Credit: Pixabay
***Note***
People are busy. Few have the time to spend reading a blog. If you’re on the go, jump to the Bottom Line. There I quickly summarize the main points herein as briefly as possible as well as giving a link to each post if you’d like more depth and verification. If you want to leave a comment, you’ll find that section at the end of both the post list and the Bottom Line. To see the latest science, updated regularly, check out the NEWS.
If you love the Earth and Universe, you shouldn’t miss NASA’s Astronomy Picture of the Day. Stunning High Res photos of the Earth and Universe updated daily!
• • •
There’s a revolution afoot. Not the kind that comes with bullets but ideas. Is it possible that we can, for the first time in human history, using not religion but science, find enough evidence in the mind boggling complexities of the Universe, the Solar System, our planet and ourselves to say with a good degree of confidence that all that exists, everything we know, was fashioned not by mindless chance but a living will?(1)
Is it possible that Belief no longer has to be taken on Faith?
But first, these messages…
I’ve been told firmly and repeatedly over the years that there is no science-based evidence for belief in a Creator. Zero. That it’s well and fine to talk about a ‘God’ in a mythological context as long as it’s understood to be just that, myth. A region shared by other notables like Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and Lady Luck. But if one uses science to discuss the subject, one has veered into the absurd.
Rather, some may say, like trying to reckon fables of fairies with serious discussions of human origins. There is simply no justification for mixing the two. Period.
Which is a little ironic. Because while most non-theists readily admit that there are no facts that can prove that a Creator does not exist, there is very good evidence to suggest the reverse. Yet we’re told (by themselves, no less) that the facts rest entirely on the side of the dissenter. Go figure.
I’ve always found it rather strange when smart people rationalize away the beliefs of those they disagree with, persons they often label as primitive or even stupid, while using the same kinds of reasoning they laugh at when used by their opposite numbers.
I’ve never been sure whether or not they do this sincerely, somehow missing the irony of that approach, or intentionally to throw off genuinely salient analysis.
And because those who make these claims usually come either from the academic community on the one hand or the secular community on the other, they often curiously present their arguments as though they are above dispute.
Curious because, as science dictates, researchers frequently change or abandon those ideas based on new observations. As they should.
Still, for persons of faith, the consensus is in. Agree or be wrong. Those are their choices.
Very much like the kinds of statements religious proponents themselves have made for centuries. Agree or be wrong.
My point in writing this is only to demonstrate as briefly as I can that there is an overwhelming abundance of science-based, non-religious evidence for belief in a Creator.(2)
But before I go on, please note that I’m not on a mission. This is not a religious article. I have no religious affiliations. I will rely on no religious sources. I don’t presume to speak for any higher power.
Nor is this a challenge to science. Indeed, in every instance of argument on this site, I chose only the most current, popular and accepted scientific sources from which to draw conclusions.
Nor am I denying the primacy of verifiable facts obtained by means of the scientific method over religious dogma when there is a conflict between the two. If there is a disparity between facts and religion, it is religion that must concede that battle, not the reverse.
Nor am I stating that the views I put forward are definitively correct as our understanding of the Universe is far from complete.
Nor do I think that an examination of the Universe can pinpoint any particular deity or religion. I’ll make no attempt to do so.
Further, even though the evidence for a Creator is abundant, what kind of Creator(s) is responsible is unknown. Be it Aliens, a Universal Life Force of some kind or a benevolent Deity is simply beyond the scope of this feeble effort. That a purposeful intent appears to be indicated by the evidence is enough.
Additionally, I’ll make no use of the so-called God of the Gaps argument, the belief that if some phenomena cannot currently be explained by science, the answer must be supernatural. That’s nonsense.
I will also avoid the Science of the Gaps argument. Science here meaning a Naturalistic only view of the facts. Sometimes called Promissory Materialism, it is the same attitude as the above, only reversed.
If some phenomena cannot currently be explained by science, the answer just hasn’t been discovered yet. So there is no need to concern ourselves with seeming evidences of a Creator. Again, nonsense.
