There isn’t Scientist out there —whether a believer or not—who would argue against the idea that the universe is like a giant machine and exhibits a stunning degree of organization. In fact, there are hundreds of parameters within the universe and our solar system, which are so finely tuned, that if they were even a fraction off, life would not be sustainable. There are things like gravitational pull, the strong and weak nuclear forces, the magnetic field, the distance of the earth from the sun, the distance from the earth to the moon, etc… Again, there are hundreds of these parameters which are all independent of each other. So it’s not a matter of all of them being a fraction off, but not even one of them could be off, or life, in any form, could not exist.
And so life sits in this beautiful delicate balance. In my opinion, this requires explanation. Doesn’t it least appear on the surface that these design features are not a coincidence? Isn’t it more likely that the universe was purposefully designed? Needless to say, there are people who turn away from the obvious and try to explain the presence of design in the universe as having come about by random forces. Now keep in mind, the skeptical approach doesn’t carry a solid scientific explanation for the appearance of design. Rather, they attempt to offer naturalistic theories as to how the universe came to be, and how it came to be so finely tuned. Are these theories meaningful? The answer is no—especially when you consider how often they change, and the length the skeptic goes with the theories. You see, it was once thought by the naturalist that as technology became more sophisticated, it would bear out their naturalistic theories. But what happened instead? As the technology became more sophisticated, it actually proved to illustrate a stronger case for purposeful, Creative Design.
At present, there is no scientific evidence to back up the explanations skeptics implement to explain away the presence of design and fine tuning in the universe. Beyond the failed scientific theories, the skeptic has now entered into even wilder territory. Rather than entertain the possibility that perhaps there is a God who created this universe, skeptics are content to offer up the theory of multiple universes! If there is some universe popping machine out there that generates multiple universes, then it should come as no surprise that, probabilistically speaking, we just happened to get the one that is finely tuned for life! Folks I am not making this up. First of all, the idea of multiple or infinite universes is pure metaphysics, and is in no way scientific. Secondly, there is simply no evidence for this assertion, and finally, the idea of multiple universes is logically bankrupt. (read further) My point remains that we have a tremendous amount of evidence to look at. What can we conclude from that evidence? What is the most likely explanation for the presence, order, and fine tuning we see in the universe? I would say purposeful design. Now if people still choose to ignore that conclusion…that’s fine, but they should cease appealing to science to support their beliefs, because the science points directly to theism and not atheism.
Believe it or not, there will be some at this point who say; “if you can prove God exists, there’s no room for faith.” Or, “you can’t prove God.” How about this one? “Belief in God or the Bible is not a logical thing, and it flies in the face of faith.” It may surprise you to know that Christians can be the biggest perpetrators of those kinds of statements. No doubt, faith is what it’s all about. The Bible says in the Book of Hebrews, “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” However, nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that we should have blind faith. Consider logic, reason, and rationality; where do those concepts come from if not God? Therefore, it shouldn’t be a stretch to accept that faith is a reasonable and logical practice. Faith is the act of placing our trust in that which is true. It is living our lives in belief that God exists and that His Word is true and meaningful. Otherwise, we would be stumbling around, hoping against hope, that we chose correctly. But God does not leave us in that predicament. Indeed, God wants us to have faith in Him, but He hasn’t left us in the dark. God has given us an abundance of truth and evidence to indicate that He exists and that we count on the Bible as having come from Him alone. Additionally, God has placed in our possession, universal and self evident truths that all human beings come by, even if they have never seen a Bible. Then sometimes people respond, “If there is that much proof, why doesn’t everyone believe in God?” That’s a fair question. Is there anyone on the planet who doesn’t know that smoking cigarettes is harmful? The answer is no, yet people still smoke. How much evidence is there that the Holocaust took place? Yet there are those who deny it ever happened. My point is, there are a number of things, while universal in their truth, are things that people still act in defiance of. The same is true of people’s view of God. It would be intellectual suicide for someone to say, “Hey I know God exists, has plan for me, knows what I do, hates my sin, and will judge me and allow me to spend eternity in hell, but I don’t care, I’ll do what I want!” The chance of there being such a person is virtually zero. So what will people do instead? They may simply posit the non existence of God, or they will create a god that suits them. So back to the question, “If there is so much proof why doesn’t everyone become a believer?” Too often, our worldviews are built on preference and not truth. Something that Christians are typically accused of—which I think began with Freud—is that since human beings are afraid of dying, or are afraid of the unpredictability of nature, we create a Deity that is in control of things. Christianity then becomes a crutch for weak minded people. But as R.C. Sproul has responded, “the crutch is on the other leg.” Because of personal desires or fear of the unknown, people could easily rationalize the non-existence of God so that they can live however they want. It may be personally comforting and liberating not having to be accountable to a righteous and holy God. If someone can successfully bury God—in their own mind—the possible consequences of denying Him will be buried as well. (See Romans 1) Scientists are not immune from this problem, which is why we need to employ a rigorous assessment of evidence to sort out fact from fiction, and truth from conjecture.
