Are there valid reasons for a person to reject Jesus Christ as a valid person from history. More importantly–is the evidence for God and the claim that Jesus is God–supported by the evidence that is avaialble?
For the person who does not want to believe, there is no amount of evidence that will ever convince this person, nor do I wish to expend time and effort to change the mind of anyone who is firmly against God. There must first be a desire to know God— if He is in fact real, and then an honest and unbiased search to discover all the facts that are available. I have developed a theory that the term “atheism” does not, in most cases, apply to those who think they don’t believe in God. It certainly appears that the basic premise of atheism is not logical. As I have thought about what it means to truly say, “there is no evidence for God,” I was struck by the reality of those words.
The following is my thoughts on the conclusion that there is no evidence for the existence of God:
“The atheistic position that there is ‘no God’ is illogical. In order to know that there is no God, without a doubt, a person would have to examine every piece of evidence that is available. Since no person has ever examined all of the evidence in the world for the existence of God, they really do not know whether or not He exists. Therefore, the most that anyone can honestly say is ‘I don’t know if there is a God.’ A true atheist is someone who has examined all of the available evidence and concluded that ‘there is no proof for God.’ Since no one could possibly examine all of the evidence for God, by definition, being a true atheist is not possible.” —Robert Clifton Robinson
Evidence is not a barrier to a belief in God, sin is.
Human beings are masters at making excuses. We can convincingly provide the most vivid and detailed reasons for why we do things, as well as why we will not or cannot do other things. I have discovered that over the past four decades—after providing the most compelling evidence for the existence of God—about 90 percent of those who claim they do not believe in God for lack of evidence still will not believe, even after compelling facts are staring them in the face.
Jesus said that the reason that men will not come and receive Him as their Savior is because they love their sins more than they love Him.
John 3:19 (Jesus speaking) This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. (NIV)
For this reason, it is really a waste of time to try and convince most people that God exists, by evidence. Until a person reaches a place in their life where they see themselves as a sinner who is in need of a Savior, they will not be willing to change their life or their belief system—at all. I think that debating with atheists over the proof for the existence of God is a futile exercise. They do not want to be convinced, and there is no amount of facts or evidence that will ever convince most people. What is needed is a change of heart; and unless this takes place, the data for God is really not necessary.
There are some people who need evidence to believe.
Of course, we cannot place all people into the same category when it comes to anything in life. People are as different and diverse as their unique fingerprints. Every person is wonderfully distinct from every other person on the earth; and we should take a person for who they are, not for who we imagine them to be. For this reason, I present a reasonable amount of scientific, archeological, historical and scriptural evidence in this book. For the serious searcher, who really wants to believe in God but just has not seen sufficient evidence yet, the proof presented in this book is more than enough for most people to reasonably believe that the existence of God is possible.
I can respect someone who is intellectually honest enough to tell me: “Look, I am comfortable with my life the way it is, and I don’t need God. This is why I chose to not believe that God exists.”
Sir Antony Flew was, for decades, one of the world’s most prolific atheists. He is a perfect example of a stellar scientists who was honest enough to have stated many times during his persistent atheism, that he would “follow the evidence where it leads.” Dr. Flew stunned the world in 2004 by announcing that he was no longer an atheist; he now believed in God. Far from an Evangelical Christian who believed in Jesus as his Savior, Dr. Flew was led to the conclusion that God must exist, by the data that he had personally observed for how the universe was finely tuned to allow for life. There were also many other factors that led to Dr. Flew’s conversion from a staunch believer that God did not exist— to a heartfelt belief that He must exist.
Because you are here, you must also have questions that are yet unanswered.
It is possible that the reason you purchased this book and then opened this particular chapter addressed to the “unbeliever” is because you are either a nonbeliever who is still searching for answers, or you are a believer who is curious what one would say to a person who does not believe in God.
If you are sure that your life is just the way that you want it and you are certain that you don’t need God, then all I can say is that I understand you. I have spent enough years with people, to know that there are many who are really happy living their lives the way that they want to, without feeling guilty about the decisions that they make. If a person can convince himself that there is no God, no life after death—then everything they want to do, whether moral or not, is their own business.
Dostoevsky is alleged to have stated the phrase:
“If there is no God, everything is permitted.”
I can live with the statements of those who do not want to believe in God because they are happy without Him. I see no need to try and debate or convince someone who is comfortable with their life the way that it is. I notice that Jesus did not chase after people and try to compel them to receive His offer of forgiveness and eternal life. When the rich young ruler was unwilling to turn from his sin of covetousness and fully dedicate his life to God, Jesus let him go without a fight. In the same way, Jesus knew that Judas would betray Him, while He tried to love Him so much that Judas would perhaps change his mind and follow Jesus sincerely, in the end, Jesus allowed Judas the freedom to reject Him and go his own way. When Judas stood up and departed all those who were gathered in the room where the Lord was celebrating Passover, Jesus did not pursue Judas to try and change his mind with facts, or by compulsion. The Lord let Judas go and bear the consequences of his own decisions. God respects the choices that we make, though He will seek to change our mind—in the end, He loves us enough to let us go when we want to flee from His presence.
If a person is ready or has a desire to know God, this is the time that we should offer ourselves as a source of encouragement, as well as facts that might help a person make a decision for God.
