Atheist Challenge: The Existence of God

In this article I wish to present a specific cosmological challenge to atheists to see if they have the honesty and courage to make a stand regarding what they believe regarding the cosmological discoveries of the last hundred years and how that data relates to the existence of God. 

On May 17, 2024, I published a video entitled ‘Seven arguments for the existence of God’. In the intro, I stated that scientific methods may be adequate to provide powerful arguments for God’s existence, but ultimately be unable to provide absolute proof, for the simple reason that the Christian definition of God is of a being who is outside of the natural order.

There were over 400 comments, but sadly, only about 5 people actually bothered to engage my arguments and I really appreciated their efforts. But for the most part, although I had hoped to engage in mature discussion and debate, instead found mostly mocking insults and arrogance.

But one thing I didn’t expect was the comments stating that macro-evolution and atheism are not connected in their worldview. One person claimed that many atheists don’t believe macro-evolution, whilst another said that I have no clue what atheists believe. I was left with wondering why such people would even bother to watch a video about the existence of God if they are so adamant and certain about their position. If someone put out a video called evidence that God does not exist, I wouldn’t waste my time on it.

Another obvious question to atheists would be, ‘why do you want so vehemently for there to be no God?’ Why all the vitriol, anger and mocking? Such emotions about a being you claim doesn’t exist reeks of insecurity and of creatures standing with their fist raised and shouting, there is no one greater than me in the universe.

So, in this video/article, I want to see what, if anything, atheists actually believe or possess other than an adamant desire to convince themselves that God doesn’t exist. Hopefully, some of you will engage in mature discussion and seriously consider the evidence presented.

My questions to you are as follows:

1. Do you, as an atheist, believe the big bang theory based on the cosmological evidence presented in the last 100 years?

2. If the universe is finite and expanding, would you seriously consider that something or somewhere may exist outside of the universe into which it is expanding?

Let’s examine the development of the Big Bang theory.

Prior to the 20th century the general consensus was that, although the universe may be infinitely large, it was basically static. Neither the discoveries of Copernicus nor Newton contradicted this view. Stephen Hawking stated that:

It was generally accepted that either the universe had existed for ever in an unchanging state or it had been created at an infinite time in the past more or less as we observe it today. (A Brief History of Time; p6) 

In 1915 Einstein published his general theory of relativity which predicted that space expands. Einstein also added his ‘cosmological constant’ to his theory to maintain his belief in the universe being static, and later admitted that this was the biggest blunder of his life. 

In the 1920s, Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian cosmologist proposed that the universe was expanding, therefore, there may have been a time when it began from an incredibly dense state. Lemaitre argued that originally the universe was a single particle, that which he called the 'primeval atom'.

Lemaitre's theory was also influenced by Edwin Hubble's discovery in 1929 of the distances between galaxies determined by their 'redshifts', that is an increase in wave length. Hubble observed that wherever you look in the sky, all other galaxies are moving away as if we are within a kind of cosmic balloon. 

The emerging Big Bang theory was not welcomed by many as it strongly implied the possibility of a supernatural cause outside of the universe. In 1948 Sir Fred Hoyle contributed to the ‘steady state’ theory. The theory was that the universe was infinite and was kept in balance by matter which had previously ceased to exist but simply coming into existence out of nothing at the same rate it was being destroyed. The problem with the theory, as pointed out by Isaac Asimov, was that it breaks the First Law of Thermodynamics which states that matter and energy can neither be self-created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted to energy and visa versa, but their sum total remains the same expressed in the dictum ‘ex nihilo, nihilo fit’, out of nothing, nothing comes.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe is running down. As the rotation of planets and stars slow down and burn themselves out the universe becomes less and less organized as energy is dissipated. The logical conclusion is that the universe cannot be eternal or stars, for example, would have ceased to exist long ago. All of this strongly suggests that if the universe is becoming less ordered, it must have been more ordered in the past and had a highly ordered beginning. 

In 1948 George Gamov published a paper claiming that, because matter becomes increasingly hot when condensed, the early universe must have been incredibly hot when compressed into an intensely minute size. He speculated that as the universe expanded from this point it would have left vestiges of cosmic background radiation as a thermal signature.

In 1965 American physicists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected cosmic background radiation which has been confirmed repeatedly by other scientists and said by many to be the ‘crowning glory of the Big bang theory’ which proved Hoyle’s steady state theory false. All of the known verifiable evidence points to a universe which began as an incredibly small and unimaginably hot dot of condensed pure energy and matter which is the primal source of space, time and matter, a universe which continues to expand. 

Two fundamental questions became obvious.

1. How fast is the rate of expansion?

2. Is the rate of expansion increasing or decreasing?

Various theories were put forward regarding how gravity would affect the expansion, but the most accepted is that the universe is balanced by the deceleration caused by gravity so that, although the universe will continue to expand forever, the rate of expansion is slowing down but will not bring it to an end. This view was adopted by Hawking and fellow Cambridge physicist Neil Turok in what is described as ‘critical density’.

