Evidence For The Existence Of God: Part One
Posted: Sunday, October 11, 2009
by Joel Hendon
http://hebronics.org/index.html
Over the years, I've had numerous discussions with those who do not believe in the existence of God. They often claim things as evidence for naturalism which are, rather, evidence of God. I have heard others say, that it doesn't matter what evidence there is for God, those who have closed their minds will not accept any of it. I have determined that to be true. But nevertheless, I continue to feel compelled to present any evidence I can to try and persuade some. I was shown that it is possible to change some minds a few years ago when I spent several months discussing with an unbeliever.
The subject is complex and very extensive, so much so that it is impossible to cover it in one short article. But let us look at some very strong evidence in this writing;
The universe and our world are subjects which are as compelling as anything one can find, provided the ones you try to persuade are not already convinced that a "singularity" (a dot so small that it could not be seen, according to some...dime sized according to others, but a figment of their imagination regardless of size) became so densely compacted that it exploded and created this massive universe whose size is not yet fully known, but certainly billions of light years in width and depth. They have no explanation as to where this singularity came from, how it became so dense, or how it could have been so dense as to hold all of this imperceptibly huge amount of matter. And where did the space come from that now holds all of this? These answers can only be found in an all powerful spirit God whose ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts than our thoughts.
A few years ago, Guillermo Gonzalez and co-author Jay Richards published a book entitled, "The Privileged Planet". Both men have outstanding credentials and accomplishments. They brought out the many highly technical factors which this planet contains in precisely the correct measurements and availability.
"Gonzalez obtained a BS in 1987 in Physics & Astronomy from University of Arizona and his Ph.D. in Astronomy from the University of Washington in 1993 and has done post-doctoral work at the University of Texas, Austin and the University of Washington. He has received fellowships, grants and awards from NASA, the University of Washington, Sigma Xi, and the National Science Foundation. He is a proponent of the Galactic Habitable Zone concept. He currently teaches at Grove City College, an evangelical Christian school, and was previously an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University until May 2008" (Wikipedia)
"Jay Wesley Richards has a Ph.D.(honors) in philosophy and theology from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he was formerly a Teaching Fellow. Currently he is a Research Fellow and Director of Media at the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan. His masters thesis (Th.M., Calvin Theological Seminary) treated philosopher of science Michael Polanyi. From 1996-1998, he was executive and associate editor of The Princeton Theological Review, and president of the Charles Hodge Society at Princeton Theological Seminary. He has published in academic journals such as Religious Studies, Christian Scholars' Review, The Heythrop Journal, Encounter, The Princeton Theological Review, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith: The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation; as well as editorial features in The Washington Post, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and IntellectualCapital.com." (Discovery Institute)
One of the most important factors of our planet is that it has an abundance of water, a factor absolutely necessary in order to sustain life. So far, they have discovered no other planet with water. It was announced in 2007 they have discovered water vapor in the atmosphere of one extrasolar planet. HD209458b, is outside our solar system is reported to be much closer to it's star than even Jupiter is to our sun and is exceedingly hot. They believe there is many such extrasolar stars which also have such. They are currently probing the moon to see if they find any evidence of it having contained ice under the surface.
Water is vital and almost all living things are made mostly of water. The human body is about two-thirds water. It allows our needed nutrients, chemicals and minerals to flow through our veins undamaged by it's chemically neutral composition. It allows our body to undergo considerable environmental temperature changes and yet our bodies hold a constant 98.6 degrees.
Also, the precise location of our planet is another marvelous factor which has not been found in any other spot in the universe. The size of our planet is of necessity, just right to support life. Because of it's size, it has a perfect gravitational pull to keep the precise amount of atmospheric chemicals in balance. Our air is comprised mainly of oxygen and nitrogen with a minute amount of others such as carbon dioxide. It also holds a considerable amount of water vapor molecules which hold and release heat within the atmosphere and into outer space. Any difference in size would cause critical variations in these balances.
This precise amount of gravity, plus the gravity of surrounding bodies gravitational pull, keeps us in the correct position from the sun. The earth's inhabitable areas extreme temperatures run somewhere around -40 degrees to +120 degrees Fahrenheit. If the earth were only a comparatively small distance further from the sun, life would frozen to death, yet if a little closer we would burn to death.