When Jesus departed Judea and traveled towards Galilee, He told the disciples that He needed to go through Samaria. Unknown to anyone but Jesus, there was going to be a woman at the well, that Jacob had dug some time before—who would come to draw water at noontime. She would wait till all of the other women had come out to draw water early in the morning, while it was still cool, because she was ashamed of the sinful life she was living. Jesus determined to go and meet her because He knew that she was ready to change her life. After just a brief conversation, this dear woman turned from her old life of sin, to Jesus—as she found forgiveness, the lifting of all her guilt, and eternal life.
For these reasons, by the Lord’s example of never using force on anyone, we should determine that we will also never try to pressure a person into receiving Jesus. In doing so, all we accomplish is to irritate people and place ourselves into confrontations that are always unproductive and often painful.
If you are happy with your life, then you should be allowed to continue and live the way you choose. If you choose not to believe in God, then the rest of this chapter is not for you.
The following information is really directed at the person who purchased this book and opened this chapter because something deep in your heart tells you that there might be a God, but thus far you haven’t been convinced. What I hope this book conveys—is sufficient evidence for an intellectual choice to determine that God must exist and Jesus is the Messiah whom He sent into the world.
I begin the journey of discovery with the first chapter called The Moment of Creation. In this chapter, I discuss some of the background information for how the universe came into existence and what scientists state today regarding the Cosmos.
It is my opinion that science and the Bible are in direct alignment regarding creation. The first two verses of Genesis chapter one have been grossly misinterpreted to the point where they have not properly conveyed the true events that God was seeking to communicate to us.
Creation and Science
First, the Bible states that “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” When this occurred, the scriptures do not tell us. Scientists have measured the Cosmic Background Radiation that still exists in the universe from about 379,000 years after the initial expansion of gases and are relatively certain that the universe began about 13.7 billion years ago. This certainly does not, in my opinion, conflict with the first verse of Genesis chapter one. The second verse states that after God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was “without form and void” and water covered the surface of the entire planet. Again, this would not conflict with the scientific view that the earth first came into being about 4.56 billion years ago; and over the course of about 4.5 billion years, it became ready to host life. Beginning at verse three of Genesis one, the six days described, are an account of how God allowed the sun that already existed to be visible on the surface of the earth, and the manner in which He separated the land from the seas and created an atmosphere that could sustain life. Animals were created. Finally, man and woman are created and placed on the earth as stewards over all the creation that existed..
Even amongst my own peers, this view is not widely accepted, although I think that it is certainly credible, reasonable, and fits both the scientific version of creation as well as the account of Genesis. If we just allow the words that God dictated to Moses to be read as they are written, then the creation narrative flows exactly as the scientific narrative flows; and the two are in close harmony. This is what we would expect to find, if the Bible was a true accounting of the actual events which occurred at the beginning of the universe—confirmed by the discovery of scientists—during a time in the history of mankind when technology would allow us to understand what God has done.
In the chapter The Moment of Creation, I put forth three theories for how creation could have appeared after the initial moment that God called the universe into being. I tried to address the greatest objections that young earth creationists have in regards to sin and death being present on the earth before Adam’s sin and death, as well as the existence of fossils and geological factors that demand that the earth is much older than the 7-10,ooo years that young earth creationists insist that it is.
I want to emphasize that I have no desire, as my predecessors have attempted, to try and bring harmony between science and creation. I am not seeking to use the “God of the gaps” theory that many postulate. I did not arrive at my conclusions for the creation of the universe based on the opinions of others, nor any agenda that would try to promote the “gap theory.” The basis of my premise is that the Bible is absolutely clear in describing God creating the universe at a time of great distance from today—which is not specifically revealed in the book of Genesis. When God made the heavens and the earth—is not important to the narrative that He is expressing to us. Our story is about a fall and a redemption and how God worked in the lives of certain people who trusted Him—to make our redemption possible.
It is my opinion that all of the processes necessary from the instantaneous beginning of the universe, through every infinitesimal detail of the expanding universe, was specially designed and controlled by God—for life. Nothing happened by chance, and nothing occurs without a cause. I am not a theistic evolutionist, nor do I believe in natural selection or evolution between species. It is clear that God is responsible for all life as a matter of direct creation and each species was made individually and unique by Him. I do subscribe to the fact that we can observe evolutionary processes of adaptability in certain species.
Evidence as a logical basis for faith in God
I have attempted to ask some of the important questions regarding why the universe exists at all. All of the data from the initial moments of the universe—indicate that a universe unsuited for life would have been the natural result of the forces which were existent at that time. According to astute men and woman who are far more qualified than I to determine the meaning of the data, the physical constants which were present at the beginning of the universe behaved in such an unexpected way that clear evidence of these forces being manipulated to cause a specific outcome—is a relative certainty.
Had any of these constants been altered in those first picoseconds, or had they varied by even 1040 in their precise tuning, the universe would not have been able to sustain life 14 billion years later. There are some subnuclear particles that require only a trillion-trillionth of a second to complete their decay. This gives us an idea how much was occurring in the just the first second of the expansion of the universe.
If, for example, the initial expansion of the universe was slightly smaller, it would have immediately collapsed back upon itself; and no universe would have begun. Had the expansion been just slightly larger, then the dispersal of gases would have been too fast to congeal into galaxies.
