Question 58 – What is the proof for the existence of God?

There are people who are absolutely convinced that no proof exists supporting faith in the existence of God. This conviction however, is based on a lack of knowledge, blindness, or an open opposition concerning religion rather than on diligent, rational deliberation. The proof is there of course, but only for those who want to see and who do not turn their eyes away from it. It is indirect. Sometimes it is more compelling than at other times but we can see numerous indictions for God's existence around us. However, these proofs are not irrefutable proof.

Why? Maybe because,

• God did not want to restrict our free will and thus "force" us to believe in Him (see question 2).

• He conceals Himself on purpose so that we would look for Him (see for example, the Acts of the Apostles 17:27 – in the New Testament).

In other words, he gives us enough proof so that we can find him, but not enough so that it is possible to doubt.

In the words of the mathematical genus Blaise Pascal:

"He has willed to make Himself quite recognisable by those; and thus, willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart, He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not." [48]

Now to the argument itself. As a Christian, I believe that the whole universe, including our planet, is God's work. Therefore, we are limited in our scientific knowledge because we are only able to examine and study his work but not his person/being. In spite of this, I believe that it is precisely for this reason that in many ways his work (creation) shows that behind it stands a perfect intelligence that is beyond our understanding, just as the Bible describes/pictures. Therefore, it is not possible to prove the existence of God 100% through scientific methods, nor is it possible to disprove his existence. There is always room for our personal decision and faith. It is with this understanding that I approach the following proof presented. If, of course, someone wanted to reject it (only on the fact that there is no irrefutable proof), he/she must be aware that by following this principle, he/she is casting doubt on the whole of human history or on our justice system, for example. The proof of past and unrepeatable events function on the basis of a judicial and forensic character (for example the investigation of a murder). It is not possible to prove unequivocally that Hannibal crossed the Pyrenes for instance! In fact, it is not possible to prove that someone named Hannibal really existed yet it is considered an historical fact. It is for this reason that there are people who dispute the Holocaust, a relatively recent event.

What direction does nature point in?

There are many arguments to say that it is more logical to accept a belief in a Creator than to believe in the blind mechanisms of nature and chance. I will try to sum up the most important of them at least. These proofs are not indisputable for many reasons (everything can be disputed), however, they are of a highly creditable nature that cannot leave any honest, genuine person considering them cold. Therefore, I ask you to put aside your prejudice for a moment and consider these few points. Where do the facts point to? Are they just chance circumstances or is there a thought-out intention in them?

1) The origin of life

"Every living cell, even the simplest bacterium, teems with molecular contraptions that would be the envy of any nanotechnologist... It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell's machines, which are mostly protein-based catalysts called enzymes, could have formed spontaneously as life first arose from nonliving matter." - professor of genetics at Harvard and holder of the Nobel Prize, Dr. Jack Szostak.

Life as such is a true mystery for all scientists. Its very origin is no exception. Even the smallest cell is so extremely complicated that the complexity of the greatest city cannot be compared with it, not to mention the miraculous complexity of the function or communicative language of DNA. In other words, there are innumerable, extremely, unimaginably complicated systems that take away scientists' breath during their study of them. Physicist and information theorist, Hubert Yockey, concerning DNA added:

"There is an identity of structure between DNA (and protein) and written linguistic messages. Since we know by experience that intelligence produces written messages, the implication, according to established experimental method of inferring causes from effects, is that an intelligent cause most probably produced the informational pattern in DNA and protein."

My question is then, if we study these wonderful symphonies of miniature robots and computers closely, what is the logical conclusion we come to when we use our common sense? "That cannot originate itself." Sometimes scientists try to come up with an alternative explanation, for example, it came from space (the panspermia theory or the intervention of an extraterrestrial civilization). These theories, however, do not solve the problem in any way and only transfer it to another part of the universe. Why is the idea of a supernatural intelligence, which in this case is the best candidate as an explanation, so provocative? Is faith in an intelligent Creator so absurd, yet faith that a pile of rocks (or a mixture of inanimate chemical elements) in and of themselves changed into wonderfully complex people and nature more logical? There are many on the basis of their expert scientific findings who contend that that pile of rocks cannot change into people, not even in a billion or trillion years. Without intelligence, it is just not possible. No natural laws exist that would be able to form matter in this way, to make it alive and to start to think for itself. On the contrary, intelligence can use these building blocks, that "pile of rocks", as the main component for his masterpiece. Intelligence knows how to join inanimate chemical elements in order to cause the unit to function and knows how to embed informational codes that assure further reproduction. This consideration, given our present knowledge, is a completely logical and respectable intellectual conclusion – life arose by the agency of a higher power.

I will conclude this argument with the words of microbiologist Dr. Milton Wainwright:

"Are we then getting any closer to an understanding the origin of life (assuming it had one)? As ever there is much optimism that indeed we are making progress. On the other hand, it often appears as if the origin of life question has become bogged down in ever increasingly sophisticated organic chemistry. The reality is that, despite the egos of some, the existence of life remains a mystery. It is not merely that biology is scratching the surface of this enigma; the reality is that we have yet to see the surface!"

