Wednesday, 8 March 2017

Are You Sure About God? (Part 3)

     To affirm that “God does not exist and cannot exist,” and “the physical universe is all there is, was, or ever will be,” is to make faith claims that cannot be confirmed scientifically. To begin with these presuppositions is to limit oneself to only naturalistic explanations, thus missing out on a wealth of knowledge outside the narrow purview of experimental and observational science. The evidence points beyond the natural world – to the supernatural (outside of and superior to nature). In our search for the knowledge of God, there are certain things we can know simply from observation and inductive reasoning that move us in the direction of faith.

Compelled to look beyond nature …

     When we carefully observe the amazing world around us, reasonable inferences can be drawn. How do we account for its incredible beauty and our innate capacity to appreciate it?1 How do we explain its wondrous design, from the tiniest microscopic organisms to the vast solar systems? We can’t help but marvel at the mystery of life. Unless we’ve missed an elusive piece of evidence, there is no way this colossal “miracle” could have arbitrarily appeared from a void of nothingness. If there is no supernatural, intelligent, creative force (if there is no God), why is there something rather than nothing, and why is it so far beyond our ability to replicate or even explain? The more we learn, the more incomprehensible our universe proves to be from a strictly naturalistic worldview.
     Nobel Prize winning physics professor Steven Weinberg candidly observes, “Today we understand most of these things in terms of physical forces acting under impersonal laws. We don't yet know the most fundamental laws, and we can't work out all the consequences of the laws we do know.” Weinberg goes on to say, “I have to admit that, even when physicists will have gone as far as they can go, when we have a final theory, we will not have a completely satisfying picture of the world, because we will still be left with the question ‘why?’ …. So there seems to be an irreducible mystery that science will not eliminate.”2 In other words, after millions of years of human evolution (so we’re told), with the most brilliant minds and scientific and technological advances, we still don’t have a clue!
     Surely we are compelled to acknowledge there’s more to our universe than meets the eye. Are we willing to look beyond the restrictive confines of humanistic naturalism? Where can we find answers to life’s most fundamental questions? Who are we? Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? How should we live? Within the evolutionary arena of mindless forces governed by nothing and going nowhere, there are no answers.

Seeking a reasonable explanation …

     Seeing that humans are intelligent, purposeful beings, it is only reasonable, maybe even intuitive, to suspect that the primal cause/grand designer of the universe has intelligence and purpose. Since none of us is omniscient, we have to accept the fact that there are a number of things we cannot know unless that information is revealed. Fallible human reasoning will only get us so far. Is it possible that the primal cause/grand designer has provided an explanation that we are incapable of devising or discovering by ourselves?
     The thoughts, the will, and the desires of someone else are unknowable apart from communication. My friend Richard Parr shares this helpful analogy.3
I can use logic to determine that my wife has performed activities around the house. I see the clean kitchen, the made bed, and the wet shower floor …. Yet no amount of applied logic can make me sure of what she is thinking, how she feels, what she wants... unless, that is, she communicates her thoughts and feelings to me …. But then we have moved from logical explanations, to relational experiences. I then know because she made me know, not because I deduced it.
Could it be the same with our Maker? Beyond the limited reach of scientific investigation and our capacity to reason is a relationship – one that is actuated by communication through which God’s existence and purpose are more fully realized.

Has God Communicated?

     The Bible claims to have come from God and to be all-sufficient to meet man’s spiritual needs (2 Tim. 3:14-17). Former district attorney Robert C. Veil comments:
I recognize that critics will object that the Bible’s own claim of inspiration cannot be considered on the ground that “you can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible.” But such an objection would be overruled, for it ignores standard and accepted practice in other proceedings. We routinely allow the accused in criminal cases to speak for himself ... Even in civil cases, where the burden of proof is much lower, we allow the defendant to speak in his own behalf when his character is called into question. If the Bible is to be accorded a fair trial, its own claims of inspiration must be carefully considered along with all other evidence.4

Conclusion:

