"Religion,” asserted the later Christopher Hitchens, “has run out of justifications. Thanks to the
telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important.” How could so perspicacious an intellect swallow the notion that the deeper and deeper science probes nature, even reaching what Czeslaw Milosz called “the lining of the world,” the more and more God is erased from the picture?
I also heard a chemist proclaim that science was going to keep digging into nature, until “millimeter by millimeter” it chipped away at the idea of God.
Now, maybe I’m missing something here, but why the moment some natural phenomenon—no matter how complicated or intricate—is better understood, or some new natural law is accurately described, then, simultaneously, God as Creator is deemed less relevant?
Also, how many layers of reality would science have to peel away until it ousted God from creation altogether? And just what scientists would find that could do the trick, no one has said. That is, unless one accepts British chemist Peter Atkins’ theory about the origins of the universe: “If we are to be honest,” he wrote, “then we have to accept that science will be able to claim complete success only if it achieves what many might think impossible: accounting for the emergence of everything from absolutely nothing. Not almost nothing, not subatomic dust-like speck, but absolutely nothing. Nothing at all. Not even empty space.”
If no eternally existing Creator God made all that was made, what natural force did? The only explanation for creation, other than an eternally existent Creator God who needs no explanation for itself and how He got there, is what Peter Atkins argued for: that everything arose “from absolutely nothing,” not “even empty space.”
After all, like an eternally existing God, “absolutely nothing” doesn’t need an explanation for how it got there because it is nothing, so it’s not even really there to begin with. Hence, either the universe arose from an eternally existing Creator God, such as the one depicted in Scripture, or it came from “absolutely nothing . . . not even empty space.”
Considering these options, a case could be made that the telescope, microscope and even peeling away “millimeter by millimeter” the layers of reality, far from ousting God from creation, makes His existence more obvious than it already was." CliffordGoldstein
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:3
I also heard a chemist proclaim that science was going to keep digging into nature, until “millimeter by millimeter” it chipped away at the idea of God.
Now, maybe I’m missing something here, but why the moment some natural phenomenon—no matter how complicated or intricate—is better understood, or some new natural law is accurately described, then, simultaneously, God as Creator is deemed less relevant?
Also, how many layers of reality would science have to peel away until it ousted God from creation altogether? And just what scientists would find that could do the trick, no one has said. That is, unless one accepts British chemist Peter Atkins’ theory about the origins of the universe: “If we are to be honest,” he wrote, “then we have to accept that science will be able to claim complete success only if it achieves what many might think impossible: accounting for the emergence of everything from absolutely nothing. Not almost nothing, not subatomic dust-like speck, but absolutely nothing. Nothing at all. Not even empty space.”
If no eternally existing Creator God made all that was made, what natural force did? The only explanation for creation, other than an eternally existent Creator God who needs no explanation for itself and how He got there, is what Peter Atkins argued for: that everything arose “from absolutely nothing,” not “even empty space.”
After all, like an eternally existing God, “absolutely nothing” doesn’t need an explanation for how it got there because it is nothing, so it’s not even really there to begin with. Hence, either the universe arose from an eternally existing Creator God, such as the one depicted in Scripture, or it came from “absolutely nothing . . . not even empty space.”
Considering these options, a case could be made that the telescope, microscope and even peeling away “millimeter by millimeter” the layers of reality, far from ousting God from creation, makes His existence more obvious than it already was." CliffordGoldstein
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:3