There existed an intelligence which ordered these processes from the beginning of the universe and is the cause of all things which exist today.
Mathematical Physicists, Michael Heller said this:
“For any physical process you can always discover a sequence of states such that a preceding state is a cause for a following state which is its effect, and there is always a physical law which describes how this process develops. If you ask about the cause of the universe you’re really asking, what is the cause of physical laws? Then you’re back to Leibniz. He asked, why is there something rather than nothing? My answer is that indeed the universe needs a cause but this cause is unlike any other cause investigated by science because it is the cause of existence itself.”
Most of us understand that any explosion is an unpredictable event. When something explodes, such as occurred in the first moments of the Big Bang, they are not smooth and orderly. There may be slightly more material expanding in one direction, different from the amount of material being dispersed in the opposite direction. We do not see this having occurred in the beginning our universe. At the initial explosion of the Big Bang, the amount of matter was even in all directions. This is the main reason that the universe looks the same from any given point. There is an even distribution of galaxies in every direction in the universe. This even distribution of matter in all directions could not have occurred without help.
Theoretical Physicist Alan Guth at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology put forth the idea in the 80’s, that in the initial moments of the Big Bang (Moment of Creation), the expansion was not uniform or controlled; it could have been quite disorderly. A microsecond later, the entire universe jumped in size by ten trillion trillion (1025). It was then that the entire expansion stopped, and a normal rate of expansion began. This rapid and sudden expansion would have “stretched out” the irregularities of the initial disorderly explosion. Once the rapid expansion ceased and a normal rate of expansion started again, the material of the universe could expand into an orderly and even universe.
What caused the initial sudden expansion, and what force made it cease and stop, only to resume in an orderly fashion?
Guth’s proposal was that antigravity caused the initial sudden and uneven expansion of matter to be quickly diminished and cease. In the universe’s initial inflation, the expansion of gases was far too fast to form galaxies later in the universe. This problem was solved by the force exerted by antigravity suddenly halting the initial rapid expansion. Amazingly, this all happened in 10-32 seconds (a hundred trillion-trillion-trillionth of a second).
One of the most startling discoveries in the search for evidence of God in the universe was made by Mathematician Sir Roger Penrose. Since the Cosmos has a beginning, we understand today that it is winding itself down to a certain future heat death when all the available energy in the universe will be used up in about 10¹⁰⁰ years.
“Try to imagine the phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’–which is to be placed at some point in the phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy – so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics – the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?’ His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power 10¹²³ that is 1 followed by 10¹²³ zeros, a ‘number which it would be impossible to write out n the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”
Dr. Penrose is saying that the likelihood that a vastly different universe would have occurred from the one that we have—was an absolute certainty. Why then do we have a universe that has developed in such a way that it is able to allow for life on earth after over 9 billion years of fine tuning to make this possible? Many people are under the impression when they hear the term “fine tuning,” that we are speaking of the earth or our solar system which was engineered in such a way to make life possible. Not at all. The fine tuning began in the initial moments of the Big Bang (creation) when at −430 (seconds) planck time—electromagnetism, the strong interaction, and the weak interaction were unified as the electronuclear force—while gravity separated from the electronuclear force. If God had not engineered the precise way in which the initial expansion of energy unfolded at the beginning of the universe—no stars, galaxies, or planets would have formed. God was working in the moments of one trillion trillion trillionth of a second to bless our lives 14 billion years into the future. Since He has this capacity to move and work in the trillionth of seconds, it is certain that He is working in all of our lives right now. We can trust Him.
The fine tuning of the universe began in the first moment of the universe.
God Created a Finely-Tuned Universe Perfect for Life.
The rate of expansion for the early universe was just right:
• If the energy expansion in that first second was slightly larger, then the gravitational forces necessary to form stars and planets would not have taken place.
• If the expansion of energy was slightly smaller, the universe would have collapsed back on itself.
• If the initial expansion of energy was greater than the capacity of gravitational forces to pull all of this matter back together and eventually form galaxies and stars, life many billions of years later, would not have been possible. Mathematical physicists have calculated that at the first second of the universe, the expansion of energy and gravitational forces differed by less than 1 part in a million, billion, or 1015.
The amount of weak nuclear force was just right:
• The ratio of protons and neutrons was perfect to allow helium to form that would be needed for the formation of stars later.
The amount of strong nuclear forces was just right:
• This allowed helium to burn precisely slow enough so that elements could form.
The ratio of gravity to electromagnetism are balanced precisely:
• If the ratio between gravity and electromagnetism was increased by only 1 in 1040, only very small stars would have formed.
• If the ratio were decreased by the same amount, only very large stars would have formed.
• In order for life to be possible, there must be both large and small stars present in the universe. Large stars produce the element needed for life, small stars burn a the precise rate required to sustain life on a planet, such as earth.
The gravitational force at the beginning of the universe was perfect:
• If gravity was any stronger at the early formation of the universe, then all stellar matter would bind stronger and stars would use their nuclear fuel at a drastically increased rate, making life impossible on a planet such as earth.
• If gravity was any weaker, matter would not have likely clumped together to form much larger structures that would later become stars.
The universe has the precise balance of matter and anti-matter:
• Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov who won the Nobel peace prize in 1975, first showed in 1967 that matter and anti-matter in the universe are not evenly balanced. Had they been evenly distributed, the only remaining energy left in the universe would have been photons, making the universe as we know it, impossible.