     Although any religious writing can claim divine derivation, can it be proven? What kind of evidence would substantiate such a lofty claim? Is there any other document or collection of writings (religious or otherwise) comparable to the Bible? We will consider this further in our next post.
--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
     1 For example, even though there is “nothing evolutionarily beneficial about flower-producing plants,” they comprise approximately ninety percent of all plant species today (Himanshu Sharma, “10 Fascinating Mysteries of Life that Science Can’t Explain,” Listverse [10 April 2015],<Link>).
     2 Steven Weinberg, “A Designer Universe?,” Physics & Astronomy Online (2016), <Link>.
     3 Richard Parr, “Big Questions of Life: Is there a God?,” HubPages (23 Oct. 2015), <Link>.
     4 Robert C. Veil, “A Prosecutor Looks at the Bible,” Apologetics Press (2016), <Link>.



Image credit: http://mymomsfridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/contemplation.jpg

Wednesday, 1 March 2017

Are You Sure About God? (Part 2)

     In our previous post <Link>, we briefly noted the three ways of attaining knowledge: (a) personal observation and experience; (b) inferences drawn therefrom (inductive reasoning); and (c) the testimony of others. We then considered the first of these: what can be known about God (or anything else) from observing the world around us? The physical universe is something we can all see and examine, so how is it to be explained? Everything we know by observation and experience leads to the conclusion that the cosmos is real and had a beginning. As we examine the evidence further, what more can we learn?

Here’s what we know from inductive reasoning …

     Everything that comes to be (an effect) must have an adequate cause outside itself and superior to itself. The physical world consists of matter (rocks, dirt, water, etc.) but also complex living organisms. Life is more than materials. Consciousness, thought, rationality, and purpose are not comprised of materials. Lifeless matter does not generate life, unconscious matter does not effect consciousness, nonintelligent matter does not yield intelligence, nonrational matter does not produce rationality, and amoral matter does not create morality.
     Consistent, complex, functional design does not happen by accident. Where there is design, according to all that is known about how the world operates, there must be a designer. Specified complexity is inherent in all known living organisms. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the code of genetic information – the exact hereditary instructions in every life form.1 Even the “simplest” life form, the one-celled amoeba, has as much information in its DNA as 1,000 complete (33-volume) sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica.2 Specified complexity does not result from mindless randomness. Only intelligence produces information, logical arrangement, and deliberate order.
     The universe demonstrates remarkably fine-tuned patterns of activity, including precise and interdependent environmental conditions (known as anthropic constants) essential for supporting life on earth. There are approximately 122 of these constants, including oxygen level, atmospheric transparency, moon-earth gravitational interaction, carbon dioxide level, gravity, water vapor levels, earth’s rotation and axis tilt, et al. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that all of these constants would exist by chance (without purposeful design) for any planet in the universe, concluding that there is one chance in 10138 (1 followed by 138 zeros)!3 In other words, for all practical purposes, it is impossible.

The will to disbelieve …

     While evidence is all around us, how the evidence is interpreted is not always determined by the mind but by the will. No one is neutral; we all have presuppositions. Although many just don’t care, there are many others who have the will either to disbelieve or to believe.
     One morning Andy discovered Scrabble® letters on the kitchen table arranged to spell, “TAKE OUT TRASH – MOM.” He recalled learning in Biology class that life arose spontaneously from nature, so perhaps the cat knocked over the box, causing the letters to just randomly fall into place. He didn’t want to take out the trash, so he attributed the apparent “message” to a freak accident. Going to the beach to find Amanda (a girl he liked), he saw her in the distance walking with Tim. He noticed written in the sand, “Amanda + Tim xx.” He couldn’t imagine that she liked Tim, so he reasoned that maybe the tide or a sand crab was responsible for the unusual markings resembling words. He then noticed Amanda giving Tim a big hug after Tim had pointed to the sky, so Andy looked up and saw “I LUV U” written in white smoke. Just an unusual cloud formation?4

Could there be another explanation?

