Evidence for the Existence of God - Design of the Universe

This week I will continue the series that I began last week in providing arguments for the existence of God. Last week, we discussed the origin of the universe, which, if you missed, can be found here. This week, as the title suggests, we will discuss the teleology or design of the universe. The word teleology means design or purpose, so we will look at those aspects of the universe that show this design or purpose.

So, here is how the Teleological Argument is stated by William Lane Craig:

1. The fine tuning of the universe is due to either to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

What is meant by premise one is that the universe either has to exist in the condition that it is in, there is no other possible condition in which it could have existed, or it is order purely by chance, or it was designed. Premise one is not the disputed premise of this argument as it would require an alternative explanation to those given, and no one really provides such an alternative; therefore, we will focus on premise two.

Since some do dispute whether the universe is truly fine tuned, we will spend some time examining that question. Physicist Paul Davies quotes Fred Hoyle as saying that the universe gave the appearance as if a "superintellect had been 'monkeying' with the laws of physics." Davies concludes, "He might be right in his impression. On the face of it, the universe does look as if it had been designed by an intelligent creator expressly for the purpose of spawning sentient beings."[1]

Davies goes on to look at various laws of physics and asks why the laws work the way that they do. Whether it is gravity, the magnetic force, Boyle's, Kepler's, Newton's or a host of other laws, the question is how we can find these consistent behaviors in the universe. In fact, Davies explains that these laws do not just work independently, but they are also often linked to one another.[2]

Another interesting "coincidence" of the universe is the fact that the positive and negative mass of the universe is nearly equal, "to within 2 percent accuracy of the measurement." Davies tells us that the "observable universe contains 10⁵⁰ tons of visible matter in the form of stars, gas, and dust, all of which combine to create a powerful gravitational field."[3] How they measure this, I am not sure, but the measurement is not disputed. We are then told that a "simple estimate of the gravitational energy binding all the galaxies to one another gives an effective mass for the gravitational field (using E=mc²) of about minus 10⁵⁰ tons, which is roughly equal (and opposite) to the mass of all the stars and other stuff." Davies goes on to explain that this is "yet another one of those "coincidences" that is needed for a life-permitting universe."[4]

Craig adds other data to the mix in quoting Davies he writes that "changes in either a_g [gravitation] or a_w [the weak force] of only one part in 10¹⁰⁰ would have prevented a life-permitting universe." He goes on to say, "Stephen Hawking estimates that a decrease in the expansion rate of even one part in a hundred thousand million million one second after the Big Bang would have resulted in the universe's recollapse long ago; a similar increase would have precluded galaxies' condensing out of the expansion matter."[5] Most fantastic of all the precision of the universe is found in two factors: the cosmological constant, which is fine tuned to one part in 10¹²⁰; and, Roger Penrose has calculated the "odds of the special low entropy condition having arisen sheerly by chance in the absence of any constraining principle" being "at least as small as about one part in 10^10(123) in order for the universe to exist." That is one part in ten to the ten to the 123 power.

Just these two last parameters alone would be enough to negate chance as an explanation, yet considering the fact that there are many of these parameters that are highly fine-tuned and that many are not dependent upon the others, makes chance not a viable explanation.

Some physicists are trying to develop a theory of everything (TOE) to explain the fine-tuning of the four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and the electromagnetic force. String theory or super string theory are the leading candidates; however, Craig explains that string theory "allows 10⁵⁰⁰ different possible universes governed by the present laws of nature," which negates the possibility of the current set of fine tuning parameters being necessary. Craig continues, "given the multiplicity of constants that require fine-tuning, it is far from clear that even 10⁵⁰⁰ possible universes would be enough to guarantee that even one life-permitting universe would appear by chance in the landscape."[6] Craig concludes that "there is no reason to think that showing every constant and quantity to be physically necessary is anything more than a pipedream,"[7]

Let me restate the fine tuning argument:

1. The fine tuning of the universe is due to either to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

We have eliminated chance and necessity as possible explanations and given no other valid alternatives; we can conclude that the fine tuning of the universe is due to design with intelligence and the purpose of creating conditions necessary for intelligent life to exist within the universe. This, combined with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, give us sufficient and plausible reasons to believe that the cause is God.