• Because matter is slightly greater than anti-matter, about 1 part in 1 billion, all of the stars and planets in the universe, as well as all life on earth, can exist.
The precise amount of carbon was formed in stars early in the universe:
• Every human being is made from carbon. This carbon was made in a star that was formed before our solar system came into being.
• Every carbon nucleus contains six protons and six neutrons, and they are made from three nuclei of helium, constructed in a star. Astrophysicists Edwin Salpeter and Fred Hoyle discovered that in this process of forming carbon, only works by a very unique feature; during a mode of resonance with a finely tuned energy.
• If any part of this feature was changed, even minutely, say less than one percent in either direction, then no carbon would exist in the universe to make life possible.
Designed For Life:
The anthropic principle which describes the universe as being possible because certain necessary conditions exist, does not tell us why they exist. As we study how the universe came into being in the first place, the greater questions are centered around understanding how they could have existed in the first place given the natural events that should have taken place. One of the greatest puzzles for scientists is why the universe exists in it’s present form and not one of many other possibilities.
Those who do not subscribe to a transcendent intelligence as being the source of the universe and all life, find it much easier to imagine that fortuity of cosmic proportions caused an infinite number of universes to come into existence by accident, rather than the evident and obvious solution that a master engineer designed just one universe that is fit for life.
To accept an infinite number of universes as fact would be similar to all of the people on the earth acknowledging that every person, plant and animal, every building, house, car and city, suddenly popped into existence all by themselves from nothing. When you awoke this morning and set out upon your day, did you imagine for a minute that all the features and conveniences that exist on the earth are here by accident? Most reasonable people understand that anything of a highly technical nature, came from the concepts of an intelligent being, who placed into the hands of other intelligent being—plans and materials necessary to make such things. Imagine the immenseness of our present universe, the technical nature behind it and power that has operated every moment over the past 14 billion years. Now add an infinite number of universes just like the one we all live in, and the claim that these many additional universes came into existence—self caused, and you have the concept of what the multi-verse explanation is for the question of why is our universe finely tuned for life.
Overwhelming and convincing facts
This gives you an idea how compelling the designed universe reality is for scientists today. The evidence for such a premise is so certain that those who chose to exclude an intelligent, unlimited, and eternal Creator from the equation, add instead a preposterous option that the simultaneous existence of an infinite number of parallel universes which would make anything theoretically possible. This would exclude our finely tuned universe as being unusual. In this far fetched scenario, a universe such as ours would be the natural outcome of an infinite number of universes. If there was an infinite number of universes in existence one would expect at least a few trillion other universes that would also exhibit finely tuned characteristics to make life possible. This is simply a repeat of the original claims of evolution that given enough time, a single cell could replicate itself into a higher life form such as man, and make possible all the present life we find on earth. Since this theory was first proffered to the scientific world, a vast majority have concluded that the reality of such a claim exists only in the mind of the theoretical physicist, not in reality.
A finely tuned universe designed for life
The argument for a finely tuned universe is the most compelling evidence to prove the existence of God, because it demonstrates by science and mathematics that an intelligence is behind the universe. Leading atheist and author of “The God Delusion,” Professor Richard Dawkins admits that a finely tuned universe is a “wholly respectable reason for believing” the universe was created:
“There may be good reasons for believing in a god, and if there are any I would expect them to come from possibly modern physics, from cosmology, from the observation that (as some people claim), that laws and constants of the universe are too finely tuned to be an accident. That would not be a wholly disreputable reason for believing in some form of supernatural deity.”
The reality that the universe exhibits design characteristics which are only possible by intelligence, demands a rational answer. We cannot satisfy science nor the questions of the existence of life by any other answer except that the universe was created. The “God of the gaps” excuse that was used for many years by creationists in explaining certain phenomenon, is not necessary, for God is the solution to all the questions of how and why the Cosmos came into being and exists in the way that we observe it.
At the present time, we understand that these constants and quantities have to be within very narrow limits, to permit life in the universe. When scientists speak of the “fine tuning” of the universe, this is what they are referring to.
You will often hear objections by certain theoretical physicists that the fine tuning of the universe is a myth. In truth, this neutral fine tuning is without controversy in the world of Physics, having many settled foundations for fine tuning already established.
The premise of the multi-verse was developed specifically to try and refute the reality that a finely tuned universe demands an intelligent Creator.
The problem is that the multi-verse is so far outside of the realm of science that it is often referred to as mysticism. It is ironic that what scientists have claimed for decades regarding the possibility of a Created universe as being mysticism, today many noted scientists are seeking to use the very same mysticism themselves to claim the multi-verse.
One of the world’s leading quantum theorist, Dr. John Polkinghorne, describes the chimera of the multi-verse as being:
“Far outside physics, but in the strictest sense, metaphysics. There is no purely scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of universes. By construction these other worlds are unknowable by us. A possible explanation of equal intellectual respectability – and to my mind greater economy and elegance – would be that this one world is the way it is, because it is the creation of the will of a Creator who purposes that it should be so.”
Noted Cosmologist Edward Harrison describes the fine-tuning that is a firm reality of the universe as:
“Prima facie evidence of deistic design.”