The Big Bang theory quickly became a subject of more than just cosmological theory and discovery, but philosophical and theological debate. The fact that scientists claimed to be able to fairly accurately calculate the beginning of the universe to around 13.8 billion years, leads to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. Fundamentalist Christians, who take a literal six-day interpretation of the Bible, rejected the theory, whilst Christian scientists welcomed it, pointing out that it had taken human beings over 3000 years to prove the first verse of the Bible that ‘in beginning God created the universe’.

But the questions which every thinking person is faced with are obvious, and although various theories have been presented, some of which are reasonable and others illogical, are as follows.

1. Where did the original matter and energy of the universe come from?

2. If space is created as the universe is expanding, into what is it expanding?

There is no such thing as a purely objective person and none of us enjoy admitting we may be or have been wrong. Usually, people approach both of these two questions from a theist or atheist conviction and refuse to be convinced that our view is wrong as the personal stakes are too high. Of course there are also agnostics who genuinely consider all of the evidence, people who are not fully invested in a publically stated position of theist or atheist.

The late Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins, for example, are public figures who have stated there is no God and are committed to that position no matter how much evidence is presented to question their claim. To the first question about the origin of matter, Dawkins has made some incredibly foolish comments publicly, desperately trying to contradict the First Law of Thermodynamics that from nothing, nothing comes. Dawkins insists on trying to redefine ‘nothing’ as ‘something’, yet still has absolutely no explanation of how this something magically appeared out of nothing.

Hawking presented several theories which are absolutely unprovable and highly implausible. These theories were designed to eliminate the need to confirm that the universe had an actual beginning. Firstly, he suggested that the universe may be traced back to being infinitely smaller with no actual beginning and just exploded when it reached a particular size and density. This was an attempt to go backwards beyond the Big Bang itself, stating that our ability to measure the age of the universe is based only on the moment of the Big Bang.

The obvious problem with Hawking’s theory is that there is no evidence that something can be infinitely small, and as some pointed out, sounds similar to the 14th century scholastic argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a needle.  

To the second question about expansion, several theories have also been proposed. One is the multiverse theory. Our universe began within a pre-existing universe and grows like a cosmic balloon within that universe. This solves the problem of pre-existing matter and energy. It has even been proposed that the mystery of black holes may be other new universes which have begun in our own. The obvious question is if there was one original universe then where did the matter and energy come from to create it, and like Hawking’s theory, the answer is that there is no primal universe, it simply goes backwards in time to infinity.

And again, there is no way to prove such a theory, and one could argue that using words like infinity in such a way in no way makes it true, but crudely attempts to circumvent the fundamental laws of causality 

One other theory worth mentioning is the oscillating model in which the universe expands, collapses and repeats the cycle, a Big Bang, Big Crunch and Big Bounce, however, as Beatrice Tinsley of Yale points out, ‘there is no known physics to reverse the collapse and bounce back to a new expansion’.

Hawking made the following statement which pretty much sums up his fanatical attempts to theorize a universe without a beginning.

So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pp156-7

Hawking’s reasoning is sound, indeed one of the comments on my previous video was ‘space has no edge’, so at least the person who made the comment understood what was at stake. The reality is that, to date, the verifiable evidence points to space having a both a definitive beginning and a boundary or edge like a cosmic balloon expanding within an area or space we know nothing about. Now I fully understand if I mention the Bible again at this point that many of you will quickly develop a childish rage and stop watching, but at least I will have separated the purely subjective adolescents from those still capable of objective critique.

The Bible is over 3000 years old, yet its very first verse stated that the universe was not infinite but had a beginning. Just as importantly, it also offers an explanation of what is beyond the boundary or edge of space. The word ‘kosmos’ in Scripture is translated as both universe, heaven or heavens and the Bible states that there are three of them. The first is to the outer edge of earth’s atmosphere, the second to the edge of the cosmic balloon we call space, and the 3rd God’s primary dwelling place which is infinite and eternal. 

The third heaven is called exactly that, and the Bible offers a considerable amount of details about this place and its inhabitants. Although some are non-corporeal, others have physical bodies which are other than flesh and blood. The apostle Paul even claimed to have been taken into this place but could find no appropriate words to describe it.

My personal questions are to readers are these:

1. Do you adhere to the Big Bang as the best scientific explanation of the origin of the universe we have to date?

2. Do you agree that, despite the efforts of Hawking and others, no theory has been presented which can prove that the universe had no beginning and has no boundary or edge?

3. Can you explain how a 3000 year old book has an explanation of the cosmos which perfectly fits the most current facts and theories we have?

4. And finally…can you explain why you, like Hawking and Dawkins, so vehemently desire that there is no God?

I sincerely thank you for reading this article. I understand that my knowledge of cosmology is rather primitive, but I am capable of reading. My intentions are not to win arguments, but to sincerely understand you and just encourage you to have an open mind and heart.

I look forward to your comments and will engage those who honestly seek mature dialogue.