Is It True There Is No Evidence For God, Or Has The Atheist Failed To Understand The Evidence?

According to atheists, empirical evidence is necessary in order to prove the existence of God. What kind of empirical evidence is required? Testable, provable, observable, scientific evidence.

According to the most recent scientific evidence that exists today for our universe, this level of evidence has been attained.

  1. There is no scientific proof anywhere that the universe came into existence, or exists in such a way to permit human life on earth, because of a known natural process. If any atheist denies that this is true, please provide this evidence at the comments section of this article.
  2. The actual provable, observable, testable science for our universe, concludes that fine-tuned constants exist which make life possible. These physical constants are not possible by any naturally occurring process. The premise of anything fine-tuned is that these parameters are known in advance and precisely set in order to achieve an outcome that was known beforehand.
  3. Natural process do not require intelligence to achieve their ends. Fine-tuning of anything requires an intelligent being in order to accomplish the processes required. Our universe exists today with 1,978 physical constants that provide the precise environment necessary for life on earth. Skeptics, please tell me how this is possible by any natural process?
  4. Since the universe can only exist because of these fine-tuned constants and there are no naturally occurring processes that are capable of achieving the great number of constants we observe in our universe, this is scientific, empirical evidence that an intelligent Being set these constants precisely where they are for the purpose of allowing human life on earth to exist.
  5. Those who deny that fine-tuning can only occur by intelligence, assert that other universes are responsible for the fine tuning of our universe. This hypothesis states that in an unlimited number of universes, we would expect that there would be many other universes which could develop with fine-tuned constants.
  6. There is no scientific evidence that there are any other universes, or that we will ever find any other universes other than our own. For this reason, the “other universes” theory is not a viable explanation for the fine-tuning of our universe.
  7. In conclusion, there is scientific, empirical evidence for God in the fine-tuning of the universe and there is no scientific, empirical evidence that impeaches intelligence as the reason for our universe.

According to the Bible, it was the creation of the universe that God asserted as His proof that He exists. David wrote in the 19th Psalm that the universe is speaking to us here on earth, evidence that God exists. Day after day, night after night, the universe proves that God exists and is responsible for the universe in which we live.

The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known. They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world. ~Psalms 19:1-4 (NLT)

Hebrew scholar, Paul of Tarsus in the first century, wrote that the universe is the only evidence that any intelligent person needs to prove to themselves that God exists.

For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. ~Romans 1:20 (NLT)

The demand for empirical evidence for God has been met. Even the most skeptical, critical thinker, can understand this evidence and it has no formal, logical, or scientific defects.

See How Intelligence Created The Universe

See How Different Levels Of Evidentiary Standards Are Met

I invite anyone with the ability to impeach the fine-tuned universe as empirical evidence for God, to write your impeachment at the end of this article as a comment.

 



Categories: Agnostics and Skeptics, Origin of the Universe, Physical Constants, Robert Clifton Robinson, Salvation is a free gift, Salvation through Jesus, Science and the Bible, The age of the Earth, The Miracles of Jesus, We must see our need, What is required for Heaven?

Tags: , ,

4 replies

  1. “1. There is no scientific proof anywhere that the universe came into existence, or exists in such a way to permit human life on earth, because of a known natural process”

    Agreed. So what?

    “2. The actual provable, observable, testable science for our universe, concludes that fine-tuned constants exist which make life possible.”

    Citation needed. I reject the claim that anything is actually fine tuned. How do you know that the universe could have actually been any different than it is? We have a sample size of exactly one, and no way to know if alternates are actually possible.

    “These physical constants are not possible by any naturally occurring process.”

    How do you know this? This just looks like a big, fat, argument from ignorance.

    “3.Fine-tuning of anything requires an intelligent being in order to accomplish the processes required.”

    Again, how do you know this?

    “6. There is no scientific evidence that there are any other universes, or that we will ever find any other universes other than our own.”

