Friday, July 31, 2020

A PROOF OF GOD FROM THE LAWS OF PHYSICS


  
There are many weighty proofs for the existence and character of God. This is just one more of the many: 
 
PREMISE #1: The laws of physics are immutable, universal, and elegant. 

PREMISE #2: ID—intelligent design, or supernaturalism—is a better explanation for observations from the laws of physics than naturalism. 

CONCLUSION: An intelligent Designer—ID—most likely exists. 

PREMISE #1: The laws of physics are immutable,
universal, and elegant.

THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE IMMUTABLE: This should be obvious. If they were in flux, any scientific conclusion or description would be impossible, along with any replication of findings. Textbooks would have to be continuously changed and then discarded. Predictions could not be made. Any form of science would be impossible. Furthermore, there is no way to account for the immutability of the laws of physics, especially when we are dealing with a universe that is always expanding and changing. Therefore, these laws must be transcendently based, requiring a maintaining force outside of the universe. 

THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE UNIVERSAL: This too should be obvious. It is only because these laws are universal that we are able to say anything about other galaxies, planets, stars, light, or anything else within the domain of science. The universality of these laws ensures us that the findings of scientists in China should match those of researchers in California.  

THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE ELEGANT: This is equally obvious when we observe the elegance and simplicity found in the equations and formulas of physics: 

·       G = 8 pi T

This is Einstein’s field equation. It is the cornerstone of his general theory of relativity, relating the gravitational tensor G to the stress-energy tensor T in a deceptively simple equation.

Many such elegant and precise formulas exist. The following is the formula for the gravitational attraction between two bodies: 

·       Gravitational Attraction = 1/ (distance between two bodies)² 

Here’s how it works. Let’s say that someone weighs 100 pounds on the surface of the earth, which is 4,000 miles from the center of the earth. If that same person were twice as far from the center (2x²), he or she would weigh 25 pounds! About this apparent elegance, Donald DeYoung wrote: 

·       Scientists have long wondered about the factor of [superscript] 2 in this expression. It simply looks “too neat.” In an evolved universe, one would not expect such a simple relationship. For example, why isn’t the distance factor 1.99 or 2.001? The gravity force has been repeatedly tested with sensitive torsion balances, showing that the factor is indeed precisely 2…Any value other than 2 would lead to an eventual catastrophic decay of orbits and of the entire universe.1

Such precision cannot be the product of chance or of any effect due to an explosion we call the “Big Bang.” Nor is this formula unusual in its beauty and elegance. The whole world of physics speaks of a Design and therefore, a Designer.

Take, for example, the world’s most well-known formula: 

·       E = MC² (Energy = Mass x Speed of Light Squared)

Once again we find the same elegance and precision. The speed of light must be precisely squared. This formula demonstrates the harmonious interconnectedness of various physical elements—energy, mass and the speed of light. Such harmony defies the idea of a random creation set in motion by an explosion.  

Here is what astronomer Fred Hoyle had to say about this and other random processes, including evolution: 

·       The chance that higher life forms arose by evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.2 

Nevertheless, intelligent people continue to believe in the “junkyard to Boeing” theory.  

Without such elegance and simplicity, all the scientific laws that we know would have been undiscoverable and incomprehensible. 

PREMISE #2: ID—intelligent design, or supernaturalism—
is a better explanation for these observations
from the laws of physics than naturalism.

As he considered the origins of the universe and the laws of science, physicist Alexander Vilenkin believed that something was definitely “…in place beforehand—namely—the laws of physics.” However, he admits: 

·       It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics come from. We don’t even know how to approach it.3

Perhaps Vilenkin doesn’t know how to “approach it” because he is starting with the wrong paradigm. Certainly, from a naturalistic, atheistic perspective, this question is truly a “great mystery.” However, this might be more than a mystery—it could be a veritable impossibility to find the answers to these big questions, on the basis of science alone:

1.     The laws of physics are elegant, universal, and immutable. Only a cause of equal or greater magnitude could explain their existence and uniform functioning. This consideration alone should eliminate naturalism as a viable explanation. 

2.     A natural explanation for the origins of the universe is impossible because natural causation was not yet in existence at the beginning…to cause the “natural” laws. Nothing was as yet in existence in the universe! 