And have you ever considered the value of our moon? Yes it does give us small amounts of light during most nights, but that is the most minor part of it value. Did you ever wonder why the oceans do not become so stagnated as to be unfit to sustain marine life? Our moon's perfect matched gravitational pull keeps the oceans moving back and forth which deters stagnation and yet the gravity is not so strong as to inundate the landmasses. Any significant size or distance from the earth would result in catastrophe.
This Article has been viewed 695 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsThank you, thank you Joel. This exposition was a thing of articulate and exquisite beauty. You showed the profound connection of God to His creation --- the constancy and harmony of our world and universe points to design not chance. Thanks ever so much fro sharing this with us. God bless you.Thank you so much for reading and commenting Edward, coming from such an accomplished writer, it is a great compliment. Thanks again.
Great article. Well done.As a man of science I have to go with the one I consider to have the most evidence. Though your points are well argued I still believe in evolution more than creation.In addition look at the vastness of the universe. Is it not possible that at one point (us) in the cosmos that it all worked. There could have been one billion other planets that came close.But to quote Dawkins "if all evidence in the universe turned in favor of creationism I would be the first to admit it, and I would immediately change my mind."Every man must decide for himslf, Connor. But until scientists can show me a fool proof way this could have gotten here without supernatural beginnings, I'll choose God. There is no evidence for the begining of anything whatsoever, without something that can circumvent natural laws.Thanks for your comment, I appreciate it being kind and without criticism, which most cannot do.Here is a simplified verson of the maths:Time t = 0 (about 15 billion years ago)Radius r = 0.Temperature T = Infinite.Density = mass per volume = Infinite.t = 0.01 secondsT = 100,0.00,000,000 0C.Energy is mostly radiation.t = 2 secondsT = 10,000,000,000 0C.Density = 100 million kg per cubic meter.Proton-antiproton and neutron-antineutron pairs begin forming.t = 3 minutesT = 1,000,000,000 0C.Protons and neutrons begin forming hydrogen and helium.t = 20 minutesAbout 25% of the protons and neutrons in the universe are now helium.t = 10,000 yearsT = 10,000 0C.Density = 0.000,000,000,000,000,01 kg per cubic meter.Most energy is now mass, not radiation.Condensation into stars begins. A photograph from the Hubble space telescope of a birthplace of stars appears below.t = 15 billion years (now)T = -270 0C. (This temperature is from the Penzias and Wilson experiment described above.)Density = 10-27 kg per cubic meter.Come on, Connor. This stuff is absolutely meaningless...where did the infinite temperature and infinite density of mass (what mass?), come from?But thanks for being accepting. We can agree to differ.
As always, Joel, I enjoyed your article. I have always believed that just looking around was proof enough; there is no way it is just chance, but ultimately, it is a matter of faith.True, Lorrie, thanks for reading and commenting.
Thumbs Up, Joel. I am in total agreement with Lorrie. Thanks for sharing this article with us.
Well-written argument, Joel, for the must of God's existence. No, neither you or I can scientifically prove the existence of a supernatural being, but to ignore all the intricate design and opt for chance as the supreme explanation for things just seems to make a mockery of intelligence. I choose to stake my fate in the words of Moses over the theory of Darwin, which demands far greater faith than belief in Moses' creation account. ~mogama~Exactly, thanks much for commenting Mogama
Hi Joel, thanks for a well-written article, I agree with you. Many will discuss without nasty comments and are geniunely interested in why Christians believe as they do, but there are many others who are just out to be mean. I don't get it (well, I do, but you know), if they choose not to believe that is their right, but why do they have to resort to childish name-calling to convince believers to agree with them? I am always amazed at some non-believers. For one who does not believe in God, he/she certainly allows a non-existent God to occupy much of their time. Anyway, good article. Blessings, TeresaHi Teresa, thanks a lot for the nice comment. You're right, all we can do is continue totell people. It is then their responsibility.There are certainly atheists around who are just out to be mean, and I don't condone their behaviour, although I have to say I've seen mean people on both sides of the discussion.I completely agree about childish name-calling being a fairly counter-productive way to try and convince people to change their mind and move towards your position... name calling is only going to drive people away. The only goal anyone is likely to score that way is an own-goal :)Religion (and politics too) can, for many, be a hard