COPYRIGHT WARNING

Does God fail the test of provability, or have we simply failed to examine the evidence for His existence?

We cannot think beyond our past experiences or current knowledge. What we are able to understand is determined by what we have been exposed to. If our parents, teachers, or professors were Atheists, it is likely that we will endorse this same conclusion.

Today, there are increasing numbers of people who do not know God and believe that there is no evidence for His existence. They make their conclusions, in large part, because of the words of others who have declared that God cannot be proven by empirical evidence. There are very few individuals who have actually done the necessary research for a Transcendent being and later conclude the He must not exist.

When an individual begins with the goal of discovery and is willing to investigate the available evidence, it is actually quite easy to arrive at a determination that the universe exists by intelligence, not by happenstance.

Scientists today have examined the early beginning of the universe and determined that conditions necessary, during the first pico-seconds of the Big Bang–could not have occurred by accident.

Theoretical Physicists, Stephen Hawking described the impossibility of a universe existing at all, as a supernatural event apart from a naturalistic cause.

“The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications.” [1]

In the first picosecond (one trillionth of a second) of the universe, the precise balance between gravitational force and the expansion of energy were precisely calibrated within extremely narrow limits that were necessary for life to exist on earth, 13 billion years later. The big question is why they were calibrated at all since the models that scientists have developed for how the universe should have expanded, reveal a universe drastically different from what actually occurred.

Stephen Hawking describes the models that scientists have developed for a universe which began under the conditions that were present at the moment of the Big Bang:

“Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.”[2]

In fact, during the first trillionth of a second of the universe, during the initial expansion of gases, there were many essential elements and that were required if life would be possible on the earth, some 14 billion years later. If, for example, the ratio of electromagnetism to gravity was either increased or decreased by 10⁴⁰, we would have the wrong type of stars in the universe that would make life impossible on any planet.[3]

The existence of life, nearly impossible

Before our current knowledge of the singularity known as the “Big Bang,” scientists believed that given enough time and a sufficient number of random mutations, intelligent life—such as human beings—could eventually evolve in many places throughout the universe. In the past 40-50 years, this view has taken a complete reversal. Today, astronomers are stunned by the complexity and delicate balance that is required to make life possible. From the moment that the Big Bang occurred, very specific and precisely defined parameters were required to allow for life to exist here on earth. We must remember that if the age of the universe is proven to be 13.7 billion years and the age of the earth is 4.56 billion years, this defines a tremendous period of time between these two events. In order for conditions to be present on the earth to allow for life—as we observe it today—certain specific conditions must have been present in the earliest stages of the universe. This would require fine tuning of these absolutes more than nine billion years before the earth was formed.

Nature’s Constants:

In the universe there are constants of nature as well as the arbitrary physical qualities which are involved in the formation of life.

As mathematicians calculate the laws of nature as equations, there are certain constants that are preeminent. Of these, gravity is equal to the value of the gravitational constant, multiplied by the masses of at least two other bodies which are attracted to each other. This is divided by the distance between these two objects—squared. The equation of gravity is always constant.[4]

The Laws of Nature which do not change: the force of gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the subatomic weak and strong forces—these remain constant throughout the universe.

The Laws of Nature which are variable, do not affect or change these firm constants that we find present in all known areas of the universe.

Nature’s arbitrary quantities

The laws of nature operate within the fixed laws described above, as well as certain arbitrary quantities. For example, the amount of entropy that was present during the early universe was unexpected and unnaturally low. Scientists who describe the initial conditions of the Big Bang speak of the amount of thermodynamic disorder that was present in those first moments. From this early phase of the universe, the laws of nature took over to determine how the universe would develop. This is extremely important in our understanding the manner in which the universe was formed. If the initial quantities of certain elements had varied even slightly from the moment of the universe’s initial expansion, the laws that would predict their outcome would also be very different.[5]

Fine tuning of the universe

The basis of this premise is found in the fact that certain conditions which allow for life to exist in the universe can only take place when certain universal fundamental physical constants exist within a limited parameter. If any of these fundamental constants are altered—even slightly, life becomes impossible.[6]

Theoretical physicists and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking writes:

“The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. … The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”[7]

The task of the theoretical physicists is to apply the laws of physics to problems which are unsolved. This is accomplished by the use of mathematical equations to determine how these difficulties might be used to explain what is unknown. When these equations are applied to the universe, scientists are stunned in their discovery that the universe exists as clearly as “fine-tuned.”

A universe as vast and complex—yet clearly ordered, balanced, and calibrated to make life possible, must have a source that is infinite and eternal. Scientists know today that life on earth was made possible because of the precise manner in which the universe began. Had it not formed in a specific way, no life would have been possible on earth nearly 13 billion years later. Given the conditions that were present at the beginning of the “Big Bang,” the universe we presently observe would have been impossible apart from an intelligence that directed the specific sequence of events—which would make life a reality many billions of years later. Francis Collins describes the unlikely chance that life would have ever taken place anywhere in the universe:

“The chance that all of these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters that we observe. In sum, our universe is wildly improbable.”[8]

Scientists state that the universe had a beginning

The Bible states: Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Scientists agree that approximately 13.7 billion years ago, the universe began suddenly with great precision. Following this sudden expansion of matter, it took the universe billions of years to congeal the gases that were produced in the original moments of the big bang and form into stars, planets, and galaxies. There is no indication in Genesis 1:1 that God immediately made the heavens, which includes stars and planets. There is certainly room for an interpretation that the formation of the stars and planets took time, a very long time.

God always uses naturally occurring events, over the course of time, to accomplish His will [9]

According to scientists, it took about 100 million years before the first stars began to form. From these stars, gases were thrown off that formed discs and eventually planets. This was also a process that took a very long period of time.

