can only speculate.

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      3 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Alan, I think your latest comment is very revealing in several ways.

      You say the theory of evolution “postulates a perhaps; a possibility.” The issue, of course, is not what’s possible, but what the evidence indicates is most probable. It’s possible that the moon really is made of green cheese, but most people don’t accept that view because the evidence is against it. My point in this article is that the evidence regarding the origins of the universe and of life is more against the atheistic explanation than supportive of it.

      You say, “Apparently there are many instances where the theory [of evolution] holds true.” Actually, that’s not the case. As I mentioned before, there is not a single instance where a complete sequence of transitions between one species and another genetically distinct species can be observed either in the fossil record or in recorded history. Based on the actual state of the evidence, the only reason why Darwinian evolution is considered “A reasonable explanation for how biological forms came into existence” is because the only other alternative, special creation, is ruled out from the beginning as being “religious.” That means evolution is “reasonable” simply because it has been declared the only game in town.

      Where I think you do have it right is when you say, “As a person with atheist point of view, it suits my way of thinking.” Exactly! Your starting point is your atheistic worldview, and it’s through that lens that you view all the evidence. So, you are not an atheist because an objective evaluation of the evidence made you one. Rather, you evaluate the evidence the way you do because you are an atheist.

      Finally, I notice that in many of your comments, including this one, you bring religion into the discussion. Notice that in the article I don’t talk about religion at all. My whole point is that the scientific evidence, evaluated objectively and without any religious presuppositions, indicates that purposeful creation is the most probable explanation for the universe we live in. So, “the religious mind, hooked on the idea/theory of a creator” doesn’t enter into the question.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 months ago from Tasmania

      Ok. The Theory of Evolution does not try to give a definitive explanation of how the "universe" came into existence.

      It postulates a perhaps; a possibility. Apparently there are many instances where the theory holds true. So it's worth pursuing further. And further. A reasonable explanation for how biological forms came into existence.

      As a person with atheist point of view, it suits my way of thinking. I keep an open mind for new information.

      At what point does the religious mind, hooked on the idea/theory of a creator, open up its self to other possibilities?

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      3 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Alan, since this article is about what the scientific evidence indicates, and since we have no observational or even theoretical evidence about how the Creator created the universe, I can't answer your question.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 months ago from Tasmania

      So, Ron, how do you suppose your Creator created it? With a "hey Presto!" ...a Pop! and a Bang!?

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      3 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Hi, chriscamaro. Thanks for taking the time to respond to the points I make in the article. But I don’t think your arguments hold water. Here’s why:

      You dismiss the 747 illustration saying, “The origins of life, our world, etc. is not akin to a 747 being assembled from junk by accident.” The point of the illustration is not to say the processes involved are identical, but to emphasize the extremely, infinitesimally, vanishingly low probability of the succession of events required to produce the observed result – whether a fully assembled 747 or a fully functioning, life supporting cosmos. I hope you’ll agree that it has not been demonstrated that the creation and development of the universe to a state that embodies the very narrow range of conditions necessary to support life is a high probability event.

      Remember this one unassailable fact: our sample size for universes is exactly one. Obviously we don’t have sufficient data to generalize about universe creation.

      When you assert that the processes that produced our universe are “quite deterministic on a macro scale over long intervals of time” you commit the logical fallacy of assuming the point at issue. All we know is that certain sequences of events took place. With no other universe creation and development events to compare them to, the claim that they are normative or deterministic is not, and in the nature of the case cannot be, supported by evidence.

      You say, “A theory can only be robust if it is falsifiable [and] can be tested.” The claim that evolution based on random mutations filtered by natural selection has produced the immense variety of species we see today cannot survive that test. In what way has evolutionary theory been tested and proven true? There is not a single example of the trillions of inter-species transition sequences required that can be traced from beginning to end in the fossil record. If the theory is true, there should be many such examples. I will grant that evolutionary theory is falsifiable – remember that Darwin himself admitted that the state of the fossil record in his day tended to disprove rather than prove his theory. He assumed that as more fossils were uncovered, the massive gaps in the fossil record would disappear. That, however, has not happened. So, not only is evolution falsifiable, but by Darwin’s own testimony, in the current state of knowledge it is falsified.

      We see, then, that available naturally occurring evidence does not validate evolution. Neither is there any experimental evidence that does so, since neither the creation of life from inert materials nor interspecies evolutionary transitions based on mutations have been demonstrated in the lab. Also, no accepted scientific theory of how the universe came into existence in the first place has yet been produced.

      So here’s the issue – which model best explains the observed evidence (our physical universe)? Is it the model in which for no apparent reason the universe created itself out of nothing in the Big Bang, then proceeded to shape itself, again for no apparent reason, so as to deterministically insure the creation of life and its advancement to ever-greater complexity? Or is it the model that says all this was done intelligently and purposefully by a Designer/Creator?

      I submit that in terms of the norms of scientific inquiry, any objective assessment of the evidence must favor the latter as having greater probability than the former.

    • T Ansel Knemeyer profile image

      T Ansel 

      4 months ago from United States

      Thanks

    • chriscamaro profile image

      chriscamaro 

      4 months ago from Ontario, Canada

      A well written article, like all the rest of yours and I respect what you stand for but I have to disagree with the main premise of your argument and the analogy you use to deflate a naturalistic explanation of the universe. The origins of life, our world, etc. is not akin to a 747 being assembled from junk by accident, even if an authority says so. As you pointed out earlier, authorities are not to be trusted except to the extent that their arguments concord with reality. The current state of the universe, and life itself are long, drawn out processes, that do involve many random matter-matter interactions, yes, but the progression of the universe and of life are not random. They are in fact quite deterministic on a macro scale over long intervals of time. Evolution involves 1 change at a time that is only slightly better than the last configuration, which is why so many permutations fail (die) before one succeeds to reproduce and replace the population. This is entirely different from the junk to 747 model. Second, science is provisional, I freely admit but that is its strength. It doesn't try to make absolute assertions that are un-falsifiable. A theory can only be robust if it IS falsifiable, which also requires that it has predictive power, can be tested, etc. God is not falsifiable and so cannot be disproved. God is also transcendent and so cannot be observed. It fails to meet the basic criteria we apply when we seek knowledge and truth. It requires faith. Science on the other hand is an albeit incomplete body of knowledge that is provisional BUT extremely robust due to its observational and predictive power and in that is is falsifiable and rigorously torn apart to prove its worth. It also discourages faith. It asks you to take as provisional truth only what can be rigorously and reliably demonstrable. Finally, from a standpoint of logic, failure to support argument A does not necessarily support argument B. In other words, science's inability to explain origins does not mean necessarily that an alternative hypothesis must be more true. Any alternative hypothesis still needs to be grounded in the material reality in which we live, meaning we still need a means of supporting the claim with evidence that is testable, repeatable and predictive in nature.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      4 months ago from Tasmania

      "And science has no means to investigate or even address that beyond-physical realm." And religion of any model has no means to investigate claims about god, creation, etc., apart from imaginings of the human mind.

      So, scientific inquiry has obviously a better chance of getting it right.

      Believe what you like.

    • T Ansel Knemeyer profile image

      T Ansel 

      4 months ago from United States

      I can agree to your point about each side explains different parts but what I am saying is that with both sides working together then it would be better for society.

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      4 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      I think it's not really true that science and religion are talking about the same thing. Science can only describe what can be observed within the closed system we call the physical universe. What Christianity claims to describe, however, is a reality that includes but also goes far beyond the merely physical. And science has no means to investigate or even address that beyond-physical realm.

      Regarding who created God: Atheist physicist Stephen Hawking asserts that time began with the Big Bang. From a Christian perspective, God is, by definition, the Creator who brought about the BB. That means that God created time, and must therefore be outside of it. Since God exists in timelessness, with Him there is no beginning and no end. But the idea of creating something requires that it has a beginning at some specific point in time. So, the question of who created God is meaningless, since He exists in timelessness where there is no beginning.

    • T Ansel Knemeyer profile image

      T Ansel 

      4 months ago from United States

      I'm some ways, isn't science and religion talking about the same thing, just trying to explain it through different methods.

      Maybe God is the Big Bang, or B.B. is God. The question I want to know is who created God or the Big Bang?

