THE LAWS OF PHYSICS POINT IRRESISTABLY BACK TO THEIR CREATOR

 

I have become increasingly interested in the formulas of physics. I am not a scientist, but you don't need to be one to appreciate their elegance and simplicity.

Let's take the formula to calculate the force of gravity anywhere in the universe. Just say you weigh 100 pounds on earth. Now go above the earth twice the distance from the center of the earth to its surface, and you will only weigh 25 pounds!

How did we arrive at this? Well, we doubled the radius, squared it, and divided this into your weight. Amazingly, few ask:

·       Why does it work the same way throughout the universe?

·       Why the simplicity and precision of the formula? Why must the radius be precisely squared? And why, when divided into our earth-bound poundage, do when derive the exact answer?

·       Would scientist have been able to discover this relationship if it had been complex? Certainly not if it was always changing!

Science is only possible if it rests on an unchanging and universal foundation. If our formulas changed from moment to moment, science would not be possible. What keeps them from changing in this world of molecules-in-motion? And what keeps them from changing as we travel to the next town?

Besides, what can account for their elegance and simplicity if they are not created and sustained by a super intelligent Being? If we answer, "natural forces," we simply push the same questions elsewhere to "forces," which then require even more explanations.

This brings us back to an eternal God, who requires no explanation but praise:

·       “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.” (Psalm 19:1-2)

THE TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

This is one of many theistic proofs for the existence of God:

1.     REASON EXISTS.

2.     REASON REQUIRES A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE.

3.     CONCLUSION: A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE MUST EXIST.

1.     REASON EXISTS.

This hardly requires any support. In fact, any argument against the existence of reason requires reason.

2.     REASON REQUIRES A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE.

There are several reasons for this. Reason is elegant (simple), universal, and immutable. It must be immutable. If it isn’t, it might give us a different answer every day or year. This would make knowledge, learning, and textbooks impossible. It would also have to be impervious to explosions, heat, tornadoes, and it its. However, there are no objects in this world that are imperious to change. This suggests that reason (and also the laws of science) is immutably maintained transcendently.

Reason must also be universal or it would be different from country to country. However, reason works the same way wherever we go. We cannot explain this by simply saying that reason is a property of matter, since matter changes. Meanwhile, forces like radio or TV waves are not universal. The further we travel away from a radio station, the weaker the impulse. What this is the source of reason that it can impact us the same way in any location?

Reason is also elegant. It is simple enough to be mastered and it is also great enough to embrace the entire physical world. This harmony of reason/cosmos has enabled us to understand our world and to master many of its aspects. It seems to be part of a grand design.

Reason is like the operating system of a computer, all of which had to be intelligently created. While humans created operating systems, humans could not have created reason, since reason predates humanity. Also, the operating system must be intelligently fine-tuned to the computer if it is to be functional. Amazingly, reason seems to have also been intelligently fine-tuned to understanding this world.

Besides, the humanly created systems are always being improved, while reason remains as is and yet is adequate for all of our enterprises, whether in China or Alaska.

These qualities cannot be accounted for by a universe of molecules-in-motion or a Big Bang explosion. They can only be accounted for by an intelligent, immutable and universal Cause – something that transcends the conditions of this universe.

CONCLUSION: A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE MUST EXIST. Praise His glory, all you His creations!

This same proof can be constructed for every law of science. All are elegant, immutable, universal, and apparently transcend this universe. All reflect a Supreme Intelligence!

A Unifying Theory of Everything

Where did the universe come from? Some cosmologists want to hypothesize that it sprang into existence from “nothing.” However, their “nothing” is something. Alexander Vilenkin believes 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.

2. A natural explanation is impossible because the natural is not yet in existence to cause the natural laws. Nothing is in existence!

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

The naturalistic paradigm clearly does not prove fruitful here. However, there is one other paradigm that does offer a cogent explanation:

• In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth!

Whose “Creation Myth” Makes the most Sense?

The late Allan Sandage, widely regarded as the father of modern astronomy and discoverer of quasars, wrote,

• I find it quite improbable that such order [as exemplified by the laws of physics] came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence – why there is something rather than nothing.

In opposition to this, naturalism posits that there is a natural explanation for these laws. However, these laws pose a formidable challenge:

1. THEY ARE IMMUTABLE: This is impossible to account for within a universe characterized by molecules-in-motion.

2. THEY ARE SUPREMELY ELEGANT: Explosions – the Big Bang - can’t account for elegance.

3. THEY ACT UNIVERSALLY AND UNIFORMLY: From where do they exert their influence? It would seem that they are transcendent. This would best explain their uniform influence.

Consequently, mathematician and scientist John C. Lennox concludes:

• The world of strict naturalism, in which clever mathematical laws all by themselves bring the universe and life into existence is pure (science) fiction…a rather desperate refuge from the alternative possibility [God].