In my review of his book, I will argue that Atkins walks a thin line between established scientific fact and wild speculation, but that he does so in an engrossing and ultimately plausible way. He certainly doesn't establish that the universe can arise from nothing, but he convincingly argues that there's no reason why it couldn't.
Order is a slippery concept, it can mean several different things depending on what you're talking about. Because its meaning can be subtle, the term is often misused. I hope in this article to shed a bit of light on how we can understand what order is in physics, and whether it can be applied coherently to the universe as a whole.
Even if we don't interpret Genesis as a literal account of creation, we still face the difficulty that parts of the account directly contradict science suggesting that, if science is correct, God lied to us about how he made the world.
A painting requires a painter. A building requires a builder. Creation requires a creator. Order requires an orderer. "On an atheist's worldview" - the theist claims - "how can there be order in the universe? How can a random, unintelligent explosion produce an ordered universe?"
Here's another video. I'm often asked how there can be no God if the chances of our planet being habitable are so slim. This is the reason why.
I think that "atheism of the gaps" is a legitimate fallacy, but not one that atheists often make. I think this term has the annoying potential to be thrown incorrectly at atheists if it starts becoming mainstream.
This is why I say that the universe must contain time. The universe is best thought of as a static 4-dimensional shape of which slices are all we can perceive. What really bites is that we all perceive different slices of this 4-dimensional shape, and how would that be possible if the universe were only 3D?
The Second Premise Having discussed the deficiencies of the first premise in my previous article (Part 1) we can now move on to the second premise. The second premise states that "The universe began to exist". Now I have actually written an article before about why it is exactly that it is misleading to say... Continue Reading →
While I can find no fault with the deductive validity of this argument - the conclusion certainly seems to follow from the premises - I'm afraid this is as successful as the argument gets. Not just one, but both of the premises commit logical fallacies which they hide in the vagueness of their formulation.