Do They Really Believe That?

Many people become atheists first and search for reasons to justify the choice later. Some of the things they have to accept intellectually in order to hold onto their atheism are mind boggling. Do they really believe these things?

First among these items, chronologically, is that the 'stuff' of which the universe is composed somehow went from a state of total disorganization to a state of mind-boggling complexity without reason or guidance. Perhaps something known as the 'Big Bang' caused this. This is what has been hypothesized. It can't actually be tested.

True science is such because it can be hypothesized about and experiments can be designed to prove or disprove the hypothesis. The study of origins in regard to the universe belongs under the heading of “cosmology.” Many of the assumptions inherent in cosmology cannot be tested and thus make cosmology more of a philosophical undertaking than a science. The same is true concerning the origin and development of life on earth.

Everything involved in the process of going from random 'stuff' to organized universe is hypothetical. That is, it can't be proven to be true. It can only be supposed to be true. If stated truthfully, the statement would have to be, "perhaps it happened this way . . ." In classes and in discussions, however, whatever the scientist believes is stated, "This event/process happened this way . . .", as if there were certainty and all knowledgeable scientists agree. This is not the case.

There are many questions that can't be answered regarding this. There are hypotheses, which are suggestions, but a suggestion is not an answer. If your car quits running someone may suggest that the gas line is clogged, or that the gas filter is clogged, or that the spark plugs are not firing, or that the switch is faulty, or a combination of the above, but none of those are answers. They are hypotheses. They can each be tested and shown to be either correct, or false. When one is proven true, then there is an answer. The study of origins, cosmology, does not have that luxury. Thus it is not science.

Furthermore, the idea of a 'Big Bang', falls in the category of 'We Have No Idea But Here Is A Proposal We Would Like To Believe.' - This sounds good to us, they say. We can imagine that it might work. Plus, it's better than any other idea out there. - However, there is absolutely no time within the scope of our observational abilities when random stuff exploded into a complex system made up of many parts. Never. Does it make sense to give yourself over wholeheartedly to an idea for which there is no foundation in reality? Do they really believe this?

Or they must believe that something comes from nothing. But no sane person believes that, do they? Surely not concerning the idea of life. How did it get here? That would take spontaneous generation, of course. But Louis Pasteur disproved that idea in 1859. But if there was a time when there was no life, and there is now a time when there is life, then there has to be an instant in which there was no life and the next instant in which there was life. In one instant there was some non-living stuff there, and the next instant the stuff was alive. Without God it just had to happen on its own - spontaneous generation. (But since that has been disproven, they call it “abiogenesis” because that changes everything, don’t you see.) Do they really believe this?

This is preposterous on its face, but it gets worse. In order for that to happen there are well over 100 proteins necessary for the simplest of all organisms to live. It has to be the right (more than) 100 proteins (complex molecules, by the way) and they can’t have any flaw in their structure. So if this group of (well over) 100 perfect proteins are all present and in place to function properly when the magic happens, then when that magic happens, life could begin. (Intelligent scientistsl with power over the proteins and everything else involved have tried to make this happen under perfect circumstances for years and it just won’t work, but they are willing to believe it happened randomly, by accident.)

Here’s another issue with this concept. Where did the proteins come from? Proteins are manufactured by living organisms, so how did they exist before living organisms manufactured them? Scientists realize this problem, and they have proposed a solution. That is to say there is a hypothesis. Briefly, that hypothesis is that those proteins could have developed in some other way. Is there any evidence of this? Not really. Once again this is from the ‘We Have No Idea But Here Is A Proposal We Would Like To Believe.’ This has never been observed to happen, but if it did, it would explain the existence of proteins without a living organism to manufacture them. Do they really believe this?

There is no knowledge anywhere in the universe. There is no pattern for anything to fit or match, nor any guidance to cause it to fit or match. There has never been a cell, so no cell wall, no vacuoles, no protoplasm, no nucleus, no need for locomotion, so no need for flagella, and all the other parts. None of this has ever existed, nor had a reason to perform a function. Yet, a point in time happened when all of this came into existence and all the parts performed the functions they needed to perform immediately upon coming into existence. Have we ever observed a system like this coming into existence spontaneously and functioning? No. Do we have any basis for believing something like this would happen? No. Scientist would just like to believe it. It is part of that ‘We Have No Idea . . .’ thing. Do they really believe this?

How did we get from single cells to tissues? Are there two celled organisms? No. Are there four celled organisms? No. So how did the gap get bridged from one celled organisms to an inumberable group of cells all working, not for their own good, but for the community of cells which now have a function to perform for a third party. The cells work together in the tissue to perform a task which benefits, not necessarily the tissue, but the larger organisms to which the tissue ‘answers.’ Do we know how that step ever got taken? So much had to go into that occurrence that is beyond sensible when considered in the paradigm of these simple celled organisms.

How did tissues evolve to form organs? How did organs ever begin to work together to form a system? How did the systems come together to form a complex being? Why would that happen? How did it benefit a cell to join with other cells to form tissue? Why was that better, a step forward in evolution? Because if it wasn’t a step forward in evolution then it would have been of no benefit. But at that point in time, there was no guidance for all of these changes.

If there are no complex beings made of systems, then why/how was it that several organs worked together to make systems? How is it that veins and arteries and hearts and kidneys came together to make a circulatory system? Did this happen before there was an organism that needed all these things? If so, what was the point of their existence and how did they function to stay alive? What was the point of a stomach lining if there was no stomach? If there was a stomach before there was a stomach lining, what was the stomach doing?

So all of these things, and millions more, developed bit by bit, together as the system changed to need them? Or they changed the system as they developed whether it was helpful or not? Please note, I’m not contemplating how a fish became a frog, or a chimpanzee became a human, or a ‘cave man’ became a modern man, etc. I’m contemplating how a single cell became a double cell, or did it ever? How did a double cell become a multiple celled organism, or did it? How did a multiple celled organism become tissue before there were any organisms that needed tissue? If there were organisms that needed tissue before there was tissue, how did they survive?

So I suppose those atheistic scientists are mocking me now. But they are not answering these questions because these questions have no answers. If they were to respond to the question instead of ridiculing the one asking the question, their answer would be, “We don’t know. We have some proposals we can’t test to prove whether they’re right. Nevertheless, we are going to believe these hypotheses are proven answers because that works better for us.”

I have an answer and it infuriates them. Their ‘answer’ starts and ends with stuff which has no intelligence and no power over any of the stuff to make it be a certain product. They have no explanation for anything they propose that is based in observable phenomena. In many ways, my answer is similar. My answer to every question that may be legitimately asked of me regarding my belief in ‘origins’ is that God did it the way He intended for it to be. Yes, this infuriates the atheist. My answer is so simple and so constant. His is so convoluted and changeable. I can’t prove mine either, and I’ve never observed God create anything.

So we both have to believe. I believe that an all-knowing God with power over the elements created the universe to be as He saw fit to make it. They believe that only stuff existed and that random things began happening and the stuff changed into a complex universe complete with complex human societies. Ask me any question regarding the process I believe and I’ll tell you God created as He saw fit. Ask them any question regarding the process they believe, and no matter what they say or how they frame it, their answer is, “We don’t know, but we think that certain things might have happened, or maybe other things happened, but mostly magic happened, and now the universe is here as we see it.”

Do they really believe that?