(804) 491-9898 | inquiry@webelieve.me

What is the Truth about God? Part 1: The Proof in Natural Sciences

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the universe is running out of usable energy and trending toward less order. It then follows that there was once greater order than now and that that order had a source. Most scientists agree that at some point there was nothing, until the universe existed or was created as part of the “big bang.” Einstein found that space, time, and matter could not exist unless all three are present. If natural forces didn’t exist before the point of creation then something supernatural must have been the First Cause of the Universe. Logically considered, is it more likely that Something created something out of nothing or that nothing created something out of nothing?

Furthermore, the Universe has a very complex design, indicating that there is a Designer. There are 122 finely tuned Anthropic Constants in the Universe (e.g., the rate of expansion of the universe, Jupiter’s current orbit, the tilt of the earth’s axis, etc.). The failure of any one of these Constants would render life on Earth impossible. Hugh Ross, a noted astrophysicist, calculates the probability that all these Constants could have randomly arisen and co-exist without intelligent intervention to be 1 in 10 x 138. Is it reasonable to believe the Anthropic Constants occurred as a result of random movement?

Also indicating the presence of a Designer is the unimaginably complex design of living organisms. It was a lot easier for Darwin, in his day when the cell was looked upon naïvely as a “simple globule of protoplasm,” to imagine and speculate that random mutation and natural selection might explain the development of life. It is the more recent accumulation of knowledge about the foundational level of life that is exposing the complete inadequacy of Darwin’s theory.

So what are we to logically conclude from general revelations such as the deliberate design of Anthropic Constants, the volume of complex information contained in DNA that permits a precise genetic mapping of all living things, as well as a multitude of other clear signs of ordered design; all of which logically point to an intelligent source? Reason and personal experience tell us that intelligence — or a Creator God — is necessary to produce such information.

It is interesting to note that many of these same skeptics have long considered it prudent to faithfully explore the seemingly empty Universe for intelligent life. For many years, they have streamed an assorted array of messages into space hoping that their signals will elicit response from fellow beings who reside on a distant planet. To date, no such transmissions have been received. But what if one day scientists actually receive the highly anticipated response? Surely they’d begin, at once, to decipher its message, trying to determine if it suggested an intelligence that was attempting to communicate.

They look upon their efforts as sound; but, at the same time, they refuse to recognize the numerous communications we’ve already received from an intelligent Being who exists beyond our realm? Specifically, what are we to logically infer from general revelations such as the deliberate design of Anthropic Constants, the volume of complex information contained in DNA that permits a precise genetic mapping of all living things, as well as a multitude of other clear signs of ordered design; all of which logically point to an intelligent source? What should we conclude from this evidence? Reason and personal experience tell us that intelligence is necessary to produce such information. It should logically appear to you from these facts that belief in a supernatural intelligence is not simply a matter of Faith. It is a matter of applying a reasoned examination to the volumes of general communications He has provided to us.

What Is the Nature of Truth?

First, a word about the nature of Truth itself is appropriate. Note that I will use the capitalized version of the word “Truth” to denote Absolute Truth (i.e., the type of truth that is determined by a force outside our existence which renders it universal, unchanging and transcendent in its scope and application to all peoples in all times) as opposed to subjective truth (i.e., truth that constantly evolves over time, varies among individuals and cultures, and is determined by Man rather than by any force that exists outside the realm of Man).

Simply stated, a proposition, thought, statement or idea is true if it presents an accurate description of reality; that is, the way the real world is. Some in our culture today believe truth can be personal. For them, it’s what makes them feel good or doesn’t offend. Others believe truth is determined by what the majority believe. But can Truth depend upon how you feel or what you personally believe? Of course it can’t. If I’m about to cross the road, believe that there’s no traffic approaching (perhaps because of the time of day); and, based on my belief, consider it unnecessary to look both ways, is my personal perception of truth justified or will reality come crashing into me? In this writing, I will argue that Truth cannot be based upon subjective beliefs.

Recall that reality is the ultimate measure of all truth claims. Truth eludes many because they deem it to be offensive to reality as they perceive it. It should be obvious then that if contrasting perceptions of reality are held by individuals engaged in the search for Truth, no meaningful discussions between them concerning it can occur. Unfortunately, many are so offended by Truth (in the Absolute sense) that they respond to it by maligning the Truth teller. Labels such as “narrow minded”, “arrogant” or “divisive” are frequently applied to those who pronounce the Truth.

