NON-BELIEF IS A BELIEF AN UNREASONABLE BELIEF

Transcription

1 Introduction NON-BELIEF IS A BELIEF AN UNREASONABLE BELIEF This paper is an objective disputation of both agnosticism and atheism and an open affirmation of faith and belief in God. If you have doubts, perhaps it might have value for you as well. In doing this, I want to focus on one very, very important human concept God; not the details describing and history of God set out in our Bibles, just whether it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God. When one says that I believe in God, another may respond that, if you cannot prove that there is a God, then why should I believe? It is provable: a) Read the Gospels. b) Read about the miracles Christ performed and the Resurrection. c) There were ~ 500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ. d) Read the amazingly consistent stories on Near Death Experiences. As one great preacher put it, It s actual; it s factual. Still, this has been discounted, discredited as contrary to reality and not believed by many. I note that those who would question the existence of God may do so because they do not accept all or any of the God myths 1. As to this I would respond, let s get down to basics, ignoring all characterizations of God and what God has done, does one believe that there was and remains a Creator or Divine Being? If the answer is still, there is no evidence of God or that there ever was a God, or simply, no, there is no and there never has been a God, it may be because they have never consciously witnessed or believe that they have experienced God. Therefore, having not seen or knowingly felt this for themselves, they assert that God cannot exist and never has existed. This assertion is also a belief. As to this belief, one could simply note, nor have they seen or knowingly experienced, the passage of extra terrestrial X rays, Gamma Rays, Cosmic Rays or Muon Neutrinos through them, but, if they have heard of these forms of extra terrestrial radiation, they seldom doubt the existence or the workings of any of these invisible forms of energy because they believe what scientists tell them, even when some theories are contradicted and replaced with new theories, and they have 1 There is much set out in the Bible that I doubt is literally true or correct and many of the interpretations I have read do not alter these conclusions. This does not mean that all of it is incorrect, nor that partial incredulity should result in total incredulity. 1

2 no reason or experience base, like they do with Gravity, for example, that should cause them to accept the reasonableness of these ideas. I believe in all of these things, but scientists have no greater credibility to me than what is recorded in the Gospels about Jesus. The fact that you cannot otherwise factually PROVE, based on eyewitnesses or experiences or deductive reasoning, that there is a God, doesn t mean that the converse is true, there is no reason to believe in God. I would turn the question around, is it reasonable to believe that there is no evidence that there is or was a God or that there is no, and never was a, God? Summary Overview While this short overview correctly summarizes my disputation, it is not intended to convince those who doubt or do not believe, because, it is conclusory. Hopefully, if you read this with an open mind 2, the full explanation, which follows, you may find both informative and convincing. For those who do not believe in a Creator God, the only possible explanation for the creation must be that the Universe and Life arose autonomously. This would require that this occur in accordance with the self-governing mechanisms set out by the laws of physics and thermodynamics, perhaps through some type of random interactions. However, there are NO credible scientific explanations for the creation of the perfect balance of mass and electrical charges of the 3 particles which make up each and every atom and the intense and perpetual orbital motion of electrons around the nucleus of each and every atom, the basis of all matter in the Universe, which violates both the laws of classical physics and the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Nor are there any principles of chemistry or any remotely feasible random chemical interactions, which could lead to the creation of the elegant perfection of the incredibly complex molecule - DNA, the basis of life. Therefore any belief that the Universe and Life arose autonomously is simply unreasonable. Any assumption that there must be, as yet unknown, rational 2 This paper is intended to be supportive of those who believe, but find themselves, at times, with an inability to respond to those who claim that there is no proof of God and it is addressed to those who may have questions and those skeptics with at least partially open minds. While healthy skepticism is a very valuable attitude, this paper is not addressed to those who KNOW that God does not exist and likely would not believe a credible friend who claims to have just had a first hand experience with God. If this is you, please do not waste your time reading this, unless you would like to question any of the underlying science or assumptions, which I would be happy to discuss. 2