Also, keep in mind that some of the authorities I quote from do not support my conclusions. They may have other explanations for why something is the way that it is and I respect those other ideas. I don’t pretend to have all the answers nor do I want to misrepresent or mischaracterize any individual. Science is the goal.
More, please know that it is not my intention to offend anyone or to disrespect anyone’s beliefs. There are many reasons people have found throughout history to hate other people. Race, Color, Geography, Nationality, Culture, Politics, Language, Social Status, Gender, even something as seemingly innocuous as Sports. But the biggest reason of all may be Belief. If someone doesn’t agree with something we hold dear, he or she can’t be a good person. Again, nonsense.
I’ve learned in life that it’s easy to believe the worst of people who disagree with us. For whatever reason. In putting this together, two decrees, thousands of years old, largely forgotten these days, guided me – the first, treat others as we hope they’ll treat us (including all of life, not just man) and the other, its antithesis, judge and we’ll be judged.
I should also note that I’m not a scientist, not a guide. I’ve seen religious articles with vague facts included to lend weight to a position commonly misunderstood by the author.
Conversely, I’ve seen hypothesis often deceptively presented as fact by many in the media when they know that the information they provide is largely based on conjecture.
To be fair then, it should be acknowledged that the debate in question often hinges, at least in part, on opposing interpretations of the same sets of facts. In the spirit of transparency therefore, please be assured that this blog is nothing more than the honest thoughts of one person, decades in the stew.
Nor is it necessary for me that you accept what I have to say. I know that there will be persons who simply will not welcome a particular line of reasoning no matter how cogent it may be if it fundamentally displaces their core beliefs. That’s ok with me.
This blog exists only to correct what I believe to be a long-standing unfairness on this issue but I have exactly no interest in twisting anyone’s arm in any way or for any reason. Believe what you like.
Credit: Veley, The Funny Times
. . .
That’s not to say that I think the identity of the Creator, if there is one, is unimportant. Still, as the artist’s signature is lacking, its your call to take, or not, that last step for yourselves.
My purpose is singular: my belief, based on our current understanding of the Universe as described by science alone, that there exists other, often times more plausible explanations for the origins of the Universe and life that includes the real possibility, even probability of a Creator. Explanations that have often been overlooked, ignored and/or misrepresented.
Science institutions today rely on and instruct their students in the tenets of Methodological Naturalism. Aka, Materialism, this is the default position members of the science community are expected to endorse a priori when dealing with questions like the above. A conclusion drawn before, or in spite of all the facts that have been or are yet to be weighed.
Methodological Naturalism is the doctrine that states that nothing exists outside the physical cosmos. Period. The origin of all that exists can be explained as arising by chance from purely material processes alone without any recourse to an outside agency. Any data that appears to suggest otherwise can, they say, be safely ignored.
That would be fine were that credo based strictly on facts, but unfortunately that’s not the case. Preference amongst atheistic authorities at said institutions plays a huge role in those directives.
In fact, it’s become fashionable today for atheists in the science community to state, in the face of a complete lack of evidence regarding that moment of cosmic history, that the ‘accidental’ creation of the Universe from essentially nothing at all is simply a “brute fact” it’s best we all just unambiguously accept and move on.
Imagine what the result would be to our collective wallets were car mechanics with families to support given the same unflinching trust. We need to be careful then when engaging with persons of any persuasion who have a vested interest in promoting a particular point of view.
Atheists are open to explanations of Universal Origins as long as they don’t rely on a Creator. It’s important to keep that in mind. That limiting pre-condition blocks a huge chunk of the data right out of the gate.
To intentionally ignore, actively exclude or deliberately trivialize relevant data on an issue of this magnitude simply on the basis of personal preference without first stating that fact upfront is unfair to those who look towards these learned individuals for their fair and unbiased opinions.
Case in point: In attempting to prove that there is no Creator, atheists often point to defects in conventional religions. That is their foremost go-to strategy. It’s been used time and again.