But Truth is necessarily “narrow” and it must be discovered; not created. It is the end result of a reasoned process that reduces the credibility of competing assertions to the one that is, in fact, True. Do we label someone narrow minded because he holds to the belief that 2 + 2 = 4? Is a math teacher arrogant because she insists that there’s only one correct answer to a math problem? Are we “insincere” if we point to the error of a person who sincerely (but incorrectly) believes the key to his personal residence will unlock all the homes on a randomly selected residential block? Truth is unaffected by emotions, desires, beliefs or anything other than reality.

Can Absolute Truth Be Known?

Does Absolute Truth exist? I submit that it does and that it is important to understand and embrace it. Why? Quite simply, because life tends to produce tragic consequences for those who cling to false truths; i.e., those that make them feel good or are deemed “correct” by consensus. Eternity is a very long time to endure the consequences of a wrong decision about Truth. Notwithstanding these observations, much of the world today does not believe Absolute Truth exists. How did we arrive at such a place in our culture?

The current waves of materialism, modernism and post-modernism are epistemologically rooted in the 16th and 17th century philosophies of David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Hume posited that truth can only be meaningful if it is verifiable through empirical measurement (materialism). The problem with his assertion is that if we apply Hume’s standard to his own claim, we find that it is not verifiable and, therefore, meaningless. Most secular philosophical claims about the existence of truth are similarly self-contradictory.

Kant went further than Hume and said the only certain truth that can be known about the real world is that there can be no truth known about the real world. You can only know what your limited mind permits you to see and that perception is not always accurate. As a result, he posits, you can’t know if what you observe represents the complete truth. In other words, you can’t truly know the reality of the world in which we live or the spiritual world because your imperfect perception cannot produce knowledge of anything beyond your unreliable human senses. You’re limited to seeing only the phenomena that our greatly flawed perception illuminates. You cannot perceive noumena (i.e., the term Kant used to describe things that exist in any supernatural realm and, therefore, transcend our observational capabilities). If that’s true, how did Kant know (for sure) he even existed? Moreover, if Kant’s assertions that we can’t really know the truth about anything in the real world is true, then how did he know the real world cannot be known? Once again, the argument is defeated by the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Obviously, the foregoing discussion represents too brief a treatment of the voluminous works of Hume and Kant but if you dissect their central thoughts, I think you’ll find their conclusions concerning discovery of Absolute Truth were in error.

I choose to apply Occam’s razor to the question of truth’s existence and believe that Truth can be known simply because we intuitively possess the laws of logic. Such laws seem to be available to us to permit Truth’s discovery. It is important, therefore, for you to acknowledge, as a first step toward achieving an understanding of life, that we can know Absolute Truth. The inability to do so would render useless, any meaningful consideration of the topics you’ve raised. So, if you’ll agree with me that we can know Truth, then we can determine the Truth about God? But to determine if He exists, what level of proof will I need to offer?

In the Law, there are three burdens, or levels, of proof required to establish a fact – by a preponderance (51% likelihood), by clear and convincing evidence (67% likelihood) and beyond a reasonable doubt (90+% likelihood). My earlier citation from the New Testament Book of Hebrews acknowledges that faith can be based on strong evidence. God has given us the free will to choose Him as the Creator. To assist, He provides convincing evidence that satisfies man’s highest evidentiary standard. Any reasonable doubt that remains after we receive such evidence must be satisfied by the faith contemplated in Hebrews. But your competing views of atheism must be held to the same standard.

What Is the Truth About God?

While Kant showed you cannot conclusively establish the existence of God through proof and reason, he also accepted the fact that you cannot disprove His existence employing the same methodology. Therefore, the degree of faith required for me to accept the existence of God is (and I would contend, less than) the measure of faith required of you to accept atheism. After having examined much of the evidence, I have concluded that as the title of the book by Frank Turek and Norm Geisler suggests, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.

Many individuals place a great value on the natural laws of science. So rather than dwell upon the many philosophical arguments, I’ll concentrate on those arguments that are based in the natural sciences. There’s much more evidence than what I’ll be able to provide in this writing, so I urge your further study. In addition to the above websites, a good place to start would be the aforementioned, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.

I begin by noting a sampling of the proofs that are indicated by a study of Causation. Where did we and the Universe come from? On the one hand, proponents of any of the variations of Intelligent Design advance the Cosmological Argument in support of their views – Everything that had a beginning was created and has a creator; the Universe had a beginning; therefore, it owes its existence to the Creator. Many secular scientists, on the other hand, either embrace empirical findings they say prove that the beginning of the Universe was precipitated solely by the unaided action of the laws of nature or they cling to the theory that posits an eternal steady state (i.e., the Cosmos had no beginning, therefore, causation is irrelevant). Given my lack of expertise and this brief space, I can only ride the surface of the evidences which point to God’s direct Hand in Creation.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (specifically stated, “the entropy change of an isolated system can never be negative”) tells us that the universe is running out of usable energy. When a body in motion begins to lose power it becomes less ordered and eventually falls apart. If the Universe is trending toward less order, it necessarily follows that there was once greater order than currently exists and that such order must have had a source. Order does not arise from randomness.