Co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation that confirmed that the universe had a beginning about 14 billion years ago, Dr. Arno Penzias, describes the push for the multi-verse as a solution to end a universe designed for life, as a frightening reality that many scientists cannot accept:
“Some people are uncomfortable with the purposefully created world. To come up with things that contradict purpose, they tend to speculate about things they haven’t seen.”
In his book, “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind,” Dr. Antony Flew elaborated on the rather unconvincing way in which most of the world’s atheists try to explain the event referred to as the Big Bang and the compelling evidence of a universe which was finely tuned for intelligent life from the first microseconds of its existence. The atheists today hope to explain away the serious threat of creationists by their premise of the multiverse. Dr. Flew spoke concerning this recent attempt:
“The postulation of multiple universes…is a truly desperate alternative. If the existence of one universe requires an explanation, multiple universes require a much bigger explanation: the problem is increased by the factor of whatever the total number of universes is. It seems a little like the case of the schoolboy whose teacher doesn’t believe his dog ate his homework, so he replaces the first version with the story that a pack of dogs—too many to count—ate his homework.”
• The laws of nature exhibit an incredibly high degree of fine-tuning that is required to produce a life-friendly universe.
• There is currently no acceptable or testable physical explanation for this fine-tuning.
• This unlikely fine-tuning represents astronomically high levels of specified complexity embedded in the laws of nature.
• We can only observe our universe, and no others; therefore, the multi-verse postulation is unreasonable and untestable, given our current abilities to test anything outside the visible universe.
Atheist Philosopher Bertrand Russell described the argument for the existence of God based on our universe that is clearly designed as logical and empirical:
“This argument contends that, on a survey of the known world, we find things which cannot plausibly be explained as the product of blind natural forces, but are much more reasonably to be regarded as evidences of a beneficent purpose. This argument has no formal logical defect; its premises are empirical and its conclusion professes to be reached in accordance with the usual canons of empirical inference. The question whether it is to be accepted or not turns, therefore, not on general metaphysical questions, but on comparatively detailed considerations.”
George Ellis, Ph.D., is a Mathematician and considered one of the world’s leading Cosmologist. Dr. ellis co-authored the famous “Large Scale Structure of Space-Time in 1973 with Stephen Hawking. He has emphatically stated that the entire purpose of those who seek to push forward the idea of the multi-verse universe is to explain away why our observable universe is fine-tuned. In his conclusions, Dr. Ellis said that the multi-verse is not a valid alternative at the current time in Cosmology because it cannot be tested or verified. Until it can be tested and verified, it should not be considered as a valid reason to exclude the fine-tuning of the universe as proof for creation.
The trouble is that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained.
All the parallel universes lie outside our horizon and remain beyond our capacity to see, now or ever, no matter how technology evolves. In fact, they are too far away to have had any influence on our universe whatsoever. That is why none of the claims made by multiverse enthusiasts can be directly substantiated.
Dr. Ellis believes that the attempts at passing the multi-verse theory off as a viable explanation for our finely tuned universe is not a viable theory because it is impossible to test, which is one of the first rules of science. For this reason, the multi-verse is not a theorem that should be considered as a possible candidate to eliminate the fact that our universe has been designed and finely tuned by an intelligent source.
A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things. Steven Weinberg, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind and others contend that an exotic multiverse provides a tidy explanation for this apparent coincidence: if all possible values occur in a large enough collection of universes, then viable ones for life will surely be found somewhere. This reasoning has been applied, in particular, to explaining the density of the dark energy that is speeding up the expansion of the universe today. I agree that the multiverse is a possible valid explanation for the value of this density; arguably, it is the only scientifically based option we have right now. But we have no hope of testing it observationally.
Proponents of the multiverse make one final argument: that there are no good alternatives. As distasteful as scientists might find the proliferation of parallel worlds, if it is the best explanation, we would be driven to accept it; conversely, if we are to give up the multiverse, we need a viable alternative. This exploration of alternatives depends on what kind of explanation we are prepared to accept. Physicists’ hope has always been that the laws of nature are inevitable — that things are the way they are because there is no other way they might have been—but we have been unable to show this is true. Other options exist, too. The universe might be pure happenstance—it just turned out that way. Or things might in some sense be meant to be the way they are—purpose or intent somehow underlies existence. Science cannot determine which is the case, because these are metaphysical issues. ”
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”
Let us suppose that the multi-verse theory could be tested someday, as we develop a stunning new device which allows us to see well past our universe into the edge of space itself; and we do find that there are other parallel universes. Even if we were to find an infinite number of other universes besides our own, this would not negate a creator as the source of all universes. In fact, the complexity and utter impossibility required for the existence of many more universes would, to even a greater degree, demand a single creative source.
Suppose that there is found someday every conceivable type of universe that is possible. Should this be the case, then under the strictest rules of logic, this would allow God to also exist. We should understand, however, that even as evidence for the existence of God continues to increase, even to the point where it has become ludicrous to state that there is no evidence—those who will not accept God as the answer for the existence of the Cosmos will, in the words of one noted Zoologist, never “allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Dr. Richard Lewontin, the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, put it like this:
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
The multi-verse argument cannot possibly diminish the fact that our universe exhibits the clear emblems of design, tuning, and a masterful order. To these facts, no argument can countermand.
