Participants:
Series Code: GFF
Program Code: GFF000004S
|
00:01 ♪ ♪ Subodh K. Pandit, M.D.
00:56 Welcome back again my friends. This is session three. We have 01:02 done the first three columns of the Pan Process in session two 01:07 and now we're going to do column number four. Column number four 01:11 is arguments against atheism against the claim that God does 01:17 not exist. We're going to look at two basic ideas. Number one: 01:22 The question of From Nothing? You see if God did not create 01:28 this universe then the only option is that this universe 01:34 came from absolutely nothing, total nothingness. There is no 01:40 other option to that. Some people wonder whether we can put 01:44 a little of something there but if you do that it will not meet 01:48 scientific criteria of a real origin. So either God created 01:54 this universe or it came from nothing. The second one is 01:58 Statistical Analysis. In other words, what are the chances that 02:02 it could have happened by itself So number one: Absolutely 02:08 nothing. So am not the one who is saying the word nothing here. 02:11 Look at these authors. Bill Bryson in the book A Short 02:17 History of Nearly Everything said "So from nothing our universe 02:22 begins." And Victor Stenger, his words, "So where did the laws of 02:28 nature come from? They came from nothing...the void out of 02:32 which the universe arose." And Quentin Smith, once again, you 02:37 have seen his words before. "The only reasonable belief is that 02:41 we came from nothing by nothing and for nothing" Pretty sweeping 02:49 words that kind of cover everything. So when I read that 02:53 I asked myself what is that statement based on? Think. 02:59 Nothing. Just a mere opinion. No basis except a configuration 03:06 of a mind. So even then, we're not going to dismiss it. As 03:12 inquirers we take it and inspect it and then evaluate it. So we 03:18 can look at it in three ways. Number one: Physical. Is it 03:24 physically possible to get something out of nothing? Let's 03:29 test it out. You and I will test it. Let's build the great wall 03:33 of China, but I will give you no material, no builders, no time, 03:41 no space, not even you. Wow! You're going to turn around and 03:47 say that is not fair. Wait a minute. Even I am not in 03:51 existence. Now how did the Great Wall of China come about? Well, 03:57 honestly, you will have to agree that absolute nothingness as a 04:02 starting point is totally physically impractical. 04:07 How about philosophically? Do you know that absolute 04:11 nothingness cannot be imagined. Why? Because your mind and your 04:18 brain are the factories that produce imagination. So how can 04:26 you imagine the nonexistence of your mind while you are using it 04:33 to imagine? In other words, a person who imagines is always 04:36 there. Try it and see. Imagine being in the Bahamas. Well you 04:42 are there. So when you say I am imagining absolute nothingness 04:48 that's an impossibility because you are there. So nobody can 04:52 actually, imagine absolute nothingness. And if you cannot 04:57 imagine it then how can you propose it as a scientific 05:02 theory? Think, my friend. Even fantasy fiction must first be 05:08 imagined before it is written down. So if you say you cannot 05:14 imagine and philosophically we cannot imagine absolute 05:17 nothingness then we are getting at something that is just quite 05:22 impossible. So philosophically absolute nothingness has an 05:29 origin. It is a total impossibility. How about 05:33 mathematics? You know, Science may be represented as common 05:38 sense wrapped in mathematics. Those are the words of Edgar 05:43 Andrews, himself a scientist. Especially in physics. 05:46 Statements in physics must have a mathematical basis otherwise 05:51 it's not considered science. For example: You just can't use the 05:55 word gravity. The word gravity really means nothing unless you 05:59 put some numbers to it. It is a force that directly attracts 06:05 two bodies and it is directly related to the mass of the two 06:11 bodies and inversely related to the square the distance between 06:17 the two bodies. Can you see that you have to put numbers and 06:22 mathematical equations and only then it is science. So in 06:27 physics scientific statements are made but they are considered 06:33 scientific statements only if backed by equations, numbers. 06:39 So let's do that right now. Let's take these two theories 06:43 make the statement and then make an equation out of them. So here 06:49 are the two statements. Atheistic proposal: Nothing did 06:54 nothing with nothing and produced everything. Whereas the 07:00 theistic proposal said: Someone did something about that nothing 07:05 and then produced the whole universe or everything. So the 07:10 sentences now will be made into a mathematical equation and I 07:15 want you to see how reasonable is the equation to you. The 07:20 atheistic proposal says 0 + 0 + 0 = 100 Whereas the 07:27 theistic proposal said x + y + 0 = 100. Tell me 07:33 honestly, which equation is more possible as an equation, equal. 