This is precisely why I get so excited about sharing these things with people. It’s one thing to simply talk about matters of faith. However, when you can give the greatest news ever—and then demonstrate its validity and truth—what a wonderful combination that is! At this point someone could make the accusation that I’m being arrogant because it sounds like I’m trying to imply that Christianity has all the answers. Arrogance has no place in the life of a Christian, and in no way am I trying to act like a know it all. Having said that, the whole purpose of this article—and Christian Apologetics in general—is to indeed say…yes... we’re willing to bring everything to the table and present a detailed and exhaustive case to illustrate that: God exists, the Bible is His word, Jesus is the risen Savior and only way to heaven, life beyond the grave is eternal, and that this eternity can be spent in darkness— separated from Christ—or spent in eternal joy, bliss, and beauty. We would be with the Lord and loved ones who have gone before us, all enjoying perfect love, perfect peace, and perfect fellowship. This sounds impossible to our so called enlightened minds. Our cynicism and sarcasm seem to have taken wonderful promises like these off the table. But nothing is impossible with God. Statements about heaven are not made to help us cope with the struggles of life and death. Statements about hell are not offered to just keep people walking in a certain line. These things are a reality. None of us would go through this trouble and risk of alienation or persecution, to go on and on about personal, subjective feelings and opinions. No, beloved, God is real, and so is His word. And as believers, I say once again, that we wish to bring this truth to everyone who wants to hear it or debate it. Are others willing and able to do the same with their worldview?
As we embark on the next discussion, I would like to issue a word of warning. What I’m about to explain may be something you grab right away or it might seem so far out that you end up frustrated. As logically sound as these first principles are, it still may take a while for them to sink in—I know it did with me. My explanations and analogies may prove helpful; on the other hand, they may not. Just re-read this stuff a few times; think and pray about it, and additionally, look up some of the people and resources we've recommended in the Reference library under the Resources tab.
Back in November of 1998, I was introduced to R.C. Sproul. Prior to that, I had studied Apologetics and the evidence for God through the Design argument. However, back during that time, I heard Sproul teaching and I ordered his tape series called “Defending the Faith”. I was blown away by what I learned in the first few lectures. I’m indebted to Dr. Sproul because his teaching on the existence of God actually demonstrated a proof. The Design argument does provide statistical proof and an overwhelming certainty that God created the universe and all of life. Sproul’s presentation, however, is a logical proof. I will add right here that this proof does not tell us anything about God’s character or who He is. We can’t take this proof and then immediately conclude that this God is the God of Israel. All that is being illustrated here is that God is a necessary Being. The word necessary, in this case, isn’t used in the context it usually is. The statement: God is a necessary Being, simply means is that it is impossible for God not to exist. God cannot, not be. The discussion goes like this: If there was ever a time when there was nothing—what would there be now? The answer is nothing! Nothing is not a little something. Subatomic particles, quarks, negative or positive energy etc… are not nothing—they are something. Nothing is not empty space—for even empty space is something. Nothing is no thing. So if there was ever a time when there was nothing, what would there be now? Nothing! Right about now you may be intrigued, aggravated or both. However, as we conclude this explanation, and you get your arms around this stuff, you’ll be amazed at how liberating a truth it is.