      Maybe that answer can only be revealed to our souls at the moment of our passing.

      Also, maybe we are supposed to use science to explore what it means to be God so we are prepared for what comes next. So in away whomever our creator is, maybe it was intended for us to utilize both to achieve something greater than ourselves.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      2 years ago from Tasmania

      Just do a selfie, Claire........lol !

    • ClaireKelley profile image

      ClaireKelley 

      2 years ago

      Kiss andTales,

      You're welcome. Thank you for your positive insight of God.

      ClaireKelley

    • Kiss andTales profile image

      Kiss andTales 

      2 years ago

      thanks for your comment Claire. Jonny not all people are associated with the same religion , catholic is some peoples choice, but I believe we can learn the message Gods want us to all to know ,he provides answers and they are the basics

      all humans need to know why are we here, what is our future, why are things in bad condition , even health, the earth, can we look to the furture of

      real life. will we see our loved ones again ? there is good News to all these questions ,but will we be willing to be to learn what it would take to continue here on earth as a new citizen.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      2 years ago from Tasmania

      "I live in a world full of believers......"

      Claire, you live in a world of Make-believe. Although you believe in your own mind that you are " not preventing anyone from "being" who they are." you make the arrogant assumption that your beliefs are the right ones for everyone in this world, and that if "they" don't want what you are offering, "they" will suffer for "their" own fault, not yours.

      You live in your own little world of self-deception, which has no real honest interest in the plight of others, only on your own relationship with that fictitious "god" when you at last stand before him.

      All of your attitude, and that of K&T and Ron, boils down to the christian concept of original sin, punishment and retribution.

      You know, because I have said so before, that I reject all of that notion, totally. It is humans, like yourselves, who stand to make judgment. You don't need a god, you rely upon your own understandings.

      I reject, just like I reject the superstitious organisation called the "Catholic Church."

    • ClaireKelley profile image

      ClaireKelley 

      2 years ago

      Kiss andTales,

      You have provided a great example. People should try to teach others about God, then they can choose to accept Him or not. If they don’t accept Him, it’s their fault, but at least they were given the opportunity. I believe that when someone knows about God, they do not claim to be an atheist anymore when they are on their deathbed. I hope that this is true for their sake.

      adagio4639,

      Life is not about "religion getting upset" or not, it's about the significance of souls. You say “truth is the most important value”, so wouldn’t you think a true soul is important? My "feelings aren't hurt" by some people devaluing a human soul, for souls are important to God and that is what truly matters. I don’t believe people are derived from animals anyway, it’s not “true”, so of course I’m not insulted! That is why I wrote ” It WOULD BE insulting to think that humans were derived from bacteria, animals, or similar entities."

      The Bible is not a fable. You make that claim, however you can’t prove your statement, so is it then your "belief"? You say you find it exciting to be interested in the truth?! Jesus said, “Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” (John 18:37 KJV) You say you are “interested” in truth, however you disregard the scientific evidence of God as stated in Ron’s article, whether you can prove it or not, you disregard it all together.

      If people don't believe in God or Heaven, what do they perceive is their purpose? If they believe they will never be reunited with their loved ones again, what gives them hope to get through life? Believing in God gives people hope; it is a positive perspective.

      jonnycomelately,

      When I stated: “I want everyone to know that God loves them even if they don't love themselves.”, I mean that not selfishly, but encouragingly. Hopefully, someone who needs to hear that will read it. My comments are not limited only to specific people, but rather intended for everyone who reads them.

      I live in a world full of believers of God and nonbelievers. I am expressing my beliefs, and others are expressing their beliefs. I am not preventing anyone from "being" who they are.

    • Kiss andTales profile image

      Kiss andTales 

      2 years ago

      jonnyc, as an example suppose no one said their is terrorist in a building and someone saw them enter undetected from others yet you saw the threat to human life, should the one

      Who saw this danger keep quiet , leave people alone , give no warning ! What is ahead will end up worse then any terrorist could even imagine on a global scale , the earth will be clean again just as the days of Noah. The point is people need not be in the dark when they can prepare their minds and hearts to a change that will effect every human living.

    • Kiss andTales profile image

      Kiss andTales 

      2 years ago

      jonnyc, as an example suppose no said their is terrorist in a building and someone saw them enter undetected from others yet you saw the threat to human life, should the one

      Who saw this danger keep quiet , leave people alone , give no warning ! What is ahead will end up worse then any terrorist could even imagine on a global scale , the earth will be clean again just as the days of Noah. The point is people need not be in the dark when they can prepare their minds and hearts to a change that will effect every human living.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 years ago from Tasmania

      Claire, I can genuinely say to you, "I hear what you believe and I can live with that. There is no need for you to give up your beliefs to satisfy my unbelief."

      What I would love to hear you say, "I hear what you don't believe and I can live with that. There is no need for you to believe what I do in order to satisfy my belief."

      If you cannot say that to me, in what way is your absolutism better than any other absolutism?

      Can you allow others to just "be?"

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 years ago from Tasmania

      What you want...... regardless of whether anyone wants it or asks for it or needs it?

    • ClaireKelley profile image

      ClaireKelley 

      3 years ago

      adagio4639

      I believe that God exists spiritually, has existed physically, and is the Designer of the universe, as is validated through some of the evidence provided in Ron's article, and Lawrence's statements.

      I believe that when someone knows about God, they do not claim to be an atheist anymore when they are on their deathbed. I hope that this is true for their sake.

      jonnycomelately

      Thank you for acknowledging me as a genuine and caring person, for this is what I strive to be. I want everyone to know that God loves them even if they don't love themselves.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      Larry Allen Brown 

      3 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      Claire: " Instead of trying to disprove God, people should use science in an actual constructive way to help others."

      I don't know who's trying to disprove God, Claire. Most atheists already know that God can't be proven or disproven. There is no scientific way of doing that. I think what you see are atheists responding to Hubs like this one saying "Atheists Disregard Scientific Evidence of God". That's not written by an atheist trying to disprove God. That's a theist trying to Prove God. And atheists are sure to chime in because it's a direct shot at atheists and of course they're going to weigh in knowing that the premise of the Hub is false.

      Science is always about furthering our knowledge of the universe that we live in. Apparently that upsets theists since it challenges their preconceptions of how everything began according to the Bible. In not interested in Fables. I'm interested in the Truth and if that means that a religion is going to be upset, then that's too bad. Truth is more important than any religion.

      "Atheism devalues the human soul and life overall, for life and souls have so many complexities and distinctive details."

      Why? Truth is the most important value.

      " It would be insulting to think that humans were derived from bacteria, animals, or similar entities."

      So...you're concerned about being "insulted"? Does it hurt your feelings in some way that you need to feel some kind of status among living things? Well, you're at the top of the food chain, isn't that enough?

      " These beliefs are a slap in the Face to God and His Amazing Creation."

      Only to those that believe in God. But since you can't prove that God exists, that's only something of importance to you. In other words the atheist rejects your premise. Your argument begins with the notion of God, and that's something you cannot demonstrate as true. As I said before, I'm only interested in what can be demonstrated as true. I don't care one bit about anybody's religion. I care about Truth. That's all that matters. Everything that challenges our preconceptions gives us an opportunity to re-examine what we perceive as True. I find that exciting. And there are a lot of people that are willing to kill if their beliefs are challenged.

      It is nice to know that God considers all of us worthy even when some people don’t."

      "It is nice to know that God considers all of us worthy even when some people don’t."

      If you believe that, then that should be all that matters to you. Not that others don't share that belief.

      "I feel that God doesn’t expose too much of Himself because He wants people to have Faith.

      Why? IF what you say is true, then WHY do theists constantly attempt to prove that God Exists as this Hub suggests? That's not Faith. Lawrence claims that faith is based on empirical evidence. I've read the Bible and I see nothing in it that talks about Faith being based on empirical evidence.

      " If He revealed all of His absolute amazingness all at once, it would probably be too awesomely overwhelming. However, that does not disprove His Existence."