But stating that flaws in religion proves that there is no Creator is like saying that flaws in American politics proves that George Washington never existed. The one has nothing to do with the other.
This is an obvious bait and switch tactic that it seems likely smart influencers hope will go unnoticed. Non sequitur.
Moreover, honesty should compel anyone to admit that whether one says they do believe or don’t believe in a higher power, they do believe something. Belief is still the core sentiment.
Belief is defined as,
An acceptance that something exists or is true, even without proof.
Atheism then is as much an unverified belief system as is any other. Without proof, they believe that there is no Creator. Yet they are not without their own higher power. In their case, Man.
It should also be noted that evidence based belief may be wholly irreligious. One can believe the pyramids of Egypt were built by human labor without being an Egyptologist. It’s not necessary to be an astronomer to believe that there are planets in other galaxies. When the proponents of atheism ignore that fact, no one is fairly served.
Their analyses therefore, at least that which is motivated by the above, is deliberately incomplete and hence unscientific and so shouldn’t be considered the last word on the subject. That’s a fact many people fail to realize when deciding whether to follow their lead.
For example, the famed American astronomer, author and science communicator, Carl Sagan, speaking about belief in a Creator, somewhat dismissively stated,
“Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.”
However, when speaking about other unsubstantiated concepts that he personally preferred such as the existence of advanced alien cultures despite a similar lack of proof, he also said,
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Thus it seems that when it comes to favored beliefs, preference or ‘faith’ plays a role with even the most learned of critics, something most non-scientists may be unaware of.
Assumed impartiality in the cause of science gives advocates’ arguments an improper gravitas denied the lay person. Whether that’s fair or not, it’s a fact.
Making distinctions about what is scientifically ‘true’ based on preference, ignoring or distorting some data in favor of other data, even the occasional display of open hostility to competing points of view has been and continues to be practiced by ostensibly objective professionals to this day. That needs to be addressed. This humble blog is at least a partial remedy to that disparity.
To be clear, I’m not claiming new science is being made here. Rather, this blog is a long overdue reexamination of existing data as well as an exciting look into new discoveries.
I must admit to one other motivation. Some on the atheist side of the debate, with the same kind of proselytizing zeal they denounce in their religious counterparts, have, intentionally or not, taken from many, perhaps most of those who had once believed, a hope and a sense of purpose that secularism can never replace. As modern life surely demonstrates. That’s genuine loss. Value that has not been replaced.
With that in mind, it’s hoped that the information presented on this site lifts peoples spirits and gives them back some measure of strength and hope. If it does, it will have been worth it.
Of course, if you don’t care for this subject, there’s no lack of other things for you ponder. I won’t be offended.
I want to thank the good folks at Nasa without whose unflagging efforts our knowledge of the Universe would be considerably poorer. Many thanks as well to those who offer their wonderful photographs and graphic art for free. Without them, this blog would be far less interesting.
Also, please note that this blog is 100% non-profit. Not one penny has ever been or will ever be earned from its existence.
Please also note that this blog is dedicated not just to demonstrating through science the probability that there is a Creator, but also to showcasing the magnificence of the Universe itself. A subject so awesome, other considerations simply pale by comparison. I hope if you get nothing else from my prattling, a greater appreciation for the Universe as a whole and the Earth in particular will endure.
Last, I’ve checked and tripled checked the information here again and again over the years and will continue to update it at every opportunity. Thus, I believe that I’ve been fair in compiling the information below.
I’ve done my best to avoid that basic human trait when representing some controversial position of cherry-picking or slanting the information to favor my particular views. Quoting only those ‘experts’ who agree with one point of view, ignoring those who don’t.
I sought only those viewpoints currently supported by mainstream science to the best of my ability. The conclusions are my own but the science that got me here is unequivocally mainstream.
Still, mistakes are human. If I’ve made any, and I would be surprised if I haven’t, I’ll greatly appreciate and correct any pointed out.
On that inspirational note, if you’re still here, please consider the following:
Expanding Sky 