Readers of the essay entitled Is There A God (What is the Chance the World is the Result of Chance?) may be interested in knowing some hard numbers with regard to the probability that the universe occurred randomly (i.e. no conscious creator involved). When one examines these numbers, one immediately understands why the Cambridge University astrophysicist Fred Hoyle was justified in saying, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Disbelief in God is most frequently presented by atheists as a conclusion arrived at from logical reasoning. But the truth is that atheism is most often the result of psychological and moral causes.
Assuming that there is a God—ask many atheists—which God is the right God? It will come as a surprise to many that the Judeo/Christian concept of God is actually much more than just a Judeo/Christian concept. Rather, it is an utterly trans-cultural and trans-historical concept. Further, God’s self-sacrifice on the cross is mentioned in many more places than just the Christian Bible. The Hindu scriptures known as the Upanishads and Vedas, ancient Chinese historical documents, and the Old Testament of the Bible (as well as other sources) provide references to God’s self-sacrifice which are extraneous to the Christian New Testament.
God makes his existence known, but does not force himself upon anyone.
The Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe (which enjoys near universal acceptance among astrophysicists) poses a grave threat to atheism. Astrophysicist Christopher Isham puts it best:
“Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual desire of a theorist to support his or her theory.”
The view that we do not have a soul which survives physical death is presented by atheists as “scientific.” And this is a scientifically supportable stance…as long as one clings tenaciously to outmoded, pre-20th century science which suggests that only the physical/material world is real.