    You do understand that the multiverse is a prediction of inflation, and not something that was constructed ad hoc to explain the apparent “fine tuning”?

    “Hebrew scholar, Paul of Tarsus in the first century, wrote that the universe is the only evidence that any intelligent person needs to prove to themselves that God exists.”

    Why should I care what Paul of Tarsus had to say on the matter? Why should I accept his authority on this matter? https://truthseekingatheist.wordpress.com/2019/04/12/romans-120/

    Like

    • As I read you comments, I realized that you don’t know the current science of a fine-tuned universe. This is not a theory, it is a proven, scientific fact.

      The only thing about the fine-tuned universe that is still in question is what cause it to be fine tuned.

      1. It happened by accident.
      2. It was caused on purpose

      Those who examine the actual science, state that no natural process is capable of this, ie. it could not happen by accident. Those who reject the impactions of intelligence as the reason for the fine-tuned universe, rely on a scientifically unproven posit of the multiverse and inflation.

      If you genuinely want to rely upon science and not mysticism, then the multiverse is not science. It exists only as a mathematical calculation, but is not real provable science. The only reason the multiverse was proposed is because of those who don’t like the alternative, the universe was created by an intelligent Being.

      On the other hand, if you understand the science of the fine-tuned universe, then you know that there are at least 1,978 physical constants that are known today that are set precisely to make life possible on earth.

      Change these physical constants by 10^40, and the universe cannot support life on earth today.

      Had these constants not been preset and finely tuned the first time, the present universe would not exist.

      In a natural process, it is not possible to set any specific parameter correctly the first time. Evolution works by millions of misses before a success. In fine-tuning, the present must exist on the first try. We have found 1,978 of the physical constants so far, that are all precisely set.

      Any natural process cannot begin with order, this is a violation of evolutionary theory which states that random processes produced life. The universe began by a massive explosion. Any explosion cannot produce order. Why did the universe begin with extreme order (low entropy) in the midst of an explosion if it occurred naturally?

      in -430th of a second during the commencement of the Big Bang, gravity and electromagnetism were created and perfectly balanced to permit the universe to proceed. There were no physical laws, not time, no space to put matter in, and not matter in existence before the singularity of the Big Bang began.

      At -430th of a second at the commencement of the universe, extreme order emerged, when the universe should have produced only mass chaos.

      In order for human life to exist on earth today, precise events must have taken place at the beginning of the universe and continued throughout its 13.8 billion year history.

      The elements that would make human life possible on earth would have to begin during the beginning of the universe. These elements needed to be in the correct balance.

      Helium and Hydrogen are essential for Human life. They were both created at 3 minutes into the universe’s beginning. This correct balance was determined within a zeptosecond. Accident and happenstance cannot produce this result. These procedures were clearly determined and ordered to exact a specific outcome.

      If helium and hydrogen had been created at 30 seconds into the universe instead of at 3 minutes, the universe would have begun with primarily helium and very little hydrogen. Human life would not exit today.

      Without the proper quantity and balance of helium and hydrogen, no stars would have formed. Without first generation stars, no second generation stars could form. Carbon necessary for human life, came from second generation stars.

      This orderly and precise process of setting the physical constants of the universe so that we human could live on earth, occurred during the entire 13.8 billion year history of the universe.

      I have 1,978 of these physical constants listed at my web site. All are necessary for human life. All of these must be set precisely. Change any of these settings by 10^15 or 10^40, and human being would never exist.

      This is but a mere glimpse into the scientific processes of our fine-tuned universe.

      If you would like further reading, may I suggest a good book for a layperson concerning the physics of the universe and its fine-tuning:

      The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God” by Hugh Ross, Ph.D, Astronomy.

      I wrote an extensive, scientific explanation for the creation of the universe for a layperson, not long ago. Here is a link to that article:

      How God Created The Universe: Science And The Bible In Symmetry

      Like

      • “This is not a theory, it is a proven, scientific fact.”