3 scientific explanations for this, without an ability to even hypothesize as to what these explanations might be, while not impossible, is also unreasonable. If it is not reasonable to believe that the Universe and Life arose autonomously, then the converse, that some incredibly powerful Guiding Hand, a Creator and a living God, not limited by natural laws and able to design something as perfect and intricate as perpetual Atoms and DNA must be responsible, is a reasonable belief. Further, notwithstanding that it is unreasonable to believe creation occurred autonomously nonetheless creation occurred. That is all the circumstantial evidence of God that an agnostic should require. What and How One Knows While observation and logical or deductive reasoning can provide absolute proof, much of what we know, assume and believe is the product of inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion. Inductive reasoning is often used in applications that involve prediction, forecasting, or behavior or where not all of the facts can be known. For example, one can know, assume or believe that: The Sun will come up at a specific time tomorrow based on science and low odds of an intervening cataclysmic event; You will be at work tomorrow - based on the facts, you have a job and low odds that somehow you won t make it to work; If my child s school work has been torn up, the puppy did it; I will celebrate my spouse s next birthday, almost a year from now based on reasonable expectations of us both being alive and married; I will not be around to celebrate my 100 th birthday - based on reasonable expectations of then not being alive. Ultimately, these beliefs and assumptions will prove to be correct or not. If they are reasonable, they most likely will prove to be correct. Also, if they are reasonably held, it would be unreasonable to believe to the contrary. For example it would be unreasonable to believe that the Sun will not come up at a specific time tomorrow. So a reasonable belief would be the opposite, the Sun will come up at specific time tomorrow. However, unlike waiting for the sun to come up, for some, the absolute verification of the existence of God, likely requires that they leave this mortal coil. But there are other things we reasonably know, intuit, assume and believe, that we may never be able to verify experientially. For example: 3

4 1. Our children will be more successful than not, 2. We will have great grandchildren, 3. My spouse loves me, and, 4. Our country will continue to lead the world into the next century. Finally, inductive proof is strongest when it is consistent with and supported by facts others claimed to have observed; e.g. circumstances which say it is likely that something occurred that is consistent with what witnesses observed. Consider the case of the missing purse. A purse was noticed as missing at 1:30 pm on a Friday from a table in a fast food restaurant in X town. The owner of the purse entered the restaurant at 1:15 pm. No one saw anyone take it, but a couple of the credit cards that were in it were used around 2:00 pm that day in Y town about fifteen miles away, by someone other than the owner of the purse. The purse was later recovered in Y town. No employee left the restaurant until 5:00 pm. There were 2 other customers in the restaurant when the owner of the purse was present, Ms. A & Ms. B, both of whom left before 1:30 pm. In investigating the places where the credit cards were used, someone not matching the description of Ms. A but who somewhat resembled Ms. B was said to have used one of the cards. As it turned out, both Ms. A & Ms. B went to Y town that day and Ms. B resembles the purse s owner and could have used her ID. Both Ms. A & Ms. B deny stealing the purse and committing credit card fraud. The police, based, in part, on Ms. A s criminal record and poor financial circumstance and after interrogating both Ms. A and Ms. B believe that Ms. A is the culprit. Ms. A is brought to trial on the charge of theft. The only third party factual defense is the eyewitness testimony of a store clerk that the card user did not resemble Ms. A and somewhat resembled Ms. B. No one otherwise identifies either Ms. A or Ms. B as having committed credit card fraud or having stolen the purse. Good defense? Sounds reasonable enough to create reasonable doubt. However, at trial: 1. Ms. B testifies, upon leaving the restaurant, a frail older male friend and she spoke. When Ms. B learned that he needed to go to Y town, she offered to drive. Unfortunately her car only had enough gas to carry her 5 miles from X town before running out of gas, requiring Ms. B to leave her frail older friend and walk 2 miles each way to a nearby gas station to get gas. 2. Her older friend testifies that he did not see or hear Ms. B speak with anyone, before running out of gas. 3. Ms. B s credit card shows a purchase of a quart of gas and a gas can at that station at 2:15 pm that afternoon. 4. Other people in the County resemble Ms. B and the other eyewitnesses to credit card fraud could not describe the user. 4

