![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/11\/BigBang4.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nAtheist and anti-theist\u00a0Bob Seidensticker<\/a>\u00a0runs the influential\u00a0Cross Examined<\/em><\/a>\u00a0blog. He asked me there,\u00a0on 8-11-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two of those posts?\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He added in June 2017\u00a0in a combox<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf I\u2019ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I\u2019ve mischaracterized them.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Delighted to oblige his wishes . . .<\/p>\n Bob (for the record) virtually\u00a0begged<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0pleaded<\/em>\u00a0with me to dialogue with him in May 2018, via email. But by\u00a010-3-18<\/a>,\u00a0following\u00a0massive, childish name-calling attacks<\/a>\u00a0against me,\u00a0 encouraged by Bob on his blog, he banned me from commenting there. I also banned him for violation of my\u00a0rules for discussion<\/a>,\u00a0but (unlike him)\u00a0provided detailed\u00a0reasons<\/em><\/a>\u00a0for\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0it was justified.<\/p>\n Bob\u2019s cowardly hypocrisy knows no bounds.\u00a0On 6-30-19<\/a>,\u00a0he was chiding someone for something very much like his own behavior:\u00a0\u201cSpoken like a true weasel trying to run away from a previous argument. You know, you could just say, \u2018Let me retract my previous statement of X\u2019 or something like that.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Yeah,\u00a0Bob<\/em>\u00a0could!\u00a0\u00a0He still hasn\u2019t yet uttered one peep in reply<\/a> to \u2014 now \u2014 74 of my critiques of his atrocious reasoning.<\/p>\n Bible-Basher Bob reiterated and rationalized his intellectual cowardice yet again on\u00a012-21-20:\u00a0\u201cI love people who can make cogent arguments against mine or point out data I hadn\u2019t considered before. What I dislike (and ban) are $#&*%@s who . . . refuse to learn\/adapt . . . ignore compelling arguments against their position, and so on.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Bible-Basher Bob\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.\u00a0To find these posts, follow this link:\u00a0\u201cSeidensticker Folly #\u201d<\/a>\u00a0or see all of them linked under his own section on my\u00a0Atheism page<\/a>.<\/p>\n Words of atheist Jonathan MS Pearce will be in green<\/span>\u00a0and atheist Geoff Benson<\/a>\u2018s in brown<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I am responding to a portion of Bob\u2019s post entitled, 8 reasons why \u201cGod\u201d is always the worst answer<\/a> (11-4-21; update \u2014 like so many of Bob\u2019s \u2014 of a post from 7-8-17).<\/p>\n For the answer to any of life\u2019s big questions\u2014questions such as \u201cWhy are we here?\u201d or \u201cWhat is the meaning of life?\u201d\u2014anything with God in it is always the worst guess. Super-smart aliens would be better. Fairies would be better. \u201cI dunno, but there\u2019s gotta be something better\u201d would be better.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cGod did it\u201d is perhaps\u00a0the most remarkable claim possible<\/em>\u00a0since it assumes, without compelling evidence, that a supernatural being created everything.<\/span><\/p>\n Let\u2019s explore why God is the worst explanation for anything.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cGod did it\u201d is the ready answer apologists can use to explain any scientific puzzle\u2014what caused abiogenesis (the first life, which allowed evolution to begin), what caused the Big Bang, what explains consciousness, and so on. Of course, science keeps answering those puzzles, meaning that those applications of \u201cGod did it\u201d were both wrong and premature, but apologists never seem to learn that lesson.<\/span><\/p>\n I can never prove that \u201cGod did it\u201d is not the explanation for anything. What about a tsunami that kills hundreds of thousands of people, God\u2019s hiddenness despite earnest prayers, or anything else within Christianity that confounds us? The Christian can always say that God might have his own reasons that we simply aren\u2019t entitled to know or aren\u2019t smart enough to understand. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The problem is that \u201cGod did it\u201d can never be falsified, which makes it useless. By explaining anything, it explains nothing.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ve been through this [non-]argument many times. It\u2019s quite obvious that (naturalistic) science and (secular) philosophy and atheism offer no more compelling answers or solutions to the age-old question: \u201cwhy is there something<\/em> rather than nothing<\/em>?\u201d than Christianity or other religious faiths. I\u2019ve already replied directly to Bob along these lines six times (and of course he never replies<\/em> to any critique I write). and at least eight other times, generally speaking, as well:<\/p>\n Seidensticker Folly #14: Something Rather Than Nothing<\/a>\u00a0[9-3-18]<\/p>\n Seidensticker Folly #38: Eternal Universe vs. an Eternal God<\/a>\u00a0[4-16-20]<\/p>\n Seidensticker Folly #41: Argument from Design<\/a>\u00a0[8-25-20]<\/p>\n Seidensticker Folly #42: Creation \u201cEx Nihilo\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[8-28-20]<\/p>\n Seidensticker Folly #71: Spirit-God \u201cMagic\u201d; 68% Dark Energy Isn\u2019t?<\/a>\u00a0[2-2-21]<\/p>\n Seidensticker Folly #73: Philosophy & \u201cWho Created God?