Let me continue. Why is there something rather than nothing? There is a universe. There are stars, planets, people, shoes, chalk, etc…So, if anything exists, God exists necessarily. Since we already know that out of nothing, nothing comes, we’re left with the only logical deduction, and that is that something has always existed. Can something come into being from nothing? The answer is no. How would that ever happen? Remember, if you start with nothing, you still have nothing. As Sproul says, the idea of something coming from nothing is a “self referential absurdity”. It would be like trying to imagine a one ended stick. In other words, something coming from nothing is not only physically impossible but logically impossible as well. Therefore, since things exist, it means that for all of eternity, something has had the power of existence within itself, or nothing would be. Sproul goes on to point out how people have tried to evade these conclusions by saying that since everything needs a cause, then, so does God—so the discussion ends in stalemate. This was the argument of the famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell. Sproul stated that Russell’s arguments were tragically flawed in that Russell, and others of his ilk, made a logical blunder. Indeed every effect needs an antecedent or prior cause; but, not every thing needs a cause. Attempts to claim that something can come from nothing, or that the universe created itself, violates every law of logic. However, you violate no law of logic by positing a being that has existed from all of eternity and has the power of being within itself. In fact, not only does it not violate any law of logic, but it is the only explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. In my opinion, Russell’s arguments only delayed the inevitable discussion of God, but did nothing to disprove the necessity of God’s existence. Remember, something cannot come into being from nothing, and nothing can create itself. Yet since we have something, where did it come from? Again, if there was ever a time when there was nothing…there would still be nothing. But things do exist. Since nothingness results in nothingness, why do we have something? It is because something has existed eternally.
What is the something that has existed eternally? Whatever person, planet, or object that we see, we know it has not existed eternally. If someone wants to argue that the earth or the universe has existed eternally, they’re free to do so but they are guilty of self-refutation at every turn. The universe and the earth are constantly changing—especially if you believe in evolutionary cosmology and Darwinian evolution. But the question is—what is driving this change? If you say that the universe is eternal and is directing its own change, you are making the argument that the universe has an eternal mind and intentionality. Something with an eternal existence and an eternal mind and eternal power to drive its own change seems oddly reminiscent of Deity does it not? Unless you want to attribute God-like characteristics to the universe—which seems pretty uncomfortable with atheism—you must admit that the universe could not have existed eternally. At this point in the discussion, we’re still looking for the self-existent eternal something. And since we know that there has been a lot of change and a lot of additions and a lot of subtractions, and further, that all these changes could not be have been willed by the universe itself; the logical conclusion is that no part of the universe, or the universe itself could be self-existent and eternal. Was the “cosmic egg” that went “bang” in the Big Bang, (which supposedly caused the universe to spring into existence) the self existent eternal being? Once again, the answer is no. If the “cosmic egg” were self existent and eternal it would still be a cosmic egg. If something within the thing that went bang caused it to go bang, that would require a true starting point and a ticking down of time before the bang occurred. However, eternal things, by definition, would have no start time or end time. If they did, they would not be eternal. So the cosmic singularity or cosmic egg that exploded could not have been self-existent and eternal. Try to keep in mind what we’re after here: out of nothing, nothing comes; but, indeed, we have things. It then follows that something has existed eternally, but what is that something? What about outside forces that could cause something to explode and/or cause a universe to go through all the changes this one has. Could this force or forces be the something that is self-existent and eternal? One of the reasons the answer is no is something I’ll cover in just a bit. But another reason these forces (whatever they might be, energy etc…) are not good candidates for the self existent eternal being is that we have to ask the question, what is driving the forces? If they are self-driven, we’re right back to the problem of assigning eternal power and will to a “force”. This idea unwittingly shows forth the existence of a god, not an absence of one. But what if these forces were just randomly at work for all eternity? Couldn’t this action eventually bring about a fertile universe, capable of accidentally creating life, and accidentally sustaining life? Again, one of the answers to this question is a little later on in the chapter. But for right now, we still have to answer the above questions with a resounding no!
Despite the stupefying hurdles and evidence against this accidental formation and sustaining of life, random “eternal” forces cannot be self existent and eternal. The problem is that while these random forces—which themselves would have to eternal—were whipping and shaping things in the universe to usher in stars, planets, and eventually life—what had to occur? Change! Purely physical forces or objects cannot be eternal if they go through change unless it could be argued that the forces could act independently of their own eternality. Once again, this argues in favor of a Deity and not against one. Why is change necessary to make all this happen? Due to the fact that we have not existed eternally—and for that matter, neither have the sun, moon, or stars—what would cause these random eternal forces to change direction to bring about things that previously did not exist? There would have to be some kind of an internal hiccup that caused it. But, if a change occurred within the forces that was accidental or caused by something outside of them, were right back to logically having to acknowledge that these random forces could not be eternal. It should be noted (in my opinion), that once any skeptic or atheist would get to this point of choosing as a self-existent eternal being—which is an absolute necessity— unidentified blind “forces” as opposed to God; we can see that the veil has come off, and that at the end of the day; the atheist, though trying very hard to present his denial of God as an intellectual reality, has taken a leap of faith rooted in personal philosophy and desire.