        Again, can you provide a citation for this, so called, “fact”?

        “Those who examine the actual science, state that no natural process is capable of this, ie. it could not happen by accident.”

        Once again, how does one determine this. It sounds like a giant argument from ignorance.

        “Those who reject the impactions of intelligence as the reason for the fine-tuned universe, rely on a scientifically unproven posit of the multiverse and inflation.”

        No, I don’t. I simply reject the premise that the universe is actually fine tuned. How does one demonstrate that the universe is fine tuned when this is the only universe we have to examine?

        “The only reason the multiverse was proposed is because of those who don’t like the alternative, the universe was created by an intelligent Being.”

        Again, you demonstrate your ignorance of science, just like you do with the theory of evolution. The multiverse is not something that scientists concocted to get out of the universe being created, but rather it’s a prediction made by a reasonably well established theory in science. But I’ve already stated all of this, and you simply reassert your original assertion.

        “Change these physical constants by 10^40, and the universe cannot support life on earth today.”

        Okay, but so what? Are you telling me that life is only possible with the particular values we have in our universe, because that’s far from certain. We have a hard time defining exactly what life is, and you’re telling me that some different universe could have some kind of life?

        You’re the one talking about altering the universe, and that you somehow know exactly what the result of that is, and I cannot possibly even fathom how you actually know any of this.

        “Had these constants not been preset and finely tuned the first time, the present universe would not exist.”

        Pretty much true by definition.

        “In a natural process, it is not possible to set any specific parameter correctly the first time.”

        How do you know that any of these parameters could actually vary? You’re talking about this kind of thing as if there are well known boundaries to these parameters, but we don’t even know how much they’re free to change, or even if they can it all.

        We have a sample size of exactly one universe. Any extrapolating from that is going to come with some massive margins of error.

        “On the other hand, if you understand the science of the fine-tuned universe, then you know that there are at least 1,978 physical constants that are known today that are set precisely to make life possible on earth. “

        I suspect the vast majority of these physical constants are actually not free to vary independently, but are actually dependent on just a few fundamental constants, like the speed of like, and the charge of the electron.

        ” The universe began by a massive explosion.”

        “Our local presentation of the universe began by all of space expanding in every direction” would be more accurate. The Big Bang wasn’t an explosion, it was the start of an event which continues today.

        “Any explosion cannot produce order.”

        Then I guess it’s a good thing that the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion.

        “In order for human life to exist on earth today, precise events must have taken place at the beginning of the universe and continued throughout its 13.8 billion year history.”

        Sure, but so what. Change the past and you may change the present. Nothing terribly surprising here. You’re acting as if this particular outcome is special, when we have no reason to believe that it is.

        Your incredulity doesn’t fill me with any confidence.

        Like

      • “This is not a theory, it is a proven, scientific fact.”
        Again, can you provide a citation for this, so called, “fact”?

        I would point you to my scholarly articles at my site but it seems that you don’t believe me. Your next avenue of education would be to educate yourself. I am afraid that this is your responsibility. So far it seems as though you care not for education in these matters, as I have repeated the same precepts to you many times and you come back with the same arguments.

        “Those who examine the actual science, state that no natural process is capable of this, ie. it could not happen by accident.”
        Once again, how does one determine this. It sounds like a giant argument from ignorance.

        The only reason that you are able to make this statement is due to ignorance on your part, not mine. The fine tuned universe is known science, even wikipedia, who is otherwise not a reliable source, has a decent article on the fine-tuning, and explains this as scientific fact with the alternative explanations of the multiverse or alien technology.

        If you don’t believe me or will not read my two books on the intelligence of the universe, read a third party like Ross, whom I gave you the link to. Did you visit this link and try to gain some education? It think not. So far, it appears to me that you are comfortable in your atheism and have no desire to consider God. You say that you are open to facts, but when facts are presented you refuse to move. This is very common amongst atheists. They say they are on an intellectual quest, but in reality, they think that they are right and those who believe in God are imbeciles.