\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[7-12-21]<\/p>\n Exchanges with Atheists on Ultimate Origins<\/a>\u00a0[11-19-15]<\/p>\n Cause of the Big Bang: Atheist Geologist Challenged<\/a>\u00a0[4-21-17]<\/p>\n Atheists & Inherent \u201cOmnipotent\u201d Creative Qualities of Godless Matter<\/a>\u00a0[7-26-17]<\/p>\n Dialogue w Atheist on the Origin of the Universe<\/a>\u00a0[6-23-18]<\/p>\n Dialogue with an Atheist on \u201cGod of the Gaps\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[6-24-18]<\/p>\n God the Designer?: Dialogue with an Atheist<\/a>\u00a0[8-27-20]<\/p>\n \u201cQuantum Entanglement\u201d & the \u201cUpholding\u201d Power of God<\/a>\u00a0[10-20-20]<\/p>\n Dialogue with an Agnostic: God as a \u201cProperly Basic Belief\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[10-5-15]<\/p>\n But let\u2019s give it another crack. Bottom line: science and philosophy have not answered this key question, and most scientists and philosophers readily admit it. The closest they come is the Big Bang Theory<\/a> (first developed by the Catholic priest-scientist Georges Lema\u00eetre<\/a>). That\u2019s all well and good, and most Christians and theists today readily agree, but the problem for them is the next obvious question\u201d \u201cwhat [or Who] caused<\/em> the Big Bang?\u201d Christians, of course, believes that God did, and we have various philosophical and religious arguments for believing in God\u2019s existence. But the atheist has . . . well, usually nothing to say to this further basic question.<\/p>\n I have satirized (but at the same time seriously analyzed and critiqued) atheist cosmology in my article, Atheism: A Remarkably Strong, Impervious Faith in \u201cAtomism\u201d<\/a> (8-19-15). Here is the heart and essence of my argument (minus the satirical elements):<\/p>\n Matter essentially \u201cbecomes god\u201d in the atheist \/ materialist view; it has the inherent ability to do everything\u00a0by itself<\/i>: a power that Christians believe God caused, by putting these potentialities and actual characteristics into matter and natural laws, as their ultimate Creator and ongoing Preserver and Sustainer. . . .<\/p>\n The . . . materialist . . . thinks that trillions of [atoms] . . . can make absolutely everything\u00a0<\/i>in the universe occur, by their own power, possessed eternally either in full or (who knows how?) in inevitably unfolding potentiality. . . .<\/p>\n Trillions of . . . atoms can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason that anyone can understand . . . [how they] came to possess such powers in the first place . . .<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The above is what amounts to a logical reduction of the atheist \u201canswer\u201d to this fundamental question. Anyone can see that it requires at least as much pure faith as the Christian answer. Bob Seidensticker can sit there and mock Christianity by saying that \u201cFairies would be better\u201d (than God as an explanation for existence and the Ultimate Questions) and that<\/span><\/span> \u201cGod is the worst explanation for anything.\u201d But then when we examine what he and atheists propose as an alternative<\/em>, it inevitably boils down to the above scenario or something not far from it.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Much better, I think, is the transparent intellectual humility shown by another atheist \u201csparring partner\u201d of mine: Jonathan MS Pearce (one who actually does reply<\/em> to at least some of my critiques), in his article, \u201cWhy Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?\u201d<\/a> (11-5-21). He is honest and fair enough to state:<\/p>\n I readily admit that this is\u00a0the one question that keeps me up at night,\u00a0<\/em>it is also just as pertinent and applicable if one believes in God as if one doesn\u2019t. I don\u2019t see this as a problem for atheists and not for theists, or vice versa, this is something to think about no matter what your worldview is. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n But can matter be just as brute a fact as God? And it is, perhaps, just inexplicable. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Roy Sorenson, in the<\/span>\u00a0Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy<\/a>, seems closest to the mark, in my humblest of opinions: . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n If the explanation cannot begin with some entity, then it is hard to see how any explanation is feasible. Some philosophers conclude \u2018Why is there something rather than nothing?\u2019 is unanswerable. They think the question stumps us by imposing an impossible explanatory demand, namely,\u00a0Deduce the existence of something without using any existential premises.<\/em>\u00a0Logicians should feel no more ashamed of their inability to perform this deduction than geometers should feel ashamed at being unable to square the circle.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He then cites philosopher Lloyd Strickland:<\/p>\n Or, then again, you could argue that there just<\/span>\u00a0should\u00a0<\/em>be a universe<\/a>:<\/p>\n The most novel answer to Leibniz\u2019s great question is to say that our universe exists because it should<\/strong>. The thinking here is that all possible universes have an innate tendency to exist, but that some have a greater tendency to exist than others. . . .<\/p>\n [T]he idea of a virtual struggle among possible universes has appealed to some modern philosophers<\/a>, who have followed it to its logical conclusion and claimed that the possible universe with the greatest tendency to exist \u2013 which might be because it is the best, or because it contains some important feature such as the conditions that permit life to arise \u2013 will actually bring itself into existence.