5 5. The phone records show that Ms. B had been texting and responding to text messages non-stop that day, except when driving, speaking to no one. It is not possible that Ms. B either engaged an accomplice or sold the purse and its contents, from the time she left the Restaurant and 2:00 pm that day. 6. Ms. A was seen entering Y town with another female passenger in Ms. A s car around 1:45 pm that day. Therefore: Ms. A s only defense - Ms. B stole the purse and used the credit cards around 2:00 pm in Y town - is unreasonable. Since this is Ms. A s only defense and only Ms. A and Ms. B were present at the time of the theft and left the Restaurant before the discovery of the loss and only Ms. A reached Y town before 2:00 pm with another female passenger in her car, it would be reasonable to believe that Ms. A stole the purse and Ms. A and an accomplice or just an accomplice committed credit card fraud in Y town. So inductive reasoning can be the basis of proof and disproof of significant issues. Creation - Simple Scientific Facts DISCUSSION OK, now, for a moment, please set aside what you believe, know and have read, including the Bible. Let me consider just a couple of simple questions, the basis of the Universe and of life. Before undertaking this, I would note that, by definition, when it comes to creation of the Universe and Life, those who do not believe in a Creator must believe that Creation of the Universe and Life was the result of natural interactions responding to autonomous forces controlled by the laws of physics, thermodynamics and chemistry, inherent self governing mechanisms, so I will view these issues from this perspective. There are likely many, many similar points to be made, but I want to focus on just a couple that I understand, somewhat. 1. The Simplest of Things - The Basis of the Universe Every one of us, everything in you and around you, to include all matter in the Universe, is composed solely of just three things, protons, electrons and, except for hydrogen, neutrons 3. That s it, that was all that was finally formed when creation occurred, just the 3 things that make up all atoms, everyone of which are comprised of a positively charged nucleus surrounded by one or 3 It is true that Protons and Neutrons are each made up of 3 Quarks, but are composed of different types of Quarks, so I will consider the result, only, Protons and Neutrons. 5

6 more negatively charged electrons. - just three, not an incredible variety of particles. Further, the relative numbers, electrical charge and mass ratios of protons, neutrons and electrons turn out to be in and have the mass and electrical charges or no charges, necessary so that our Universe of atoms could exist. (That this is unique; consider the probability of the emergence of our Universe is estimated as 1 in 10 billion to the 123rd power 4.) And they have all been around forever. Every single proton, neutron and electron that exists today, has existed since the Universe was formed, at least 13.7 billion years. This is true for almost all atoms, which comprise something between - 1 x (That s a billion x billion x billion x billion x billion x billion x billion x billion x 100 million) atoms 5 and an infinite number, that have existed for billions of years or eternity. Every electron in each and every atom, has kept and will keep moving at 1,300 miles per hour around the nucleus of its respective atom (2.6 times faster than a commercial jet) within a sphere that has a diameter of about 0.5 nanometers ( m). Thus, each electron completes its orbit 390 billion times per second, has done and will do so, perpetually. This is true whether the atom is separated from all other matter in space or is locked solidly within solid Uranium, the densest natural element. These electron clouds are essential. The formation of all material substances require the electron clouds of each atom to form chemical bonds or interact to form the material at hand. Without these constantly moving electron clouds, the Universe in which we live would cease to exist. However, the very existence of these electron clouds is wholly contrary to the inherent self-governing mechanisms applicable to all matter, the most basic laws of physics and thermodynamics, and therefore contrary to the explanation of non-believers who assert that the formation of all matter was a natural result of the forces and self-governing mechanisms in existence at the time of formation. Classical physics tells us, that if an electrical charge is in the presence of an equal and opposite electrical charge, with no intervening insulation or other electrical charges present, they will be drawn together. Further, if a charged particle is moving in a non-linear manner, orbiting a positive charge, for 4 Astrophysicist, Roger Penrose the Emperor s New Mind, pp Throughout this paper I will often use scientific notation for large numbers which are written in the form a 10 b (a times ten raised to the power of b), where the exponent b is an integer specifying the number of places the number moves from the immediate left of the decimal point, i.e = 1, 3 x 10 2 = 300, 4 x 10 6 = 4 million, 7 x 10-1 = 0.7, 8.5 x 10-3 = , etc. 6

