A Counter Argument to Dawkins

In the Epilogue to Lawrence Krauss’s book, A Universe from Nothing, Richard Dawkins says the following:

“…Richard Feynman pointed out that some of the predictions of quantum theory — again based on assumptions that seem more bizarre than anything dreamed up by even the more osbcurantist of theologians — have been verified with such accuracy that they are equivalent to predicting the distance between New York and Los Angeles to within one hairbreadth [while] theology not only lacks decimal places: it lacks even the smallest hint of a connection with the real world.”

And in the Afterword, he says:

“Not only does physics tell us how something could come from nothing, it goes further by Krauss’s account, and shows us that nothingness is unstable: something was almost bound to spring into existence from it…it happens all the time.”

Earlier in his book Krauss – in his ongoing attempt diminish the relevance of God – says:

“A truly open mind means forcing our imaginations to conform to the evidence of reality, and not vice versa, whether or not we like the implications.”

And later:

“Not only did Newton’s laws severely constrain the freedom of action of a deity, they dispensed with various requirements for supernatural intervention.”

My initial response is that it is untrue and impossible that something can come from nothing – especially given their description of “nothing” as unstable. True nothing would be completely stable since there would be nothing there that could be defined as either stable or unstable! There wouldn’t even be a “there” where something could happen. Yet according to the atheistic mantra, nothingness consists of “seething quantum fluctuations.” And because that’s something, we can wonder where these fluctuations come from? The bottom line is that materialists haven’t really addressed the question of how something comes from nothing, while belittling the possibility and relevance of God. They are preaching to the choir and dismiss the fact that orderliness, as defines all matter, requires a mechanism for sustaining order against the constant pull of the Second Law. As noted in other postings, the restraint of the Second Law is logically bound to an image and therefore requires an overseeing (transcendent) observer. And the reason, in a nutshell, is that every image is finite, requiring that its successful anticipation through time minimizes mismatch and therefore a measure of impending disorder while, equivalently, containing a regressive disparity between the anticipated and actual body mass – thereby offsetting the unrelenting effects of the Second Law.

Those who wish to argue with this premise have a monstrous obstacle to surmount – that of explaining the mechanism by which increasing complexity logically arises from something less complex and ultimately, if evolution is true, from nothing – not to mention the difficulty of connecting this logic to the hard problem of science: how qualia become conscious. Only if, exactly as the Bible proclaims, God is the One in whom “we live and move” do we have logical rationale for the explanation of consciousness — which as explained in other essays is fundamentally the relationship between the finite and the infinite, existence and nonexistence in the very image of God. This relationship, not coincidentally, defines the very nature of an image while also describing the limbic modulation of the motor system necessary for creating an image defined as the interface between order and disorder.

Exactly why the brain proves the existence of God, biblically defined, is a little too tricky to explain in this short post. The gist is that infinity and/or God must be encoded within the design of the brain in order to explain the brain’s fundamental cortico-limbic design and the way a regressive tendency in the direction of weightlessness releases and channels energy into the creation of an image — the perception of which narrows an expectancy gap to which infinity is implicit. This narrowing is tantamount to the restraint of the Second Law — effectively proving the need for a transcendent God, exactly as biblically defined.

Dawkins, just for the record, is one of those rare atheists who is not vitriolic toward Christians. He is a gentle and decent man who has become a high priest in the atheistic halls of science – and who is therefore, unwittingly, a pawn of the “god of this age.[1] Incidentally, any of my three books (another on the way) explain how the brain requires a spiritual context and warfare between good and evil, God and Satan — and ultimately between existence and nonexistence. If you don’t think Satan is real, you will after reading one of these books. The easiest read is probably my most recent book: Consciousness Finally Explained:  A Perfect Synthesis of God and Brain. It is accessible through Amazon and other outlets. My other book, with its many philosophical tangents has a total of 778 pages, Journey to the Center of the Brain: Explaining Mind in a Universe of Matter, and is a far more in-depth anatomical study.