      Nor does it prove it. What it does is offer cover. An explanation of why God does not reveal himself to us. A blanket explanation of why something that can't be proven, remains unproven. Because "we can't handle the truth". How convenient. But think of how many problems in the world could be solved if God did reveal himself. You'd finally know which religion is True and which is false. And there would be no reason for any scientific research because God is always the final answer to every question. And we could all remain, Comfortably Numb.

      We have a brain, and its used to solve problems. What a waste that would be if we stopped using it.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 years ago from Tasmania

      Claire, it is acknowledged you are a genuine and caring person.

      All the Catholic teaching that you have received throughout your life is what manifests in your life today. It is your choice whether at any time you question what you have been taught. Also what you retain and what you reject.

      I do likewise. Period.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      Larry Allen Brown 

      3 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      Claire: You said this: "In reference to your “disproving theories”, you cannot disprove God."

      Of course not. You can't prove God either. God is a metaphysical concept. Not physical. There is no method known to man that will prove or disprove God, or any metaphysical concept for that matter. God cannot be measured or tested by any means known to science. God is not a physical thing. You're supposed to take the concept of God on Faith. Not proof.

      " Why do atheists keep defending the “Big Bang” theory, which has been disproven?

      Probably because the Big Bang has NOT been disprove. Certainly not by any cosmologist living on the planet today. The universe is not only expanding but accelerating, and that is being propelled by something called "Dark Energy". We know very little about it. The universe received a big kick, that we call the Big Bang. We can measure the fact of the expanding and accelerating universe from a starting point which is the point of the Big Bang. The separation of the Galaxies is growing. That means that it is expanding. That has been demonstrated as being true through Hubbles Law: H0 = Velocity/Distance. This of course points to the deeper philosophical question: When did it begin? This is not only a question for a Rabbi or a Priest or Minister. It can be addressed quantitatively by science in a very physics based system.

      The Hubble constant, H0 gives the present expansion rate. Its inverse gives the approximate age of the universe. In other words because we can measure the rate of expansion, we can re-run this "movie" backward to the point where all the matter in the universe would have been on top of each other. IN short because we can measure the rate of expansion and velocity we can also measure the rate of contraction to the point where instead of moving away, everything is on top of each other. The inverse of the Hubble Constant, gives us the approximate age of the universe, which is about 14. 5 Billion years from the Big Bang.

      "If you’re always trying to disprove theories, then what do you believe in?"

      I don't spend my time on beliefs. What I accept is theories that are falsified are no longer worth my time. That doesn't require belief. When something is disproven, it's a matter of Truth. That's what I'm interested in. I'm interested in Truth. Not belief systems. Belief systems cannot be falsified. So you can never know if they're true or false. To the believer they're true, but that doesn't make them true.

    • ClaireKelley profile image

      ClaireKelley 

      3 years ago

      jonnycomelately,

      I didn't mean for any of statements to be perceived as insulting. I’m sorry if anyone comprehended them in that regard. Also, I'm not trying to push my religion upon anyone. I am trying to help others learn about God, for some people who read this may not know Him, but then will maybe decide to give Him and themselves a chance. I don't feel that people have to "worry" about where they will go in the afterlife if they believe in God and try to follow Him. I feel that God helps to set boundaries so that life isn't so chaotic. My religious “debates” are not meant as a distraction, but rather a revelation for people who might be searching for God. Maybe you have known God, but not everyone has been given that opportunity. I don’t feel that people who don’t believe in God are inferior, but I am genuinely concerned for their souls. God is merciful and considers everyone worthy of redemption.

      As for my example: "You can’t just throw a bunch of 2x4s, together and expect that to result in a functional, practical house.", it is not nonsense, it is MY practical example supporting the logical necessity of a designer for a design. It reflects my belief that not having a designer of this universe is incomprehensible. Without a designer, what then is our purpose here in this life? In reiteration, you claim “Everything has a reason for being”, therefore, a Designer must establish that reason for being, otherwise it seems that atheists do believe in “pure, blind chance”. If they don’t believe in a Designer, then they must believe in chance. When you “disregard scientific evidence of God”, then you do prove Ron’s point. Furthermore, I will continue praying for lost souls, and I do not need your permission to "get on with it."

      ClaireKelley

    • ClaireKelley profile image

      ClaireKelley 

      3 years ago

      You're welcome, Lawrence.

      ClaireKelley

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 years ago from Tasmania

      Claire, you speak like a true evangelical Christian..... but no thanks. I've been there, done that, a long time ago, thinking I was going to heaven when I die.

      The main thing that turns me off Christianity is the evangelical fervour....and regarding those who don't have "belief" as inferior and in need of that faith. It's presumptuous, Claire. I have also done that.... and look back on my actions as being quite insulting to anyone whom I was trying to get converted. Not now, though! If you wish to continue in those beliefs you are welcome to do so. Please don't waste any time or any of your prayers on my behalf.

      As for what you think are logical arguments, such as you have written to myself and others on this thread, one such argument is so basically nonsense, that I must quote it here: "You can’t just throw a bunch of 2x4s, together and expect that to result in a functional, practical house."

      Where on earth did you get such an argument from? Who would suggest that such a thing was possible? I would not!

      I am a-theist in my understanding at this time. I do not accept the premise that a "God" exists in the ether, who "looks down" upon you, me, anyone, and is preparing any kind of judgment or punishment upon us after our physical deaths. So, on this basis, I can lead my life without worrying about a "life hereafter." And no need to be distracted by your religious arguments. You can get on with it.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 

      3 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Claire

      Thank you.

      Lawrence

    • ClaireKelley profile image

      ClaireKelley 

      3 years ago

      lawrence01,

      You made some logical points pertaining to science and Biblical references such as 1st Corinthians 15. I, too, feel that it’s OK to research science because I believe that God cannot be disproven anyway!

      ClaireKelley

    • ClaireKelley profile image

      ClaireKelley 

      3 years ago

      adagio4639,

      I am the one who stated: “Every design necessitates a designer. He is my Savior, and will save anyone who wants to be saved. God’s not dead!” I profess this because I love God and He is my Faithful Friend, therefore, I am proud to defend Him. I recommend for everyone to watch the movie “God’s Not Dead!”.

      In reference to your “disproving theories”, you cannot disprove God. Why do atheists keep defending the “Big Bang” theory, which has been disproven? If you’re always trying to disprove theories, then what do you believe in?

      I left a positive comment for Ron’s article because it was well written, logical, and truthful. I feel that God deserves credit, and believing in Him gives people hope. That’s a positive thing, there’s nothing empty or negative about it. Instead of trying to disprove God, people should use science in an actual constructive way to help others.

      Atheism devalues the human soul and life overall, for life and souls have so many complexities and distinctive details. It would be insulting to think that humans were derived from bacteria, animals, or similar entities. These beliefs are a slap in the Face to God and His Amazing Creation. It is nice to know that God considers all of us worthy even when some people don’t.

      I feel that God doesn’t expose too much of Himself because He wants people to have Faith. If He revealed all of His absolute amazingness all at once, it would probably be too awesomely overwhelming. However, that does not disprove His Existence.

      You ask, “Where does God come from?” Ron has already answered that question in a previous response to you, stating: “If God exists at all, He exists as a being outside of time, which is something He created when He caused the Big Bang.” I agree with Ron that this conversation overall has turned its focus toward religion. Atheists should provide scientific evidence for the creation of the universe, or try to disprove it, instead of consistently belittling God. When you “disregard scientific evidence of God”, then you do prove Ron’s point.

      ClaireKelley

    • ClaireKelley profile image

      ClaireKelley 

      3 years ago

      jonnycomelately,

      In order for faith and beliefs to “work” in one’s life, a person has to make a determined effort, a choice to maintain them regardless of the circumstances. I know people who have gone through severely horrific tragedies in life, yet they are some of the most amazingly faithful people I have ever encountered. I have not given any personal accounts pertaining to the way faith works in my life, so you don’t know about that. However, my concern is not merely if something can be proven scientifically, for to pursue life with only that perspective seems empty. It is the relentless search for answers, and some questions will never be answered through science. It is hard for non-believers to actually accept miracles and acts of God, but they do exist. I don’t need you to inform me about my God, for it seems you do not know Him, but He wants to know you and everyone.

      Why not believe in God Who is so amazing? You have everything to gain when accepting God. God loves the people He created, and He is a Faithful Friend.