7 example, then it must radiate and lose energy. This would mean that every electron of every atom would fall into the nucleus within a tiny fraction of a second. Instead, electrons orbit the nucleus without radiating and losing energy, perpetually, for billions of years. Not only is this contrary to classical physics, perpetual motion is totally contrary to the first and second laws of thermodynamics. No movement can continue perpetually. This is true for every machine or system, nothing can move perpetually at the same speed, including planetary and galactic systems, even though a slow down may take eons 6. Yet every electron of every atom maintains this intense orbital motion - perpetually. It is as if they are immunized against the physical laws, the self-governing mechanisms, which would otherwise apply. While quantum mechanics can calculate the movement of electrons, determine mathematically their lowest quantum state and provide a theoretical explanation of what keeps an electron from combining with the nucleus, that is just explaining the result - the electron surrounds the nucleus and cannot enter the nucleus. There is no scientific explanation for how this most intense, perpetual motion, violates the most basic laws of physics NONE. It is just an accepted scientific fact 7. Most physicists will simply say that s the way it is or that s how nature designed it, but most are reluctant to take out the word nature and substitute Creator. But it is not because we do not understand how this is effected, that is significant; the fact that this phenomenon occurs and the VERY EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE DEPENDS ON THE UNIQUE PERPETUAL MOTION OF ALL ELECTRONS around their respective nuclei, contrary to the basic laws of physics and thermodynamics, the inherent self-governing mechanisms, that it is MIRACULOUS. But whatever the reason for this behavior, THIS IS UNIQUE, NOTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE BEHAVES THIS WAY AND THIS CONTINUES DESPITE THE OTHERWISE APPLICABLE GOVERNING MECHANISMS. 6 I would assume, but I do not know, that this would also be true for an electron in a vacuum orbiting an equally charged center mass at the same speed and distance as an electron in an atom. There would not be perpetual orbiting. The orbital speed of the electron would decay and the electron would quickly attach to the positive charge, which does not happen in atoms. 7 It is possible that this motion is supported by an underlying and unidentified energy source(s) we do not understand, which would make this motion comply with the laws of thermodynamics and some or all physical laws, but would cause one to wonder what energy, its source(s) and how long it will be maintained. Given the pervasiveness and power this would require would suggest that this energy would have been discovered, so it is unlikely that such an energy exists. 7