3.     Invoking any natural cause would also suffer from the problem of infinite regress:  What causes the cause, and then, what causes the cause of the cause, ad infinitum? The only way to avoid this conundrum is to invoke the transcendent—an eternal Causer who doesn’t require a cause.

4.     It is also hard to understand how the unchanging laws of physics could arise from what is always changing. It is equally hard to envision how these laws could remain unchanged in our ever-expanding universe of molecules-in-motion. 

5.     There does not exist even a shred of evidence that anything has ever happened naturally; that is, without intelligence. 

v   v   v

IMMUTABILITY:  Once again, in a universe of molecules-in-motion, it is hard or impossible to account for the unchanging-ness and origin of the laws of physics. Explosions—like the Big Bang, for instance—do not create laws, let alone immutability. It is therefore more likely that these laws have a Transcendent origin, arising in the Mind of God. This immutable Mind can account for immutable laws and their stability in the midst of change. They affect everything, but nothing affects them. 
 
UNIVERSALITY: Causation within our universe is all localized. The further that we travel away from a radio station, the weaker the signal or reception. The further away from a bonfire, the less the warmth. However, the laws of physics operate uniformly and universally throughout the universe. These laws work the same in the Milky Way as they do on another galaxy. It is easier to account for this as a supernatural phenomenon rather than as a natural one. In fact, it seems that the laws of physics must have originated in a transcendent, rather than a physical, realm. 

ELEGANCE: There is absolutely no natural mechanism that can account for the elegant and knowable design of the laws of physics. Explosions do not create immutable elegance. 

Of course, it could be argued that at the present time, we are simply unaware of natural forces that might account for these laws. While this is true, such a proposal faces major obstacles: 
 
1.     There is absolutely no evidence that anything happens because of natural, un-designed laws. 

2.     Postulating such a collection of possible natural laws strains credulity and seems so much less likely than the postulation of a single Creator God. 

3.     The naturalistic explanation is no explanation at all. It is merely passing the buck to another set of natural laws which also require a causal explanation. Even if a natural mechanism could be identified that creates and maintains natural laws, it too would require its own explanation. This leads to the formidable problem of an infinite regress. 

4.     Causes are always greater than their effects. If a cause is less than its effect, it means that some aspect of the effect is uncaused—a real conundrum for science.  

5.     Some argue that there might be a single, eternal and natural cause that causes all of the other laws of science. However, those who ascribe to this idea are merely replacing “God” with a natural creator having all the powers that God has—but without the ability to produce even one atom out of nothing. 

Instead, an intelligent and eternal Designer/Creator is greater and has more explanatory power than any mindless cause. Therefore, ID can better account for phenomena like the laws of physics, the fine-tuning of the universe, life, intelligence, and consciousness…than what any unintelligent causation could provide—if indeed such a cause even exists. 

CONCLUSIONAn intelligent Designer—ID—most likely exists.

Thursday, July 30, 2020

A FAILED PROOF AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD: THE PROBLEM OF HELL


The most serious philosophical charge brought against God is the charge that eternal punishment is unjust. It is part of an even broader challenge—the problem of evil and suffering. It goes like this:

·       If the God of the Bible is just, loving, and omnipotent, He would not allow the death of babies, or suffering in general.

An answer to this challenge can be found in the words of Paul:

·       I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. (Romans 8:18)

If the tribulations and griefs of this life are no more than a moment compared to a blissful eternity, Paul’s revelation offers a reasonable reprieve from the problem of evil and suffering. Besides, the Bible assures us that God has good reasons for allowing this evil for a limited time.

However, this does not answer the problem posed by the doctrine of “eternal punishment.” For one thing, it doesn’t seem right that God would eternally punish us for sins we committed within our fleeting, ephemeral lives. The famous atheist Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899) made this charge:

·       Eternal punishment must be eternal cruelty and I do not see how any man, unless he has a brain of an idiot, or the heart of a wild beast, can believe in eternal punishment.1

Put less crudely, the atheistic argument goes like this:

          PREMISE #1: Eternal punishment is not just.

          PREMISE #2: The God of the Bible promises eternal punishment.