To be sure, believers in God are also taking a step of faith. But it is a “step”, not a “leap”. The reason it is an “act” or “step” of faith is because, as I mentioned earlier, our faith is not blind faith. It is indeed faith, but faith in the truth. From what we have discussed, and what we will continue to discuss, the most reasonable, evidential and logical position, is to affirm the existence of God, and all that follows from there.
So what is the something that has always existed? Folks, let me be clear; there is no way around this argument. The question we continue to ask is, what is that something? Well, it couldn’t be anything physical. Why? Because, once again, if something physical exists in an eternal state, it would be today, exactly what it has been for eternity. Since we know that the present world and its contents have not existed eternally, what would be the physical thing that existed from all of eternity but then somehow changed, evolved, exploded etc…? The answer to that is contained in the question itself. If a physical eternal being were to change, either it really isn’t eternal, or something outside of it would be responsible for changing it. Hence, it is not, nor ever was eternal. Now we’re back to square one. Again, the self existent eternal being could not be physical or it would be in the same state now as it was in the past, and will be in the future. But all we need to do is look around and also self reflect, and the immediate conclusion is that whatever has existed from all of eternity was not physical, unless you can make the argument that this very moment has existed eternally. So we have a non-physical eternal being. How, then, do we get a physical universe, and physical organisms? The eternal non physical being would have to have a mind or intelligence to act independently of its own eternality! Think about it: if the non physical eternal being had no mind, there would still only exist a non physical eternal being. Do you see what is emerging here? The only explanation for the existence of the universe is that a non-physical, eternal being, used intelligent, creative force to place the universe in existence. This is logical proof for the existence of God! I hasten to add that this logical argument only proves that God exists and has definite and unchangeable attributes. It doesn’t automatically tell us that this God is the God of the Bible. Nevertheless, the Bible claims that God is a self-existent, eternal being. See Isaiah 57:15; Exodus 3:14; Deuteronomy 33:27; Isaiah 40:24; Psalm 90; 1st Timothy 1:17...and countless others.
Very quickly, and as promised, I have one final explanation showing forth the logical bankruptcy of eternal physical forces bringing about the universe—and all that is in it—and the idea of an eternal, infinite universe, or even multiple universes. First of all, 20t h and 21s t century cosmology has removed any notion of an eternal universe. The space sciences all affirm that the universe came into existence at a definitive point in history. Even beyond that—and this is kind of fun too—if the universe were infinite, or if there were an infinite regress of physical forces in action, we would never have reached the point in time we are currently. This is another logical conclusion that cannot be overturned.
By the way, I put these two things together in the discussion—eternal physical forces and/or an infinite universe—because whether you argue that physical forces within an eternal universe or eternal, infinite physical forces bringing about a universe; the logical problems of them being a reality stem from the same point. It should also be noted that there are certainly no evidences of eternal physical forces and/or an infinite universe; they exist only as a pacifying end-around for those who deny the existence of God. Attributing our existence—or anything for that matter—to an infinite regress of eternal, physical forces—either creating a universe or random forces working within an infinite and eternal universe—is an entirely religious action, and one that goes against the available evidence and sheer logical reasoning. But let’s just say for the sake of argument that the universe has been here forever; if the universe is infinite or if physical forces were acting eternally, we would never have even reached this moment in time because it would be logically impossible. Is it conceivably possible to dig out of a bottomless pit? The answer is no because there is no place to even get a foot hold—remember, it’s a bottomless pit. The same holds true for an infinite universe and infinite, eternal forces. Let’s go back in time 20 billion years. How about 100 billion years? How about 999 trillion years? If the universe were truly infinite, or if purely physical forces have been at work infinitely and eternally, no matter how far back we go, we would be no closer to the beginning than we are right now because the time going backwards is never ending. An infinite regress of causation is logically impossible. Again, each moment we go backward— trying to find what cause preceded each effect—would result in infinite frustration. Let’s reflect, once again, on the bottomless pit analogy. Suppose I’m talking to a friend and I tell him another friend fell into a bottomless pit. My friend asks, “How long will it take him to get out of the pit?” My response is, “let’s go take a look.” As we stand over the hole, I break the news to my friend that our other friend is never going to reach the point where he and I are standing. “Why?” he asks. I explain that the only chance our friend would have to ever get out of the pit and arrive at the point where we’re currently standing would be for him to hit the bottom and then start the long climb back up. However, since it is a “bottomless pit”, our friend would never reach the bottom; he would continue to fall—infinitely! Now, try working the scenario in reverse. This time the friend “starts off” in the bottomless pit. How long would it take him to reach my friend and me standing at the top? The answer is— never! In fact, “starting off” in the bottomless pit is precisely the problem. If it is a bottomless pit, it is infinitely deep, and hence, there is no place to “start”. No matter how far down we were to climb down the pit to rescue our friend, no matter how much time we had to do it, we would never get any closer to him than we would be standing at the top of the pit. Now, take this same thought process into the realm of an infinite universe, infinite forces, or infinite multiple universes. If these things actually existed in reality, this moment in time would never have arrived. Why? Because it would require an infinite number (bottomless pit) of causes to have one thing lead to another to another etc…until we arrived. However, since there would be no starting point, the string of causes would run infinitely backward preventing any given moment from ever arriving. Yet, moments have arrived, the universe did come to exist, and here we stand today.