      I feel that not believing in God requires more faith, because it creates so many more questions and reveals missing links. Believing in God gives me hope. He reveals that we all have a purpose in this life He lovingly gives us, therefore we don’t need to wander around aimlessly. Why don’t you believe in God? If you could choose to have hope, why not have it?

      I understand that science has “meaning”; its purpose is to help progress the quality of life. If people invested more time using science to facilitate essential aspects of life, such as using the resources God provided in order to discover cures for diseases, perhaps the quality of life might improve.

      You claim “Everything has a reason for being”, therefore, a Designer must establish that reason for being, otherwise it seems that atheists do believe in “pure, blind chance”. If they don’t believe in a designer, then they must believe in chance. Similarly, a house requires the detailed design of an architect. You can’t just throw a bunch of 2x4s, together and expect that to result in a functional, practical house. That doesn’t make sense, does it?! God is scientifically proven through the existence of life.

      Life would be so terrifying and depressing if we had to figure everything out on our own. God is here for us, consequently, we don’t have to rely solely on ourselves. He clarifies our direction, and provides guidelines to keep us on a straight path.

      ClaireKelley

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 

      3 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Adiago

      Thank you the the information you put here, I'll be checking some of it out.

      Now to answer some of the things that you raise

      Sir Fred Hume. Was a reknown British Astronomer and "Big Bang naysayer' Actually he was the one who coined the phrase 'Big Bang' as he thought that the 'inflation theory' as it was then called was too much like Biblical creationism! He was an ardent atheist and peoposed the Steady state theory that uses a lot of the same empirical data that the Big bang uses but argues that the universe is eternal! he claimed that the galaxies are receding from each other like Hubble demonstrated but new galaxies come into existence and 'fill the void' thus the universe is eternal but constantly renewing itself.

      With regard to other scientists that reject the big bang and evolution I've got a hub called 'Creation Myths part 1" that has links in it to open letters by thirty three of the world's top scientists (not one creationist of intelligent designer among them as far as I am aware) who explain the problems with the Big Bang theory why they reject it!

      I did also find a list of over five hundred scientists who reject evolution, not all of them are creationists intelligent design proponents, in fact the main reason they give for rejecting it is that the time frame given in the theory of evolution (four and a half billion years) is actually too short for natural selection to have taken place!!!

      This is not to mention the theories of stellar formation that tell us that there's no way our sun could have developed the heavy metals that we find on the earth!

      By the way I kind of like your argument about faith except you forget 1st Corinthians 15 where Paul tells us that we know for a fact about the resurrection and that our faith is rooted in fact (don't worry I know you don't accept the resurrection, I'm just using it to demonstrate a point!)

      I know most Christians are afraid to even start looking into these things as they don't know where to look, but I've had many years of people trying to convince me of evolution and the like! I've come to the conclusion that I should never be afraid of where the science will take me as Jesus said "You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free!"

      By the way I"m not ignoring anything, even in ancient times there were scholars seeking to work out how things held together and how our universe works! Ancient Egyptians worked out that the earth was round! Medieval Jewish scholars worked out that we exist in multiple dimensions. Socrates worked out that there was only one God who could be percieved by looking at the order in the universe (and the fact that it had a beginning).

      Never be afraid of where the science will take you!

      By the way, I've got a few hubs on these things you might want to look at.

      Lawrence

    • adagio4639 profile image

      Larry Allen Brown 

      3 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      Lawrence: You say this: "but we can work out the probability of something and then compare it to the probability of another explanation. Once we do this then logic would allow us to take the 'most likely' explanation!"

      That's not how science works. You're applying inductive reasoning when you look for "the most likely explanation" meaning a generality. You're satisfied with making a general statement and calling that truth. It isn't. Inductive reasoning NEVER proves a theory. That's why science no longer uses that and hasn't for a very long time. David Hume introduced the Problem of Induction in the 1700's. The problem is that we cannot justify our science rationally using induction. That problem existed with philosophers for several hundred years until the 20th Century Scientific philosopher, Karl Popper showed us how we were taking the wrong approach to our science. Nothing is ever proven in science. Rather than trying to prove a theory, we took the opposite approach. Disprove a theory through falsification. If we can subject a theory to intense criticism and find an error then we know that the theory has been falsified and we discard it. So we may not prove something is true, but we can demonstrate why something is false. And that gives us a clearer view of reality. In short you can always find something that verifies your theory, and another and another, but it only takes one thing to demonstrate why the theory is false. No matter how many things you may find that support your theory, none of them ever prove it as true. It's the All Swans are White problem. All the swans you've ever seen are white, so you make a general statement that the next swan you see will be white. But that doesn't prove that all Swans are white. They found black swans in Australia. So we offer conjectures and refutations. Those that last, only last in a provisional sense, until at some point in time we may find something to disprove the theory. Science looks to disprove theories. Not to prove them.

      "As for atheists who don't accept the big bang, how about Sir Fred Hume? How about proponents of the oscillating universe?"

      Who is Sir Fred Hume? The oscillating universe still operates on the concept of the big bang, which is followed by a Big Crunch which is then followed by another Bang. It's a pulsating or undulating universe. The crunch is the universe falling back into itself due to gravity and reaching a point of density that explodes out the other side in a bang that begins the process over again. The Bang is the Singularity. That's a theory I've always liked, but it seems that physicists don't like it as much as I do. But it doesn't dismiss the Big Bang.

      "As for faith, it should always be based on empirical evidence! If it doesn't stand up to the evidence then it shouldn't be accepted!"

      Oh really? Since when? There was no empirical evidence available during the Biblical times since there was no science. That never stopped people of Faith in believing. That didn't stop Daniel from having faith that the Lions wouldn't eat him in the lions den. What empirical evidence supported that faith? It didn't stop Job from having faith that God would raise him from his afflictions that were brought upon him by the very God he had faith in. What empirical evidence supported that faith? At this point you're ignoring that faith is what held religion together for thousands of years prior to anything that would be called "empirical evidence". What your telling me is that you need empirical evidence to support your faith. That's not Faith Lawrence. If you really had faith, you wouldn't need empirical evidence. You would take everything on faith regardless of evidence to the contrary. Clearly that isn't happening with you.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 

      3 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Johnny

      You're right, we can't eliminate all the possibilities (I apoligise for that remark) but we can work out the probability of something and then compare it to the probability of another explanation. Once we do this then logic would allow us to take the 'most likely' explanation!

      I think what you're talking about (with the 'something from nothing' argument) is quantum theory which you still need the 'energy' and the agent of change for the event to occur, we do talk about fluctuations in the quantum energy field causing the big bang but we've no real idea or proof yet (merely hypotheses)

      Adiago

      As for atheists who don't accept the big bang, how about Sir Fred Hume? How about proponents of the oscillating universe?

      As for faith, it should always be based on empirical evidence! If it doesn't stand up to the evidence then it shouldn't be accepted!

      Lawrence

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 years ago from Tasmania

      On the topic of "Nothing" - I see everything that we regard as Material having arizen from Energy. Energy arises from a condition of Difference. Contrast. Not This but That. Big/small. High/low. Up/down. Light/dark. Etc.

      As soon as a Difference is created, Energy now has the potential to flow. When it does flow, work is done. For example it might cause the change in position of one Thing to another. It might cause change of size, colour, loudness, softness. All these manifestations are a result of Energy flow which itself is a product of Difference.

      With the advent of Difference it becomes possible to Define. The Finite arises. It has arisen out of Infinite - Nothingness.

      "Nothingness" is a condition, a state, that is all, with no difference.

      "Something" is an existence, created by Difference.

      Hence, I contend it IS possible for Something to come from Nothing.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      Larry Allen Brown 

      3 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      Lawrence: " If nothing exists then how do you get something out of nothing without an external influence?"

      Lawrence, the problem you're having here is that you are treating "nothing" as if it were "something". You're very first words, state "If nothing exists..." There is no time before time.

      This statement "Most Atheists actually have to reject the big bang theory because you can't make it work without a designer (Stephen Hawking is trying to but so far has not succeeded!)" is simply false. I don't know of any atheist that rejects the "big bang". Your reference to Hawking points to Entropy. Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences that seems to imply a particular direction of progress, sometimes called an arrow of time. As time progresses, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases. Hence, from this perspective, entropy measurement is thought of as a kind of clock. The entropy of a black hole is proportional to the surface area of the black hole's event horizon.