          CONCLUSION: The God of the Bible cannot be just…or even exist.

PREMISE #1: Eternal punishment is not just.

Admittedly, this challenge is difficult to address. Part of the difficulty lies in the challenge of nailing down the precise nature of eternal punishment. For one thing, there is the problem of figurative language. For example, skeptics charge that they will not believe in a God who is “stoking the eternal fires of hell.” Even “Christian” evolutionists question the just nature of the God of the Bible. Karl Giberson, former co-head of The Biologos Foundation, which is devoted to selling evolution to the church, quoted and affirmed the words of the atheist Richard Dawkins:

·       [The OT God is a] “tyrannical anthropomorphic deity… [who] commanded the Jews to go on genocidal rampages”…But who believes in this [OT] deity any more, besides those same fundamentalists who think the earth is 10,000 years old? Modern theology has moved past this view of God.2

Giberson did not mention his disdain for an eternal punishment. However, it seems likely that his understanding of and preference for “Modern theology” would also lead him and many supposedly Christian evolutionists to question the NT teachings on eternal punishment. The following are some questions about eternal punishment that I will try to answer…

Does God proactively torment unbelievers with fire? I doubt it. It seems that much of the language of eternal fire is figurative rather than literal. In the same way, there are times when Jesus refers to hell as “outer darkness”:

·       "Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'” (Matthew 22:13; also, 8:12; 25:13. Verses including references to fire may be found in Matthew 13:42, 50)

Clearly, both the language of eternal fire and outer darkness cannot be taken literally—they are mutually exclusive. Besides, there are other verses describing what is associated with darkness or fire—“the weeping and gnashing of teeth”—as being associated with neither fire nor darkness, but of eternal regret:

·       "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.” (Luke 13:28)

In this verse, “weeping…and gnashing” is not the product of darkness or fire but a reaction to the eternal loss of blessing. This would lead us to believe that eternal torment might not be the product of God proactively tormenting these unfortunate souls, but rather the angst-filled recognition of eternal loss.

Isn’t it unjust of God to punish all of the lost souls with exactly the same punishment? On the contrary, it is apparent that there will be degrees of punishment:

·       Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you.” (Matthew 11:20-22)

Judgment will depend upon the amount of evidence for believing that each of us receives from God (John 15:22, 24). Nevertheless, according to the Apostle Paul, we all have some degree of evidence, or light (Romans 1:18-20; 2:14-15). However, we reject that light (John 3:19-21).

What about the fate of babies or the aborted pre-born? What evidence for believing could they possibly have been given? The Bible does not answer this question. However, it does teach that the extent of punishment will be relative to the extent of our guilt—what we knew and what we did:

·       "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” (Luke 12:47-48)

Although these verses do not explicitly lay out the punishment that each one deserves, they do teach us that God will judge fairly, taking into account individual situations.

Could it be that we choose our own eternal punishment? There are also other considerations that make it difficult for us to determine the exact nature of eternal punishment. In fact, it seems Biblically possible that hell and our condemnation might be self-chosen:

·       “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict [“condemnation,” KJV]: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." (John 3:17-20)

Many verses inform us that Jesus did not come to judge (John 5:45; 8:15; 12:47-49; Matthew 7:2). How then is the unbeliever condemned? He is self-condemned! How can this be? Referring back to John 3: “…whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not [he has refused and has not] believed (John 3:18).” Once again, verse 19 reconfirms that judgment is a self-judgment. The unbeliever has the light, but he rejects the light in favor of the darkness. He hates the light and will flee from it.

Will this same condemnation accompany the unbeliever into the next life and before the great judgment? It seems so. Many verses assure us that those who reject the light will not be able to stand before it…or Him:
·       Not so the wicked! They are like chaff that the wind blows away. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. (Psalm 1:4-5; also 15:1-2 and 24:3-4; Isaiah 2:20-22; Malachi 3:2; Luke 21:36; Revelation 6:15-16; 20:11)

It is very possible that this same hatred of the light that causes the sinner’s present self-condemnation will also bring about their self-condemnation in the next life. Although this is horrific, in light of this self-condemnation, we cannot easily charge God with injustice. Instead, it is we who are unjust! From this perspective, the sinner is choosing his own destiny—the darkness in which he feels the greatest sense of comfort. How can this be unjust?