8 2. DNA Let s move from Atoms and the simplest of particles, to the most complex of molecules DNA, without which there is no life. The non-believer explanation for the existence of DNA is merely a product of random chemical reactions. Let me digress for a minute if on the first deal, one dealt out 5 cards to each player, and dealt himself Ace to 10, all from the same suit (The odds of dealing out 5 cards Ace to 10 in the same suit are 1.6 in a million, 1.6 x That is the equivalent to tossing a coin and having it come up heads 19 times in a row.) Would you say that was chance or that someone stacked the deck? If you examined every star in the Universe, based on physical circumstances alone, the most favorable estimate of the odds of having a star in the right galactic location, with the right power and a planet in an orbital zone suitable to host life are 7.5 x That is ~ 500 billion times less probable than dealing a full house, ace high, on one deal of the cards; the equivalent of tossing a coin and having it come up heads 53 times in a row.. But against odds of 7.5 x 10-17, our sun and our Earth exist, both having survived over 4 billion years. So what are the remaining chance considerations? 8 There are 15 billion Earthlike planets in our home galaxy x 100 billion galaxies in the Universe = 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 = (a 15 with 20 Zeros) = 1.5 x Earth like planets in the Universe. 10% are in habitable regions of galaxies. =1.5 x Only 25% of stars are suitable to support life =.25 x 1.5 x =.375 x Professor Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia suggests it takes 4 billion years to develop intelligent life and after 5 billion years the type of stars necessary will turn into red dwarfs destroying their earth like planets, so, assuming the Universe in 13.7 billion years old, only 20% of planets at anytime are between 4 & 5 billion years = 0.2 x 3.75 x = 7.5 x Need 1. Adequate Magnetic field 2. Correct amount of water 3. Exposed land, rocky 4. Oxygen 5. Rotation 6. Protective planet like Jupiter Say that there is a 10% chance of each, = 1 x 10-6 chance Stars with planets suitable for life = 7.5 x The total number of stars in the Universe = 1*10 29 If you examined every star, the odds of it having a planet suitable for life are 7.5 x /1* = 7.5 *

9 Professor Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia 9 points out that it took approximately 4 billion years on Earth for intelligent life to develop. Complex life is separated from the simplest life forms by several very unlikely steps and therefore will be much less common. Intelligence is one step further, so it is much less common still, writes Prof. Watson. He then submits that the number of evolutionary steps needed to create intelligent life is four. The first step is the emergence of single-celled bacteria, then complex cells, specialized cells allowing complex life forms, and intelligent life with an established language. His model, published in the Journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent, so the most favorable guess as to the chances of intelligent life emerging on Earth is less than 0.01 per cent, over a period of four billion years. While, an upper limit and thoughtful, the necessary underlying assumption is that life developed out of random circumstances. That could not have been the case. If you go to the most basic forms from which all life on Earth originally sprang, a single cell bacterium, the simplest form of free-living life that we know of, Pelagibacter ubique, is incredibly complex. Although this singlecelled organism has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, it still has 1,308,759 base pairs of DNA 10, 1.3 million units, all aligned in a very precise, meaningful sequence. While it appears to have a mind of its own, like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing or causing initial self-organization into codes. The complex, purposeful codes of this "master program" must originate outside itself. However, the formation and sequencing of both DNA and the RNA molecules, that help form DNA, is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. There are no known self-governing mechanisms, physical or chemical laws, which give the molecules of which DNA or RNA are comprised, a natural tendency to 9 Implications of an Anthropic Model of Evolution for Emergence of Complex Life and Intelligence, ANDREW J. WATSON Journal of ASTROBIOLOGY Volume 8, Number 1, The genetic information of all living cells is stored in the DNA composed of the four canonical bases adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T), which are themselves, each, complex molecules. 9