      Jacob Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking have shown that black holes have the maximum possible entropy of any object of equal size. This makes them likely end points of all entropy-increasing processes, if they are totally effective matter and energy traps. However, the escape of energy from black holes might be possible due to quantum activity, (see Hawking radiation). Hawking has recently changed his stance on some details, in a paper which largely redefined the event horizons of black holes.

      The main point here is that when you say that Hawking is trying but has thus far not succeeded, does not mean that he won't, and if not Hawking, then somebody else. What you offer is a closed system. In short, there is no reason for Hawking to pursue this because the answer to the question comes in the form of an intelligent designer. Just because an answer hasn't been arrived at today doesn't mean that it won't tomorrow. That's why science is always open ended and religion is a closed system of thought. It's like saying, "well, because we don't know something, it must be God which we can't possibly demonstrate but must instead just accept on faith. Science doesn't work that way. Religion does.

      "This is only 'special pleading' in the sense that all the known theories we have can't actually work without it!"

      Hehe, well when you say "only", that's all that we need to recognize a case of special pleading which is a logical fallacy. You offer special pleading to make a case for special pleading. That in itself is a case of special pleading. You're suggesting that we accept special pleading as only taking place in this debate, and somehow that's supposed to be acceptable?? I'm sorry, but that doesn't logically follow.

      "The Atheist knows this and tries to hide behind the 'special pleading' plea because they know that we know from science that the universe had a beginning yet they can't explain it,"

      Hmmm...hiding behind logic? I'm sorry, but logic doesn't play favorites. It's not a matter of hiding. It's a matter of recognizing something doesn't add up. The universe can be traced backward to the Big Bang. We already know that. No atheist that I know of disputes that. A lot of theists reject the Big Bang because it threatens the Biblical account of the "beginning", but I'm not aware of atheists that reject this. The question is what caused it. There is no question that it took place.

      "when an alternative explanation is put forward (and actually isn't being put forward from a Christian standpoint but from a science standpoint) they cry "FOUL, that's religion talking"

      The Christian explanation was established in the Bible a few thousand years ago. The alternative explanation does comes from science which rejects "superstition" as a legitimate answer to the mysteries of the cosmos. Science doesn't cry FOUL when Christianists offer their design theories. They simply reject them as lacking any scientific foundations. No matter how you slice this or try to explain this it always ends at the doorstep of God and that leaves a gaping hole with only special pleading as an answer, which is no answers. If God created the universe, where did God come from. You're argument is that something cannot come from nothing. If that's so, then where did God come from? You still have not dealt with that, without offering special pleading as the answer.

      "My answer is you can't have natural processes doing it because the basic materials and laws weren't there at the start!"

      Of course they were. The potential for all of the natural processes doing this were always there. We're living evidence of that.

      "That is simply "Once you've eliminated all the other possibilities, then the only one that's left. no matter how improbable is the right one!"

      Think about it."

      I have. And the most basic and fundamental response to your statement is that ALL other possibilities have NOT been eliminated. The problem with your comment is that it assumes a finite number of possibilities within an infinite universe of possibilities. All we know is what is available to us within the visible universe. This fails to recognize what we now understand as dark matter. For you to write off scientific discovery by saying that All possibilities have been eliminated is the product of a extremely narrow mind. Again, I have to say that your "Faith" is weak. When you have "faith" you don't need proof. Why are you trying to prove your faith?? Isn't your faith enough for you?

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 years ago from Tasmania

      Lawrence, I feel you have answered your own conundrum.

      ""Once you've eliminated all the other possibilities, then the only one that's left. no matter how improbable is the right one!"

      You cannot eliminate all the other possibilities. Scientific inquiry never says there is 100% no other explanation or possibility. There is always room for other information to arrive which can change one's mind.

      I am a-theist, but my mind is not closed. It is open to the infinite possibilities of this world, but doubting the fallacious improbabilities put forward by some theist minds.

      If the "God" you talk about is involved with the infinite possibilities, how about allowing me and my life to be one of those possibilities, whether you disagree with the manifestation of me or not. I get on in life quite well without that god of yours to hinder me.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 

      3 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Adiago4639

      To quote a video I watched earlier where Stephen Mayer said "Before the big bang there was nothing! That doesn't mean there was a time with nothing, it literally means there was NOTHING!!! If nothing exists then how do you get something out of nothing without an external influence?"

      Most Atheists actually have to reject the big bang theory because you can't make it work without a designer (Stephen Hawking is trying to but so far has not succeeded!)

      This is only 'special pleading' in the sense that all the known theories we have can't actually work without it! The Atheist knows this and tries to hide behind the 'special pleading' plea because they know that we know from science that the universe had a beginning yet they can't explain it, we know that life arose on a small planet rotating an insignificant star in a small galaxy but they can't explain how, and they certainly can't explain how the specific coding for life came into being and how detailed it is in both our DNA and RNA not to mention the molecular machines that are required to run the basic functions of every living cell on that insignificant planet yet when an alternative explanation is put forward (and actually isn't being put forward from a Christian standpoint but from a science standpoint) they cry "FOUL, that's religion talking"

      My answer is you can't have natural processes doing it because the basic materials and laws weren't there at the start! Not even Quantum theory can explain it as all that does is move the point back further, you still have how the material got out of the quantum field and what forced it out!

      Once you've chased down all the blind alleys and come back to the same thing over and over you come to what I think of as the "Sherlock principle" That is simply "Once you've eliminated all the other possibilities, then the only one that's left. no matter how improbable is the right one!"

      Think about it.

      Lawrence

    • adagio4639 profile image

      Larry Allen Brown 

      3 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      Lawrence: you said this: "Every design necessitates a designer. He is my Savior, and will save anyone who wants to be saved. God’s not dead!"

      This begs the question, Where did God come from? Who was his designer? The argument is always the same. Something cannot come from nothing. So where did God come from? The answer to that always falls on "special pleading". Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. In short, God didn't need a designer because he's God. So the very rules of existence that you call on to prove that there must be a "designer"called God, don't apply to God because he's a special case. He's God. It's a logical fallacy, and you might embrace that fallacy, but I think that those that know something is a fallacy and still hold on to it, demonstrate their own irrationality. Personally, I don't think embracing irrationality is a way of life that fits me, but to each his own.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      Larry Allen Brown 

      3 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      Lawrence, your concept of God cannot be demonstrated as true. It's a metaphysical concept. Not physical. Science deals with the physical universe. Not beliefs. God cannot be measured, or tested, simply because God has no physical properties that can be measured or tested.Think about it; If he could, what kind of God would that be? A God that can be reduced to physical terms? Gee, I would think that any God worthy of being called God would be way beyond human ability to measure. You can't prove or disprove a belief. That's why it's metaphysical. And your characterization of why an atheist feels any need to protect a position reveals a lot more about how little you understand about atheism. Since you've never been one, how can you know anything about it? Most atheists were theists at one point in their life. So they can speak from both viewpoints. If you had data that could prove the existence of God, most every agnostic/atheist would jump on that train with no problems. But the truth is that you don't have that, and never will because there is no scientific way of measuring something that isn't scientific. As for Anthony Frew, I never heard of him, so I don't know how "celebrated" he is. I do know that Christopher Hitchens is far more "celebrated" as an atheist and he never came to that conclusion before his death and wrote that anybody that would suggest that he did, is lying. The point here is that anecdotal evidence doesn't do anything to prove your case.

      Finally, I would add this; why is it that so many theists feel a need to prove the existence of God. Isn't God a matter of Faith? Clearly those that feel a need to prove God's existence have no faith. If they did, they wouldn't feel the need to seek some kind of proof. If you could prove that God exists, you wouldn't need faith. God's existence would be a matter of fact that could be scientifically demonstrated. Faith would no longer be necessary. Only those whose faith is weak, feel a need to prove something that can't be proven.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 

      3 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Johnny

      You're right that 'my god' can't be proven BUT the concept of God as a being can and is by the latest scientific data shown to be a plausable and consistent explanation for the universe as we know it!

