A chair with
and a back provides comfortable sitting. But we would not recognize
this if we examined only the components such as one, two or three legs.
for God are components. Each alone is valid and helpful, but together
evidences individually, it's like examining bits of the chair and
finding each bit useless. Sometimes we need to stand back to see a
"asserts that our existence restricts the possible values of any
physical constants, because simply to be observed, the Universe must
allow life to exist." (New Scientist, June 10, 2000, p. 33)
The "Big Bang"
with many finely-tuned events, and the Universe that resulted has many
finely-tuned "constants of physics".
has expanded away from the Big Bang at just the right speed to allow
galaxies, stars and planets to form, and for carbon-based life forms to
exist… The crucial factor that prevented all the primordial
matter from turning into iron, but allowed stars like our Sun to form,
and to build up a variety of elements starting from hydrogen and
helium, was the rate at which the early Universe expanded… the relevant
number, the so-called "density parameter," was set in the beginning,
with an accuracy of 1 part in 1060. (pp 14, 16 18)
is a big
number! The age of the Universe in seconds is only 1018; and
the total words spoken by all people who ever lived only 1019.
The "density parameter" for the Universe to produce observers such as
humans was fine-tuned almost beyond imagining!
of the weak force that decides how much hydrogen is processed into
helium…requires rather precise fine-tuning…slightly stronger and no
helium would have been produced…slightly weaker and nearly all the
baryons [protons & neutrons] would have been converted into
helium in the Big Bang. (Gribbin & Rees p. 254)
Most of the
made of "dark matter". The proportion of dark to normal matter is just
right to produce stars and planets, and just right for "a life bearing
universe" and "looks like a tremendous coincidence". (Ananthaswamy 2008)
square law of
gravity is just right to give planets stable orbits. An inverse cube
law would see planets easily dislodged toward the Sun or into deep
The strength of
electrical force that holds protons inside atoms together is 1038 times
stronger than gravity. If the value were 1030, stars would be only 2
kilometres wide and burn out after one year. (Gribbin & Rees pp
The Big Bang
only light elements — hydrogen, helium and traces of lithium. All other
elements are created inside stars. Fred Hoyle found that the nuclear
reaction which fuses helium-4 nuclei first into beryllium-8 (an
unstable product that lasts only 1/1017 seconds) then into
requires such unlikely "resonance" or matching of energy levels that:
common-sense interpretation of the facts suggest a superintellect has
monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that
there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. (Hoyle 1981)
We're not dealing
Earth having the right gases for life, or Jupiter deflecting asteroids
from hitting Earth. These are merely consequences, billions of years
down the track, of the initial conditions of the Big Bang and the
physical constants it came with.
with finely-tuned conditions of the Big Bang itself and finely-turned
physical constants that emerged at the beginning. About thirty are
known. These are not explained by prior laws or any process of
development, since if time began with the Big Bang, there were no prior
laws or processes.
accept a scheme of things so cleverly arranged, so subtle and
felicitous, simply as a brute fact, as a package of properties that
just happens to be? To me, the contrived nature of physical existence
is just too fantastic to take on board as simply ‘given'. It points
forcefully to a deeper underlying meaning to existence. Some call it
purpose, some design. (Herd, 1995)
says that fine-tuning leaves "only two explanations: a benevolent
designer or a multiverse." (New Scientist, 6 December, 2008, p. 48)
"Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one
possible explanation… Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely
many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse."
believes in 10500 universes each governed by different laws.
Comparison is made with a lottery where the odds of a particular person
winning are remote, but someone has to win because the setup assures a
No other universes are known — there is no "lottery".
Point 4 suggests
regress in which ever bigger finely-tuned systems have to be imagined
to explain lower-level finely-tuned systems.
imagine numbers big enough until we feel anything is possible is
subjective and arbitrary.
All "why" questions — e.g. "Why did WWII start?" "Why did
hurricane Katrina form" "Why did Tom murder Barry?" — would all have
the same useless answer which is, "The number of universes is so great
that some universes have to have this event."
Any super-universe would also have to be finely tuned to spawn
child universes. Who or what finely-tuned it?