07:40 Zero cannot be 100. I have put certain digits there on the 07:46 screen. The first two series are exactly the same, six zeros and 07:54 one. The first number is equal to one. The second number has 08:01 the same six zeros and one but it's equal to a million. What 08:06 makes the difference and what about the third one? All digits 08:10 are zero. So at the end of that series it is equal to zero. So 08:17 what do we mean when we look at those three numbers. It means 08:21 that zero, as a starting point, is valueless! Only a number can 08:28 give value or substance. So absolute nothingness is zero 08:33 without any real numbers related to it as a mathematical premise 08:38 or starting point is worse than absurdity. You know people have 08:44 tried to say that things came out by itself from nothing. I 08:50 have a book here, if you look at the title of the book, it says 08:57 A Universe From Nothing. Now the author is a well-known scientist 09:01 His name is Lawrence Krauss and he has written this book trying 09:07 to establish the idea that this entire universe came from 09:12 nothing. But I'm going to read you certain sentences from the 09:19 endorsements of that book. Here's the first one: It is from 09:24 Nature a very prestigious periodical in general. It said, 09:28 "...in this nothingness there are many wonderful things to see 09:34 Really? Can you see anything in a nothingness? How contradictory 09:41 is that? Neil DeGrasse Tyson, one of the great theoretical 09:46 physicists in the United States, actually said the truth and his 09:49 words are also in the book. He said: "Nothing is not nothing. 09:53 Nothing is something." Oh boy. So what do we do with the title? 09:59 And Richard Dawkins, a very vocal atheist, in the same book 10:04 he says "The title means exactly what it says." But that is false 10:09 because Neil DeGrasse said, Tyson said, that nothing is something. 10:17 There's not nothing. So the title really should read, A 10:22 Universe from Something, not, A Universe from Nothing. So 10:28 absolute nothingness is: Physically impractical, 10:32 philosophically impossible and mathematically worse than 10:37 absurdity. So the Latin Aphorism Ex nihilo, nihil fit is correct. 10:45 Translated: Out of nothing, nothing comes! So the origin of 10:53 our universe was NOT absolute nothingness. How about the 11:00 statistical analysis? You know chance is subjective. You say 11:05 what are the chances this will happen? What are the chances 11:08 that that will happen? But it is also a mathematical premise 11:13 it is an equation, it's a formula. Just put the numbers in 11:17 and out comes the chance. It's called probability. What are the 11:21 chances it will happen or it will not happen? In scientific 11:26 evaluation the number is set approximately at 10 to the 11:31 power of 15, which 11:32 means 10 followed by 15 zeros. So in your calculations, your 11:36 scientific calculations, if an event will happen 10 to the 11:40 power of 15 will not happen once then they say it will always 11:45 happen and if it happens only once in both circumstances and 11:52 will not happen 10 to the power of 15 times then the conclusion 11:56 in scientific evaluation is that that event will not occur. 12:00 When you want to enunciate a scientific law the number goes 12:06 up to 10 to the power of 50, 10 followed by 50 zeros. So if 12:13 only one chance occurs and if there's only one time it will 12:20 occur in 10 to the power of 50 chances given to it then we say 12:25 it's an actual impossibility, statistical impossibility. 12:29 So how big are these numbers? Let me give you an example or 12:34 some indication. If we tested the law of gravity by dropping 12:39 this pointer onto my palm once per second you know to do it 12:46 10 to the power of 18 times would require 15 billion years. 12:51 To do it 10 to the power of 20 times would require 1.5 trillion 12:57 years. So 10 to the power of 50 is a gigantic number! Huge! It 13:05 is so big that scientists usually don't question the 13:08 number although it is arbitrary. So with that in mind, let's say 13:13 it again, if there's only one chance of it occurring and 13:18 10 to the power of 50 chances of not occurring then it is 13:22 statistically impossible. And if it does occur then it was done 13:29 by an agent or an agency. So with that in mind, let's look at 13:33 a few statements. Here is Michael Benton, a scientist, 13:38 most probably from New Zealand, who checked something out, 13:42 and he said, "It would require at least one hundred functional 13:46 proteins" What is the meaning of that? The simplest cell. To 13:51 realize would require at least 100 functional proteins giving 13:55 a maximum combined probability of one chance in 10 to the power 14:00 2000!" Not 10 to the power of 50 Ten to the power of 2000. 14:07 Amazing? Can you say Wow!? Maybe you didn't so I'll try 14:12 again. Proteins are made up of amino acids, building blocks. 14:16 They have to be linked together to form the chain which is 14:20 called a protein. The simplest cell would require about 10,000 14:26 amino acids in that chain. Now amino acids have links. It could 14:32 be a left-handed link, it could have a right-handed link. Levo/ 14:36 Dextro for those of you who are scientists. When you make amino 14:41 acids in the laboratory it always comes out as a racemic 14:45 mixture. That means equal left- handed to right-handed forms. 