The paragraph that follows this one, points to the infinitesimally small possibility that such order could have resulted from chaos (or randomness), as many secularists suggest. The greater likelihood is a superior intelligence. Additionally, in 1948 three scientists predicted that if the big bang had taken place, the radiating heat produced by it should be detectable. In 1965, two Bell Laboratory scientists discovered this afterglow (the cosmic microwave background or CMB). While this discovery seemingly bolstered the contention of big bang proponents while completely discrediting the “steady state” explanation (i.e., Carl Sagan’s belief that the Cosmos is all that is, all that ever was or all that ever will be), it also proved troubling for the secular big bang advocates because the CMB energy measured proved to be much more uniform than predicted. Moreover, in the late 1920’s, Hubble confirmed that the Universe was expanding from a state of nothingness. As a result of his findings, most secular scientists now affirm that “once upon a time” there was no space, no time and no matter – only nothingness. Einstein findings confirm this by showing that these three co-exist; consequently, none of them could have existed at any time unless they all did.

Because all of secular science concerning creation is based upon replicated observational findings (i.e., scientists weren’t present at the time of creation to observe what happened), secularists must make significant assumptions to support their theories. As we learn more, we are finding many of their more important assumptions are seriously flawed (e.g., see my Carbon14 discussion below). The real problem is that secularists have painted themselves into a corner. They rely upon natural forces to explain their theories and yet they have shown that at one time there was Nothing (defined by Aristotle as what a rock thinks about). A cause cannot follow its effect. If natural forces didn’t exist before the point of creation then something supernatural must have been the First Cause of the Universe. In light of the problems associated with the secular big bang, I often ask my Sunday school students, “Logically considered, is it more likely that Something created something out of nothing or that nothing created something out of nothing?” I pose that question to you.

In addition to the Cosmological Argument, there is proof indicated by a study of the existence of Design (i.e., the Teleological Argument – anything that has a complex design had a designer; the Universe has a very complex design; therefore, the Universe had a Designer). Until I began my study, I didn’t realize there are 122 finely tuned Anthropic Constants in the Universe (e.g., the rate of expansion of the universe, Jupiter’s current orbit, the tilt of the earth’s axis, etc.). The failure of any one of these Constants would render life on Earth impossible. Hugh Ross, a noted astrophysicist, calculates the probability that all these Constants could have randomly arisen and co-exist without intelligent intervention to be 1 in 10138. To give some perspective to the magnitude of this calculation, the number of atoms in the entire universe is generally acknowledged to be 1 in 1070. Is it reasonable to believe the Anthropic Constants occurred as a result of random movement?

Atheists respond to the Cosmological Argument by positing that Christians, quite unintelligently, look upon a particular complexity of life; and, rather than attempting to discover a plausible scientific explanation for it, immediately jump to the conclusion that a supernatural force was involved in producing it. They commonly refer to their objection as the Christian’s “god of the gaps” safety net. If you examine the objection; however, you’ll find it lacks merit. “God of the gaps” is just another example of the commonly used ad hominem defense tactic of applying derogatory labels to proponents of competing views when evolutionary science is unable to address substance.

Actually, Intelligent Design proponents carefully explain how they reach positive conclusions concerning the existence of design from the available physical evidence. For example, they go to great lengths to demonstrate that, notwithstanding Darwinian bias, no non-design explanation based in randomness could have produced such natural occurrences as the intricate molecular machinery and copious genetic information contained in a single cell. You can explore the extensive scientific support that exists for the positions taken by Intelligent Designers at the previously cited, http://www.discovery.org/ and by Creationism at http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj and http://www.answersingenesis.org/ .

Design scientists do not argue from “gaps” at all. They utilize established knowledge of the foundational structures of life to support their views. It was a lot easier for Darwin, in his day when the cell was looked upon naïvely as a “simple globule of protoplasm”, to imagine and speculate that random mutation and natural selection might explain the development of life. It is the more recent accumulation of knowledge about the foundational level of life that is exposing the complete inadequacy of Darwin’s theory. For more on this, read Stephen Meyer’s, Darwin’s Doubt, which explores the very candid misgivings of Charles Darwin that he confessed concerning his own theory.