subject to discuss calmly - people are passionate about it (which is fine, admirable in fact) and sometimes let this passion overcome their temper (which isn't fine).As to non-believers allowing God to take up much of their time, I can see some sense in that - whether or not God exists, it remains a fact that belief in God, and religion-based organisations and lobbies, have a lot of influence in what happens here on Earth - religion is a big influence even on the lives on the non-religious!It doesn't really help the debate (either way), aHi Ben, I agree with you, and there are a few of these kinds here on SW, It blows me away how they talk to someone and then in the next breath talk about love. I am ashamed and sad for people of faith who do that.And I appreciate you and every conversation we have ever had because you have never been mean and I haven't either (At least I hope not!)I try not to be mean, but I admit I can be fairly blunt sometimes, although I usually try to avoid that :)You've certainly not been mean in any conversation between us!Thanks Ben for an excellent comment. I know that I, at times get to smart mouthed with some when they try to put me down personally, and maybe other times, but I don't mean to be hateful. You hit it right on the head, I am passionate about my religion, I'm just not proud of my ability to always hold my cool as I should. And I agree with Teresa, you can oppose an issue extremely nicely. I appreciate that. Thanks again for the comment
I'm with you, Joel. As a fan of science, I see ample evidence of God in everything. I can't understand how some can contrive whole civilizations from a single tooth, and call it proof of evolution.Awesome job here.Thanks Ken, for writing and commenting. I agree, their imagination is unbelievable. The bad part about it all is the main ones KNOW that, and I have hundreds of quotes of those who admit it but just "can't allow a divine foot in the door". That is a portion from one of them.
hi joel,as i was reading, i was thinking the same thing lorrie said-just watch a baby being born, or a hummingbird suspended in mid air, or the way it feels to be in love. there are harmful things as well, but i believe those are the things we are supposed to figure out before we pass.and there are the personal moments with God when we beg for His help and guidance, and receive it. there's the feeling of peace and safety we feel when we talk to God. somebody's listening!thanks for sharing this,my best,sueThank you , Sue. Yes, Jesus Christ is the answer.
Hi Joel, well written article and your ideas are well organized, but to keep things fair and balanced, here is a rebuttal. This is from from Richard Dawkins:
Imagine that you are a teacher of Roman history and the Latin language, anxious to impart your enthusiasm for the ancient world — for the elegiacs of Ovid and the odes of Horace, the sinewy economy of Latin grammar as exhibited in the oratory of Cicero, the strategic niceties of the Punic Wars, the generalship of Julius Caesar and the voluptuous excesses of the later emperors. That’s a big undertaking and it takes time, concentration, dedication. Yet you find your precious time continually preyed upon, and your class’s attention distracted, by a baying pack of ignoramuses (as a Latin scholar you would know better than to say ignorami) who, with strong political and especially financial support, scurry about tirelessly attempting to persuade your unfortunate pupils that the Romans never existed. There never was a Roman Empire. The entire world came into existence only just beyond living memory. Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan, Romansh: all these languages and their constituent dialects sprang spontaneously and separately into being, and owe nothing to any predecessor such as Latin.
Instead of devoting your full attention to the noble vocation of classical scholar and teacher, you are forced to divert your time and energy to a rearguard defence of the proposition that the Romans existed at all: a defence against an exhibition of ignorant prejudice that would make you weep if you weren’t too busy fighting it.
If my fantasy of the Latin teacher seems too wayward, here’s a more realistic example. Imagine you are a teacher of more recent history, and your lessons on 20th-century Europe are boycotted, heckled or otherwise disrupted by well-organised, well-financed and politically muscular groups of Holocaust-deniers. Unlike my hypothetical Rome-deniers, Holocaustdeniers really exist. They are vocal, superficially plausible and adept at seeming learned. They are supported by the president of at least one currently powerful state, and they include at least one bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to “teach the controversy”, and to give “equal time” to the “alternative theory” that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators.
Fashionably relativist intellectuals chime in to insist that there is no absolute truth: whether the Holocaust happened is a matter of personal belief; all points of view are equally valid and should be equally “respected”.
