Skip to content

Itschristopher's Blog

Just another site

Alright so FYI for any of you who don’t know, I started an apologetics group called ARMOR. Also, I learned how to add links, and I’m super excited about both.

…I’ll try to refrain from using too many.

We had our first real meeting this week for Armor, and I’ve decided to blog about the lessons each week. Sadly, one blog is too short for an entire lesson, so I’ll split it into parts. The first lesson:

Evidence for a creator.
(so exciting, right?!)

The first piece of evidence (and the whole blog topic) that leads to some sort of transcendent creator/deity/god/something greater than us, is the beginning of the universe. Now I know a lot of people don’t really give credit to this argument, but I feel that’s more out of ignoring one’s rational faculties than out of careful consideration. How can you argue with logic? Here is something called the Kalam cosmological argument, based on logical principles:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Now some of you more skeptically minded might say, “Well how do you know the universe even HAD a beginning? >=p ”
There are a few other options that people have suggested, namely Multiverse theory, self-causation, and  ex nihilo. The only (giant) problem with these, is that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they’re right. NONE. nada. zilch. And self-causation and creatio ex nihilo are completely contradictory to every bit of reason and logic. How can something cause itself into existence? How can something come from nothing? Come on…
The sad part is that smart, scientifically minded people believe in this stuff.

One big reason, other than the fact there is a ton of astronomical evidence that is too sciencey (do you see my point?) for this blog, is the second law of thermodynamics or the law of entropy. Basically, it says that energy in the universe is dissipating gradually throughout the entire cosmos, and will do so until we reach “thermal equilibrium,” which is a fancy word for complete energy distribution, evened out energy. Think of a drop of red dye in a jug of water: when the drop is distributed completely throughout the whole jar, the color is in equilibrium.

“Ok, so what?”

SO, since we are gradually getting closer and closer to thermal equilibrium, and the process cannot be reversed (trying getting that drop of dye out), then at some point all energy must have originated from a single point (i.e. the “Big Bang”), and there must have been an actual beginning to the universe.
To bring this into full circle, we can now accept the first premise of the Kalam cosmological argument. If A, then B. A, therefore B.

Bada-Bing, Bada-Boom.

So how can you be rationally-minded, and still be an atheist? It just doesn’t add up.


%d bloggers like this: