Physics Prove The Existence of God (On A Razor's Edge)

One of the arguments against theism and fine-tuning is that someone had to win the lottery.  Well, when one talks about the fine-tuning that exists, we are not dealing with lottery odds, but with an impossible scenario for chance creation of life.  Psalm 19:1 states, "The heavens proclaim the glory of God.The skies display his craftsmanship."  The universe being finely tuned can only mean one thing, a tuner exists.  Astrophysicist, Paul Davies says, "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".  Design implies a designer.

Is the Supernatural Real? - Dr. JP Moreland

It appears

In Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker, he makes this startling comment in the preface, "The problem is that of complex design."  Dawkins realizes that design is present and further states, "The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design.  If anyone does not agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up."  Of course, Dawkins would never admit that the complexity of living organisms was designed by God, but what if the argument were developed further for not just the complexity of life, but for all the complex questions of the universe?

• It appears that there are numerous gaps within the fossil record linking a multitude of organisms.
• It appears that at times life did not evolve slowly over time as predicted by Darwin, but, in fact, life appears suddenly (i.e. Cambrian explosion).
• It appears the simple animal cell is incredibly complex, especially the component parts that allow the cell to operate properly.
• It appears that the parts of the cell exhibit irreducible complexity.  In other words, the parts had to all be in place at the same time for the cell to properly function.  It appears the cell parts were not added slowly over time.
• It appears that Darwinian evolution does not have enough time to evolve into the complexity we see today, if life exploded (Cambrian Period) some 600 million years ago.
• It appears mutations will not facilitate Darwin's evolutionary model, given that most mutations are degenerate and do not add new parts.
• It appears that DNA exhibits specified complexity and chance evolution does not suffice as an adequate answer.  The DNA information seems to cry out for an informer or God.
• It appears that the beginning of the universe by way of the Big Bang needs to have a banger or God.
• It appears that nothing pops into existence by chance, because for anything to begin there needs to be a causer or God (i.e. Kalam Cosmological Argument).
• It appears that the universe is fine-tuned for life and would need to have a tuner or God.  
• It appears that objective morals exist meaning an objective moral law giver or God exists.
• It appears that the conscious mind cries out for an ultimate mind or God.
• It appears that science is not able to answer all questions such as why we have 1st person awareness and the laws of logic.  In other words, science cannot  test why certain quantities exist in the universe.
• It appears the best explanation of the empty tomb and the eyewitness accounts of Jesus after his death is the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

It appears that much within the universe cries out for explanation as Dawkins so eloquently stated, the question is, what best explains apparent design and the multitude of questions presented?  In Dawkins world, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it cannot be a duck.

The dangers of apriori thought

The famous atheist, Bertrand Russell was once asked how he would respond to God in the afterlife if God existed? Russell's response was, "Not enough enough evidence, God!" Many in our culture want God to spell everything out in crystal clear terminology, not realizing what they are asking. Even those in the Church take the same view and therefore run into difficulties when trying to reconcile the Bible with science. Concerning the evidence, Jesus said that some individuals would not even consider the most blatant evidence (Luke 16:31).

In Isaiah 55:8, God declares, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways." I'm afraid if God were to unleash all of his knowledge on us, our heads would explode. Humans are the only beings with the ability to ponder and reason. If God exists, then there are some things that will never be known here on earth. For example, we will never know exactly how God created the universe from nothing, and this is also true for science. But, we are a group of beings that desire to know the answers to all of life's questions, and this many times causes us to jump to preconceived ideas.

Science is not immune from preconceived ideas. "Piltdown Man" is just one example of science's rush to judgment. Aspects of naturalistic science today consider some views (such as Darwinian Evolution) as settled law, when it is impossible to test this view in the lab. In other words, parts of science cannot meet its own criteria for what should count as truth, because it cannot be tested. Having the ability to test is one of the central tenants of naturalistic science. Science, however, does have aspects that can show physical truths to how nature operates.

Preconceived ideas also prevail within the interpretation of the Bible. Of course, those who see God's word in one particular way don't believe they are misinterpreting the Bible. All Christians, can agree on the essential doctrines, but rifts develop when the non-essentials are considered. For example, how are individuals to interpret the flood of Noah? Most Christians would see this as a literal story of history, but problems develop when the extent of the flood is discussed. In Genesis 7, the flood is described as covering the entire earth. Many interpret this as being a universal catastrophic flood, when read in English. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and a different interpretation can be rendered. The actual Hebrew for Genesis 7 concerning the entire earth is kol erets, which literally means, "all lands." However, other indications of kol erets as used in the Genesis 7 flood story clearly do not indicate a global event (Genesis 2:13, Genesis 41:57). The point is, the Hebrew has to be viewed in context as opposed to arriving at a preconceived notion by looking only at the English rendition. Besides Scripture, science can be used to verify the validity of Noah's flood. According to science, there is no indication of a universal flood anywhere in the earth's past rock record.

Those who hold a Christian worldview need to do so without preconceived notions. If science is helpful with interpretation, it should be used (Psalm 19:1-2, Romans 1:20). Science, likewise handcuffs itself when it takes an only naturalistic view. If science is interested in truth, then it must not be limited to only naturalism, for there are truth's such as mathematics, logic, and moral laws that can't be explained by testing.

Intelligent design provides a balance between the two extremes of Creationism and Naturalism. Creationism starts with the assumption that God created, where naturalism assumes that any supernaturalism can not be considered. Intelligent Design begins with looking at the scientific evidence to determine if the created order is the product of design. ID is open to the possibility of truth without restrictions on either side. According to ID, all evidence should be considered, whether philosophical or scientific before any conclusion is made. Settling on a preconceived idea is dangerous because truth is not necessarily what one will find.

Perspective

Carl Sagan once stated, " Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." When earth is viewed from deep space, it does appear as an insignificant speck in space (see photo), but is it really? According to Sagan and others, our planet is not special.

Recent findings would dispute Sagan's comment concerning the lonely speck called earth. [1] We now know that so many factors have to be perfect in order for life to even exist. For example, the earth has to have a certain type of star for life. The earth must be the proper distance from the sun for life. The earth must have a certain type of moon. The earth must be in the proper position in the solar system, and in its galaxy. The earth must have a certain type of galaxy. All of these parameters and more must exist in order for life to exist. Scientist continue to discover more and more planets, only confirming just how special our lonely speck is. Thus far, out of the hundreds of planets discovered, not one comes close to the specialness of this planet.[2]

This planet is either the product of an accident or design. The perspective one takes makes a big difference in the type of life one has here on earth. Solomon, once toiled with the question of what meaning exists here on this planet. From Solomon's perspective, life without God is meaningless (Ecc. 12:8). But, for the Christian, life is seen through a totally different len's.

Ravi Zacharias has this to say about perspective, "Under the sun means an existence outside of God where there is no input from outside - a closed system. What else can the secular media do but dabble in weirder concoctions of the senses when their philosophy is bred under the sun? What else can secular education do when its intellect is sold out to a closed system?

But for the Christian, God has spoken. Our theory of pleasure is not born from under the sun but from Him who the psalmist says has 'set (His) glory above the heavens (Psalm 8:1).' and who sent us His Son, whose life has been the benchmark of all that is good."[3] Perspective makes all the difference, even for a lonely speck in the vastness of space.

[1] Article about the special properties of earth.
[2] Two great books that point out the specialness of planet earth: Rare Earth and The Privileged Planet

[3] Zacharias, Ravi, Cries of the Heart, p. 131

At the alter of Darwin

Point 5 of the 'new atheists" according to John Haught is: "All living things are the result of Darwinian evolution." While it is true that evolution takes place (evolution in the sense of change or microevolutionary adaptations), the question really is to what extent? On a Darwinian scale all life has evolved from a single celled organism. Multiple problems exist with Darwin's view. First, how did this first organism appear from non-living material? Second, what evidence exists in the fossil record? Third, How do you add new genetic material? Fourth, How does a cold blooded organism (which is more primitive) develop a warm blooded system by way of small gradual changes? Fifth, what about the Cambrian explosion?1 Sixth, what about irreducible complexity?2 Seventh, what do you do with the appearance of design and the rise of consciousness?

Today, however the theory of evolution is being presented as settled fact. Much of what is being presented by the "new atheists" is nothing more than religious philosophy. Evolutionary changes cannot be denied, but are we talking of macroevolutionary changes where all life springs from a single life form (i.e. tree of evolution) or are the changes merely adaptations (microevolution) within the various phyla of organisms?

1 ( a secular article that addresses the Cambrian explosion)http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html
2 http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/admissions.asp

• Good debate on Darwinism verses Intelligent Design: http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/130