      What Ron actually shows here is that the Atheist in order to maintain their position has to disregard that data otherwise they would be forced by the data to modify their position to that of a deist just like the Celebrated Atheist Anthony Frew did just before his death in 2010 (he became a deist and when asked said it was because of the data he found reading up on intelligent design)

      Lawrence

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 years ago from Tasmania

      Claire, with great respect to you for your faith and your beliefs, as they obviously work for you in your life. I have no quarrel with that.

      However, the term "scientific" has a meaning.

      "The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

      The atheist view does not state, as Ron has done, that "it all happened by pure, blind chance."

      Everything has a reason for being. The objective of scientific enquiry is to find out how, when, why everything is as it is. Any hypothesis, any idea, any experiment, any result must in the terms of scientific authenticity, be repeatable and observable by anyone else under the same conditions.

      Your "God" is not measurable or perceived by anyone else. "He" is in your mind. You can use any art form you like to describe your perception of "God." Your rendering will never be exactly the same as that from anyone else. Your view is a metaphor, that is all.

      So, your "God" cannot be proven "scientifically."

      Period.

    • ClaireKelley profile image

      ClaireKelley 

      3 years ago

      RonElFran,

      Thank you for such a great article! It is compelling, thought-provoking, and truthful. You have disclosed significant information using reputable references. Good for you that you're standing steadfast in your beliefs, regardless of the attacks from those who disagree and misunderstand. God is our amazing Creator & Designer. Every design necessitates a designer. He is my Savior, and will save anyone who wants to be saved. God’s not dead!

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 

      3 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Ron

      I've been reading Lee Strobel's book 'case for a creator'. Really compelling interviews with top scientists in their field who all show that the only way for the science to work is if there is a creator behind it all.

      Looking forward to your hub

      Lawrence

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      3 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Thanks much, kalinin1158. And be assured that there are some compelling scientific objections to Darwinism that I plan to deal with in another hub.

    • kalinin1158 profile image

      Lana Adler 

      3 years ago from California

      I love this hub! So intelligently written on such a complex subject. I never bought the whole Darwinian evolution theory, but I didn't realize there's actually science behind the idea of God. Great job!

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 years ago from Tasmania

      For me, those are philosophical tongue twisters, totally unnecessary in my life.

      "God," with or without the initial capital letter, is a figment of the human imagination. As far as we can tell, no other animal species either needs such a concept nor wants it nor is able to formulate it.

      Why would you need to look to a person such as Godel for a "proof?"

      I anyone wants to believe such an entity exists, and that belief helps him or her to live a better life, then so be it. Who are we to deny that freedom?

      This does not thereby encloak the concept with skin and flesh. It's still not real, only imagined.

      Any religious argument will always come back to the basic presumption of a supernatural being lording it over us.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 

      3 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      I would suggest that you all read "Godel's proof" for yourselves.

      His argument isn't based on any religious notion but on principles and truth that would be true no matter what the situation.

      Ron, I agree with you, they are doing a good job!

      Lawrence

    • DzyMsLizzy profile image

      Liz Elias 

      3 years ago from Oakley, CA

      Perhaps the discussion devolves into religion because it is the exclusive purview of religions to promote the idea of a god. (No, I do not capitalize it, because I view it as a job description, not a name.)

      I voted for your third choice; we have yet to discover the cause. I don't find any 'evidence' of a supreme being in those arguments, any more than I would believe the 747 analogy you used. For all I know, we are an experiment put here by aliens. Yes, I know--you will argue about who or what created said aliens. I don't have an answer, but neither do I believe falling back on some ancient book holds the answer, either.

      I remain unconvinced, and from what I see of what goes on in the world, any so-called "merciful and loving" supreme being that would either cause or allow the horrors we see, I want no part of. Free will? Where is the free will of a child killed by some horrific disease? Did they choose that? Was an innocent child so evil? I think not. Pre-destination? Mutually exclusive to the concept of free will. You cannot have it both ways.

      So, no, I see no credible scientific evidence strong enough to convince me otherwise. By the way--I have come 180 degrees from what I thought and believed in my youth. Life has shown me the folly of my former beliefs. And--don't even talk to me about "tests of faith." If this 'god' is supposed to be 'father' to us all...and supposedly loves us, then why the torture chamber? If we were to treat any of our children on Earth as we are treated by this so-called "loving" father, in an attempt to 'make the child prove their love for us,' we'd be in jail in a heartbeat for felony child abuse. I'm sorry; it's just a concept I cannot buy into.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      3 years ago from Southern Georgia

      As far as I know I haven't told you what my beliefs are, Ron. And I haven't seen any scientific proof of any gods so far. If there were one, then there would be many.

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      3 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Christopher Jay T, thanks for your comment. It is in line with what other atheists have said in reaction to this post. Yet none of those comments, including yours, has even attempted to deal with the actual scientific data I cite and the inferences I draw from it. Instead they, like you, have attempted to turn the discussion to one about religion. I challenge you, as I have them, to demonstrate from the data why the scientific evidence we now have fits more closely with the universe having come into being by some unknown mechanism in exactly the way required to support life, or with the universe in the form we find it being the result of purposeful creation. Every time an atheist avoids that issue in favor of railing against religion, they simply reinforce the premise with which I started: "Atheists Disregard Scientific Evidence of God." I haven't had to prove my headline; you guys are doing it for me.

    • Christopher Jay T profile image

      Christopher Jay Thompson 

      3 years ago from Fort Worth, TX

      You never even proved your Headline. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence. The fact that you say there is scientific evidence of god proves that you have no concept of what scientific evidence is. Some ancient people writing about god in a collection of religious writings is no more proof of gods existence than the comic book the Amazing Spider man is proof of the existence of spider man. You speak of scientific evidence and then badmouth scientific theory. If there was so much "scientific " evidence of god, there would be a scientific consensus. This does not mean god does not exist, but no one can prove nor disprove the existence of god. Religion has no place in science, and science has no place in religion.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 years ago from Tasmania

      @lawrence01 "....and thats why the atheist doesn't like it as it brings logic and mathematics into play."

      That must be the most contradictory statement made here in this forum! People who are a-atheist are able to think for themselves, instead of deferring to an obscure, questionable, interpreted-ad-infinitum book of ancient literature; are able to question, step out of the conventional and accepted mode of dogmatic thinking.... and you say we are afraid of addressing logic and mathematics?

      Would you care to bring logic into play here? That might get us somewhere useful.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 

      3 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Ron

      It came up in another hub/discussion a few days ago. I'm not sure I really understand it but the argument is basically one from logic not philosphy and thats why the atheist doesn't like it as it brings logic and mathematics into play.

      I'll definately be looking into it much more.

      Have a great weekend

      Lawrence

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      3 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Lawrence, to be honest, Godel's proof is beyond me. I haven't read that much about it yet. But thanks for bringing it up. I'll have to dig in and see if I can understand it.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 

      3 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Ron

      Godel's ontological argument says "that by which there is no greater being is by definition God"

      If we can concieve a being greater than ourselves then we are not God, but if tgat being is the greatest we can concieve then that being is God and by definition has to exist because we can concieve that he does!

      Godel was a Mathematician and friend/protege of Einstein!

      No one has yet refuted this argument though many have tried!

      Lawrence

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      3 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Randy Godwin and adagio4639, the only thing I say about what atheists believe is what can be directly inferred from the title they apply to themselves: atheist = no God. If you think I have imputed some set of beliefs to atheists that don't track with either that definition or with what atheists commonly claim in defending their position, please point out those statements. I'll be happy to either correct or defend them.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 years ago from Tasmania

      Beautiful analogy, SuperBrains So a big thank you to Douglas Adams.

      Was it he that spoke of "Raining cats and dogs, and leaving little poodles?"

    • SuperBrains profile image

      Paul Goodman 

      3 years ago from Florida

      "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

      Douglas Adams

    • adagio4639 profile image

      Larry Allen Brown 

      3 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      I know. I wish people would stop telling atheists what it is that they believe. It's not as if they have some book that they subscribe to.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      3 years ago from Southern Georgia

      The title itself indicates a lack of knowledge by the writer as far as what atheists are concerned with. :(

    • adagio4639 profile image

      Larry Allen Brown 

      3 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Ron: "My conclusion is that the physics and the math clearly favor design over chance. If someone disagrees, it behooves them to lay out a chain of reasoning (not simply opinions) that explains how the physics and math indicate a different conclusion. I'm happy to have a discussion based on the science, but not one about religion or "what I believe."