        I have yet to see any honest effort on your part to educate yourself about the science of the universe. Your statements are in error and you seem to rely upon what other atheists have written, rather than an honest effort to conduct your own research.

        I know that you have an advanced education. Why don’t you take the part of an advocate for God and seek to prove He does exist, instead as an adversary and oppose every evidence that exists.

        Strictly on the existence of the universe itself, there is reasonable evidence for God. To this present date, no science can prove our universe came into existence on its own. This is a fact. You seem to think that because a scientists who also does not believe God exists, says that other universes could create ours, without providing any scientific evidence, that this is sufficient to keep you an atheist.

        “Those who reject the impactions of intelligence as the reason for the fine-tuned universe, rely on a scientifically unproven posit of the multiverse and inflation.”
        No, I don’t. I simply reject the premise that the universe is actually fine tuned. How does one demonstrate that the universe is fine tuned when this is the only universe we have to examine?

        If you reject the fact that the universe is fine-tuned, you are ignoring the known science I choose facts over hyperbole.

        “The only reason the multiverse was proposed is because of those who don’t like the alternative, the universe was created by an intelligent Being.”
        Again, you demonstrate your ignorance of science, just like you do with the theory of evolution. The multiverse is not something that scientists concocted to get out of the universe being created, but rather it’s a prediction made by a reasonably well established theory in science. But I’ve already stated all of this, and you simply reassert your original assertion.

        How can telling you what the science of the universe is, and writing about the evidence to prove this in over 2,200 articles, and 31 books, be ignorance of science? You act as if I made it all up. All that I have told you is all that is known by science. You are not rejecting me, you are rejecting the known science. In spite of this, you continually deny the universe is fine tuned.

        Please provide me evidence that impeaches a fine-tuned universe, other than the unprovable conjecture of other universes.

        “Change these physical constants by 10^40, and the universe cannot support life on earth today.”
        Okay, but so what? Are you telling me that life is only possible with the particular values we have in our universe, because that’s far from certain. We have a hard time defining exactly what life is, and you’re telling me that some different universe could have some kind of life?
        You’re the one talking about altering the universe, and that you somehow know exactly what the result of that is, and I cannot possibly even fathom how you actually know any of this.

        Yes, human life on earth, or any advanced life on any other planet, is only possible because of these fine tuned constants. Change their precise balance and we destroy the universe and its ability to permit advanced life.

        This premise is so well known today that many scientists have now stated that based on the the manner in which our universe exists with fine tuned constants, it is highly unlikely that life could exist on any other planet.

        “Had these constants not been preset and finely tuned the first time, the present universe would not exist.”
        Pretty much true by definition.
        “In a natural process, it is not possible to set any specific parameter correctly the first time.”
        How do you know that any of these parameters could actually vary? You’re talking about this kind of thing as if there are well known boundaries to these parameters, but we don’t even know how much they’re free to change, or even if they can it all.
        We have a sample size of exactly one universe. Any extrapolating from that is going to come with some massive margins of error.

        Scientists who understand what fine-tuned constants define, also understand that any change to these fine balances would have caused the universe to not expand as it has, and not be capable of producing first, or second generation stars, producing carbon, from which human beings are composed.

        “On the other hand, if you understand the science of the fine-tuned universe, then you know that there are at least 1,978 physical constants that are known today that are set precisely to make life possible on earth. “
        I suspect the vast majority of these physical constants are actually not free to vary independently, but are actually dependent on just a few fundamental constants, like the speed of like, and the charge of the electron.

        Incorrect. They are interdependent upon each other and must all exist simultaneously in order for human life to exist.

        These constants began with the balance of gravity and electromagnetism, continued with the fine balance between the proton and electron of every atom, and continued with extreme low entropy, proceeding with the entire list of 1,978 other constants that are now know. Change any process during the entire 13.8 billion years, the universe would not have produced stars or planets.