10 arrange themselves into such incredibly complex structures 11. Then, if the formation of DNA is not a natural result of chemistry, some assert that it must be the result of random events. But I note, that even if nature could build the necessary proteins and enzymes, that is far from producing life. There is an enormous difference between producing building blocks of four, different colored, self-attaching noodles, that are firm and slightly denser than water and slowly and repeatedly stirring a giant bowl of soup containing millions of these noodle blocks to let them settle and attach to produce, time after time, a random pile of blocks, break them up and repeat, compared to their falling into place randomly to form an exact, block by block 1.3 million piece, replica colored model of a 100-story skyscraper. Dr. Frank Heile, a particle physicist and science writer, describes this more precisely and elegantly, when he says, DNA doesn't just spontaneously reproduce exact copies of itself without a lot of help. The help is in the forms of many other very complex molecules such as DNA polymerase. Even if you have DNA/RNA it doesn't automatically produce proteins based on the codons of the DNA/RNA molecule, it takes a very complex ribosome plus transfer RNA to collect the amino acids and to create a protein molecule. The chance that all of this complex machinery developed spontaneously, accidentally and happened to get enclosed in a cell membrane is astronomically improbable - in other words impossible! Thus, it is absolutely clear that it would be impossible to randomly assemble a living cell by accident from a primordial soup of amino acids and other simple chemicals. It would be like waiting for all the air molecules to suddenly accidentally concentrate in only half of the room that you are now siting in - a theoretical statistical mechanical possibility but the expected times between occurrences would be many many times the currently lifetime of the Universe. 12 Famed researcher and astrophysicist, Sir Fred Hoyle puts it this way, "A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through 11 All we have is theories and plausible arguments. WHAT ARE THE CHEMICAL ORIGINS OF LIFE? HOW DID NON-LIVING CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS GENERATE SELF-REPLICATING, COMPLEX LIFE FORMS? Frank Heile, Quora, April 9, 2013, 12 Id 10

11 the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe." 13 While the metaphor is colorful, it is also apt, since it would require exactly the right pieces coming together in an orderly process and energy to form, assemble and attach them. Likewise, all random actions must comply with physical and chemical laws; they cannot act contrary to natural selfgoverning mechanisms. If this were possible while iron and oxygen can naturally combine to form rust, the reverse would also be true, under the same conditions; rust could randomly separate into its iron and oxygen components. It cannot. Chemical reactions, like the combination of oxygen and hydrogen to produce water, that create heat energy (thermogenesis), can occur spontaneously. Once this occurs, the product would require an external energy input to break it down into its component parts, hydrogen and oxygen. This would be an endothermic reaction. Without this energy input, this separation could not spontaneously occur. While thermogenic reactions can occur spontaneously just by molecular contact, endothermic reactions can only occur when aided with adequate, not too much, and the correct form of energy. Endothermic reactions not only require the right chemicals, the proper energy source must also be present for the chemicals to bond. This is not a spontaneous reaction of just the atoms and molecules themselves; so endothermic reactions are inherently less likely to spontaneously occur. The formation of many, if not all, DNA pairs is endothermic. To form DNA requires a series of exactly the right sub-molecules at each juncture, normally held in place and aligned by catalysts, plus, at all locations requiring energy input, they further require an energy source to enable them to bond. 13 Hoyle, F., "The Intelligent Universe," Michael Joseph: London, 1983, pp

12 Each intermediate product posses stored chemical energy. Absent a protective cellular membrane and environment providing additional energy inputs, the law of entropy would require that all chemical structures decompose to their lowest energy state through thermogenic oxidation and other chemical reactions. I would liken this to: (i) Having billions of individual Lego blocks composed of 4 different colors randomly interact with the proper energy sources to weakly push them 1.3 million of them together, in two long strands with each in exactly the right place and form a spiral helix, and, (ii) Maintaining and balancing the entire 1.3 million piece stack in 12

13 Summary the currents of the open air. While there are theories as to how certain precursors to DNA might have formed and at least one that may postulate a complete series of reactions necessary to form DNA, no one has yet demonstrated how its possible precursors, much less the DNA molecule itself, could have originally formed outside a living cell, even under ideal laboratory conditions, much less out of a soup of a variety of organic chemicals. Even if one assumes that all the necessary organic molecules and sources of energy are all immediately available in unlimited quantities, the odds that a series of random endothermic reactions gave rise to a 1.3 million base pair, correctly sequenced molecule in the one billion year time period it took for single cell organisms to develop here on Earth are not only impossibly high (ignoring the additional odds against having the right energy sources available as necessary to effect chemical bonding, the odds against the random formation of the correct DNA molecule are roughly ,300,000, (0. followed by 1.3 million zeros followed by 25, essentially zero) a number, if you multiplied it by the number of all atoms in the Universe, would still be essentially zero. To put it another way, if there were a billion, 1.3 million bit DNA type chemicals randomly formed each day for a billion years, the odds of the correct DNA sequence emerging still remain effectively zero. Beyond these incredible zero chance odds, there is NO science that shows how this could occur. Therefore, to suggest that life must have arisen here on Earth by and through random chemical reactions is simply not a reasonable assertion. The entire Universe is composed of only 3 particles, protons, neutrons and electrons, not an incredible variety of particles, in numbers and with relative electrical charges, or no charge, and masses which have the perfectly precise ratios needed so that our Universe of atoms could exist and last forever. At the simplest level, the very existence of the entire Universe is based on a completely unique, perpetual phenomenon, which is contrary to the most basic of self-governing mechanisms, the laws of physics and thermodynamics, 14 which could not have rationally been predicted, a 14 Or, while highly unlikely, this might be supported by an all-pervasive and powerful energy source(s) we do not understand. 13