      Ron, aren't you doing exactly that? Laying out a discussion about religion and what you believe? You believe that science leads you to the conclusion that a Supernatural intelligence must be the cause which itself has no cause. How is that not a discussion of what you believe and lead us to a discussion of religion? I don't see where any science or physics supports a supernatural cause. That's an enormous leap of faith. Not a matter of physics or science. The very notion that you can use science to establish a non-scientific theory is contradictory. Science doesn't deal with metaphysical theories. God is not a material being. God is not a question of science. It's a question of philosophy. Validity is a choice, not a proof.

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      3 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      jonnycomelately, thanks for your input.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 years ago from Tasmania

      "It is not intended as a discussion of religion or of personal beliefs."

      " My conclusion is that the physics and the math clearly favor design over chance."

      You seem to be full of delusion, Ron! You approach all of this discussion from the position of your beliefs. Yet you try to invoke Science, a method whereby people try to understand the structures and workings of this physical planet.

      My suggestions are just as valid as any of your beliefs. This difference is that I have an enquiring, flexible frame mind, not a fixed one dependent on un-testable philosophy.

      How can you apply physics and math to a belief system? Answer: they can only come as purely abstract ideas, nothing more.

      IMHO

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      3 years ago from Southern Georgia

      The way I understand the science of something occurring from seemingly nothing, is like a line drawn with everything above it being matter and below it anti-matter which cancelled each other out. As long as the two remained the same no matter existed. It was only when enough anti-matter erupted above the line--sort of like digging a hole and piling up the dirt--that matter became a material thing.

      Kinda simplified to make it more easy to understand but apparently some people need such an explanation to get the gist of the thing.

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      3 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      adagio4639 and jonnycomelately: there's a lot of personal opinion and speculation in your comments. I appreciate the input, but this article is about which hypothesis concerning how the universe came into being best fits the observational data. It is not intended as a discussion of religion or of personal beliefs. The question might be framed this way: from the perspective of the physics and the statistical probabilities involved, does the available data fit more closely with a model based on the universe having been designed or appearing by chance? My conclusion is that the physics and the math clearly favor design over chance. If someone disagrees, it behooves them to lay out a chain of reasoning (not simply opinions) that explains how the physics and math indicate a different conclusion. I'm happy to have a discussion based on the science, but not one about religion or "what I believe."

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 years ago from Tasmania

      Gentlemen, please excuse me here to inject a small amount of reality. I cannot get into the sort of logical leanings with which you both seem to be familiar with. I find it sort of mind-boggling.

      However, for me there is a better, more logical line of understanding.

      We have been told the relationship between Mass and Energy.

      Energy is created by difference. In other words, something might be bigger/smaller; higher/lower; louder/softer; darker/lighter; positive/negative; etc., etc.

      With that difference you enable the flow of something in order to achieve a balanced condition, where no difference is apparent.

      With the infinite condition, there is NO difference, therefore NO flow.

      With Change you immediately have a Difference. Something IS possible from Nothing.

      Therefore, as I see it, this explains how "Something" can arise out of "Nothing." A Difference somehow arose. It might have been gradual or sudden, but arise it did.

      When a Change occurs, immediately you have "existence."

      Now, Ron, if you imagine that your God is all powerful, that would be as a result of "Him" being in total control of Change.

      "He" could then enact all those miraculous happenings, just like Harry Potter can do with his Wand. (Or more like Dumbledore, who was painted as god-like by J.K.Rowling.)

      I propose that these simple suggestions of mine are no more, no less plausible than what you have in your mind.... but it's an understanding which I can hold and live with and discard the uncertainties of religious ambiguity.

      The one, true, fundamental factor of all existence, the factor which does not change and cannot be absent if you are to have existence, is CHANGE itself.

      Now, if this puts me on a level with Mr. Einstein, so be it. Make me famous, (wink-wink) but don't bow down and worship me, 'cos I ain't God!

    • adagio4639 profile image

      Larry Allen Brown 

      3 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Ron: "you say you don't believe that there can be an "Uncaused Cause," as Aquinas puts it. But of course you do."

      No Ron. I didn't say that. Theists are saying that. And then they use Special Pleading to make the case that God is an uncaused cause. You've got it mixed up.

      " As I mentioned before, at the time the universe as we know it came into being, there had to be something already in existence."

      The argument is what caused the Big Bang. The theist says God. So what caused God? The theist offers Special Pleading which is a logical fallacy, but that never stopped them from ignoring logic before, so why now?

      "Whether you call that something "God" or the "pre-universe" or whatever name you give it, it had to be there to either cause the Big Bang or be the raw material for it. In either case, you face exactly the same problem of where that something came from"

      I don't have that problem. I think it's always been here. The visible universe that we see is a result of the Bang. The universe could have been in a static state prior to the bang.

      "The only difference is whether that pre-existing something was intelligent and purposeful (in which case, that's God) or impersonal and purposeless. But, again, the problem of what caused it is the same in either case. So if you believe the universe exists, you can't help but believe in some kind of uncaused cause. Unless, of course, you assert that the universe magically created itself from nothing."

      No, not magic at all Ron. I think its always been here, possibly in a dormant state. Our own minds can't conceive of something without a cause. But we don't know everything about the universe. We're just scratching the surface. But, I'm not one that's inclined to reach for a supernatural answer to a more complex problem. The secrets of the cosmos are revealed more and more as we grow. Maybe we're the universe becoming aware of itself. The more we learn about it the more we learn about ourselves. But to simply assign the entire process to a magical being with supernatural powers sounds like the same desire that we have for Superman and all the other Super Hero's. And the question remains, if all existence requires a cause, where did God come from? Invoking a logical fallacy won't win the day on that question. I for one cannot, and will not abandon logic and reason and commit to irrationality as a way of life. If you know that you're accepting a logical fallacy in order to maintain a belief, then your belief is more important to you than the truth. It's a sign of irrationality to know that something is false and continue to accept it. If I have to live with a lie in order to maintain a belief, then I know that belief is false.

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      3 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      adagio4639, you say you don't believe that there can be an "Uncaused Cause," as Aquinas puts it. But of course you do. As I mentioned before, at the time the universe as we know it came into being, there had to be something already in existence. Whether you call that something "God" or the "pre-universe" or whatever name you give it, it had to be there to either cause the Big Bang or be the raw material for it. In either case, you face exactly the same problem of where that something came from. The only difference is whether that pre-existing something was intelligent and purposeful (in which case, that's God) or impersonal and purposeless. But, again, the problem of what caused it is the same in either case. So if you believe the universe exists, you can't help but believe in some kind of uncaused cause. Unless, of course, you assert that the universe magically created itself from nothing.

      I agree with you about one thing: atheists do prefer to call what creationists believe "nonsense" and refuse to deal with it. Exactly.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      Larry Allen Brown 

      3 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Ron:""Yet, by definition atheists claim that the probability of special creation is effectively zero."

      Yeah, I don't believe that at all for the reasons stated above. I don't believe the argument that nothing that exists can escape a cause, but God can. Logically if nothing can then God does not exist. Special pleading comes into play. Special pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency — in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules.

      This seems to be the MO of the creationism apologist. In the Thomistic cosmological argument for the existence of God, everything requires a cause. However, proponents of the argument then create a special case where God doesn't need a cause, but they can't say why in any particularly rigorous fashion. However, nature itself could have existed eternally in some form just as they say God had existed eternally before creating nature.

      Biblical morality takes massive amounts of special pleading from Biblical literalists who insist that morality can only come from the Bible. They are very happy to follow some rules (shunning gay men) but not others (selling their daughters into slavery, stoning disobedient children, eschewing shellfish) — even though the Bible, which they claim can be the only source of their moral decision making, is quite silent on what parts of it you can happily ignore.

      “The challenge for atheists is to demonstrate that their alternative should be considered a better fit to the physical evidence than the Creator alternative. My contention is that they have consistently shown themselves unwilling to take on that challenge because they know (or at least sense) that the evidentiary deck is stacked against them.”

