PAGE 2 SUPPORTING FACTS
IMPOSSIBLE TO GET SOMETHING FROM NOTHING
· When events take place there is good reason to believe there is a cause.
· To say the universe was caused by nothing is to say the entire universe (this includes all possible universes) of space, time and matter hopped into existence with nothing causing it.
· There is no example of anything coming into existence out of nothing with no reason.
· To say the universe was caused by nothing is to say the entire universe (this includes all possible universes) of space, time and matter hopped into existence with nothing causing it.
· There is no example of anything coming into existence out of nothing with no reason.
NOT A PHYSICS VACUUM
The claim that quantum physics shows something can come from nothing is a deceitful one. The “nothing” that particles apparently originate from is a quantum vacuum. This vacuum has fluctuating energy, is governed by physical laws, and has a physical structure. In short, this vacuum is “something.”
THE UNIVERSE IS FINE TUNED FOR LIFE
There are over 25 constants (the list is growing) in our universe that would not permit life if their values altered the slightest bit. A few of these constants:
1. Strong nuclear force constant—if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry. If smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form-- again, no life chemistry.
2. Weak nuclear force constant--if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible. If smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. Gravitational force constant--if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry. If smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form.
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
Arno Penzias (Nobel Prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
For a more complete list of these constants, and details on the following fine tuning of our universe please refer to the following:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
The Creator and the Cosmos by Hugh Ross
The Privileged Planet book or DVD
1. Strong nuclear force constant—if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry. If smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form-- again, no life chemistry.
2. Weak nuclear force constant--if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible. If smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. Gravitational force constant--if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry. If smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form.
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
Arno Penzias (Nobel Prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
For a more complete list of these constants, and details on the following fine tuning of our universe please refer to the following:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
The Creator and the Cosmos by Hugh Ross
The Privileged Planet book or DVD
For a planet to be life permitting, the following conditions are necessary:
· Within galactic habitable zone—Over 95% of stars in the galaxy wouldn’t be able to support habitable planets because their rotation is not synchronized with the rotation of the galaxy’s spiral arms. The sun is composed of the right amount of metals. Our solar system is located in-between the spiral arms of the Milky Way. The spiral arms have too many catastrophes such as supernovae for complex life to survive and thrive. Suffice it to say, we are in the sweet spot of our galaxy.
· Orbiting main sequence G2 dwarf star—If the sun were less massive (like 90% of the stars in the galaxy) the habitable zone would be smaller. The earth would have to be much closer to the sun to be in the habitable zone; however, the increased gravity from being closer to the sun would knock the earth’s rotation into synchronization with its orbit. One side would continuously face the sun and be bombarded with radiation from solar flares. The dark side would be nothing but cold and ice. It is unlikely that complex life could tolerate these extremes in temperature.
· Protected by gas giant plants—these planets shield us from many comets that could wreak havoc for us.
· Within circumstellar habitable zone—If the earth was 5% closer to the sun, temperatures would rise to 900 degrees Fahrenheit; thus, boiling away any liquid water that is essential to life. If the earth was 20% further from the sun any present water would freeze.
· Oxygen-rich atmosphere—The composition of our atmosphere (78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% carbon dioxide) is balanced in a way that ensures a temperate climate, protection from the sun’s radiation, and has the correct combination of gases necessary for liquid water and complex life.
· Orbited by large moon— Large moons stabilize planets. Without the moon the Earth’s constant 23.5 degree tilt would spin on its axis much faster, resulting in violent weather and climate changes that would be too extreme for complex living organisms.
· Magnetic field—The magnetic field protects the earth from “solar wind” emanating from the sun.
· Correct mass--If our planet was smaller its magnetic field would be weakened, allowing the solar wind to strip away our atmosphere. Earth would then be a dead barren world like Mars.
· Terrestrial planet—If the earth’s crust were significantly thicker plate tectonic recycling could not take place. The dynamic duo (varying thickness and constant motion) of our plates regulates our planet’s interior temperature, recycles carbon, mixes chemical elements essential to living organisms, and shapes the continents.
The precision and delicacy that our universe is fine-tuned is nothing short of a miracle! The life-permitting balance would be destroyed (life could not exist) if the constants of our universe were altered by a hair’s breadth. Therefore, it stands to reason that life-prohibiting universes are incomprehensibly more probable than any life-permitting universe.