14:51 Nobody knows how to in a laboratory make more left-handed 14:56 or more right-handed. Now listen to this. All 10,000 amino acids 15:02 in the cell have to be only left-handed, in the chromosome. 15:09 The chromosome is made of also units. They called nucleotides. 15:13 These nucleotides also have links right-handed and 15:17 left-handed 15:19 and you need about a 100,000 nucleotides to make the complete 15:24 chromosome for that cell. Once again here all 100,000 15:31 nucleotides have to be only right-handed. So what are the 15:38 chances that 10,000 left-handed amino acids and 100,000 right- 15:43 handed nucleotides got together at the same point of space and 15:48 time to form that first cell? Here's Ralph Muncaster and his 15:52 words: "The probability of assembling 10,000 left-handed 15:55 amino acids and 100,000 right- handed nucleotides is 1 chance 16:01 in 10 to the power of 33,113." And we already said 1 is to 10 16:08 to the power of 50 is a statistical impossibility. 16:11 Did you say wow!? Well let's try again. And this time the 16:17 whole cell. "Harold Morowitz a microbiologist and a 16:22 mathematician calculated what the chances were that we could 16:27 get all the components of a cell together at the same point at 16:32 the same time to form that cell. Only one cell. You know how many 16:37 cells you and I have, anywhere from 75 to 100 trillion cells 16:43 in our bodies. We're talking about just one cell. So what are 16:46 the chances that one cell would come together, all the 16:50 components brought together. Here it is: Harold Morowitz, a 16:54 microbiologist calculated the odds of a cell randomly 16:57 assembling under the most ideal conditions to be 1 chance in 17:02 10 to the power of 100 billion." And we said that 1 is to 10 to 17:10 the power of 50 is an impossibility. So if 10 to the 17:14 power of 50 is an impossibility then 10 to the power of 17:20 10 hundred billion which is required for one cell to form. 17:24 How many impossible equivalents would that be? Do you know how 17:30 many? Ten to the power of 99,999,999,950 impossible events 17:40 for just one cell to form. So here's some logic choices. 17:48 If only two possibilities exist, and one of them is correct, then 17:54 If A is possible, B is also possible; if A is improbable, 18:01 B becomes probable; if A is impossible, B becomes fact. 18:08 Let's check it out with just a simple equation. Suppose I give 18:12 you a mathematical test. 9-3= and I will give you two 18:19 possibilities as answers. A 15 and B I will not even show you 18:26 the number but remember one of them is correct. So which would 18:30 you choose. B of course. Why? Because 9-3 has to be less than 18:38 9 because there's a minus mark over there. So 15, impossible. 18:44 Therefore, B is correct even if you never looked at it, never 18:51 laid eyes on it. Think. So here's what Sherlock Holmes said 18:56 sometime ago in the book The Sign of the Four "How often have 19:02 I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, 19:05 whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." 19:11 So we have a conclusion here. If it was statistically 19:14 absolutely impossible that even one cell was synthesized by 19:19 random chance, then the truth is that if it did occur and it 19:25 did because there are hundreds and millions and trillions of 19:27 cells, then an agent did it. It did not happen then by chance. 19:33 So what grade would you give that? I gave it, these two, nine 19:39 out of ten. You can give your own grade. So now we've done all 19:43 four. Let's put all four together. Column one for atheism 19:49 one. Column two against the believing side, seven, but we 19:56 sifted out the seven to column number three because it moved 20:00 out if you remember the arguments. Column number three 20:05 for the believing side I gave eight and column number four 20:11 against atheistic side a number nine. So here's how we put it 20:15 together: Atheism would be column one for atheism minus 20:22 column four 9 against atheism. 1-9 comest to -8. The theistic 20:31 side the points for theism which was eight and the seven that 20:38 came from column two (8+7) 15. Here's what I say, my friend. 20:45 No matter what numbers you gave it doesn't matter, the atheistic 20:50 side will always be negative and the theistic side whatever the 20:56 numbers will be positive. So in the words of Socrates: You go 21:01 where the evidence leads. Go where the argument leads. Now a 21:07 few words from those who have looked at it. We both looked at 21:10 it. Now how about the others who have looked at it? Here are some 21:14 quotes from a philosopher: My discovery of the Divine has 21:19 proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to 21:23 supernatural phenomena...A pilgrimage of reason and not of 21:28 faith." You will notice I have highlighted the word reason 21:31 and in the next few quotes I have highlighted the word reason 21:35 or intellect or mind. These words were by Anthony Flew who 21:40 wrote a book There Is A God and the subtitle of the book is 21:46 How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. 