But doesn’t this theory circumvent the Bible’s teachings that “…we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10)? No! The great judgment might simply represent an affirmation—a rubber-stamping—of that which each one of us has already chosen.

For the children of God, the great judgment will be a time of rejoicing. This is because our fate has already been settled. It is then that we will be changed, “…in a twinkling of an eye” (1 Corinthians 15:50-52) to become like Him (1 John 3:2; 1 Thess. 4:14-17). Therefore, when we stand before Him, there will be no doubt about our eternal fate.

It seems that the lover-of-darkness has also sealed his own fate—by running from the light. In view of this possibility, no one can coherently blame God or impugn His righteous, just nature.

Even if hell is self-chosen, isn’t God still morally responsible for giving us this choice?  Not necessarily. Perhaps God will give the sufferers the option of pulling-the-plug and facing utter annihilation. Even though this option is horrific, it cannot be unjust. If God is the giver of life, there is nothing unjust about allowing the self-condemned to extinguish it.

This is just a possibility. There is nothing in the Scriptures that lays out this option. However, there is nothing that precludes it. Admittedly, there is much about eternal judgment that remains unspecified in the Scriptures.

Can the skeptic coherently say that eternal punishment is unjust? To claim that something is unjust, we need to compare it with an objective standard of justice. However, skeptics have rejected an objective standard in favor of moral relativism. They have become like the math teacher grading an exam without an objectively correct answer key. To try to do so is absurd. Yet, this is exactly what the skeptic does when he claims that eternal punishment is unjust.

When C.S. Lewis was still an atheist, he came to see this very predicament:

·       My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of “just” and “unjust”?...What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?...Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really [objectively] unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies….Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.3

Lewis perceived that atheism was unable to bear the weight of his life or to provide the roadmap he needed for navigating it.

The poet and atheist, W.H. Auden, learned the same lesson—that secular humanism is unable to provide any moral basis for our indignation against evil. Auden moved to Brooklyn from his native England in 1939. While he was watching a news clip in a movie theater about the Nazi invasion of Poland, he was horrified to see the audience rise to its feet to applaud and cry out, “Destroy the Poles.” Auden wanted to take a strong moral stance against their response, but he realized that—as an atheist—his values were merely self-constructed and, therefore, lacking in any persuasive value. This realization sent him into a moral tailspin, resulting in his becoming a Christian.4

Likewise, does any skeptic have a substantive, objective basis for his indignation against the prospect of eternal judgment? Seemingly not.

v   v   v

Rather than being unjust, it seems that eternal punishment is a necessary element of justice. Contrary to secular opinion, we need to know that God will ultimately judge. It is this knowledge that enables us to leave aside any thoughts of revenge, hatred, or unforgiveness. Instead, we are free to apply ourselves to that for which we have been called—to love.

Miroslav Volf, who survived the civil wars of the former Yugoslavia, has written:

·       The only means of prohibiting all recourses to violence by ourselves is to insist that violence is legitimate only when it comes from God…My thesis is that the practice of non-violence requires a belief in divine vengeance.5

Volf knew that his stance would be unpopular in the West. He understood that when we have no substantive experience with being victimized, we also will have no experience of the overwhelming, life-controlling need to avenge.

Writer and theologian Timothy Keller explains:

·       Can our passion for justice be honored in a way that does not nurture our desire for blood and vengeance? Volf says the best resource for this is a belief in the concept of God’s divine justice. If I don’t believe that there is a God who will eventually put all things right, I will take up the sword and will be sucked into the endless vortex of retaliation. Only if I am sure that there’s a God who will right all wrongs and settle all accounts perfectly do I have the power to refrain.6

However, would the belief in eternal punishment, justice, and hell lead to a more hellish and heartless society? Rather, it seems that the absence of a belief in eternal punishment and justice would push us to seek our own revenge and to pursue our own “justice.” Keller observes that in societies where the doctrine of eternal judgment is rejected, brutality reigns:

·       Many people complain that belief in a God of judgment will lead to a more brutal society…[but] in both Nazism and Communism…a loss of belief in a God of judgment can lead to brutality. If we are free to shape life and morals any way we choose without ultimate accountability, it can lead to violence. Volf and [poet Czeslaw] Milosz argue that the doctrine of God’s final judgment is a necessary undergirding for human practices of love and peacemaking.7

PREMISE #2: The God of the Bible promises eternal punishment.