     What is the alternative to a supernatural, intelligent, purposeful designer? Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking argues for the possibility of an infinite number of universes (the multiverse theory), and given enough time with so many chances at least one life-friendly universe is bound to appear.5 Well, while we’re at it, one could also reason that it’s within the realm of possibility that the apparent “messages” Andy saw resulted from a cat knocking over a box of letters, a crab’s random sand tracks, and a freak cloud formation. This is reminiscent of the scene in the 1994 movie Dumb & Dumber, where Lloyd asks Mary what the chances are of them getting together. She responds, “Not good,” and Lloyd asks, “You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?” Mary replies, “I’d say more like one out of a million.” Then Lloyd says, “So you’re telling me there’s a chance…”  The sad reality is, the odds of Andy’s and Lloyd’s assumptions being true are substantially more favorable than Dr. Hawking’s.

Conclusion

     An effect cannot be greater than its cause. The ultimate source of the universe has to be outside of time, space, matter, and finite energy, capable of creativity and design on a magnitude we mere mortals cannot fathom. Any attempt to comprehend (and to judge!) the supernatural within the restrictive confines of nature is pretentious, unreasonable, and misguided.
     By observing the natural world with no anti-theistic presumptions, we can easily conclude the existence of an original cause/grand designer. Yet within such a limited scope we cannot know much about the original cause/grand designer. In our next post we will continue the investigative journey, introducing the third way of attaining knowledge – testimony.
--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
     1 “The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences” (“What is DNA?” Genetics Home Reference [25 Oct. 2016], <Link>). Can there be information without intelligence?
     2 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watch Maker (New York: Norton, 1996): 116. Each volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica is comprised of roughly 1,000 pages, and an entire set contains approximately 40 million words in nearly 65,700 articles, not counting the index volumes.
     3 Hugh Ross, “Why I Believe in the Miracle of Divine Creation,” in Why I Am a Christian, ed. N. L. Geisler and P. K. Hoffman (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006): 138-41.
     4 Adapted from N. L. Geisler and F. Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (2004): 113-14.
     5 Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books, 2010).

Works Consulted:
     Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004.
     Parr, Richard. “Big Questions of Life: Is there a God?,” HubPages (23 Oct. 2015), <Link>.
     ---. “Big Questions of Life: Relating with God,” HubPages (8 April 2014), <Link>.
     Stokes, Mitch. How to Be an Atheist: Why Many Skeptics Aren’t Skeptical Enough. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016.

*See also John R. Baumbardner and Jeremy D. Lyon, "A Linguistic Argument for God's Existence," JETS 58/4 (2015): 771-86.



Image credit: http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/import/2013/images/2013/02/thinkingfyi.jpg?itok=5DXKOYXW

Wednesday, 22 February 2017

Are You Sure About God? (Part 1)

     The atheist declares, “There is no God!” With just as much passion, the theist affirms, “God is!” The agnostic says, “I don’t know if God is real, but probably not.” Two of these would consider the atheist overly confident, two would claim the theist is delusional, and two would say the agnostic is noncommittal. Either God is, or he is not. There is no middle ground. 
     The problem is, we cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch God. Sensory perception is limited to the physical world, and God, who is outside the material realm, is beyond the reach of our physical senses. How, then, can we know anything about God and whether or not he even exists?

How do we know anything about anything?

     There are basically three ways of attaining knowledge: (a) personal observation and experience; (b) inferences drawn from observation and experience (inductive reasoning); and (c) the testimony of others. For example, how do I know it’s raining? (a) I observe or experience the rain with sensory perception; (b) I infer it’s raining when a soaking wet person enters my office building from outside; and/or (c) someone tells me it’s raining.    
     Now it’s possible that (a) I’m dreaming, and the rain isn’t real; or (b) I misinterpret how the person outside my office building got drenched; or (c) someone lies to me about the rain. Nevertheless, under normal circumstances, most of us are sensible enough to (a) distinguish between dreams and reality; (b) figure out how a person outside an office building gets wet, especially when multiple persons consistently enter the building in the same condition; and (c) discern whether or not someone is telling the truth, particularly when he/she proves to be a reliable source and numerous others give the same report.