In the beginning (of everything), God created the stars, planets, and galaxies; but the entire formation of all the stars, planets, and galaxies took billions of years. This long process certainly fits the Genesis 1:1 model.

The Multi-verse theory

The premise of the multi-verse was developed specifically to try and refute the reality that a finely tuned universe demands an intelligence who engineered these laws. The fact that the universe is specifically tuned for life—is indisputable. Therefore, in a desperate attempt to refute the uniqueness of certain constants which exist by apparent design—theoretical physicists have resorted to the creation of an entirely new assault on the anthropic principle.

One of the world’s leading quantum theorist, Dr. John Polkinghorne, describes the illusion of the multi-verse:

“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.”[10]

Noted Cosmologist Edward Harrison describes the fine tuning that is a firm reality of the universe as:

“Prima facie evidence of deistic design.”[11]

Co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation that confirmed 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 the reality of a universe designed for life—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.”[12]

In his book “There is a God:” How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind,”[13] 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 it’s existence. The atheist 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.”[14]

• 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 which 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.”[15]

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 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 such time that this moment arrives, the multi-verse 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 at all, because it is impossible to test—which is one of the first rules of science. For this reason the multi-verse is not a serious theorem that should be considered a possible candidate to eliminate the facts at hand—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: “there are no good alternatives.”

Dr. Ellis continues:

“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. ”[16]

“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.”[17]

One of the basic faults of logic in considering the validity of the multi-verse theorem, is found in a point made by Dr. Ellis:

“… 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…”

The premise of locating any other universe which contains all the necessary physical constants required for life—as we find in our universe—fails under a very simple illustration: It is estimated that close to 110 billion human beings have lived upon the earth. Despite the great numbers of genetic replications, not once has anyone observed an exact duplicate of any existing human being. The laws of genetics precludes this possibility. Surpassing the complexity of the human genome, is the universe itself. Can anyone believe that the precise physical constants which exist in this universe—the odds of which are incalculable—could be duplicated a second, third, or countless other times in any other universe, as even a remote possibility? The demands of such a reality require the multi-verse theorem to be defined as impossible—until empirical proof can be offered to prove otherwise.

The existing laws of probability—preclude the rational person from accepting the multi-verse theory. Not to mention the impossibility presently in observing or testing whether other universes actually exist. As scientists are unable to proved the existence of the multi-verse by any empirical evidence, it must be determined that it does not exist. After all, this is the very same criteria that Atheists have used for years in determining the existence of God.

Today, we know that there is empirical evidence for God, as the universe displays conclusive proof that the Cosmos exists by fine tuning, which permits life to exist on the earth. This evidence is conclusive and incontrovertible. The fact that scientists have desperately sought out the unprovable theory of the multi-verse to disqualify God as the source of the universe, is stunning evidence that they have reached the end of the search for God–found Him–yet still deny His existence.

When the Apostle Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus at Athens, he observed an altar to “The Unknown God.”[18] Paul then explained to the people gathered before him, the evidence for the existence of this “One God,” who made all things. After the people examined the facts, they determined that what Paul had told them–must be true. They arrived at their conclusion because of the evidence which they had heard and then examined for themselves. This evidence was both logical and conclusive. If God can be known and if there is empirical evidence for His being by the existence of the universe–we must explore this evidence to its conclusion. To simply draw our own supposition from something that another person has said or written–is unreasonable. We must investigate all the available evidence and make our own conclusions–based on the evidence.  The answer to the question of God’s existence is perhaps the most important that any person could discover. It is a worthwhile endeavor to open up our minds and investigate all of the evidence on both sides of the issue and then determine for ourselves whether God actually can been proven from the evidence.

NOTES:
[1] 1. Collins, Francis S. (2006-07-17). The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (p. 75). Free Press. Kindle Edition.
2. I. G. Barbour, When Science Meets Religion (New York: HarperCollins, 2000).
[2] Stephen Hawking, A Brief History, Page 138.
[3] Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London, J M Dent & Sons
[4] Sir Isaac Newton’s laws of gravity.
[5] Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete guide to the Laws of the Universe. Vintage Books. ISBN 0-09-944068-7
[6] Mark Isaak (ed.) (2005). “CI301: The Anthropic Principle”. Index to Creationist Claims. TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-10-31.
[7] Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 125
[8] Collins, Francis S. (2006-07-17). The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (p. 74). Free Press. Kindle Edition. ”
[9] Abraham was promised a son, but it took a very long time before this promise was completed, nearly 26 years. Jesus did not arrive on the earth as the Messiah until man had already been on the earth for some 4,000 years. Paul was called to preach the gospel, however, he did not begin his work until 17 years later. Jesus promised to return to earth to set up His kingdom–it has been over 2,000 years since that promise was made.
[10] John Polkinghorne, “One World”, London, SPCK, 1986 p. 80.
[11] Edward Harrison, Masks of the Universe, New York, Macmillan, 1985 pp. 252, 263.
[12] A conversation in “Genius Talk” with Denis Brian and Arno Penzias, New York, Plenum, 1995.
[13] 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)
[14] Dr. Anthony Flew, “There is a God:” How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind,” 2004.
[15] Betrand Russell, “A History of Western Philosophy”, 1945, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, ISBN 0-415-32505-6, Page 570.
[16] George F.R. Ellis, “Does the Multiverse Really Exist?,” Scientific American August, 2011
[17] 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
[18] Acts 17:23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.

Categories: Atheists, Agnostics and Skeptics, Empirical Evidence for God, The Existence of God

Tags: Agnostics and Skeptics, Atheists, Does God exist?, Empirical Evidence For God