21:53 Because this is what he says: "The leaders of science 21:56 over the last hundred years, along with some of today's most 22:00 influential scientists have built a philosophically 22:03 compelling vision of a rational universe that sprang from a 22:07 divine Mind." And then another statement: "The mind of God... 22:13 a vision of reality that emerges from the conceptual heart of 22:17 modern science and imposes itself on the rational mind." 22:21 Notice what it does not say. It does not say, The conceptual 22:25 heart of some religious writings and imposes itself on the 22:31 blindly believing mind. No. It says the conceptual heart of 22:35 modern science and imposes itself on the rational mind. 22:41 How about some quotes from scientists. Here's Albert 22:45 Einstein: "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, 22:50 with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet 22:55 people who say there is no God. But what makes me angry is that 23:00 they quote me for the support of such views." And Max Jammer 23:04 talking about Albert Einstein: "Einstein agreed with Spinoza 23:08 that he who knows nature knows God...because the pursuit of 23:13 science in studying nature leads to religion." Remember you use 23:18 your mind when you study. How about Charles Darwin himself? 23:23 The last sentence of his book The Origin of Species says this: 23:28 "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers 23:34 having been originally breathed (by the Creator) into a few 23:40 forms or into one." And that is when you look at the animals and 23:47 plants and species on this earth When he turned his eyes to gaze 23:51 up into the heavens this is what he said: (he found) "...the 23:56 impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe 24:01 as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting 24:06 I feel compelled to look to a First Cause..." Remember we 24:11 talked about cause in the section on logic. "I feel 24:17 compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind 24:23 and I deserve to be called a Theist." A believer? These are 24:29 words of Charles Darwin. Back to Anthony Flew: 24:35 "Life, consciousness, mind and self can only come from a source 24:41 that is living, conscious and thinking. Matter (by itself) 24:47 cannot produce conceptions and perceptions. So at the level of 24:51 reason and everyday experience we become immediately aware that 24:57 the world of living, conscious, thinking beings has to originate 25:03 in a living Source, a Mind." And now these same words or nearly 25:11 same, similar words, are echoed by a Nobel prize-winning 25:15 scientist. His name is George Wald. Listen to his words: 25:19 "The stuff of which physical reality is constructed is 25:26 mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe 25:31 that breeds life...and creates science-making, art-making, and 25:37 technology-making creatures." So a philosopher and a scientist 25:42 in full agreement. How about one of the greatest scientists who 25:49 lived in our age? The late Stephen Hawking: He said these 25:54 words "Even if there 25:55 is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of 25:59 rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the 26:03 equations and makes a universe?" "You still have the question why 26:06 does the universe bother to exist? If you like, you can 26:10 define God to be the answer to that question." 26:13 And then he says these 26:15 words: "If we do discover a complete theory,..." Which is 26:19 the holy grail of physics, grand unified theory, if we should 26:26 find it "...it should in time be understandable in broad 26:29 principle by everyone. Not just a few scientists... If we find 26:32 the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human 26:35 reason-for then we would know the mind of God" So the ultimate 26:39 triumph of human intellect is to attain to the mind of God. So 26:44 the conclusion then based on fact and reasonable, logical 26:48 thinking the existence of the supernatural is valid 26:51 and makes 26:52 the better sense. Therefore the existence of God rather than the 26:56 nonexistence of God is a vastly credible claim. Go, said 27:00 Socrates, where the argument leads. So if you formed the jury 27:05 here's what I would say: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, here 27:10 laid before you are the points and arguments, the facts and the 27:13 reasons. The weight of evidence is clear and convincing. I rest 27:20 my case. Thank you. 27:25 If you have enjoyed this presentation with Dr. Subodh 27:29 Pandit and wish to watch more of this unique 13 part series for 27:33 free online visit the website, GodFactOrFiction.com. That's 27:39 GodFactOrFiction.com. If you would like to order this 27:43 fascinating series on DVD it is now available from White Horse 27:46 Media... 27:54 Dr. Subodh Pandit has written two eye-opening books entitled 27:58 Come Search With Me: Does God Really Exist? and Come Search 28:02 With Me: The Weight of Evidence which further explore the topics 28:06 of evolution, theism, atheism and religion... |
Revised 2021-08-16