      You’re totally wrong about that Ron. There is no challenge for atheists. The reason that they don’t engage that kind of nonsense is simply because the challenge is not theirs. It’s yours. You and those of your persuasion are making the assertion that a creator did all of this. The burden of proof is not on the atheist to demonstrate that some alternative is a better fit. The atheist isn’t always a bunch of philosophers sitting around doing what you and I are doing. They simply don’t believe that a case has been made to warrant belief in God. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making a claim. That’s a facit of critical thinking that nobody is going to give up on. It’s what delivered us out of the dark ages where anyone could accuse somebody of being a witch, and then having to prove you aren’t. Prove a negative. Prove that you aren’t something. If somebody accused you of cheating on your wife, how would you go about proving that you didn’t? Whether it’s in a court room where a person is charged with a crime, or something else; the burden of proof is always with the accuser or the person making the assertion. And that my friend is your burden. Not the atheists.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      Larry Allen Brown 

      3 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Ron: " In other words, the hypothesis of a Creator is far more probable than the alternative."

      Sorry Ron, but I don't believe that either. I think it's very simple to assign a "creator' to the entire thing, in which case a Purple Unicorn would be just as valid. If I applied Occams Razor I might say that the simplest answer is probably the most likely to be true. Never add unnecessary contingencies if you can avoid it. But in this case there is too much scientific data to ignore, and to simply say an invisible man in the sky did it, stretches credulity to the breaking point. There are many theories out there, including the God theory, but at least the others can be falsified. The God theory cannot, because it's a metaphysical concept. It can't be subjected to any testing. So for any scientist to claim that the hypothesis that a creator is most likely is something I find ludicrous, especially coming from a scientist who is not likely to abandon the scientific method for a belief system.

      As for the time of the BB, the time would be Zero. There is no time before time. It's like a stopwatch. The watch begins with the Bang.

      "Interestingly, your belief that the premise that God created the universe can’t be tested because it is a metaphysical concept rather than a physical one is directly contradicted by arch-atheist Richard Dawkins."

      Dawkins is an Atheist. That doesn't make him a philosopher of note. I simply disagree. I think he's completely wrong. In fact, I think he's as wrong as wrong can be.

      "“the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other … God's existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice.” For once I agree with Dawkins."

      Hogwash. Not surprising that you would agree with him, and I would disagree. The idea of God predates science. Science played no role in the beliefs of ancients. And if Dawkins thinks there is some scientific bases for metaphysics then he's a terrible philosopher and even worse scientist. There is no physical quality to God. God if anything , is a spiritual being, incapable of being measured or tested in any scientific way. Certainly you would know that. If God were a physical being he would have to live someplace within the physical universe, since there is no place outside of space. Space outside of space is just more space, and that would mean that God is contained within that space, and what can contain God? If he is a God than nothing can contain him. On the contrary he would contain space. ( ahhh....God as Nature. Maybe Pantheism is on to something?)

      "By asking “from where did God spring?” you get your question begging backward.

      I don't think so, but if you're really going to go there, be my guest.

      " If God exists at all, He exists as a being outside of time, which is something He created when He caused the BB."

      That doesn't explain where God came from. Furthermore, what evidence do you have that God caused the BB? The universe could have done exactly the same thing without the involvement of God.

      "To ask where He came from implicitly assumes that over some period of time, “prior” to the BB, God changed from one state to another (from non-existence to existence). But since the concept of time “prior” to t[0] is meaningless, the question itself is meaningless."

      So God has no beginning? How convenient. The universe requires a beginning; a cause. But God doesn't. The concept of time cannot be meaningless for God because in order for God to have created anything he would FIRST have to become self-aware. And Self-awareness imposes time. He must be conscious of himself and that implies the passage of time from moment to moment. Time would be an a priori condition for the creation to take place. The word First implies time.

      The argument becomes:

      P1. All existence requires a cause

      P2. God has no cause

      ____________________________

      C: Therefore God does not exist.

      In a conditional form of Modus Tollens IF/Then

      If p then q

      Not q

      therefore not p

      If all of existence requires a cause , then God has a cause'

      God has no cause.

      Therefore all of existence does not require a cause.

      "The real question being begged by those who assert that the universe created itself is: from where did the universe spring? What reason is there to believe that some unknowable something existed for all of eternity, and that for some unknowable reason it decided at t[0] to explode into the matter/energy entity that is our cosmos?"

      As you can see from the syllogisms there is no need to "beg the question". The unknowable something is knowable. It's the universe. We learn more about it and how it works all the time. The unknowable something is God who at some point in his self-awareness, he takes it upon himself to indulge in a self-conscious task of creating a universe. If he is not self-aware, then he has no point of reference and the universe springs to life at the very moment of his awareness. In other words, God was dormant until the moment of self -awareness. In that moment all things begin, including the Bang. And time. So there couldn't be a plan. A plan requires planning and planning takes time. No concept of right or wrong. No morality to judge good from evil because there was nothing to inform him of morality. He would have been “winging” it.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 

      3 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      I forgot to mention that once the proteins are assembled in the right sequence then DNA can be constructed. You need anywhere between 25,000 to 40,000 strands if DNA per cell (each with 3,000 to 5,000 proteins)

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 

      3 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Johnnycomelately

      Its interesting what you say about the amino acids. They did create three acids, but lets stop and think. It was a team of researchers who set out to create these acids (it was intentional and not accidental). They created three, but to just make the simplest protein used to create DNA they need 75! Then there is the combination of proteins required for the first cell, you need between 3-5,000 proteins just to create one cell!

      Then after all that all you have is organic matter and you have the problem of how to get life into the cell and all the while all three LAWS of Thermodynamics are working against you!! (Not to mention Biogenesis aka Louis pasteur).

      The Big bang throws out Einsteins theory of relativity (it says that in the first moments after the bang the universe expanded at speeds much greater than that of light despite Einsteins theory saying nothing can exceed the speed of light!) And Thermodynamics says that the compounds that make up the amino acids left even a short time would degenerate and not 'evolve'

      Evolution's answer to all this is "it must have"

      Creationists have put forward theories as to how to scientifically explain their views but the first accusations they get is they aren't real scientists despite having doctorates in their fields. They are often denied funding for their research because it doesn't fit the current theory.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 years ago from Tasmania

      Yes, as I understand it, the anaerobic conditions in the deep clefts of the oceans, where sulphurous outpouring create conditions as they most probably were in the atmosphere, billions of years ago.....have been replicated in the laboratory, and achieved early production of amino acids, or something like that.

      That would/could be the origins you speak of. Beyond this conjecture we can only resort to metaphysical explanations, belief systems, etc.

      None of which can ever be proven.

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      3 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      jonnycomelately, keep in mind that you must talk origins before you can talk evolution. Until there's a universe, and until there is life within that universe, there is nothing for the cycle of random mutation/natural selection that's at the heart of Darwinian evolution to operate on. I'm planning other hubs to examine the fossil and biochemical evidence regarding evolution. Stay tuned.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 

      3 years ago from Tasmania

      Ok.... a "better idea of...." Yes, the debate goes on and on. The suggestion, the theory, of evolution and a progressive growing of all life forms from an initial simple-celled organisms into the more complex forms that have existed and continue to do so today...... theory-hypothesis-observation-experiment-record-extrapolate-propose a law.... all these efforts to prove or disprove anything that comes up for consideration.

      Please, if the consensus of scientific evidence today points to "the Big Bang" - not a good analogy, apparently - and there is disagreement, then please propose an alternative explanation. If Evolution is discounted, what is another possibility/probability? How did the physical reality of this world come about?

      I am asking for a plausible alternative that does not require Harry Potter's wand to enact it.

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      3 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      jonnycomelately, it is not necessary to "measure and quantify" God in order to assess whether the evidence that can be measured and quantified is more consistent with the universe having been created or not. My point in this article is that the knowable, physical, scientific evidence lines up better with the idea of the universe having been purposefully designed than with it somehow just happening by a stupendous series of astronomically improbable events. Nothing about that is particularly "religious." It's all about the science.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, soapboxie.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://soapboxie.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)