---

[1] Fred Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 20 (1982), 16, as found in Davies, Cosmic Jackpot, 3.

[2] Davies, Cosmic Jackpot, 7-11.

[3] ibid., 37.

[4] ibid., 43.

[5] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 158.

[6] ibid., 163.

[7] Ibid., 164.

Evidence for the Existence of God- Origin of the Universe

The question that we will address in part in this report is how do you know that God exists? We will look over the next few weeks at some of the best arguments for God's existence. Three of the best arguments that we will look at in the coming weeks will be the cosmological argument, the argument from design, and the moral argument. The cosmological argument can break out into many directions, so today I will begin with one of the best versions of this argument, developed by William Lane Craig, known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I would suggest that you memorize the two premises and concluding statement of this argument as they are short and easy to commit to memory. They are as follows:

1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Generally, skeptics will focus on premise 2 for their attack; however, lately, I have even seen them attack premise 1 as well; however, since the conclusion follows from the two premises, there usually isn't an attack there. So, to begin, let me address premise 2 as it is the main point of attack by skeptics and give evidence from science that the universe did begin to exist. Now, just so you know up front, I am arguing the scientific evidence here which gives evidence for an old universe (approximately 14 billion years) and in doing so, I want to make the point that I am not arguing against the Bible and certainly not for evolution as some might conclude. The Bible does not specify the age of the universe and many church fathers believed the universe to be ancient. With that said, let me present the evidence for the origin of the universe.

The universe includes all matter, space and time; therefore, the cause of the universe must be a spaceless, immaterial, and timeless, since time, matter and space did not exist until the universe was created. The cause of the universe is causally prior to time, matter and space, and therefore, must be timeless and immaterial in absence of the existence of the universe (we cannot say before since time comes into existence with the big bang and therefore there is no "before" technically speaking.) The cause of the universe must also be personal, since if the cause were an impersonal the universe would show greater age, let me explain . If the mechanism necessary for the universe to come into existence were impersonal and existed from eternity past, the universe would be eternally old as there would be nothing to trigger the mechanism to create the universe. In other words, as William Lane Craig states, “If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect.”[1]

First, we must examine the first premise, that everything that comes into existence has a cause. Craig explains that the basis of this believe is “rooted in metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing.” What this means is that we all have this common intuition that objects just don't pop into existence without a cause. He goes onto to state, “To suggest that something could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic.” Craig also says that if we accept the idea that something could come into existence out of nothing, we should expect other things to come into existence out of nothing, yet our experience does not confirm such an idea.[2] Some people will resort to a subset of physics known as quantum theory as a basis to say that things do apparently come into existence out of nothing; however, Craig explains that quantum theories that give the appearance of quantum events occurring out of nothing are disputed among physicists as to what is actually happening (are they really occurring out of nothing), or as Craig explains, are they merely fluctuations in quantum energy fields.[3]

Another argument that Craig poses to refute the idea of a past-eternal universe is that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist. I won’t go into great detail on this point except to say that the main objection to this argument is that Cantor’s (mathematical) set theory (you all remember that from your school days, don't you?) allows for the mathematical legitimacy of an infinite number of things existing. However, Craig quotes David Hilbert, who came up with the well-known (in philosophy and mathematical circles, not necessarily the circles in which we run) Hilbert’s Hotel model-explanation against actual infinites, who said, “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”[4] In layman's terms, you can look as long as you like for an instance of an infinite in nature and you will not find one. Now, some will say that a segment can be divided up into an infinite number of subsegments, therefore, infinites exist in our world. My challenge back is, "please show me an example of a segment of anything actually having been divided into an infinite number of parts and I will give up my argument against infinites existing in nature."