Science and Cosmology have grown to a place in their knowledge of the universe where they have looked behind the very gateway to the moment of the universe itself; and standing there is a being not unlike us, who has been waiting there all the time, smiling from ear to ear, asking, “What took you so long?” He knew that eventually, we would find that He is the intelligence behind the design of this masterful universe. If we simply follow the evidence to its conclusion, we must confess that a transcendent being of unimaginable intelligence and power knew that our pursuits for answers would lead us right to Him.
I hope that your own conclusions will also lead you to Him, as you examine all the evidence that great men and women have gazed upon, and confessed that God is the only rational explanation for the universe. An acceptance of this fact will not require you to run out into the street tomorrow morning and scream that you believe in God. You can take your time and explore, in greater detail, all the mysteries of His existence which are found primarily in the Bible. You will be amazed at how much you can learn just from a serious and heartfelt search of the ancient scriptures.
Do atheists ever change their mind?
In 2004, one of the world’s most famous Atheists stunned the world by announcing that he now believed in God and was turning his back on Atheism.
Antony Garrard Newton Flew (February 11, 1923–April 8, 2010) was the predecessor to Professor Richard Dawkins in spreading the Atheists doctrine. An extremely articulate and analytical philosopher, Dr. Flew was most famous for his work related to the philosophy of religion. One of Dr. Flew’s strongest statements was that a person should pursue atheism until empirical evidence for God, proves otherwise.
When the Humanist Manifesto was signed in 2003, Dr. Flew was one of the original signers. Upon his conversion to a belief in God, Dr. Flew stated that he had made a lifelong commitment to “go where the evidence led”; and due to the discoveries in science and cosmology, he now believes in the existence of God.
While at California Polytechnic State University in 2004 with his friend and often—philosophical opponent, Gary Habermas—after a discussion on the resurrection of Jesus, Dr. Flew contacted Gary and began a discussion in which Dr. Flew confessed that he was considering changing his position from atheism to a belief in God. The basis for his change of heart was due to convincing evidence from science for the existence of God.
“My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species … [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.”
In December of 2004, Dr. Flew met once again with his friend Gary Habermas to declare publicly that he was no longer an atheist. What changed the mind of Antony Flew—was evidence.
An interview with Gary Habermas
In an interview with Dr. Gary Habermas, a prolific philosopher and historian from Liberty University who has debated Antony Flew several times, Dr. Flew speaks of his change of mind and what affected him the most in making this decision. Dr. Flew and Dr. Habermas have maintained a close friendship despite their years of disagreement on “the existence of God.” The following excerpts of the original interview that Gary conducted with Dr. Flew follow. To read the entire interview on the Biola University web site, click on this link: Atheists becomes Theist.
Habermas: You very kindly noted that our debates and discussions had influenced your move in the direction of theism. You mentioned that this initial influence contributed in part to your comment that naturalistic efforts have never succeeded in producing “a plausible conjecture as to how any of these complex molecules might have evolved from simple entities.” Then in your recently rewritten introduction to the forthcoming edition of your classic volume “God and Philosophy,” you say that the original version of that book is now obsolete. You mention a number of trends in theistic argumentation that you find convincing, like big bang cosmology, fine tuning and Intelligent Design arguments. Which arguments for God’s existence did you find most persuasive?
Flew: I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries (intelligent Design). I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.
Habermas: So you like arguments such as those that proceed from big bang cosmology and fine tuning arguments?
Habermas: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?
Flew: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.
Habermas: If God is the First Cause, what about omniscience, or omnipotence?
Flew: Well, the First Cause, if there was a First Cause, has very clearly produced everything that is going on. I suppose that does imply creation “in the beginning.”
Habermas: I ask this last question with a smile, Tony. But just think what would happen if one day you were pleasantly disposed toward Christianity and all of a sudden the resurrection of Jesus looked pretty good to you?
Flew: Well, one thing I’ll say in this comparison is that, for goodness sake, Jesus is an enormously attractive charismatic figure, which the Prophet of Islam most emphatically is not.
As a Christian author and teacher of the Bible for nearly four decades, I can’t help but wonder that if Dr. Flew had a few more years on the earth, he could have overcome his final hurdles in accepting Christ as his Savior. The evidence and answers that he was searching for to make this final decision are here in this book and are compelling and sufficient to believe. I personally hope that before his death in 2010, in his final moments here on the earth, that Dr. Antony Flew crossed the final bridge and walked into the arms of Jesus who loved him and all of us, more than His own life.
It certainly appears that the recent compelling pieces of evidence that finally convinced Dr. Flew for the existence of God originated from the points that I make at the beginning of this chapter:
“I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. … I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”
The facts of science and cosmology today demand that the universe had a beginning and that it is not infinite. Since all things that exist owe their existence to a source, it is certain that the source of our universe could not have originated by self-propagation or spontaneous action, apart from an infusion of matter, which did not exist in the first place. The evidence for an intelligent engineer is observed by the presence of laws in both physics and mathematics that also demand an intelligent source. Laws and rules come from a mind; they do not spontaneously generate themselves. Since the physics of the universe are such that these laws exist within finely tuned parameters, it is unquestionable that the source of their existence is transcendent from their existence. Before the moment of creation that science defines as the initial expansion, all of the testable data that exist today require that nothing existed before this singularity.