Now there are three possible explanations of this extraordinary fine-tuning: physical necessity, chance, or design. It can’t be due to physical necessity because the constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature.
So maybe the fine-tuning is due to chance. After all, highly improbable events happen every day!
Some argue, “If all possible outcomes of a natural process are highly improbable, then a highly improbable outcome is certain (i.e. this claims the existence of life and universe is due to chance). The argument sounds like this: "Let’s say there’s a lottery that will randomly pick one out of a billion people. One is selected. Joe Lucky is selected says ‘it couldn't have happened by chance, the odds are too low’.”
This analogy of the lottery winner is flawed because it assumes our existence—like a lottery winner—was inevitable given matter and energy; that is nowhere proven by science—it is assumed. This is circular reasoning at its worst.
There are many ways to arrange steel, cast iron, aluminum, chrome plate, plastic, rubber, glass, paint, and copper—and all of them are equally improbable. But there are only a select number of ways to arrange these materials in a way that is functional—like in a car. The car’s ability to function has a meaning/purpose (more information), that the random scraps (of the same material) do not have.
We must distinguish sequences of characters that are:
A.) merely improbable to
B.) improbable and also specifically arranged so as to perform a function.
As Dr. William Lane Craig pointed out in his debate with Lawrence Krauss, "what serves to distinguish purely chance events from design is not simply high improbability but also the presence of an independently given pattern to which the event conforms. For example, in the movie Contact scientists are able to distinguish a signal from outer space from random noise, not simply due to its improbability but because of its conforming to the pattern of the prime numbers. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent agents exhibits just that combination of incomprehensible improbability and an independently given pattern that are the earmarks of design."
The functionality of an improbable event conveys meaning or purpose. The more functionality the improbability has, the more meaning/purpose it has. The less functionality the improbability has, the less meaning/purpose it has.
So, again, God’s existence is clearly more probable given the fine-tuning of the universe than it would have been without it.
Craig formulate this reasoning into a simple deductive argument:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity because the constants are independent of the laws of nature.
3. It is not due to chance because of the functionality within the universe.
From which it follows logically:
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
Thus, the fine-tuning of the universe implies the existence of a Designer of the cosmos
This analogy of the lottery winner is flawed because it assumes our existence—like a lottery winner—was inevitable given matter and energy; that is nowhere proven by science—it is assumed. This is circular reasoning at its worst.
There are many ways to arrange steel, cast iron, aluminum, chrome plate, plastic, rubber, glass, paint, and copper—and all of them are equally improbable. But there are only a select number of ways to arrange these materials in a way that is functional—like in a car. The car’s ability to function has a meaning/purpose (more information), that the random scraps (of the same material) do not have.
We must distinguish sequences of characters that are:
A.) merely improbable to
B.) improbable and also specifically arranged so as to perform a function.
As Dr. William Lane Craig pointed out in his debate with Lawrence Krauss, "what serves to distinguish purely chance events from design is not simply high improbability but also the presence of an independently given pattern to which the event conforms. For example, in the movie Contact scientists are able to distinguish a signal from outer space from random noise, not simply due to its improbability but because of its conforming to the pattern of the prime numbers. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent agents exhibits just that combination of incomprehensible improbability and an independently given pattern that are the earmarks of design."
The functionality of an improbable event conveys meaning or purpose. The more functionality the improbability has, the more meaning/purpose it has. The less functionality the improbability has, the less meaning/purpose it has.
So, again, God’s existence is clearly more probable given the fine-tuning of the universe than it would have been without it.
Craig formulate this reasoning into a simple deductive argument:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity because the constants are independent of the laws of nature.
3. It is not due to chance because of the functionality within the universe.
From which it follows logically:
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
Thus, the fine-tuning of the universe implies the existence of a Designer of the cosmos
Whatever caused the universe to exist is not part of the universe
The cause of the universe cannot be part of the universe; therefore, the cause must be timeless and immaterial.
Whatever caused the universe to exist was either personal (a free moral agent) or something impersonal.
Can a rock cause any affect? It can but only when something else has moved the rock first. A black rock can move the brown rock but only if something else caused the black rock to move. The black rock cannot initiate any effect. An impersonal cause (like a rock) can affect other things, only when something else has moved the rock (caused the rock to move.) Similarly, abstract objects like the number 7 cannot cause anything.