The obviousness of this observation, clearly and undeniably, indicates that there was, indeed, a starting point. If we look at our friend in the bottomless pit and can somehow observe that he is ten feet up the hole, someone could turn to me and say, “Hey—you lied to me! That can’t be a bottomless (infinite) pit. If he is ten feet up the hole, that means he had to start at zero; therefore, it couldn’t have been a bottomless pit.” What about our solar system? Since we know it hasn’t been here forever, and—assuming for the moment that God does not exist—at what point in history did our solar system arrive? If it was 5 billion years ago, that presupposes we start at zero. However, if infinite causes are at work, there is no starting point; therefore, the arrival of the solar system could never have occurred. Strangely enough, if you’re having difficulty envisioning arriving at a particular point—without benefit of an actual starting point—you’re probably a lot closer to understanding all this than you think. Let me re-emphasize; with an infinite, that is, never ending regress of causes, there is no starting point! If there isn’t a starting point, you cannot arrive anywhere. The only way this moment in time could have arrived, is if there was a beginning. This isn’t a matter of trying to figure out where we might be in a string of infinite causes. This cannot be envisioned or figured out because it is logically and physically impossible to occur in the first place.
We need a self-existent, eternal being; otherwise, nothing would ever begin to exist. Yet, things have begun to exist (stars, the solar system, life etc…). Therefore, something has had to exist in an eternal state. Who, and or, what is the self existent eternal being? Obviously, anything that begins to exist cannot be the self-existent, eternal being. Furthermore, any static physical being, entity, cosmic egg, etc…that would be self-existent and eternal—if it could exist at all—would be in the same physical state now, as it has been for all eternity. Therefore, not any ol’ eternal being will do. We’ve already discussed that random forces could not be self-existent and eternal because it would require they’re having been at work in an infinite capacity. However, an infinite regress of causes, again, is logically and physically impossible. This last statement concerning random forces, applies to infinite random forces within the universe, outside the universe, or anything that would involve the formation of multiple universes. Anytime one tries to appeal to infinite causes to explain the existence of anything, all they have done is display their faith, that is, their blind faith! I know of stated this ad nauseum but, I repeat—infinite causes are logically untenable and could in no way be responsible for creating—accidentally or otherwise—anything that begins to exist. When, and if, random forces “started” to do anything, the immediate recognition would have to be that they “started”, that is, they began to exist. Therefore, random forces, of any kind, cannot be explanatory in an infinite or temporal capacity. I’ve belabored this point just in case anyone would want to insist that the universe is infinite and eternal. However, we also have a wealth of scientific evidence indicating that the universe began to exist at a definite point in history. Therefore, the universe cannot be eternal. A self-existent, eternal being is a necessary being. In order for the self-existent, eternal being to bring anything into existence, it would have to be non-physical, changeless, powerful, and intelligent. Any other kind of being simply wouldn’t cut it. There is no way around these logical premises. Only God Himself can fit the description of the being I’ve been discussing. The Bible, it should be noted, clearly espouses the idea of a selfexistent eternal Being. The arguments for the self existent eternality of God, and the logical impossibility of an actual infinite, not only prove that there is a God but it also effectually buries all notions of an infinite universe, multiple universes, self creation, and spontaneous generation.
If you grabbed all that on the first go round, you’re a better person than I. But whether you did or didn’t, the truths are inescapable. Obviously there is more that can be learned on these subjects, and I’ll provide a list of materials for all venues that will cover these concepts in more detail, as well as other items that will be covered in this book. As we’ve discussed, God has not left us in the dark concerning the tough questions about our faith, no matter what the subject matter or intensity of the discussion.