If, however, a
Designer/God is invoked, atheists ask: "Who designed the designer?" One
answer is: "No one, since if every explanation required an explanation
then every question would lead to an infinite regress."
is that only
non-intelligence requires an infinite regress. For
supposed a rock hits someone. We would ask "What made the rock to fly
toward him?" Answer "A landslide". Question "What caused the
landslide?" Answer "Dynamite". Question "Who or what set the dynamite
to explode?" Answer: "Bob Williams." Question "What caused Bob
recognize as silly because it's no longer relevant to the causal chain.
When a chain of events has been traced back to an intelligent agent,
further inquiry accepts his existence and switches to his motives and
intentions. Similarly, if we trace the Universe to "God", further
questions accept His existence and ask about his reasons and motives.
It's only while non-conscious events are part of the "chain" that we
ask "What caused that"?" and then "What caused that?"
People often ask How
the Designer created, Why he took so long, Why the
Universe is so big. These questions are not refutations. We could ask
similar questions about a house without these questions refuting the
invoking a Designer would put a stop to science. However, it was the
Judeo-Christian belief in a law-giver God, who created consistent laws
permitting prediction, that got modern science started! (Harrison 2006;
2 — THE BIBLE
If the Big Bang
physical constants that maintain the Universe imply a Creator, is there
anywhere additional information, beyond what physics tells us, about
About 40 years
observed that criticisms of the Bible often ended up mistaken and
science was confirming Bible statements one after another. I even used
the Bible to predict what science will accept in the future, for
Asteroids are a threat to Earth. (#62)
These ideas from
Bible subsequently became part of science.
Rising sea levels will distress many nations. (#68)
Snakes can hear. (#94)
Lions kill prey by "strangling". (#87)
Dr Potter in Seeking
Truth The Two Approaches (#134) claims "A scientist is never
certain" and this differs to Christianity where believers claim to
"know" what's true "apart from the evidence."
certain, is theoretical. In practice scientists treat discoveries that
have been retested and checked as certain. Many articles in Investigator
refute the paranormal by referring to scientific research. This only
works if science gives certainty. Otherwise science and the paranormal
as giving certainty we also have to extrapolate — i.e. we have to
reason inductively. For example, we know that things fall according to
the law of gravity, and we generalize this knowledge and expect gravity
to operate tomorrow. None of us will argue "scientists are never
certain" and then try to fly like Superman rather than board an
regularities or trends as distinct from physical laws we need to
extrapolate. When employers hire employees they assume that past
performance indicates future performance. Some applicants may change
and not fulfill expectations, but to know the applicant's past and
project it into the future is still the most objective way for
employers to decide. If employers required applicants to "Show me the
future now including your future performance" then no one could ever
If hundreds of
points were confirmed over several centuries and critics repeatedly
proved wrong, this gives data which by inductive reasoning informs us
that many current critics of the Bible are also wrong.
non-believers have in common the need to rely on science and induction.
What I do is show that this common aspect leads to conclusions the
unbeliever has not realized i.e. to God and to the Bible. This is
"knowledge" from evidence, not "apart from". It's one approach for all,
not "Two Approaches".
Atheists set up
between science and the supernatural so that one is empirical, the
125-126 I equated the supernatural with other dimensions beyond the
three we're familiar with — up/down, left/right and forwards/backwards.
I analyzed how
hypothetical two-dimensional "flatlanders" would experience
interference from our three-dimensional world and found that the
flatlander's experience resembles the Bible's presentation of the
supernatural. In other words the supernatural may lie in extra
"From the relative weakness of gravity to the deep affinity among
seemingly distinct particles and forces, various mysteries of the world
around us give the impression that the known universe is but a shadow
of a higher-dimensional reality."
"Could it be that what we see as dark matter is really evidence for a
hidden world that mirrors ours?" (Feng & Trodden 2010)
The dichotomy of
OR the supernatural is therefore invalid, since science may be pointing
to the supernatural — to the realm of angels, demons and God.