It’s not faith versus science …

     The physical universe is something we can all observe, so how is it to be explained? There are four possibilities: (1) it is just an illusion and doesn’t really exist; (2) it spontaneously arose out of nothing; (3) it has always existed; or (4) it was created by a force beyond and superior to itself.
     Atheistic naturalism, as opposed to theistic supernaturalism, begins with impersonal, mindless matter that either came into existence from nothing or is eternal. Life is believed to be a freak accident of nature, governed by nothing and going nowhere. The adamant claim is that outside the natural world, nothing exists. When astronomer Carl Sagan boldly announced, “the Cosmos is all there is or was or ever will be,”1 did anyone notice he was making a faith claim? All of these assertions are based on unprovable presuppositions. None can be verified by scientific experimentation or observation. Each must be taken on faith. If the issue were merely faith versus science, there should be no scientists who believe in God (yet there are!), and there should be no atheists who stake their claims on faith (yet they do!). Atheistic naturalism (or materialism) requires a great deal of faith, beginning with the faith claim that nature is all there is.

Here’s what we know from observation and experience …

     Thermodynamics is the study of matter and energy. The First Law of Thermodynamics affirms that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. While usable energy is regularly converted into unusable energy, the sum total of all energy remains the same. The Second Law affirms that the universe is running out of usable energy and is heading toward disorder. This implies that the universe has not always existed; it had a beginning. Like a mechanical clock running down, there must have been a time in the distant past when everything was new, when all energy was available for use, when the clock was fully wound up.
     In the late 1920s modern cosmology was born at Mount Wilson Observatory when astronomer Edwin Hubble, using the newly constructed 2.5 meter (100-inch) Hooker Telescope, confirmed Albert Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity and proved the universe is expanding as distant galaxies are moving outward. If the universe is expanding, it can be traced in reverse to a single point in time when the expansion began. Atheists call it “the Big Bang,” while theists call it “Creation.”
     Within the natural world as we know it, something does not come from nothing. The physical universe is something. It exists. It’s real. Physical matter does not create itself or simply appear out of nothingness. If we start with impersonal, mindless matter, perhaps a cloud of interstellar gas, or a subatomic particle, or a sea of primordial slime – wait a minute – where did that come from? Rather than offering a reasonable explanation, our anti-theistic friends usually retort, “Okay, so where did God come from?”2
     Excursus: Who or what caused God? If one argues that God is the ultimate cause of the universe, where did God come from? The bottom line is, the evidence points to a source of the natural world beyond nature itself. It was at the beginning of the cosmos that time, space, matter, and finite energy all came into being. The ultimate cause of the physical world is thus outside of time (eternal), outside of space (omnipresent), outside of matter (immaterial), and outside of finite energy (omnipotent). The God of the Bible is beyond time, space, matter, and finite energy, without beginning or end (Eccl. 3:11; Psa. 93:2; Prov. 8:23; Rev. 1:8). The God of the Bible is the infinite, independent, supernatural primal cause of the finite, dependent, natural world (Gen. 1:1).

Conclusion

     We all have access to the same evidence, yet we are reaching different conclusions. How should the evidence be interpreted? Both theists and atheists make faith claims, so which is more reasonable? Science is limited to what can be seen, observed, and tested, and a one-time event that occurred in the distant past is beyond the reach of observational and experimental scientific investigation. In our next post, we will take the next step in our investigative journey and consider what we can know through inductive reasoning as we try to make sense of what we observe.
--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
     1 Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Random House, 1980): 4. In the opening pages of the book, the Associated Press describes the author as “the most brilliant scientist of our times.” Sagan, who co-wrote the PBS television series “Cosmos” with his wife Ann Duryan in 1981, stated: “I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.” Sagan died 20th December 1996 at the age of 62.
     2 Carl Sagan compared the question of the universe’s origin to the question of God’s origin, reasoning that if God is said to be eternal, why couldn’t the cosmos be eternal? <Link>. For an excellent response to this question, see Dr. Kent Hovind’s reply to Reinhold Schlieter, <Link>.

Works Consulted:
     Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004.
     Parr, Richard. “Big Questions of Life: Is there a God?,” HubPages (23 Oct. 2015), <Link>.
     ---. “Big Questions of Life: Relating with God,” HubPages (8 April 2014), <Link>.
     Stokes, Mitch. How to Be an Atheist: Why Many Skeptics Aren’t Skeptical Enough. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016.

Related presentations: Serge Shoemaker, 8 Facts Christians want Atheists to Know


Image credit: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2146764/thumbs/o-OLD-MAN-CONFUSED-570.jpg?6