Related Links
* Richard Dawkins interview
* One in seven Britons believe in creationism
The plight of many science teachers today is not less dire. When they attempt to expound the central and guiding principle of biology; when they honestly place the living world in its historical context — which means evolution; when they explore and explain the very nature of life itself, they are harried and stymied, hassled and bullied, even threatened with loss of their jobs. At the very least their time is wasted at every turn. They are likely to receive menacing letters from parents and have to endure the sarcastic smirks and close-folded arms of brainwashed children. They are supplied with state-approved textbooks that have had the word “evolution” systematically expunged, or bowdlerized into “change over time”. Once, we were tempted to laugh this kind of thing off as a peculiarly American phenomenon. Teachers in Britain and Europe now face the same problems, partly because of American influence, but more significantly because of the growing Islamic presence in the classroom — abetted by the official commitment to “multiculturalism” and the terror of being thought racist.
It is frequently, and rightly, said that senior clergy and theologians have no problem with evolution and, in many cases, actively support scientists in this respect. This is often true, as I know from the agreeable experience of collaborating with the Bishop of Oxford, now Lord Harries, on two separate occasions. In 2004 we wrote a joint article in The Sunday Times whose concluding words were: “Nowadays there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a fact and, from a Christian perspective, one of the greatest of God’s works.” The last sentence was written by Richard Harries, but we agreed about all the rest of our article. Two years previously, Bishop Harries and I had organised a joint letter to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
[In the letter, eminent scientists and churchmen, including seven bishops, expressed concern over the teaching of evolution and their alarm at it being posed as a “faith position”at the Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead.] Bishop Harries and I organised this letter in a hurry. As far as I remember, the signatories to the letter constituted 100 per cent of those we approached. There was no disagreement either from scientists or from bishops.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has no problem with evolution, nor does the Pope (give or take the odd wobble over the precise palaeontological juncture when the human soul was injected), nor do educated priests and professors of theology. The Greatest Show on Earth is a book about the positive evidence that evolution is a fact. It is not intended as an antireligious book. I’ve done that, it’s another T-shirt, this is not the place to wear it again. Bishops and theologians who have attended to the evidence for evolution have given up the struggle against it. Some may do so reluctantly, some, like Richard Harries, enthusiastically, but all except the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution.
They may think God had a hand in starting the process off, and perhaps didn’t stay his hand in guiding its future progress. They probably think God cranked the Universe up in the first place, and solemnised its birth with a harmonious set of laws and physical constants calculated to fulfil some inscrutable purpose in which we were eventually to play a role.
But, grudgingly in some cases, happily in others, thoughtful and rational churchmen and women accept the evidence for evolution.
What we must not do is complacently assume that, because bishops and educated clergy accept evolution, so do their congregations. Alas there is ample evidence to the contrary from opinion polls. More than 40 per cent of Americans deny that humans evolved from other animals, and think that we — and by implication all of life — were created by God within the last 10,000 years. The figure is not quite so high in Britain, but it is still worryingly large. And it should be as worrying to the churches as it is to scientists. This book is necessary. I shall be using the name “historydeniers” for those people who deny evolution: who believe the world’s age is measured in thousands of years rather than thousands of millions of years, and who believe humans walked with dinosaurs.
To repeat, they constitute more than 40 per cent of the American population. The equivalent figure is higher in some countries, lower in others, but 40 per cent is a good average and I shall from time to time refer to the history-deniers as the “40percenters”.
To return to the enlightened bishops and theologians, it would be nice if they’d put a bit more effort into combating the anti-scientific nonsense that they deplore. All too many preachers, while agreeing that evolution is true and Adam and Eve never existed, will then blithely go into the pulpit and make some moral or theological point about Adam and Eve in their sermons without once mentioning that, of course, Adam and Eve never actually existed! If challenged, they will protest that they intended a purely “symbolic” meaning, perhaps something to do with “original sin”, or the virtues of innocence. They may add witheringly that, obviously, nobody would be so foolish as to take their words literally. But do their congregations know that? How is the person in the pew, or on the prayer-mat, supposed to know which bits of scripture to take literally, which symbolically? Is it really so easy for an uneducated churchgoer to guess? In all too many cases the answer is clearly no, and anybody could be forgiven for feeling confused.