Let us imagine eternity past when nothing existed. How did a tiny spec of densely compacted material appear in the first place? Why would this spec of matter appear at all after an eternal past of nothing, out of nowhere, and at that precise moment in empty space? Add to this, the apparent fact that this had never happened at any time in eternity past. What could possibly have caused it to happen then, at that place, in these precise ways that are almost infinitely complex?
World’s leading atheist changes his mind because of the evidence.
I will leave you with a second interview between Dr. Antony Flew and Dr. Benjamin Wiker that took place on August 30, 2001. The following are a few of the excerpts from this very interesting exchange.
Wiker: You say in There is a God, that “it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from denial…to discovery.” Everyone else was certainly very surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden. But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual process—a “two decade migration,” as you call it. God was the conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn’t there a point in the “argument” where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that “There is a God” after all? So that, in some sense, you really did “hear a Voice that says” in the evidence itself ” ‘Can you hear me now?'”
Flew: “There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins’ comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a “lucky chance.” If that’s the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.”
Wiker: You are famous for arguing for a presumption of atheism, i.e., as far as arguments for and against the existence of God, the burden of proof lies with the theist. Given that you believe that you only followed the evidence where it led, and it led to theism, it would seem that things have now gone the other way, so that the burden of proof lies with the atheist. He must prove that God doesn’t exist. What are your thoughts on that?
Flew: I note in my book that some philosophers indeed have argued in the past that the burden of proof is on the atheist. I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.
Wiker: As for evidence, you cite a lot of the most recent science, yet you remark that your discovery of the Divine did not come through “experiments and equations,” but rather, “through an understanding of the structures they unveil and map.” Could you explain? Does that mean that the evidence that led you to God is not really, at heart, scientific?
Flew: It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence.
Wiker: You are obviously aware of the spate of recent books by such atheists as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. They think that those who believe in God are behind the times. But you seem to be politely asserting that they are ones who are behind the times, insofar as the latest scientific evidence tends strongly toward—or perhaps even demonstrates—a theistic conclusion. Is that a fair assessment of your position?
Flew: Yes indeed. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data. Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny) and the other an atheist (Nagel), recently pointed out that Dawkins has failed to address three major issues that ground the rational case for God. As it happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me to accept the existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization and the existence of the Universe.
I find that the comments of Dr. Flew are some of the most interesting and compelling for anyone who is seriously considering whether there may be, compelling evidence for the existence of God. For this reason, I presented two interviews so that you might have the opinions of a man who did not believe in God—then changed his mind—based on the evidence.
One hundred percent proof is not possible for anything.
The ardent atheist might say that there is “no proof for the existence of God.” In many cases, the unbeliever might demand that 100 percent proof for the existence of God be presented. It should be considered that there is nothing in the world that can be proven by 100 percent. All that is required to prove anything is that it be demonstrated beyond a reasonable certainty.
Dr. Simon Greenleaf is considered one of the world’s great minds concerning the rules for the laws for evidence. His Treatise on these Rules that allows evidence to be admissible in our courts of Law is still in use today. Dr. Greenleaf defines what the parameters are for evidence to be considered valid.
In determining whether or not there is sufficient evidence for the existence of God, the kind of evidence that is required are matters of fact. The type of empirical evidence, which can be tested and seen, which many atheists demand for proof of God’s existence, that is never required in a court of law in which the life of a person is held in the balance. Dr. Greenleaf states that it is an error to demand evidence by a different set of rules than is required in every other instance of human life, where evidence is required.
“In proceeding to weigh the evidence of any proposition of fact, the previous question to be determined is, when may it be said to be proved? The answer to this question is furnished by another rule of municipal law, which may be thus stated: A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. By competent evidence is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt. The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal test to which they can be subjected is their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a man of common prudence and discretion, and so to convince him, that he could venture to act upon that conviction in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest.”
The amount and type of evidence required to prove anything is defined by whether it is reasonable enough to create doubt that it is not true.
On this basis alone, the evidence for God’s existence is overwhelming.
In addition to matters of fact—today, scientists also have empirical evidence for the existence of God that is well tested and leaves no doubt for His existence, except in the minds of those who are predisposed to reject Him.
This article presents some of these arguments for the existence of God; the preceding topic originates from the scientific and philosophical viewpoint that the existence of God is reasonable. Secondly and the major point of this book—we can demonstrate, by predictive and fulfilled prophecy, that God exists and that the Bible is the word of God because the scriptures reveal that the author knew about the future events which the Bible predicts, long before they occurred.
Bible Prophecy is a legitimate and verifiable source of evidence.
If it can be demonstrated by 365 separate predictions—all of which were made hundreds of years before their fulfillment—that certain predictions were, in fact, fulfillment precisely as described—this would be compelling evidence for the existence of a supernatural source for the Bible.
John 14:29 I have told you these things before they happen so that you will believe when they do happen. (NLT)
This book is a demonstration that the person called Jesus of Nazareth, fulfilled at least 365 Old Testament prophecies that were made concerning the coming of the Messiah. There is no other document in the history of the world that can make this claim and back it up by the record of fulfilled prophecy, other than the Bible.
If I wrote in advance that on a certain date, certain specific events would take place, you could judge whether or not my words were accurate by simply waiting for that date to arrive and then compare what I wrote with what actually happened.
