Sunday, March 22, 2020

THE LAWS OF PHYSICS POINT TO THEIR CREATOR; Chapter 14




There are many weighty proofs for the existence and character of God. This is just one of the many:

1.    The laws of physics are immutable, universal, and elegant.
2.    ID (supernaturalism) is a better explanation for these observations than is 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 would even be discarded. Predictions could not be made. Any form of science would be impossible. Besides, we cannot account for their immutability in the midst of a universe that is always expanding and changing. Therefore, they must be transcendentally based.

THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE UNIVERSAL: This too should be obvious. It is only because they are universal can we say anything about other galaxies, planets, stars, light, or anything else within the domain of science. Universality also ensures that the findings in China would match those in California.

THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE ELEGANT: This is equally obvious. Just observe their elegance and simplicity:

·       Einstein field equation: The cornerstone of Einstein's general theory of relativity, relating the gravitational tensor G to the stress-energy tensor T by the simple equation G = 8 pi T.

Many such formulas exist. Take 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 we weigh 100 pounds here on the surface of the earth (4,000 miles from the center of the earth). If instead we were twice as far from the center (2x²), we 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” (“Astronomy and the Bible,” 137-38)

Such precision can’t be the product of chance or 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 our most famous formula: E = MC² (Energy = Mass x Speed of Light Squared), which enables us to calculate how much energy you have in your very impressive body.

Here too, we find the same elegance and precision. The speed of light must be precisely squared. These formulas also demonstrate the harmonious interconnectedness of various physical elements—energy, mass and the speed of light. Such harmony defies the idea of a random creation by explosion.

However, explosions or tornadoes tearing up junkyards can’t produce this type of order, as astronomer, Fred Hoyle, had reasoned:

·       “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.”

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

However, without such elegance and simplicity, scientific laws would have been undiscoverable and incomprehensible.

PREMISE #2  ID (supernaturalism) is a better explanation for these observations than is naturalism.

Alexander Vilenkin believed that “something is 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. (Steve Nadis, “Starting Point,” Discover, Sept. 2013)

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 a “great mystery.” However, this might be more than a mystery but a veritable impossibility:

  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.

  1. A natural explanation is impossible because natural causation is not yet in existence to cause the “natural” laws. Nothing is in existence in the universe!

  1. 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!

  1. 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 they can remain unchanged in our ever-expanding universe of molecules in motion.

  1. There does not exist even a shred of evidence that anything has ever happened naturally (without intelligence).

IMMUTABILITY:  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 (the Big Bang) do not create laws, let alone immutability. It is therefore more likely that these laws have a Transcendent origin 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 (universally) throughout the universe. The laws work the same way in the Milky Way as they do on another galaxy. It is easier to account for this phenomenon supernaturally and naturally. In fact, it seems that the laws must originate in a transcendent and non-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 can be argued that presently we are simply unaware of natural forces that might account for these laws. While this is true, such pleading faces major obstacles:

1.    There is absolutely no evidence that anything happens because of natural, un-designed laws.

2.    Postulating a collection of natural laws is less parsimonious (and strains credulity) than postulating 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. However, this leads to the problem of an infinite regress.

4.    Causes are always greater than their effects. If a cause is less than its effects, it means that some aspects of the effect are uncaused – a science stopper.

5.    Some argue that there might be a single eternal and natural cause that causes all of the other laws of science. However, this is to merely replace the name “God” with a natural creator having all the powers that God has but without the ability to even produce 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 can unintelligent causation, if such a cause even exists.

CONCLUSION: An intelligent Designer most probably exists.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.