Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

in #science8 years ago

The following article was written by Eric Metaxas and was originally published on The Wall Street Journal on Dec. 25, 2014. It is the most shared and liked article on TWSJ website in their history.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researchers have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

Mr. Metaxas is the author, most recently, of “Miracles: What They Are, Why They Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life” ( Dutton Adult, 2014).


Other Resources


Video of Kevin Harris & Dr. WIlliam Lane Craig addressing some of the opposition to the article, "Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God".
Sort:  

Even if a Creator/"God" exists, he has absolutely nothing to do with our stupid religions on this planet.

I would have to agree that religions, as a genre, are a major impediment to finding Truth.

Jesus didn't come to establish a religion. He game to inaugurate His kingdom.

Context, context, context. The torah is the first book that prohibit human sacrifice in human history. The meaning of that passage AND IT'S CONTEXT is that if you do not follow God's law, God will make your life suck so much, you'll be so poor and at siege that the only way to live is by eating your children. (or starve) I also support @brich comment.

Leviticus 26:29 is a prophesy that was fulfilled due to extreme hunger during the famines at the siege of Samaria by the Syrians (Deuteronomy 28:53-57) and also at the siege of Jerusalem by the Chaldæans (2Kings 6:28-29).

See also :
Lamentations 4:10
Jeremiah 19:9
Ezekiel 5:10
Zechariah 11:9

The Bible was written, edited and compiled long after these events occurred, though. That makes these prophesies very easy to fake.

For example, I could say that in 1998, I predicted that in September 2001, two planes would crash into the World Trade Center towers. Amazing! How did I know that would happen?

Loading...

All of these various arguments essentially boil down to this reasoning: Nothing ordered can come into being on its own. It must have originated with something orderly. The existence of organized fundamental laws ("fine tuning") cannot explain how they came into being. And, things that appear designed must have a designer, a Creator, who is orderly and thoughtful.

The problem with this argument is that it collapses under its own weight. It actually doesn't argue for the existence of a Creator, but rather for the impossibility of such existence. Here's what I mean.

Complete this sentence for me: If EVERYTHING that is orderly and fine tuned MUST have been so ordered and so tuned by some higher power (a Creator), and if that higher power ITSELF is orderly and fined tuned, then...????

You see the problem?

Creationists attribute the very order and fine tuning observed in the universe to God's OWN NATURE. But yet, if God's OWN NATURE is orderly and fined tuned, and if everything orderly and fined tuned MUST have a Creator, then God himself must, by the author's own logic, have a creator. And his creator must also have has a creator. And so on. And so on.

This logic results in an endless and useless regression that explains absolutely nothing. It CANNOT be true that everything exhibiting characteristics of order and fine tuning must have been ordered and fine tuned by a higher power, because then that higher power itself would likewise have to have been ordered and fine tuned.

Thus, we cannot rationally infer the the universe must have been created unless we are then likewise willing to infer that the creator was created, and so on. Anything else is intellectually dishonest.

So, if it's NOT true that everything orderly must have been ordered (since this leads to endless regression), then as a matter of pure logic, one of two things is true. Either the universe has existed forever and INHERENTLY contains the fundamental laws of order within it (why is this any more difficult to conceive than hypothesizing that it was instead created by an invisible God who has existed forever and inherently contains the laws of order within Him?), or else it is possible, despite the author's unsupported contentions to the contrary, for something (the universe) to arise spontaneously from nothing (chaos). One of these things must be true as a matter of logic. Either way, the author's argument for inferred design fails under its own weight. In law school, we call this being "hoisted on one's own petard".

It's simply an intellectual cop out to say that the Universe itself CANNOT inherently contain the fundamental laws of nature that allow order to slowly arise out of chaos, but that it's creator God could contain these laws. Just as it is disingenuous to insist that the universe can't have existed forever, but it's creator could have. The former is no more difficult to believe than the later, and if Occam's Razor is any guide, more likely to be true.

Um, because God showed up in Person and revealed which of those two inherently impossible alternatives was really true.

Supposing there was a group of people traveling about your area today, led by a charismatic speaker who claims the world is ending soon but he alone can save you IF you sell your belongings, devote your life to him and cut off family members who try to stop you? He would also like you to leave your home and job if necessary to follow him.

What sort of group is that? Do we have a modern word for organizations of that type?

Yep. It would be called a false prophet. :)

Now, if all the details about him matched thousands of years of prophesy and you got to watch him perform routine miracles on a daily basis for several years, then it would be your responsibility to recognize him and get on board.

A cult, you mean. Specifically of the 'end of the world' variety.

Now, if all the details about him matched thousands of years of prophesy

They don't. You were misled, Jesus actually satisfies almost none of the criteria for messiah laid out in the Torah: http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html

and you got to watch him perform routine miracles on a daily basis for several years

Muhammad also performed miracles. Is Islam therefore true? "Well hang on" you might say, "the only record of those miracles is the Qur'an, hardly an unbiased source". But the same is true of Jesus' purported miracles. They are recorded in the Bible, but no other source from that time period.

Upvoted you

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” - Thomas Aquinas

I have no faith but I understand that there are limits to human reasoning and intelligence. If something can't be explained then we can't say simply say it came from God or from magic but we can endeavor to explain it.

That would be true unless God revealed the explanation and proved it enough times to enough people.
Who defines what is enough? God, of course.
He wanted the proof to be just convincing enough that
those who want to find him will believe and
those who don't want to find him... won't.
No doubt he got the value of "enough" precisely right.

And on what basis do you know that "God revealed the explanation and proved it enough times to enough people."? It seems like he didn't do a very good job of letting the majority of the world's population for most of human history hear the gospel (in China, India, etc.) in the first place. How might you be convinced by something you have never heard? And why not just create the human race so that everyone believes in him the first place? Anyway, same old arguments :).

Sufficient information has been out there for over 3500 years. The proof is in the billions who have indeed believed. The main reason it hasn't been heard by the other billions is people not wanting to hear (and Christians not wanting to suffer enough to tell them). In the Internet Age there is no longer any excuse.

But even the Apostle Paul asked your same question 2000 years ago:

"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" - Romans 10:11-13

And Isaiah 2700 years ago.

But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." - Romans 10:14-19