Major Incorrect Claims in "The Present" - With Corrections

This post summarizes the main incorrect claims in "The Present" along with brief explanations why each is incorrect.

The list of claims and counterarguments is not exhaustive. It will probably expand with time, so stay tuned! Make sure to follow the Facebook Page for updates and interesting content.

1. “The universe is eternal. The creative forces of the universe themselves are the ultimate intelligence behind everything — the universe/life itself is "God."

The idea that the universe itself is eternal and divine — sometimes called pantheism — sounds appealing because it avoids positing anything beyond nature. However, modern cosmology strongly suggests the universe is not eternal in the past. The widely accepted Big Bang model indicates that space, time, matter, and energy all came into existence a finite time ago.

Strong scientific evidence — such as Second Law of Thermodynamics — suggests that the universe is finite, even irrespective of the Big Bang. Entropy increases over time in a closed system, and the predicted “heat death” is the universe’s eventual state of maximum entropy. If the universe were eternal in the past, it would already have reached that state. Since it has not, the ongoing increase of entropy strongly implies the universe had a beginning and is not infinite in age.

If space and time began, then the cause of the universe cannot itself be part of space and time. In other words, the cause must be beyond the universe, not identical to it.

Even more importantly, calling the universe “God” does not really explain anything — it simply renames the universe. The universe contains impersonal physical laws and forces. But intelligence, by definition, involves intentionality, awareness, and goal-directed reasoning. Gravity and electromagnetism do not make choices or form plans. If the “creative forces” of the universe are impersonal, then they cannot meaningfully be called intelligent. Intelligence is something we know from experience to arise from mind, not from blind physical processes.

So the question becomes: is the ultimate cause of reality better described as impersonal matter-energy, or as a transcendent rational source? The fact that the universe is mathematically ordered, finely structured, and intelligible to human reason fits more naturally with a rational cause than with impersonal chaos.

Simply equating the universe with “God” avoids the deeper question of why anything exists at all — and why it is structured in such a strikingly rational way.

2. “The origin of humans can be explained solely by unguided natural forces.”

It’s important to distinguish between microevolution (small changes within species) and the larger question of whether entirely unguided processes can account for the origin of complex biological information and human consciousness. Evolutionary mechanisms for adaptation are well proven. The deeper question is whether blind processes can generate the vast amounts of specified information found in DNA and the intricate molecular machinery inside cells.

As a matter of fact, origin-of-life research has not demonstrated a plausible unguided pathway from simple chemicals to a functioning cell. The core issue isn’t whether nature changes over time — it clearly does — but whether random mutation and natural selection alone can generate entirely new functional systems and the encoded information required for them.

DNA is a code. Every three "letters" — called a codon — carry a specific instruction. These instructions tell the cell exactly how to assemble amino acids into proteins, which then build and regulate life itself.

This is a sophisticated language with predefined rules. In an average bacterial cell there's an equivalent of 8-10 books of specified, functionally meaningful information.

When you see even a short sentence like: “The code is real.” —you instantly know a mind arranged those letters with intention. No one assumes that letters can assemble themselves into meaningful sentences by chance or by laws of nature. Everywhere we observe information, we trace it back to intelligence.

Humans add another layer of difficulty. Humans possess rational reflection, moral awareness, symbolic language, and abstract reasoning — all of which are beyond biology. If our cognitive faculties are solely the product of survival-driven processes, then they evolved for reproductive success — not necessarily for discovering truth.

The existence of minds capable of mathematics, philosophy, and moral reasoning seems to go beyond what purely unguided material processes would predict. At minimum, the claim that unguided forces are sufficient is far from settled.

3. “Humans are not fundamentally different from animals — just smarter.”

Biologically, humans share much with other animals. But the real question is whether the difference is merely one of degree (smarter brains) or of kind. Humans uniquely engage in abstract mathematics, moral philosophy, long-term scientific theorizing, symbolic art, and complex language with recursive grammar. That's a whole new level/kind of existence.

Human rationality itself points beyond material processes. Logical reasoning depends on recognizing valid inferences — something fundamentally different from chemical reactions in the brain. Chemical events happen; logical inferences are evaluated as true or false. That distinction is crucial. If our thoughts are entirely reducible to physics, then they are determined by prior physical states, not by logical validity. In other words, a materialistic worldview refies reason itself.

There is also the moral dimension. Humans experience moral obligation — not just instinct, but the sense that we ought to act a certain way even when it conflicts with self-interest and chances for survival and reproduction. Animals blindly respond to their environment and always do what's best for their survival and reproduction.

Finally, there's a striking irony in "The Present" suggesting this materialistic wordview while discussing our spiritual nature at the same time. If humans are nothing more than advanced animals, then concepts such as spirituality, heaven, hell, ultimate judgment, and eternal destiny become incoherent. A purely material creature cannot meaningfully face eternal consequences.

Eternal accountability presupposes more than a biological organism; it presupposes a moral and spiritual agent.

4. “Free will is an illusion. We are totally controlled by environment and just respond to it.”

The claim that free will is an illusion — that every thought and action is exhaustively determined by prior physical causes — may initially sound scientific or modern. But when examined closely, it carries deep philosophical problems.

If every belief/opinion we hold is simply the unavoidable result of brain chemistry shaped by genetics and environment, then none of our beliefs are accepted because they are rationally compelling — they are merely caused. That includes the belief in determinism itself. Without a rational basis for any belief or opinion, the concept of rational persuasion collapses.

If we are entirely products of environmental conditioning, then praise, blame, justice, and moral responsibility become illusions. Yet our entire legal and moral framework assumes genuine agency. We don’t treat people as malfunctioning weather systems; we hold them accountable because we think they could have done otherwise.

The existential consequences are even more severe. If no one truly chooses anything, then love is just chemical inevitability, courage is neural programming, and cruelty is unfortunate circuitry. Striving, responsibility, regret, and aspiration are ultimately empty categories. Meaning dissolves into mechanics. In its pure form, determinism gives birth to nihilism.

There is also a striking irony in determinism in "The Present". If a book argues that free will is an illusion — yet tells readers what they must do, how they should behave, or what choices they need to make in order to attain salvation or avoid punishment — it quietly assumes the very freedom it denies.

"The Present" tries to explain this contadiction by claiming that it changes the environment that controls you (referring to your mind), but that doesn't really help. If you can't choose how you react to your environment, there's no "you" and every instruction is futile. Telling someone “you should choose this path” presupposes they genuinely can choose it. If you don't have free will, ending up in heaven or hell is a lottery.

None of this denies that biology and environment influence us — clearly they do. The question is whether they exhaustively determine us. Our lived experience of deliberation — weighing reasons, resisting impulses, choosing long-term goals over short-term desires — strongly suggests we are more than passive responders.

Free will may be constrained, but dismissing it entirely collapses rational discourse and moral responsibility along with it.