It is tempting for atheist and children to ask, “what caused God?” To answer this question consider the following:
If there is a God that created the universe, he is not the sort of thing that comes into existence. He would be outside of time (whatever caused the origin of time had to be timeless) and exist by a necessity of His own nature. Let me clarify this before moving on.
There are two types of beings that exist: contingent and necessary. Things like planets, stars, moons, cars, humans, etc. are contingent—they exist but they might not have existed (they don’t have to exist). On the other hand, things like numbers and abstract objects exist necessarily—it is impossible for them not to exist. The, uncaused cause (God) of the universe is not a contingent being; rather, He exists necessarily (by a necessity of his own nature.)
The omnipotent, omnipresent, uncaused cause (God) of the universe exists by a necessity of his own nature.
Why this matters: Atheists, like Richard Dawkins, will attempt to put down the design argument with statements like, “…the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.” This would only be a problem if we believe that God is a contingent being. We believe, however, the God who created the universe exists necessarily; therefore, that type of argument is either made out of ignorance, or is a straw man argument.
Reiterating the point, the very definition of God is that He is the uncaused cause of everything. Therefore, by asking “what caused God?”, you are asking, “what caused something which by definition is uncausable?” That’s like asking, “Does 2+2 taste sweet or sour “(does something that has no taste, taste sweet or sour)?” Or how about, “which is happier, the spoon or the fork” (between two things that cannot experience feelings, which one experiences happier feelings)? These are known as category errors because they have properties ascribed to them (e.g. taste to an abstract object, feelings to an inanimate object, or contingency to an uncaused Being) that are impossible for them to have.
Whatever caused the beginning of the universe had to have the power of spontaneous choice. If we look for the cause of the universe among things that can only affect other things when something else has affected it, we find ourselves in what Aristotle called an infinite regress of cause and effect. The only thing that can produce a change without something happening to it first is a free moral agent.
Whatever caused the first event, therefore, had to have the power of free action (spontaneous action).
The only kind of thing that can spontaneously act is something with the power of volitional choice.
Therefore, the most reasonable explanation for how the universe began is that some being that was timeless without the universe had the power of free choice and chose to start space and time (the universe) without anything causing Him to do so. The only possible being like this is a transcendent Mind (Personal Creator), which is what theists understand God to be.
Whatever caused the universe to exist was either personal (a free moral agent) or something impersonal.
Can a rock cause any affect? It can but only when something else has moved the rock first. A black rock can move the brown rock but only if something else caused the black rock to move. The black rock cannot initiate any effect. An impersonal cause (like a rock) can affect other things, only when something else has moved the rock (caused the rock to move.) Similarly, abstract objects like the number 7 cannot cause anything.
It is tempting for atheist and children to ask, “what caused God?” To answer this question consider the following:
If there is a God that created the universe, he is not the sort of thing that comes into existence. He would be outside of time (whatever caused the origin of time had to be timeless) and exist by a necessity of His own nature. Let me clarify this before moving on.
There are two types of beings that exist: contingent and necessary. Things like planets, stars, moons, cars, humans, etc. are contingent—they exist but they might not have existed (they don’t have to exist). On the other hand, things like numbers and abstract objects exist necessarily—it is impossible for them not to exist. The, uncaused cause (God) of the universe is not a contingent being; rather, He exists necessarily (by a necessity of his own nature.)
The omnipotent, omnipresent, uncaused cause (God) of the universe exists by a necessity of his own nature.
Why this matters: Atheists, like Richard Dawkins, will attempt to put down the design argument with statements like, “…the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.” This would only be a problem if we believe that God is a contingent being. We believe, however, the God who created the universe exists necessarily; therefore, that type of argument is either made out of ignorance, or is a straw man argument.
Reiterating the point, the very definition of God is that He is the uncaused cause of everything. Therefore, by asking “what caused God?”, you are asking, “what caused something which by definition is uncausable?” That’s like asking, “Does 2+2 taste sweet or sour “(does something that has no taste, taste sweet or sour)?” Or how about, “which is happier, the spoon or the fork” (between two things that cannot experience feelings, which one experiences happier feelings)? These are known as category errors because they have properties ascribed to them (e.g. taste to an abstract object, feelings to an inanimate object, or contingency to an uncaused Being) that are impossible for them to have.
