RESPONDblog: Why is there Something Rather than Nothing?

gervais

I found this discussion on prime time US TV to be pretty fascinating! I’m always pleased to see when discussion about God comes out of the private places and into the public square where it belongs.

Ricky’s a sharp and witty comedian…and I do enjoy his irreverent humor. But I honestly find his atheism troubling. Not because I find his arguments compelling…its just the way he immediately seems closed to the idea of God.

I thought Colbert asked a great question out of the gate on his show…and he let Ricky off very lightly by allowing him to sidestep his good question.

 

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Why does the universe exist at all? Why are we here?

 

Ricky’s response was,

“That makes no sense at all…surely the bigger question is not why, but how?”

 

Interesting.

 

First – Ricky’s saying first that the question makes no sense. Sure it does. The sentence conforms to the laws of English grammar and syntax. But that’s not what he means. What he means is that naturalism and his materialistic worldview has no good answer to the question “why”. And so rather than admit that, he moves the discussion to “how”. Interesting sleight of hand. But it seems to me that it would have been more honest to admit that he has no answer to the question “why”.

 

Second – he says that the bigger question is not why, but how. Of course…Ricky thinks he’s on solid ground now about the “how” because…well…science. He can engage on that topic because of the great work in cosmology, biology, etc. But is he right? Is “how” a bigger question? I personally don’t think so.

  • Human beings have been asking “why” for millennia. It’s the oldest philosophical question. And I’ve experienced the “why” question many times in my discussions with atheists to this day. “Why” always matters to people – whether you have an answer or not.
  • Why do we exist? That is MASSIVE. I think its short sighted to skip that one because it feeds directly into our own purpose in life. Are you saying you don’t care about that?

 

Personally – I’m of the opinion that BOTH the “why” AND the “how” are important questions. And rather than dodge them…we need to work on them. Maybe we don’t have all the answers yet – which is why we are working on them. David Robertson makes an interesting point,

“Don’t be so dismissive of the very questions that make us human.   Humans are the only animal who ask the why question.  Please don’t dehumanise us.”[1]

Too right – you are worth more than that, Ricky.

 

I also love the part in the interview when Ricky says,

“Can you prove there is a God? You say no. So I don’t believe you.”

I’ve hit this so many times myself. And it’s like…we are stuck together in this odd discussion on proof for God…with the definition of the word “prove” getting tougher and tougher by the second. Yet there are so many things in life that we naturally accept, even though there is no empirical, cast iron proof of them.

  • I have a mind as I am writing this. You are reading this and you are using your mind. You have no empirical proof of my mind. You just choose to accept it. The same for me with yours.
  • What’s more…can we prove we are not plugged into the Matrix as we read and write? No. And neither can I.
  • Can you prove there is a God? No – because someone always pushes the definition of “prove” that bit higher each time.

BUT – is there EVIDENCE for God. Now – that’s a whole different question. Of course there is evidence that points towards the existence of God. For example…

https://respondblogs.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/does-human-reason-point-toward-gods-existence-or-gods-absence/

https://respondblogs.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/respondblog-doesnt-order-in-nature-provide-circumstantial-evidence-for-god/

 

And yet…again as Robertson points out about Ricky,

“you have already pre-determined that there can be no such evidence and therefore you automatically dismiss or explain away any such evidence.”[2]

Isn’t that the truth. We come back to what is permitted or allowed by the atheist belief system. Robertson engages with many more of Ricky’s points during this brief exchange…it worth taking a read of his blog.

[1] Ricky Gervais v Stephen Colbert – The Real Answers – An Open Letter, https://theweeflea.com/2017/02/03/ricky-gervais-v-stephen-colbert-the-real-answers-an-open-letter/, accessed 13th Feb 2017.

[2] Ibid.

Advertisements

Published by

stuartgrayuk

I live in the UK, I'm married to Janet and I'm passionate about proposing a case for the historic Christian faith. You can find me on Twitter at @stuhgray.

9 thoughts on “RESPONDblog: Why is there Something Rather than Nothing?”

  1. ‘What’s more…can we prove we are not plugged into the Matrix as we read and write? No. And neither can I.’ Which is why I choose not to worship the Matrix, there isn’t enough evidence to jump to such worship, the same for God.

    My question to you is, why do two people have to spend the time debating a God that is capable of anything? What do people jump to Gods aid so fast?

    1. So – you’re saying that reasoning about Gods existence is “jumping to Gods aid”? Why do you think that? Seems to me to be a perfectly natural discussion to have Sam.

      If your real question is – why hasn’t God DONE anything to prove he’s there – then I would have to simply disagree and point to two things – the history of the Christian faith – and the activity of the Christian church today – to support my disagreement.

      1. I personally do not see how two people reasoning about the existence of a God capable of anything doesn’t tarnish Gods reputation? Your two points, being the history of Christian faith and the Christian church today, display the efforts humans go to support or worship a God. None of which had any input by God whatsoever. You could give Islam the exact same credit, no?

      2. My question is – why is there something rather than nothing? Investigating that question is never a waste of time, in my experience.

        Frankly – feel free to look where you like if you are willing to consider this important question Sam. But – can I suggest that it’s worthwhile to check the claims of Christianity first? Before you spring for Islam…

      3. I feel if God existed it wouldn’t be ‘claimed’… It would simply be unchallenged. In the same way we don’t question whether Tom Cruise or David Beckham exists, we are confident enough. How are these people, no different from the two of us, able to convince us so much of their existence compared to a God that has capabilities much greater?

      4. He isn’t giving space, he isn’t there to convince us. This is why I am listening to you take his side, because he isn’t there to do it himself. There have been wars for thousands of years due to the absence of a God billions have been convinced exists, that to me is pretty outrageous!

  2. so sad…science and The bible go hand in hand…and um I don’t think they had a Bible back before and after Jesus walked among us. I pray God will show himself to him

  3. “If your real question is – why hasn’t God DONE anything to prove he’s there – then I would have to simply disagree and point to two things – the history of the Christian faith – and the activity of the Christian church today – to support my disagreement”.

    Interesting logic, Stuart. So the following also makes sense:

    If your real question is – why hasn’t The Eighth Dynamic DONE anything to prove he’s there – then I would have to simply disagree and point to two things – the history of Scientology – and the activity of the Church of Scientology today – to support my disagreement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s