Bell wrote a book about spontaneous remission, where cancer disappears
without treatment. He knows of 400 confirmed cases in 150 years, but is
skeptical of supernatural explanations. (Cresswell 2010)
of "miracles" is that they're either coincidence or unknown natural
are defined in advance when, for example, doctors say "There's nothing
more we can do", or whenever a person tells others about an impossible
outcome he's praying for.
When a miracle
in advance and takes place and atheists then deny it's a miracle, they
have merely "shifted the goal posts".
Suppose I ask an
to kick a goal with a football, but after he does so I shift the posts
and say, "You failed." That's the error atheists make whenever a
"miracle" is defined in advance (like goal-posts in place) but
re-defined (similar to moving the posts) after success occurs.
God don't occur every time — but that's no objection since humans also
don't do everything everyone asks. The study of why God doesn't always
help is called "theodicy". (See #104)
5 — EXPERIENCE
Suppose a blind
denies the President exists. He learns that the President is necessary
for proper functioning of government, hears testimony from people of
proven integrity who know the President, and learns about the
But the blind
that everything attributed to the President occurred in other ways. He
says "Show me the evidence" but is handicapped by being blind.
What's left is
a meeting if both agree.
Since God can't
everyone is in a sense blind. The fifth evidence therefore is personal
orientate themselves using Earth's magnetism like birds, and avoid
objects like bats by echolocation. Contact with God also may require
practice — plus willingness to renounce whatever evils kept God away:
far from the wicked, but he hears the prayers of the righteous.
To rely on
alone without evidences "1" to "4" is risky because of possible
delusion, and psychological mechanisms for self-deception. But in
conjunction with "1" to "4" experience is powerful.
God's existence because they fear that belief implies church-membership.
This commits the
"naturalistic fallacy", also called Poincare's Rule, which states, "No
imperative conclusion can be validly drawn from a set of premises which
does not contain at least one imperative."
David Hume wrote:
system of morality, which I have hitherto met with…the author proceeds
for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning…when…instead of the
usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no
proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not... For
as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or
affirmation, ‘tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd;
and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems
altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from
others, which are entirely different from it." (A Treatise of Human
Nature, Book 3, 1740)
to, "You cannot derive an ought from an is."
If we see a tree
no particular act we "ought" to do! One person may kick it, another
ignore it, another lop branches off. No particular "ought" follows from
seeing a tree. Even with extra context such as "It is raining", the
imperative "You ought to shelter under the tree" does not follow. I
might be content to get wet, or open my umbrella.
existence because they imagine that if they acknowledge intelligence
behind the Universe, it imposes an "ought" they don't want. Rather than
deny only the "ought" they mistakenly deny the "is".
The laws that
how the Universe works also permit the existence of creatures
intelligent enough to discover those laws. That is amazing and makes
humans somehow central. What if the laws are also such as to permit
human domination of the Universe? By extrapolating technological
progress to the indefinite future we can actually make that prediction!
It's also what the Bible teaches — Nothing will be impossible (Genesis
11:6) and humans will rule everything (Hebrews 2:5-8). Wouldn't such a
Universe have to be pre-planned?
"empirical evidence of a direct nature" but can't show us 10500
universes. They are like the blind man who dismisses the President's
accomplishments as originating elsewhere, despises direct personal
encounter, and won't even reason inductively, and so can't accept the
President's existence although he exists.
If each of my
arguments is insufficient for you by itself then view them together so
they complement one another — like seeing a whole chair rather than its
Ananthaswamy, A. New
Scientist, 6 December, 2008, p. 12
Cresswell, A. The
Weekend Australian, 2010, p. 7
Feng, J. &
M. Scientific American, November 2010
Folger, T. Discover,
M. 1991 Cosmic Coincidences
& Christian Belief, Volume 18, No. 2
Mlodinow, L. 2010 The Grand Design
Herd, J. The
Australian, May 6-7, 1995, p. 10
and the Rise of Modern Science
quoting Engineering and Science, November 1981, pp 8-12
Musser, G. Scientific
American, June 2010, p. 23.
find GOD EXISTS Part 2 go to the
home page and click on The Bible —