When evidence of the intricate design of living organisms is added to the physical complexities of space, the teleological premise demands the conclusion that an intelligent designer was involved. Many individuals have a personal faith, predicated upon Neo-Darwinism, that is strong and I acknowledge that I will be unable to adequately challenge this position on that issue in this brief space. I assure you; however, there are many convincing proofs that have been developed by Creation Scientists to discredit Darwin. The previously cited Darwin’s Doubt would be a great starting place. One reviewer of the book, Dr. Mark Menamin, a paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and co-author of The Emergence of Animals noted, “It’s hard for us paleontologists to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably….”

Can an intelligent individual affirm a conviction in Neo-Darwinism (and predicate beliefs determinative of his eternal soul upon it) if he hasn’t fully explored Creationism? If you haven’t critically examined the contrary view then you must have arrived at your belief (as many do) by reliance upon a consensus viewpoint of those you consider authoritative. Is consensus reasoning the manner in which truly intelligent individuals ascertain Truth? Isn’t that really a Blind Faith approach to discovering Truth?

Euclid posited that deductive reasoning is superior to inductive consensus. As noted, I have observed that many atheists seems to predicate, in large part, their belief in evolution. If you are such an individual, I suggest that before you continue to wager your eternal life upon (what an unbiased inquiry will conclude is) a flawed science, you should fully explore the alternative I present. I think you will be hard pressed to satisfactorily discredit the scientific assertions of non-evolutionists or answer the questions they pose pointing to the erroneous assumptions of Darwin’s theory. A good place for an intelligent individual who wants to understand the science behind the ID and Creationist viewpoints are http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and http://www.discovery.org/.

In light of the many evidences, an earnest inquiry will cause you to question why many scientists deny the existence of God or accept evolution as being unquestionably true? (Note: as an aside for my Christian friends, the answer is given by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2: 10-12, “…wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.) To explain, it will be helpful for me to draw upon personal experience. During my brief exposure to trial work, I found some measure of success because in preparing my cases, I looked for legal precedent that was in opposition to my client’s position as well as for case law supportive of my facts. I then worked to satisfy myself that, at trial, I would be able to distinguish the unsupportive cases if raised by opposing counsel. If I didn’t feel I could overcome the contrary position, many times I’d accept the inevitable and discuss favorable settlement options with my client. Many scientists do not approach their work in this open manner. They enter their laboratories firmly anchored in their sacred secular religion of naturalism. In other words, many of the conclusions they reach are predisposed. They only consider findings that support their predilections and ignore or “explain away” all else. They have embraced the “powerful delusion” Paul talks about.

Let me give an example that is specific to the discipline of science. I have studied (to the extent I can understand it, of course) Carbon14 dating. I have found that a material assumption made by the discoverer of this technology ignored empirical findings that didn’t support the conclusion he wanted to reach. To achieve the desired end and uphold his findings, he characterized a significant, unsupportive discrepancy in his data (i.e., the existence of a stabilized relationship between Carbon14 and Carbon12 in the atmosphere) as “scientific error”, even though it clearly was not. His judgment was tainted by an overwhelming desire to prove his hypothesis and he was willing to ignore contrary indications in order to achieve his purpose. As you know, Carbon14 dating is central to the “millions of years” predicate of evolution. So much of natural selection and nature induced big bang theory is based upon this critical flawed assumption.

Hard core skeptics often assert that Christians foolishly rely solely upon fanciful stories from a supposedly sacred book to support their belief in God. Those same skeptics take great pride in the fact that they, by way of contrast, base their belief upon the solid evidence produced by science. They believe faith and reason, as well as, religion and science are opposites and scoff at what they categorize to be the Christian’s unscientific (and, therefore, unreasonable) belief in an invisible Intelligent Designer/Creator whose existence (they say) cannot be empirically shown.

It is interesting to note, however, that many of these same skeptics have long considered it prudent to faithfully explore the seemingly empty Universe for intelligent life. For many years, they have streamed an assorted array of messages into space hoping that their signals will elicit response from fellow beings who reside on a distant planet. To date, no such transmissions have been received. But what if one day scientists actually receive the highly anticipated response? Surely they’d begin, at once, to decipher its message, trying to determine if it suggested an intelligence that was attempting to communicate.

They look upon their efforts as sound; but, at the same time, they refuse to recognize the numerous communications we’ve already received from an intelligent Being who exists beyond our realm? Specifically, what are we to logically infer from general revelations such as the deliberate design of Anthropic Constants, the volume of complex information contained in DNA that permits a precise genetic mapping of all living things, as well as a multitude of other clear signs of ordered design; all of which logically point to an intelligent source? What should we conclude from this evidence? Reason and personal experience tell us that intelligence is necessary to produce such information. It should logically appear to you from these facts that belief in a supernatural intelligence is not simply a matter of Faith. It is a matter of applying a reasoned examination to the volumes of general communications He has provided to us.