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)

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 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.

3. An Intelligent Designer must exist.

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 replication of findings. Textbooks would have to be changed every so often. Predictions could not be made. Any form of science would be impossible.

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 formula’s exist. Perhaps the most famous is E=MC². Notice how the speed of light must be precisely squared. Without such elegance and simplicity, science laws would have been undiscoverable and incomprehensible.

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

IMMUTABILITY. In a universe of molecules-in-motion, it is hard or impossible to account for the unchanging-ness and origin of these laws. 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 and reception. The further away from a bonfire, the less the warmth. However, the laws of physics operate uniformly (universally) throughout the universe. It is easier to account for this phenomenon supernaturally and naturally.

ELEGANCE. There is absolutely no natural mechanism that can account for the elegant 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, undesigned laws.

2. Postulating a collection of natural laws is less parsimonious that postulating one God.

3. Even if a natural mechanism could be identified that creates and maintains natural laws, it too would require its own explanation or causes. 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, then it means that some aspects of the effect are uncaused – a science stopper. An intelligent and eternal Designer/Creator is greater than any series of mindless causes. Therefore, ID can better account for phenomena like the laws of physics, the fine-tuning of the universe, life, intelligence, and consciousness.

CONCLUSION: An intelligent Designer most probably exists.

A Contextualized Proof of God’s Existence

Many atheists challenge me, “Prove your god exists!” I’ve been through this so often! No proof or evidence is ever enough. This coincides with the Bible’s teaching that they already have the evidence but reject it:

• The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,  since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

The evidence is right under their nose and in their eyes. Whatever they see points back to its Creator! Therefore, the battle for men’s hearts is primarily spiritual not evidential. Nevertheless, I continue to ask God to use our presentations of evidence and reason, and sometimes He does, as reflected in many testimonies.

One militant atheist kept pressing me for proof. I responded:

• I’ll prove that God exists after you prove that you exist. After all, I do not talk to mere machines.

There is absolutely no way that he can prove that he exists and isn’t just a machine. If this is so, how can the atheist demand that I prove there is a God! However, he accused me of obfuscating and playing with words. I responded that this isn’t a word game but an illustration that absolute proofs do not exist and that it is pointless to try to prove something to someone who has no ears (or willingness) to hear. It’s like trying to prove to the color-blind that the color red exists. However, the problem is more acute with the atheist. While the color-blind can’t see red, the atheist refuses to see red.

However, if you want to go with evidence and proof, there is a better way. Let me lay it out in dialogue form:

Christian: Okay, let me attempt to give you just a bit of proof, but first tell me – How do you intend to evaluate my proof?

Atheist: With reason and logic, of course!

Christian: Evidently, you believe that reason and logic provide you with reliable tools to evaluate. Do you believe that they have to be unchanging and universal – that they work reliably in Shanghai as well as in NYC, today as well as next year?

Atheist: Well, in order to be reliable and useful tools, they must be universal and unchanging!

Christian: True, but how then do you account for the fact that these tools are universal and unchanging? What makes them this way in our universe of change and expansion – molecules-in-motion?

Atheist: Our laws of nature are also universal and unchanging. There’s nothing unusual about reason and logic being this way!

Christian: True, but this just magnifies your problem. How can you account for any of these laws being universal and unchanging?

Atheist: I don’t have to account for these qualities. It’s enough that they are useful.

Christian: I think that you do have to account for them. The viability of your naturalistic worldview depends on this accounting, and I don’t think you can. Meanwhile, I can!

Atheist: Ha, you mean with your imaginary sky friend!

Christian: Your worldview can only account for molecules-in-motion; God can account for the stability, operation, and origin of the laws. Meanwhile, you cannot account for how natural laws were created before there was even a “natural” to create them. Nor can you account for their elegance or usefulness. Only a Transcendent and intelligent Creator can!

Perhaps we can call this a “contextualized proof!”

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].

Our Prior Commitments and Distaste for the Divine Foot

Our views are governed by our assumptions, and our assumptions are governed by the desires of our heart. Therefore, the Apostle Paul observed:

·        The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved…and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. (2 Thes. 2:9-12)

Why will people believe these Satanic “counterfeit miracles?” Because they want to! Paul asserts that “they refused to love the truth and so be saved,” but instead “delighted in wickedness.” Our desires – our loves – determine our thinking and believing, even if it costs us salvation.

We believe what we want to believe. The same principle pertains irrespective of educational attainments. It even pertains to the leading scientists of the West, according to evolutionist and geneticist Richard Lewontin:

   

·        We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism [that nothing exists apart from matter and energy]. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, …Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The “Divine Foot” opens the door to extra-material explanations – the very thing that many oppose. However, they can’t oppose it on the basis of science, but rather their almost-religious “commitment to materialism.”

Although our desires and commitments control us, this doesn’t rule out objective truths or answers. It should simply alert us to our powerful underlying motives and how they pervert our conclusions.

Of course, many will turn this around upon the Christian: “You believe because you need a crutch.” While this is true, Lewontin admits that he too has his crutch – materialism.

While the idea of God will comfort some, the idea of no-god (materialism) comforts others. One atheist friend admitted that he is an atheist because it helped him to deal with his guilt and shame. He understands that if there is no God, then there are no higher standards to which he is accountable. This thinking also gives the atheist some insulation against the fear of eternal judgment.

Even though what we believe is a very personal thing, they also might have an existence apart from what we think about them. I might believe in Christ for very personal reasons, but this doesn’t mean that I lack objective, evidential reasons for my belief.

However, as Lewontin seems to acknowledge, there is absolutely no evidential support for materialism. While we all believe that there are material explanations – there a the laws of physics that allow us to predict – this doesn’t mean that this is all that there is. In fact, these very laws point powerfully to the extra-material:

1. There are unchanging. They impact everything in the universe, but nothing seems to be able to impact them.

2. They are universal. They act uniformly throughout the universe.

3. They seem to arise from outside of the universe. All sources of power/energy are localized within the universe. Consequently, the closer to the source, the greater the force it exerts. Those closer we are to a bonfire or radio-station, the stronger the waves. The laws of physics do not loose their force. There is no issue of proximity. It’s not an issue. Instead, the laws seem to originate from outside of this created order.

4. They are elegant and can be described by simple formulae, suggesting that they were intelligently designed.

All of these considerations should argue persuasively against materialism. However, the “Divine Foot” is not in favor with our secular elites.