What can hydrogen do?

/Content/files/Articles/QOTM-WhatCanHydrogen.jpgI’ll need you to bear with me on this one.  No, we’re not going to get overly technical.  In fact, we’re not going to get technical at all.  Instead, we’re going to get a bit silly.  Not out of any kind of disrespect, but rather simply as a result of taking something to its logical conclusion.

Proverbs 26:4 (NASB) admonishes us to “not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him.” The very next verse, however, says, “Answer a fool as his folly deserves, that he not be wise in his own eyes.”

Even though these may seem like contradictory statements, here’s what’s going on.  The first verse (v 4) says that when our opponent uses foolish arguments, we should not respond by using foolish arguments of our own, or we won’t be any better than them.  The next verse (v 5) advises us to use the skeptic’s own logic to reveal just how irrational their argument is. We’re going to put verse 5 into practice with this month’s question.

The Big Bang is alleged to have initially produced mainly hydrogen and helium.  The rest, as they say, is history.  According to Smithsonian Magazine,

“Hydrogen is a light, odorless gas, which, given enough time, turns into people.” [Phenomena, Comment & Notes, Smithsonian Magazine, December, 1995]

Along these same lines, British astronomer Edward R. Harrison is attributed as saying,

"Given enough time, hydrogen starts to wonder where it came from, and where it is going."

Although I obviously don’t accept this to be true for many, many reasons, both scientific and biblical, I am going to assume for the moment that it is an accurate explanation for the existence of everything in the universe.  With that in mind, let’s take this line of reasoning a bit deeper and consider the following:

An atheist would agree that (skipping all of the details) these initial gases, in addition to forming stars, planets and galaxies, also eventually turned into things such as emus, gravel, zinc and African fruit bats. They would further agree the only thing that exists is matter and energy.  There is no God, no spirit, no soul, no supernatural, etc. Everything is merely some combination of particles and energy.  They would also believe that they themselves are nothing more than some combination of particles and energy.

Let’s now focus on a male atheist who is married.  I would say to him, “Your grouping of particles at some point in the past came in close proximity with another specific grouping of particles and it caused a reaction somewhere within your own grouping that was interpreted as a very positive experience.  So much so, that you told those other particles that you loved them and asked that grouping to marry your grouping.”  (Yes, we’re talking about his wife… please hang in there.)  I would then say, “You don’t actually ‘love’ your wife, because ‘love’ doesn’t really exist.  It’s merely a conventional description of certain interactions of particles.”  I would then continue, “You most likely regularly come into close proximity with other groupings of particles that cause a reaction similar to what you experienced with your wife when you initially met her.  Do you pursue an intimate relationship with them as well?  If not, why not? What is it about the way your particles are moving that causes you to not respond the same way as you did with your wife?  It can’t be love or commitment, because everything is just matter and energy and interactions of particles.  If you stay ‘committed’ to your wife because of this, what do you do when her particle interactions cause your particles to move in such a way as to be interpreted very negatively and now you get a more positive experience with other groupings of particles?”

/Content/files/Articles/Atom-Heart-2c.jpgIf the atheist responds by saying it wouldn’t be fair to his wife, or he cares about his children, or anything about how he feels, he is being inconsistent with his own worldview.  Particles don’t “care”.  Particles don’t know anything about right or wrong or what is fair or socially unacceptable.  Allegedly, particles were able to come together to experience sensations, but these sensations have no real meaning.  A smaller portion of our particles (i.e. our brain) somehow “interprets” these sensations, causing our entire grouping to take certain actions.  The atheist should really ask, “What is actually ‘caring’ right now?  How do particles ‘care’?  How did these particles even become ‘aware’ of themselves?  What does it mean to feel bad or guilty?  It’s just particles moving differently than before.”

If there is no God, the previous scenario and line of questioning is very valid.  There would be no ultimate reason why someone might one time act in direct accord with how their particles are interacting and the next time act in direct opposition.  On the other hand, if we are created in the image of God, something such as “love” is real (God is love - 1 John 4:8) and we can experience love, independent of whichever way our ‘particles’ happen to be moving.  We can also have a God-given conscience that helps us differentiate between right and wrong (and acknowledge there really is something such as “right and wrong” or “good and evil”).

All we did in this seemingly strange exercise was to consider the atheists view, assume for the moment it was true and then see how it played out. When taken to its logical conclusion, their worldview makes no sense and leads to self-contradiction.  We need to be “salt & light” and help the skeptic understand the fallaciousness of their philosophy. They have been deceived by the ultimate deceiver, and we have the ultimate truth… Jesus Christ!

As with all of our other articles, much more could be said about this, but if you have any questions related to this month’s article or any other issue, please don’t hesitate to contact us!

Return to Question Of The Month