<\/p>\n According to this theory, our universe becomes actual not because God or anything else made it so but because it literally lifted itself out of non-existence and made itself actual<\/strong>. Weird? Yes. But we shouldn\u2019t let that put us off. After all, an extraordinary philosophical question might just require an extraordinary answer. [my bolding]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s the ultimate head-scratcher, for sure.<\/span><\/p>\n It sure is<\/em>, for the atheist. Again, I sincerely appreciate Jonathan\u2019s intellectual humility and his refraining from mocking the Christian reply to this question. We readily observe in his presentation that atheism\u2019s \u201canswer\u201d is not a whit more rational or unfalsifiable than the Christian one. We say God created the universe, and believe He exists on many independent religious and philosophical grounds. The atheist explanations of the existence of the universe, on the other hand, are (take your pick):<\/p>\n 1) the remarkable inherent and eternal (?) qualities of initially non-living matter that they in effect place their limitless \u201cfaith\u201d in, as agents of the creation of the universe.<\/p>\n 2) \u201cour universe exists because it should<\/em>\u201c. Now how is that<\/em> assertion falsifiable or able to be rationally examined at all? How is it epistemologically superior to \u201cGod<\/em> exists because He should and must\u201d or even to the classic theistic ontological argument?<\/p>\n 3) The universe \u201cliterally lifted itself out of non-existence<\/em> and made itself actual.\u201d This is what might be called the \u2018lifting yourself up by your own bootstraps\u201d approach. It makes no rational or logical sense whatsoever and is almost impossible to rationally accept or even to grasp at all.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There you have it folks. I challenge any atheist reading this to defend any of those three propositions as more plausible, believable, falsifiable, and rational than the traditional theistic explanations for the existence of the universe. I\u2019d love to have that conversation. In fact, there are very few things<\/em> I would find more fascinating to discuss with an atheist (or anyone else) than this.<\/p>\n **<\/p>\n Dave, your article does nothing, in my opinion, to alter the dynamic of the atheist position, which is one of \u2018don\u2019t know\u2019. Reading your article you, quite rightly, point out that invoking God as a creator of all existence is little different to simply leaving God out of the discussion altogether. Ultimately, your case is that God must have done it because it\u2019s too hard to imagine anything else. I might say that the proposition you mention<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAccording to this theory, our universe becomes actual not because God or anything else made it so but because it literally lifted itself out of non-existence and made itself actual.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n is not one I\u2019ve previously seen, nor pay great heed to. I prefer the simplest view, that \u2018nothing\u2019 is an incoherent concept and that even asking the question (which admittedly I will continue to do) misses the point, that it\u2019s impossible to have non-existence.<\/span><\/p>\n Ultimately, natural explanations for existence are likely to founder simply because the question doesn\u2019t lend itself to being answered. Regardless, science and philosophy will keep hunting down the natural explanations because that\u2019s all we can do. There are some pretty wild theories out there that may never be testable, and hence unfalsifiable, but these can often lead to ideas in other areas that give very tangible results. The insertion of God into the equation doesn\u2019t help move things forward in any way.<\/span><\/p>\n Thanks for your comment (non-insulting as always: a rare thing around here to be sure!).<\/p>\n There are over fifty philosophical theistic arguments. How many philosophical arguments are there that defend the notion of \u201cthe universe exists because it should\u201d or \u201cthe universe lifted itself out of non-existence and made itself actual\u201d?<\/p>\n Those two positions are absolutely irrational, are immediately perceived as such, can scarcely be developed or expanded upon at all (let alone falsified), have nothing to do with either science or philosophy, and require the most extraordinary blind faith. Theism is quite different from this nonsense, because it has such a rich philosophical history of thought behind it, including scores and scores of the greatest philosophers and scientists who ever lived.<\/p>\n God is \u201cinserted\u201d into the equation because that makes the most sense of any of the \u201cexplanations.\u201d I would submit that it is the\u00a0only<\/i>\u00a0explanation that exists since \u201cthe universe lifted itself out of non-existence\u201d and suchlike are not explanations at all. They are simply proclamations of fairy tales that have no substantiation whatsoever and only exist at all because atheists are so desperate to explain a universe without God.<\/p>\n It\u2019s best to simply say you have no idea, as you have essentially done. Theists do<\/em> have an idea, and we have many philosophical and scientific arguments for why we think an immaterial God is the initial Cause and Creator of this universe. We prefer to keep thinking and speculating about origins (both scientifically and philosophically, as well as theologically), rather than yield the question up to nonsensical absurdities and fairy tales.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n1. \u201cGod did it\u201d is unfalsifiable. It explains too much.<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n