14 priori, to be the result of simply combining protons and electrons. If life could have originated by random molecular action, the best odds for intelligent life having developed on the Earth, which is unique, 1 for every 1.5 x 10 21, million, billion, billion stars, after an incredibly long period, 4 billion years, are around 0.01% and out of the entire Universe. But random actions cannot suffice. There are no known physical or chemical laws, self-governing mechanisms, which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves, endothermically, into the incredibly complex, 1.3 million DNA pairs, exactly sequenced structures necessary for something as simple as a single cell bacterium from which all life eventually evolved 15 and given the tight, billion year time period available, random chance cannot be the answer. Given the physical laws that otherwise apply, had we not known about the electron make up of atoms, one would not assume that electrons in atoms could and must perform, in a manner directly contrary to the physical laws which would otherwise apply; that would not be rational. Narrowing it down to life here on Earth, to assume that the most complex of molecules, DNA 16, as to which Chemistry cannot suggest a natural causation mechanism, most likely originated as a result of infinitesimally small odds, essentially zero, random molecular action is simply not reasonable. If, when digging, you uncovered something as simple as several pieces of petrified wood that appear to have been part of a very crude axle and wheel assembly, you would immediately conclude that this crude mechanism had been created by man and was not a random artifact of nature. Compare this terribly crude, broken, three component mechanism to the elegant simplicity and mass and electrical charge balance of a three particle Universe, the perpetual existence of atoms and motion of their clouds of electrons and the incredibly complex elegance of DNA, none of which are explainable as acts of nature and all of which are absolute requisites to our existence. The DNA of each and every large plant and animal contains enough information which, if the code were printed out, would fill 1,000 books -- each with 500 pages of very small, closely-printed type, that is three billion DNA pairs or more of unique and perfectly arranged information for each of 6 million species of plants and animals. 15 'God acts through the process of evolution,' Teilhard said. [Pierre Teilhard De Chardin] 'I see no contradiction between evolution and my faith in God.' For him, the laws of evolution themselves had to have been 'created,' one way or another. In this view, just because evolutionary processes exist, they do not replace an original creator who has set evolution in motion and created the germ of life." P. 200, WHY SCIENCE DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD, Amir Aczel 16 I want to make clear that I use DNA as an example because it is something I understand slightly and is to me a cornerstone of all life. This is not to say that other life forms cannot exist here or on other planets. If they exist, I would ask the same questions and if there is other life, including other forms of intelligent life, that does not mean that random events must have given rise to it. 14

