Is science proving God exists

Fact and Faith Email update
Is science proving God exists ?
The Journal ‘New Scientist’ of 17 March 2012.
11-04-2012
This issue of New Scientist contains some interesting comments on religion and God. We
have traditionally stated that science cannot either prove or disprove the existence of the
God who created the universe. However, one article in this issue of the journal is headed
‘The God hypothesis’. The sub title to this article by Victor J. Stenger is ‘The existence, or
not, of God is very much a question science can address’.
In this article he makes comments like ‘If God is the creator of the universe, then we should
find evidence for that in astronomy and physics’. I can agree with a statement like that.
However, unfortunately Victor Stenger then, in my opinion, makes many sweeping and
unjustified statements that reveal his atheistic beliefs and which lead him to reject of all
evidence for God. He states that we ‘do not have any evidence’. To support this conclusion
he says that, regarding the origin of our universe, ‘modern cosmology suggests an eternal
“multiverse” in which many other universes come and go’. In other words, no miracles here!
Why do I believe that this learned professor is making unjustified claims when he says that
science finds no evidence for the Creator?
My objections are mainly two-fold, as far as science is concerned:
1. If it turns out that our universe is the only one, then the fine tuning of the many
fundamentals needed for us to be here, strongly suggest a designer of the Big Bang
origin. Stephen Hawking, amongst other famous scientists, calculated the probability
against chance, if ours is the only universe, to be the staggering 1 in 1055.
2. Victor Stenger’s claim that modern cosmology suggests an eternal “multiverse” in
which many other universes come and go” is very misleading, unless he were to add
that the Multiverse Theory is still an unproven theory that rests upon other
unproven theories such as String Theory and Supersymetry Theory. None of these
theories has been tested experimentally, nor have we any clear evidence for them.
They are all mathematical models run through computers and all formulated by
making various assumptions. In fact they are not even the only possible theories that
can be based on known mathematical models. Furthermore, the Multiverse Theory
is very much inter-twined with String Theory and this is inter-twined with
Supersymetry Theory. This Supersymetry Theory suggests that each fundamental
particle, such as protons, neutrons and electrons etc, all have a mirror image particle
that is heavier. The Particle accelerators created by modern physics, such as the
Hadron collider in Switzerland, have the ability to detect supersymetry particles. It is
interesting that so far none have been detected.
Particle accelerators have the ability to detect ‘supersymetry’ particles
In other words, I consider it a great pity that the writer of this article did not take a less
aggressively atheistic approach. By this I mean that a scientist like him should follow up on a
hypothesis such as ‘If God created the universe we should see evidence of this that can be
investigated scientifically’, by then stating the evidence for and against God. The writer
states so-called evidence against God but fails to mention that the Multiverse alternative to
our universe being the result of the Creators design, is based on a series of unproven
theories. If these theories prove in time to be wrong then the available scientific evidence
will shift dramatically back to the conclusion that we are the result of the Creative mind of
God. This is the logically compelling conclusion to reach if the Multiverse theory fails to be
backed by scientific discovery.
You may ask, what if some unexpected discoveries lead to a Multiverse Theory becoming
more firmly established? Will that shake our belief in God as Creator? It should not, since we
always come back to a beginning somewhere. Who created the mysterious energy matrixes
of so-called ‘empty space’, from which any other universe must originate? We always come
to the question; In the beginning God?
When considering evidence for God, many people say that their greatest evidence comes
from a study of the life and teachings of Jesus or from personal experiences resulting from
taking his teachings seriously. However, in addition to this very relevant evidence, it is
possible to investigate the scientific evidence, speaking to us from the Creation. As Psalm 19
in the Bible reminds us, it is possible to discover that ‘The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after
night they display knowledge’.
In our experience of the universe we can never get something from nothing. Can the
universe be an exception to this rule? The Bible states that what is seen was made from
what was not seen. It does not say that it was made from nothing. We read, By faith we
understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not
made out of what was visible (Hebrews 11:3). This means that what is seen was made from
what is not visible. Certainly science can confirm this statement since everything we can see
is made up from quantum ‘particles’ such as protons, neutrons, electrons, photons etc that
certainly cannot be seen. They are actually not particles but are minute bundles of energy.
What existed before our universe came into existence? We do not know, but fundamental
laws of physics state that there is a direct relationship between matter and energy.
Einstein’s E=mc2 bears witness to this fact and has been tested scientifically. It is not difficult
to move from this realisation of the relationship between matter and energy, to suggest
that our universe was created by God from a Timeless Dimension energy field. Why must
this energy field be timeless? This makes sense for two main reasons, namely:
1. The quantum ‘world’ of sub-atomic realities behaves in mysterious ways that speak
of timelessness. They can be in more than one place at once. They can react with
each other instantaneously although separated by vast distances. Science is forced
to create terms such as non-locality, entanglement and superposition. For instance,
we cannot say an electron is in any one place until we freeze it into time by
measuring it with our time-based instruments.