The leading scientific explanation for the existence of the universe is the Big Bang theory which posits that the universe, all matter space and time, came into existence anywhere between 13 and 20 billion years ago. Some would still argue that the universe is past-eternal, and to this objection I refer to two pieces of research that would refute such an idea. First is a study by Arvind Borde, L.H. Ford, and Thomas Roman, in which they state, “it has recently been found that violations of the WEC [weak energy condition] do not allow one to avoid initial singularities.”[5] In other words, the initial singularity (the point at which all matter, space, and time came into existence) which resulted in the Big Bang and the formation of the universe cannot be avoided. The second piece of research comes from Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin in which they ask whether the universe could also be past-eternal. They explain that "The intuitive reason why de Sitter inflation cannot be past-eternal is that, in the full de Sitter space, exponential expansion is preceded by exponential contraction. Such a contracting phase is not part of standard inflationary models, and does not appear to be consistent with the physics of inflation.[6]" That makes sense doesn't it? In layman's terms, the model for Big Bang cosmology that is generally accepted could not support a past-eternal universe.

This model shows that the universe cannot be past eternal with physics as we know it. These two pieces of research give confirmation to the second premise of the Kalam argument that the universe came into existence. Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist who teaches at Arizona State University and holds a PhD in physics from University College London, summarizes the idea of the origin of the universe saying that if we run the universe’s expansion in reverse, “The surface of the ball shrinks down onto the center of the ball until all points on the surface converge at a single point of space. And then…nothing…physical space – is represented by the surface of the sphere, and that has totally vanished. So this time the nothing before the big bang is really “no thing” – neither matter nor space. Nothing.”[7]

Given that the premises are confirmed, the conclusion then follows that the universe had a cause, and as stated earlier, that cause had to be a timeless, immaterial cause, that is also personal; therefore, the best explanation for the existence of the universe is God.

Next week we will look at the design of the universe and examine the implications of that for either naturalistic or supernatural explanations.

---

[1] William Lane Craig, “Does God Exist?”; available at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5507; Internet accessed 29 November 2008.

[2] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith : Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 111-112.

[3] Ibid., 114-115.

[4] David Hilbert, “On the Infinite,” in Philosophy of Mathematics, ed. with an introduction by Paul Benacerraf and Hillary Putnam (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1964), 141, as found in Craig, Reasonable Faith, 117. For a more detailed explanation, see pages 116-124 of Reasonable Faith.

[5] Arvind Borde, L.H. Ford, and Thomas A. Roman, “Constraints on spatial distributions of negative energy”, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0109/0109061v2.pdf; Internet accessed 30 November 2008.

[6] Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, “Inflation is not past-eternal”, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v1.pdf; Internet accessed 30 November 2008.

[7] Paul Davies, Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life (Boston : Houghton Mifflin, 2007), 67.

I know what you mean...

I recently challenged many of you to make a resolution this year to study to be able to answer a few foundational questions related to the gospel that I found are common questions asked by doubters and skeptics. Those questions were:

• How do you know that God exists? What evidence could you give to a skeptic? (do you know any of the basic arguments for God's existence?)
  
• What evidence is there that Jesus actually existed? (be ready to show evidence beyond the Bible and to defend the Bible as a historical document)
• Why should we trust the Bible?
  
• Doesn't the Bible contradict itself?
• How can a loving God allow evil?

Well, I was challenged back by our college pastor to answer those questions each week and give resources that you could look to for further reference, and I think that is a great idea. So, each week this semester I will handle either one question or one aspect of one of these questions. Some of them will take a few weeks to adequately address, so I will give a portion of the answer in those weeks. However, this week I would like to start by addressing one of the foundational questions that I think every person should be challenged to think about and one that makes a great conversation starter should you get into a conversation that you want to lead toward the gospel. That question is "Where do you find meaning in life?" Another way of asking that question would be when talking about a difficult life situation or story in the news, "how do(es) you (a person) find meaning in this situation?"

Last week, our college pastor did an overview of the book of Ecclesiastes. A book that was written about the struggle to find meaning in life. The author had the opportunity to pursue all avenues to find meaning and concluded that all was vanity or, more literally, a vapor (like that which comes off of your cup of coffee and disappears.) However, the author was a committed monotheist and never wavered in that belief throughout the exposition of his struggle. He also informs us that God has put eternity into man's heart. All people are in a quest to find meaning for their lives, some more consciously than others. When we think of the life of the author of Ecclesiastes, we can see subsets of that life in people all around us. While none of us will experience everything that the author experienced, and few, if any of us would actually want to experience all that he experienced, we do see people trying to fill their lives with the things of this world only to end in despair.