Whatever caused the beginning of the universe had to have the power of spontaneous choice. If we look for the cause of the universe among things that can only affect other things when something else has affected it, we find ourselves in what Aristotle called an infinite regress of cause and effect. The only thing that can produce a change without something happening to it first is a free moral agent.
Whatever caused the first event, therefore, had to have the power of free action (spontaneous action).
The only kind of thing that can spontaneously act is something with the power of volitional choice.
Therefore, the most reasonable explanation for how the universe began is that some being that was timeless without the universe had the power of free choice and chose to start space and time (the universe) without anything causing Him to do so. The only possible being like this is a transcendent Mind (Personal Creator), which is what theists understand God to be.
EVIDENCE OF A PERSONAL CREATOR
Evidence of a Personal Creator through information/programmed language:
Scientists agree that DNA is similar to a computer code/program or a language. Programs have PROGRAMMERS.
P1: All specified information (to perform a function) comes from programmers.
P2: DNA has specified information (to perform a function).
C: Therefore, DNA came from a programmer.
Who or what is the best explanation for the programmed DNA? You could push the problem back one step and say “aliens from another planet” but then the same question applies to them and their “DNA”. You end up in an infinite regress until you can come to a “programmer” whose reason for existence is NOT found outside himself; this entity’s reason for existence is in HIMSELF. This is what Christians mean by “God is the grounding for intelligibility, our laws of logic, and physical laws.
While the empirical evidence of programmed language in DNA does not support the notion that Jesus was God, it does provide evidence of a Programmer/Designer/Creator of the Universe. If we have good reason to believe in a Creator, then we have less reason to form some outlandish conspiracy theories as to why the disciples would make up a lie about a risen Messiah that would get them killed. If God exists, then there is no good reason to be intellectually intolerant toward the miraculous (e.g. the resurrection). As the agnostic philosopher Peter Slezak put it in his debate on God’s existence with William Lane Craig, “For a God who is able to create the entire universe [and program our DNA] the odd resurrection would be child's play!"
Scientists agree that DNA is similar to a computer code/program or a language. Programs have PROGRAMMERS.
P1: All specified information (to perform a function) comes from programmers.
P2: DNA has specified information (to perform a function).
C: Therefore, DNA came from a programmer.
Who or what is the best explanation for the programmed DNA? You could push the problem back one step and say “aliens from another planet” but then the same question applies to them and their “DNA”. You end up in an infinite regress until you can come to a “programmer” whose reason for existence is NOT found outside himself; this entity’s reason for existence is in HIMSELF. This is what Christians mean by “God is the grounding for intelligibility, our laws of logic, and physical laws.
While the empirical evidence of programmed language in DNA does not support the notion that Jesus was God, it does provide evidence of a Programmer/Designer/Creator of the Universe. If we have good reason to believe in a Creator, then we have less reason to form some outlandish conspiracy theories as to why the disciples would make up a lie about a risen Messiah that would get them killed. If God exists, then there is no good reason to be intellectually intolerant toward the miraculous (e.g. the resurrection). As the agnostic philosopher Peter Slezak put it in his debate on God’s existence with William Lane Craig, “For a God who is able to create the entire universe [and program our DNA] the odd resurrection would be child's play!"
Evidence of a Personal Creator through moral values:
P1: Every law has a law giver
P2: There is an objective moral law
C: Therefore, there is an objective moral law giver.
I have heard many people argue, "I can't believe in God because of all the evil in the world." This statement actually affirms premise 2 in the above argument. So while on the surface this sounds like an argument against the existence of God, this actually turns out to be a great argument for the existence of God.
The post-modern relativists (those that believe all truth and morality is relative) that want to reject premise 2 of the argument should consider their ways carefully. When they affirm the evil committed by the Nazis they effectively deny their own worldview; however, if they deny any evil committed by the Nazis, then they deny their humanity.
It is philosophically bankrupt for an naturalist/atheist to talk about objective morality (some things actually are evil/wrong, and some things actually are good/right). Atheists/agnostics use terms like “evil, wrong, etc.” in the objective sense because it makes them feel good to have words to describe what they know intuitively to be true, but when you look thoroughly within their worldview (we are just random molecules bouncing in space) for the grounding that could make those terms coherent, you come up empty.
When you look thoroughly within the Christian worldview you find the grounding for good and evil (things we all talk about because we know them intuitively to be true). This is why G.K. Chesterton points out that for the Christian, joy is central and sorrow is peripheral. That is because life’s fundamental questions are answered and only the peripheral ones are not. But for the one who does not know Christ, sorrow is central and joy peripheral, because the peripheral questions may be answered but the fundamental ones are not.