2. God is described as being independent of time. He is described as existing from
‘timelessness to timelessness or eternity to eternity’. He is also described as existing
in radiant energy, in light unapproachable by mortals (1 Timothy 6:16). So, the God
of Creation, who exists in the Timeless Dimension, and who is himself surrounded by
energy, created what can be seen from what cannot be seen. How about the
mysterious so-called ‘dark energy’ of empty space as a candidate for forming the
foundation energy of the universe? Some mathematical models of this energy field
suggest it is ‘infinitely great’!
So, what are some of the most powerful intellectual arguments for God, within our present
understanding of the universe, as revealed through the on-going discoveries of science?
1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument.
This states that:
A. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
B. The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore the universe has a cause
of its existence.
C. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
D. Therefore God exists.
The most vocal and most able contemporary proponent of this argument is probably Dr
William Lane Craig. He is a brilliant scientist and Christian apologist who travels the world
giving talks and taking part in debates with leading scientists. See his web page:
www.reasonablefaith.org
At one time, various people who wanted to avoid accepting that our universe had a finite
beginning, proposed that our expanding universe might slow down its rate of expansion and
then actually contract back into a another Big Bang. In this way it could be suggested that
there have been a long series of Big Bangs and by chance one of these resulted in a universe
suited for life. This suggestion seems to have been finally put to rest with the discovery that
our universe expansion is actually accelerating and there seems no scientific evidence that
this process will be reversed.
The present argument, against the Kalam Cosmological Argument, has suggested that an
infinitely large universe could have contained, or may still contain, an almost infinite variety
of other universes. One of these is our own universe that is so fine-tuned for life to exist.
Because we are in this one unique universe, we think it was designed when in fact it was just
a ‘lucky chance’.
This Multiverse Theory has to propose an almost infinite number of other universes, if it is
to overcome the statistical probability against chance for our own universe. Any fewer
number of alternative universes would not overcome the statistical probability against
chance for our own universe. As stated earlier, that probability against chance is in the
region of 1 in 1055 .
The reason why the Multiverse Theory has generated so much attention within scientific
circles is, in my view, because those scientists who have atheistic world views realise that
this is their best chance of getting around the mind boggling statistical probability against
our universe being the result of chance. Let’s face the facts. If our universe is the only
universe, then the scientifically calculated probability against chance is this astronomically
large statistic in the region of 1 in 1055.
By the way, the number of atheistic scientists is less than 50%. A survey of all registered
scientists in America, published in the peer reviewed scientific journal Nature Vol 386, page
435, found that 39.3 percent believe in “A personal God they can pray to”. The authors of
this survey note that they used a very narrow definition of deity in the survey. A wider
definition would have led to a much higher percentage of believers.
A good illustration of this probability against chance is as follows:
If we cover the whole of the USA with small coins from East to West and North to South. If
we then pile other coins on all of this vast area of coins and continue piling up to the moon
(average 400,000 km from earth). If we are now told that this vast mountain of coins
contains just one that is different from the rest. The probability of us finding that one coin is
a similar statistic to 1 in 1055.
Imagine covering the USA with coins and then adding more coins to each, up to the moon.
In scientific circles we normally consider that a statistical probability of one in a thousand
tells us that the result of our experiment is close to certainly being correct. Regarding our
Universe and Earth, with its long list of fine-tuned properties essential for us to be here, the
statistical probability against chance is almost infinitely greater than the probabilities
normally accepted in scientific experiments.
So, have we reached a time in history that can prove the existence of God scientifically?
Some would say ‘yes’, but even the more cautious of us will probably admit that it is much
easier to believe in God as Creator than it is to believe in some ‘random quantum
fluctuations’, spontaneously exploding into an almost infinite number of Big Bang universes,
all originating from an infinitely large space that no-one can explain or adequately describe.
We live in exciting times in which the discoveries of science can lead us to a much greater
concept of the Creator. If he is the originator and sustainer of all things then he is
awesomely wise and powerful. As the biblical prophet Isaiah proclaimed to the Israelites
who had created their own gods, “choose this day whom you will serve. If Baal is God serve
him but if Jehovah is God then serve Him”. In our times, science can either become our god
or it can become a channel through which to greatly expand our understanding of the God
who created the universe with all its laws and on-going evolutionary processes and who still
upholds it by His awesome wisdom and power.
Best regards,
Dr Michael Jarvis
Fact and Faith Publications
09 April 2012
More details about the books and DVD’s can be obtained from email: [email protected] or
from the web page www.FactandFaith.co.za
Please forward these updates to those on your contact list who you think may benefit and direct
them to my webpage.
Previous email updates: Let us know if you have not received them.
Human eye: poorly designed?
Changing concepts of evolution
Missing links in evolution
The human eye pulley system
Human ear ossicles
The birth date and crucifixion date of Jesus
Evidence AGAINST a world-wide flood
18 July 2011
26 July
08 August
31 August
28 September
06 November
03 January 2012
Dr Michael Jarvis
Email: [email protected] Telephone: (27) (21) 8641546
Web page: www.FactandFaith.co.za