If you carefully study the 365 prophecies, which are the major subject of this book, while understanding that the body of historical evidence has already been examined and determined that these predictions were written well in advance of their fulfillment, you should logically be moved to consider that the source of this information came from an intelligence outside of time itself. Only a being with advance knowledge of future human events could accurately write with the perfect precision that these 365 prophecies exhibit.
It is logical, that if there is an intelligence who possesses advanced knowledge of future events, and these occurrences are predicted and fulfilled in the chronicle of the Bible—this would define the compilation of these 66 separate books as a single integrated message system, designed to reveal the identity of this intelligence as—God.
I hope that your life is filled with new discoveries that enhance and surround you with great joy and fulfillment. For in discovering that there is a magnificent Creator who loves you and cares deeply for you and your life, you would find Him as the reason for your existence and the very purpose of life itself.
 John 4:3 He left Judea and departed again to Galilee. 4 But He needed to go through Samaria.5 So He came to a city of Samaria which is called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.6 Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied from His journey, sat thus by the well. It was about the sixth hour. 7 A woman of Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give Me a drink.”
 Q and A with Michael Heller, on March 12, 2008 by Amanda Gefter, at New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13454-qa-2008-templeton-prize-winner.html?full=true
 “The Inflationary Universe: the quest for a new Theory of Cosmic Origins, New York, Perseus Publishing, 1998
 Particle emission rates from a black hole: Massless particles from an uncharged, nonrotating hole, Don N. Page, Physical Review D 13 (1976), pp. 198–206. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.13.198. See in particular equation (27).
 1. The Emperor’s New Mind, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989 p. 344.
2. Lennox, John (2011-02-18). God’s Undertaker (p. 71). Lion Hudson. Kindle Edition.
 Allday, Jonathan (2001). Quarks, Leptons and the Big Bang. Institute of Physics Publishing. ISBN 0-7503-0806-0
 Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London, J M Dent & Sons
 Davies, Paul. Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life. Great Britain: The Penguin Press, 2006.
 1. Hoyle, Fred. “The Universe: Some Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science (1981): 12.
2. Polkinghorne, John. “The Anthropic Principle and the Science and Religion Debate (PDF).” Faraday Papers, no. 4 (2007).
 Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London, J M Dent & Sons
 1. Hoyle, Fred. “The Universe: Some Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science (1981): 12.
2. Polkinghorne, John. “The Anthropic Principle and the Science and Religion Debate (PDF).” Faraday Papers, no. 4 (2007).
 The birth of the field of baryogene- sis and the idea that the matter excess could be explained by micro- scopic physics came in 1967. In that year Andrei Sakharov listed three conditions necessary for an explanation of the baryon asymmetry. In so doing, he laid the foundation for all future attempts to explain the mat- ter excess of the Universe. Sakharov pointed out that in or- der to produce a baryon excess where none existed before there first must be processes that change the bary- on number. Such baryon-number- violating processes have not yet been observed. Second, the laws of nature must be biased so that a matter excess results and not an antimatter excess. Third, and less obvious, the baryon-number-violating processes must be out of thermal equilibrium. Otherwise, in equilibrium, these processes would even the amounts of baryons and antibaryons and nullify the baryon number. Providing these three ingredients—baryon- number violation, matter-biased laws, and thermal nonequilibrium— is the starting point for any attempt to explain the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the Universe. Source: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/26/1/26-1-sather.pdf
 Hoyle, Fred. “The Universe: Some Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science (1981): 12.
 The Fabric of Reality, David DeutschLondon, Penguin, 1997.
 Richard Dawkins on the announcement that Antony Flew now believes in God. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEPUn__hYso
 John Polkinghorne, “One World”, London, SPCK, 1986 p. 80.
 Edward Harrison, Masks of the Universe, New York, Macmillan, 1985 pp. 252, 263.
 A conversation in “Genius Talk” with Denis Brian and Arno Penzias, New York, Plenum, 1995.
 There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007) with Roy Abraham Varghese (ISBN 978-0-06-133529-7)
 Dr. Anthony Flew, “There is a God:” How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind,” 2004.
 Betrand Russell, “A History of Western Philosophy”, 1945, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, ISBN 0-415-32505-6, Page 570.
 George F.R. Ellis, “Does the Multiverse Really Exist?,” Scientific American August, 2011
 George Ellis (British astrophysicist) Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30
 Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28
 Richard Dawkins on the announcement that Antony Flew now believes in God. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEPUn__hYso
 Humanism and Its Aspirations. American Humanist Association.
 My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: an Exclusive Interview with Former British Atheist Professor Antony Flew Gary R. Habermas, Philosophia Christi Vol. 6, No. 2 (Winter 2004).
 Richard Carrier: Antony Flew Considers God…Sort Of SecWeb, 10 October 2004.
 Biola News & Communications, Atheist Becomes Theist, Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew. http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm
 Letter from Antony Flew, November 9, 2000.
 Antony Flew, “God and the Big Bang” (lecture, 2000), 5–6; this is a lecture commemorating the 140th anniversary of the British Association meeting regarding Charles Darwin’s The Origin of the Species.
 Read the entire interview with Dr. Benjamin Wilker at: http://www.tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm
 Ibid. Locations 278-284 Kindle Edition.