Last year it was the actor Heath Ledger, a rising star whose acting ability could be seen in a number of popular movies last year, and even one coming out this year. By all outward appearances he had it all going for him, until he was found dead of an apparent overdose in his Manhattan apartment about a year ago. This story is not an uncommon one. We see other famous people whose lives become a living train wreck as they crash before our eyes. More recently we heard news of Steve Jobs who has made Apple Computers what it is today. However, recurring cancer threatens to end his stellar career and even shorten his life , and although Jobs will be remembered, will he look forward to his eternity?

The author of Ecclesiastes takes us through many of these dilemmas by telling us that there are good aspects to the pursuit of wisdom and there ultimately is vanity in the pursuit of wisdom. There are good things about work and ultimate struggle and toil in work. The bottom line is that this life will never provide the fulfillment that we ultimately desire because there is nothing satisfying enough, big enough, or lasting enough to bring that fulfillment. Wisdom comes and wisdom goes. I recently read a review of some books about Francis Schaeffer, one of the great Christian thinkers of the 20th century. One of the authors interviewed people associated with Schaeffer during his lifetime (he died in 1984) including his wife Edith who is her 90s. Edith was a tremendous thinker and writer herself, having written a biography of their lives together entitled The Tapestry (652 pages), which my wife recently read. However, now Edith is only able to smile and nod her head due to her advanced age. Wisdom is not lasting.

We all know these days, as we watch our 401Ks diminish, that riches are also fleeting. We see people walking away from homes that they had purchased and for which they can no longer pay. We see former Wall Street tycoon, Bernard Madoff (how approprate is his name) who, it is estimated, lost or stole upwards of $50 billion from his investors. Riches do not last

Even relationships do not last. Divorce rates are extraordinarily high in our society, even within the church. We may have to move from one place to another, making it difficult to maintain relationships as we once knew them. And, we are all going to die someday. So, we cannot even count on earthly relationships to last. So, is that it, are we all destined to nihilism (belief that life is without objective meaning)? If God doesn't exist, then that is the logical conclusion with which we are left. Life from an earthly, finite perspective is, as the writer of Ecclesiastes wrote, meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

Yet, God has not left us in this place and with no hope. The Apostle Paul writes in the Letter to the Ephesians that we "were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (2:1-3) Paul then uses two words that bring hope to us in verse 4, "But God," and continues, "being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus." It is God that gives us hope that even though this world cannot fill our desires, he can and did through his Son, and one day we will be seated with him in the heavenly places. That is to be our ultimate pursuit, with our secondary pursuit being to tell as many people as possible that this should be their ultimate pursuit as well.

In the coming weeks, I will address these questions and help you to better answer them for those people to whom you will share this great news.

Thinking Eternally

It is appropriate that the first post of this blog should reflect the theme of the blog itself. What is meant by "thinking eternally?" It is no accident that the phrase has multiple meanings based upon how you look at it.

First, it means that we will be thinking for the rest of eternity. God has made us in his image, which means that we have thinking and reasoning ability as he does. He has also made us such that we will exist beyond this temporary existence in our current state. We are eternal beings and as such, we will exist beyond this mortal coil. We will be thinking eternally.

Second, it means that we have thoughts that transcend this finite existence. The writer of Ecclesiastes tells us that God has set eternity in the hearts of men. (Ecc. 3:11) This is the reason that man's search for meaning will never be fulfilled with things of this world. There is nothing in this world big enough or satisfying enough to fill the need that man has for meaning. The things of this world, whether relationships or things, are temporary and fleeting; even the most lasting of relationships. However, God is eternal, omnicient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), immutable (unchanging), sovereign, holy, loving, merciful, just, and much more. In this way also, we are thinking eternally.

The great news is that if we have repented of our rebellion against God and put our trust in Jesus Christ as the one who paid for those sins, we will have eternity to understand God more and more, and for eternity, we will only really scratch the surface. We will understand God in a meaningful way, as he has made that possible for us; yet, we will never understand God exhaustively. Each moment of eternity will be a new moment to understand God better, and each moment will be a new and glorious experience.

So, think together with me through this blog about what is of eternal importance.