        ” The universe began by a massive explosion.”
        “Our local presentation of the universe began by all of space expanding in every direction” would be more accurate. The Big Bang wasn’t an explosion, it was the start of an event which continues today.

        You demonstrate your lack of knowledge. The universe began at one point and expanded out in one direction (stretched out), not in all directions as with a conventional explosion.

        2,500 years before science knew the universe was stretched out, not expanding in every direction, the Bible had already accurately described this expansion as “stretched out.”

        Jeremiah 10:12 …God stretched out the heavens at His discretion.

        Five writers in the Hebrew scriptures, describes the universe as “stretched out.” Job 9:8, Psalms 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Jeremiah 10:12, 51:15, Zechariah 12:1, Job 37:18

        The Hebrew word, “natah,” literally means, “the stretcher out of them” (the heavens) and implies continual or ongoing stretching.

        This simultaneous and ongoing stretching of the universe is identical to the big bang concept of cosmic expansion. All the physics, laws, constants, and equations of physics were instantly created, designed and finished at the big bang. This is the known science.

        The Biblical description matches exactly, the scientific description.

        “Any explosion cannot produce order.”
        Then I guess it’s a good thing that the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion.

        Let me rephrase this for you. This expansion of energy that began as a near infinitely compact particle of pure energy, could not stretch out in a state of high entropy. This is one of the important attributes of the initial universe that speaks of intelligence. What scientists expected, and what Hawking described, is that the universe should have begun with mass chaos (high entropy), not a very low state of entropy (order). The fact that the initial universe at its expansion was extremely ordered, is great evidence that it was caused to be this way by a transcendent intelligence who was controlling the initial processes. Left to its own natural process, there would not have been order but chaos. Very likely the universe would have collapsed back upon itself before it ever had a chance to continue with inflation and expand space and energy simultaneously.

        Based upon the calculations for the origin of the universe, we should have ended up with a universe in such chaos that no life would have been possible anywhere.

        Dr. Francis Collins, a Geneticist who is a co-discoverer of the Human Genome, 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.”

        Theoretical Physicist, 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.” ⁠

        In the first picosecond (one trillionth of a second) of the universe, the precise balance between gravitational force and the expansion of energy was precisely calibrated within extremely narrow limits—necessary for life to exist on earth billions of 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 reveals a universe drastically different from what actually occurred.

        Stephen Hawking describes the models that scientists have developed for a universe which began under 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.”

        In fact, during the first trillionth of a second, during the initial expansion of gases, there were many essential elements and that were required if life would be possible on the earth.

        This extremely narrow margin that was set at the beginning of the universe makes it impossible that a precise equilibrium could have taken place by any natural or undirected process.

        “In order for human life to exist on earth today, precise events must have taken place at the beginning of the universe and continued throughout its 13.8 billion year history.”
        Sure, but so what. Change the past and you may change the present. Nothing terribly surprising here. You’re acting as if this particular outcome is special, when we have no reason to believe that it is.
        Your incredulity doesn’t fill me with any confidence.

        Well, this is the entire point. Because the universe began in the precise manner that was required for life today on earth, we are here. There is absolutely no chance that these processes could have achieved this by themselves. This is where the intelligence of the universe comes into play. Science proves that even at -430th of a second, when energy and space were created and began to stretch out, the most basic and fundamental essential constants, gravity and electromagnetism, essentially knew knew where they must be set in order for the universe to proceed. There is no natural process that is capable of achieving this precise balance, or could possess foreknowledge.

        We see this same principle repeated during the entire 13.8 billions years of the universe. Specific setting of physical constants, necessary for life, none of which could set themselves at these precise parameters, unless they had help.

        How and when these constants must be set, must have been known before the universe began. This requires a mind of infinite intelligence that understood what a movement of these constants in either direction would cause. In every physical constant, were they moved in either direction by as little as 10^40, they would not have worked. Someone knew this and set them this way. The universe could not achieve this itself without help.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.