Think about it, Bishop. Be careful, Vicar. You are playing with dynamite, fooling around with a misunderstanding that’s waiting to happen — one might even say almost bound to happen if not forestalled. Shouldn’t you take greater care, when speaking in public, to let your yea be yea and your nay be nay? Lest ye fall into condemnation, shouldn’t you be going out of your way to counter that already extremely widespread popular misunderstanding and lend active and enthusiastic support to scientists and science teachers? The history-deniers themselves are among those who I am trying to reach. But, perhaps more importantly, I aspire to arm those who are not history-deniers but know some — perhaps members of their own family or church — and find themselves inadequately prepared to argue the case.
Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips . . . continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.
Why, then, do we speak of “Darwin’s theory of evolution”, thereby, it seems, giving spurious comfort to those of a creationist persuasion — the history-deniers, the 40-percenters — who think the word “theory” is a concession, handing them some kind of gift or victory? Evolution is a theory in the same sense as the heliocentric theory. In neither case should the word “only” be used, as in “only a theory”. As for the claim that evolution has never been “proved”, proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting.
Influential philosophers tell us we can’t prove anything in science.
Mathematicians can prove things — according to one strict view, they are the only people who can — but the best that scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the Moon is smaller than the Sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher, be proved in the way that, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved. But massive accretions of evidence support it so strongly that to deny it the status of “fact” seems ridiculous to all but pedants. The same is true of evolution. Evolution is a fact in the same sense as it is a fact that Paris is in the northern hemisphere. Though logic-choppers rule the town,* some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts. The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact.
We are like detectives who come on the scene after a crime has been committed. The murderer’s actions have vanished into the past.
The detective has no hope of witnessing the actual crime with his own eyes. What the detective does have is traces that remain, and there is a great deal to trust there. There are footprints, fingerprints (and nowadays DNA fingerprints too), bloodstains, letters, diaries. The world is the way the world should be if this and this history, but not that and that history, led up to the present.
Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty. Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eyewitness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time.Thanks Gregory, for your response and for giving Dawkins his say. But you could not expect anything less from him. He would go to any length to avoid submitting to a higher power. As you read his article, notice the emphasis he puts on evolution as being a FACT. He knows full well that it is not a fact and, in fact, it is not a reliable theory. Instead of all the evidence he claims to have, he has none. Zero.I would encourage you to go read an article which I have posted since this one, entitled "Evolution: Proponents against themselves, it is swa551718.There is an enormous amount of evidence that the Bible is the authentic word of God and yet, Dawkins and his kind will not even allow it to be presented or mentioned in a classroom. His claim that evolution is fact, is a perfect reason to doubt it.
Hi Joel, it's "e," not Gregory. It's easy to get confused with the article format, I know, I've done it!Anyway, I see science as proof, and the Bible as fictiion and Christ a myth. But that's just me, and I certainly have no ill feelings toward Christians who believe. Most of them are very nice people, with a caveat for the radicals! It's just that . . .well, the world is round, and not exactly at the center of the universe! I think that Christians who think that the earth is only 6,000 years old will lose most of their young folks when they get old enough to get to college and away from the indoctrination. Just my opinion. I read a n article not too long ago that said that 83% of Evangelical Christians leave the church when they turn eighteen. Please believe as you will, but don't really expect others to believe with you. I'm not sure why the Abrahamic religions of the Middle East (Christains, Jews and Muslims are so violent and agressive. Hey! I'll have to write an article about that!Peace be with you............eHi E, sorry about that, the article of Dawson's was so long, I whizzed back up an stopped on Gregory's. Hey, if we hated everyone who disagreed with us, we'd be full of hate.But You see E,, even you say "I see science as proof". Man, science is a study, not proof until you come up with a way to replicate or watch it happen. What little evidence these pseudo scientists have, proves absolutely nothing. And speaking of fiction, I would believe Hercules is standing with the earth on his shoulders rather than to say that a point of nothing exploded and flung out all of this massive universe. Good grief!And you are right, we are losing most of our young. But only because those who receive huge grants have the upper hand and are keeping the truth from being mentioned in our colleges. Go read the article I asked you to.Make sure, if you write the article you mention that you place credit where it is due. The angry aggressive ones are not true Christians. Christians are not to fight physically unless directed by their government for a true cause. A vast majority of those who wear the name are not living it. This goes for many of the other religions as well. I have written a series of 3 articles on the enmity and hatred between the children of Isaac and the children of Ishmael and Esau. They are on Webgazine and might give you some more material for your article.If all Christians were as peaceful as you, it would be a wonderful world!
Best.............e
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.