15 Conclusion There are undoubtedly many, many more and perhaps better examples akin to what is set out above. I have attempted to bookend the natural world and used just a few scientific examples that I understand, but, on the basis of just these examples, the only conclusion that follows is, the deck was stacked. Why? 1. Because one may not have seen or knowingly witnessed or experienced God, is not a reason to conclude that God does not and cannot exist and therefore a Creator is impossibility. (This is a place where only the truly and perniciously ignorant take refuge.) Given that logic, I would deny the existence of Muon Neutrinos and Cosmic Rays, which I cannot see and have not knowingly experienced. Lack of seeing or knowing is not a valid basis for denial. 2. Similarly, the mere fact that we cannot comprehend how something could have otherwise occurred does not mean that something else that we do not understand could not be responsible. I cannot comprehend infinity or eternity, but I do not doubt that both are real. The fact that I as a child could not engage in abstract thought, nor comprehend it, does not mean that I, as an adult, cannot. The mere fact that I cannot comprehend an intelligence and power which gives rise to all I know, cannot be the basis on which to deny the existence of such intelligence and power. This type of thinking, for me, would deny both quantum mechanics and relativistic physics. 3. If one does not accept a Creator God, then the Universe and DNA must both have come into being in accordance with applicable self-governing physical and chemical laws, without a guiding hand. a. This belief would require that the unique design and continuing perpetual performance of each and every atom for billions of years were the natural result of energies and forces that would had to have to run counter to the most basic of physical laws and laws of thermodynamics. Nature cannot give rise to and sustain systems not compliant with the very laws of nature. b. This belief would also mean that life came into being as the result of simple random actions ignoring the effectively zero odds against random acts of nature giving rise to the simplest form of DNA and the fact that there are no laws of chemistry which would inherently and endothermically create the necessary DNA structure. Such beliefs are wholly unreasonable. 4. If autonomous, self-governing mechanisms did not automatically give rise to 15

16 perpetual atoms and create DNA, the only explanation for their creation is that of an immense power that could act counter to self-governing principles when creating the perfect and perpetual atom and could provide the necessary chemical energy and assemble a 1.3 million paired and correctly sequenced DNA, when it came to life itself. 5. Returning to what we have read and been told, this belief is wholly consistent with and supported by facts others claimed to have observed, e.g. what is stated in the Gospels and by witnesses to the Resurrection of and of the resurrected Christ and for that matter consistent with innumerable recounted near death experiences, and the commonly held beliefs of all of humankind, forever. As noted at the outset, all non-believer explanations for creation must be that the Universe and Life arose autonomously, in accordance with self-governing mechanisms, perhaps through some type of random interactions. However, without any credible scientific explanations for both the creation and perpetual existence of the atom, the basis of the entire Universe, and the creation of DNA, the basis of life, such a belief is in a word, unreasonable. Any assumption that there must be, as yet unknown, rational scientific explanations for this, without an ability to even hypothesize as to what these explanations might be, is even more unreasonable. This does not mean that this proves that some, as of yet, unknown, scientific explanation is impossible. One cannot prove a negative. It simply means that any belief that such explanations exist or are correct, are without a basis in science and are, therefore, unreasonable. Given the foregoing, my response to the question - is it reasonable to believe that there is no evidence that there is or was a God or that there is no, and never was a, God the answer from an objective, scientific standpoint is a simple, NO. Such a belief is as clearly unreasonable as an assertion Ms. B stole the purse and used the stolen credit cards. If it is unreasonable to believe that the Universe and Life arose autonomously, in accordance with self-governing mechanisms, perhaps through some type of random interactions, then the converse, the belief that some incredibly powerful Guiding Hand, a Creator and a living God, not limited by natural laws and able to design something as perfect and intricate as perpetual Atoms and DNA must be responsible, is a reasonable belief. Further, notwithstanding that it is unreasonable to believe creation occurred autonomously nonetheless creation occurred. That is all the circumstantial evidence of God that an agnostic should require. For me, the outcome of a bet on this belief is as good a bet as it would be for 16

17 me to bet my bottom dollar, that tomorrow,.there ll be sun 17. Let me close by sincerely thanking my thoughtful and curmudgeonly friend for prompting this disputation and, far more importantly, our gracious and loving God for enabling the chemical morass that I am, to express these simple and, in some cases, abstract thoughts. William Van Brunt 17 From TOMORROW, a song from the Musical ANNIE 17