This is true. There are many verses that promise eternal judgment or condemnation. For example:

·       "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:46)

The “eternal punishment” mentioned by Christ in this verse will be just as eternal as the “eternal life” that He conversely mentions. It is understandable that such verses are troubling. However, as we have already pointed out, we do not know the exact nature of this eternal judgment. Once again, perhaps God will offer the sufferer the option of “pulling-the-plug” and thus succumbing to utter annihilation. In light of this uncertainty, the lover-of-light should give God the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, I often respond to these challenges this way:

·       I don’t know how it will all come out in the end, but I do know that our God is both merciful and just. I also believe that our Creator has the right to judge His creation. If we find this troubling, we should reconcile with Him before it is too late.

CONCLUSION: The God of the Bible cannot be just…or even exist.

Job had also charged God with injustice, and it seemed that he had good reason to do so. God had allowed Satan to deprive him of almost everything, and Job was left devastated. However, his losses did not justify Job’s allegations against God.

·       Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.” (Job 38:1-3)

The Lord then asked Job a series of questions, and Job could not answer any of them. Job got the point. He understood too little to bring any indictment against God and, therefore, repented:

·       The LORD said to Job:  "Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!" Then Job answered the LORD: "I am unworthy—how can I reply to you? I put my hand over my mouth.” (Job 40:1-4)

What made Job unworthy? He was beginning to understand that he had spoken presumptuously about things he did not understand:

·       “You [God] asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. You [God] said, 'Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.'  My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:3-6)

Many will find Job’s response repugnant, but why? We too speak about things we do not understand. Although we—humankind—know that we are just a speck in this grand universe, we sometimes act as if we were omniscient. Yet, we cannot even define the basics, like the nature of time, space, matter, or light. The simplest things are beyond our knowing, and yet—like Job—we have the hubris to accuse God of injustice. Perhaps we too need to learn a little humility in keeping with our cosmic insignificance.

If eternal punishment is a reality, then love requires us to warn those around us. The greater the threat, the more genuine must be our drive to warn. This is especially true in regards to eternal punishment. In the West, we glibly dismiss this threat as so barbaric that it couldn’t possibly be the design of a God of love. However, like Job, there are times when we refuse to consider how little we truly understand.

Keller calls hell…

·       …simply one’s chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity.8

In other words, hell is something we choose. Lewis calls hell…

·       …the greatest monument to human freedom.9

Keller quotes Lewis’ words from The Great Divorce as he paints a vivid picture of how we choose hell:

·       Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others…but you are still distinct from it. You may even criticize it in yourself and wish you could stop it. But there may come a day when you can no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself, going on forever like a machine. It is not a question of God “sending us” to hell. In each of us there is something growing, which will be hell unless it is nipped in the bud.10

How do we nip it? By confessing our sins (1 John 1:9) and crying out for Christ’s mercy (Romans 10:12-13). How did we get into this mess? According to Lewis, we continue to harden our heart against the Lord until we have no heart left (Romans 1:24-28). With every refusal to turn away from our sins and turn to Christ, we embrace our final destination. Lewis therefore concludes:

·       There are only two kinds of people—those who say “Thy will be done” to God or those to whom God in the end says, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell choose it.11

Is this assessment Biblical? Keller correctly reflects that there are no Biblical accounts of people pleading to be released from hell into God’s presence (Luke 16). This makes perfect Scriptural sense. If we hate the light so much in this life that we flee from it, we will flee all the more urgently when confronted with His even greater intensity in the next life (John 3:19-21).

The Apostle Paul taught that we are a stench to those who are perishing (2 Corinthians 2:14-16). How much more will our Lord’s glorious presence nauseate those same people in the next life? By that time, their fate will be sealed.

This is horrific. If we love the Lord, what then must we do about those who are bound for hell? We must warn!