P1: Every law has a law giver
P2: There is an objective moral law
C: Therefore, there is an objective moral law giver.
I have heard many people argue, "I can't believe in God because of all the evil in the world." This statement actually affirms premise 2 in the above argument. So while on the surface this sounds like an argument against the existence of God, this actually turns out to be a great argument for the existence of God.
The post-modern relativists (those that believe all truth and morality is relative) that want to reject premise 2 of the argument should consider their ways carefully. When they affirm the evil committed by the Nazis they effectively deny their own worldview; however, if they deny any evil committed by the Nazis, then they deny their humanity.
It is philosophically bankrupt for an naturalist/atheist to talk about objective morality (some things actually are evil/wrong, and some things actually are good/right). Atheists/agnostics use terms like “evil, wrong, etc.” in the objective sense because it makes them feel good to have words to describe what they know intuitively to be true, but when you look thoroughly within their worldview (we are just random molecules bouncing in space) for the grounding that could make those terms coherent, you come up empty.
When you look thoroughly within the Christian worldview you find the grounding for good and evil (things we all talk about because we know them intuitively to be true). This is why G.K. Chesterton points out that for the Christian, joy is central and sorrow is peripheral. That is because life’s fundamental questions are answered and only the peripheral ones are not. But for the one who does not know Christ, sorrow is central and joy peripheral, because the peripheral questions may be answered but the fundamental ones are not.
Evidence of a Personal Creator through the self-evident truth of human rights:
Consider the statement found in the Declaration of Independence that is the basis for our civil rights: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This statement is simply incoherent and inconsistent with all worldviews that deny a Personal Creator. Furthermore, no other worldview other than the Judeo-Christian worldview could have uttered this phrase.
The self-evident truth of our basic human rights only makes sense within a worldview that acknowledges God/A Personal Creator because these basic human rights are grounded in the fact that all humans bear the image of God/A Personal Creator. The image humans bear (their spirit) has a certain worth and dignity that sets us apart from the animal kingdom. This is why animals do not have civil rights--they are not spiritual creatures (i.e. they are not made in the image of God) and therefore are not endowed by their [Personal] Creator with the same unalienable Rights as humans. We all recognize (experience) this self-evident truth; however, the Judeo-Christian worldview is the only worldview that coheres with that experience.
Consider the statement found in the Declaration of Independence that is the basis for our civil rights: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This statement is simply incoherent and inconsistent with all worldviews that deny a Personal Creator. Furthermore, no other worldview other than the Judeo-Christian worldview could have uttered this phrase.
The self-evident truth of our basic human rights only makes sense within a worldview that acknowledges God/A Personal Creator because these basic human rights are grounded in the fact that all humans bear the image of God/A Personal Creator. The image humans bear (their spirit) has a certain worth and dignity that sets us apart from the animal kingdom. This is why animals do not have civil rights--they are not spiritual creatures (i.e. they are not made in the image of God) and therefore are not endowed by their [Personal] Creator with the same unalienable Rights as humans. We all recognize (experience) this self-evident truth; however, the Judeo-Christian worldview is the only worldview that coheres with that experience.
Evidence of a Personal Creator through the mind/consciousness and intelligence:
We all believe in an eternal something--either eternal energy or an eternal Mind. Naturalists (atheists) seem to be on the "eternal energy" side (violating the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics, as well as not being able to explain the nature of our existence (consciousness, reason, information, love, humor, beauty, laws of logic and morality coherently with mindless "energy". On the other hand, an "eternal Mind (God)" coherently and consistently explains consciousness, reason, information, love, humor, beauty, laws of logic and morality because these are all activities of a MIND!
Furthermore, there is scientific evidence that consciousness continues after (physical) death. This new study/evidence is another huge blow to the atheist/naturalist worldview; however, this evidence supports the view that a Personal (Conscious) Creator is the reason for our consciousness.
Dr. John Lennox, professor of Mathematics at Oxford sums up this topic this way: "There are not many options — essentially, just two. Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter or there is a Creator. It is strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second put it, "
References
Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. New York: HarperOne, 2009. Print.
"The Privileged Planet" (2010-dvd)
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010. Print.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-craig-krauss-debate-at-north-carolina-state-university