2) The theory of evolution = an unproven mythology

At this point, I would like to mention the inability to prove that it is possible for life (information, genetic programs etc.) to originate by evolutionary mechanisms (mutation – selection – choice of sex). We are not speaking of theories, functioning computer models, or proposed theoretical solutions to various evolutionary gaps. We are speaking here of non-speculative and highly conclusive proof that the theory of evolution is hopelessly lacking although it is presented as the exact opposite! Therefore, it is far from being empirically proven that a one-celled bacteria has changed into a multi-celled bacteria, a mushroom into someone who picks them, a fish into a fisherman, and so on. Many may argue that just because theory A is not valid does not automatically mean that theory B is valid. They are correct in their statement. Many scientists, however, concur that the only other possibility besides the spontaneous origin of life is created life. Since the proof points to the impossibility of variant A (that life originated in and of itself), it is rational then to deduct that theory B (life did not originate in and of itself) is legitimate.

3) The origin of consciousness and an awareness of oneself

"Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able to reflect on what I am doing and why should you, even as you read now, able to ponder my points, agreeing or disagreeing, with pleasure or pain, deciding to refute me or deciding that I am just not worth the effort? No one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer to this…The point is that there is no scientific answer." - Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse [4]

We have come to another question that is for science simply a mystery and unanswerable – how is it possible that simple matter is given life and consciousness arises? After all, the origin of cells, bacteria, organs, DNA itself, or the brain, which is the most intricate system in our universe, is made out of simple matter. I point out that many scientists do not believe that it is at all possible that "blind" natural processes could be the cause of the origin of this "matter". Of course, we have something more here – a collection of chemicals (that is our body) that is able to think, recognise itself and beauty, and feel love, joy and anger. That is that the human mind (or soul, if you like), functions "over" this matter. Rational people made strictly of matter contend that all of this is simply the result of chemical reactions in our brains. The problem is, however, that this information (that is our thoughts) is not dependant on the material/physical and other forms. All of this suggests that the brain is some kind of "receiver" (hardware) through which our non-physical conscience (software) manifests itself.

Sceptics will not even want to see God's creative hand here, but on the contrary they often use this argument as a counter attack – in the sense that they catch believers out on points of a purely speculative nature but do not have a better explanation. I would like to mention that these points of speculation are absolutely crucial no matter what philosophical considerations are being discussed concerning the origin of the world. I would also like to mention that while exploring these considerations, it is completely understandable to come to the conclusion that just as the origin of life can be accounted to an intelligent creator, so too, can the origin of human consciousness.

4) The unimaginable perfection of living organisms and nature

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For the invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Romans 1:18-21)

According to the Bible, no living being who is sane and able to recognise objective reality has an excuse to say that he/she could not know of God's existence. In theological terminology it is called "general revelation". Through it, God shows the usefulness, meaning, and perfection of created things, its goal being to point to and direct mankind to Him. We are speaking here of nature, beginning with the mysterious microbiological processes of living cells to the sophisticated immune systems of many animals, the intelligence of plants, the fascinating function of ecosystems, the incomprehension of the instincts (for example migration) of animals to the sophistication of the universe. When you study the perfect harmony, intricacy, and indescribable elegance of various elements of nature, you must simply marvel. Not only are these systems in and of themselves extremely sophisticated, but they are also frequently compatible with each other, yet still independent of each other; nevertheless, they cannot exist without each other! In short, all of nature with its perfection, intricacy, and complexity reflects the wisdom and perfection of our Creator.

Geophysicist and Philosopher of Science, Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, who is part of the scientific movement intelligent design (ID), says:

"The theory of intelligent design is based on scientific evidence—on the discovery of miniature cellular machines, on the discovery of complex circuits within cells, on the discovery of code and information stored in DNA and RNA, and on the system of information transmission in the cell. The idea of 'design' is grounded in these discoveries, as well as in our understanding of what is required to produce such systems—namely, our experience that only intelligence can generate such complex structures. To assume the influence of some form of intelligence is entirely natural. So, contrary to what is often claimed in the media, this is not a theory rooted in religion, but in science... Because we find information in the cell, it points to the reality that some intelligence is at work." [52]

Humanity, degenerated by sin purposely suppresses and rejects/scorns this knowledge. It produces its own substitute truths, and steps over God's law written in its heart. Evolutionary scientists also marvel at the beauty, harmony, and sophistication of nature. They are not afraid to use the word "miracle" in their descriptions. However, their hearts have become insensitive/dull. All of creation shouts out that it carries indications of an intelligent construction, but they drown it out and state, "It just happened."

The author of the website kreacionismus.cz reacts provocatively to this topic:

"The old greengrocer with a fifth-grade education looks at nature and says, 'This did not happen by itself.' has more sense than the person with the title of Dr., doc., prof., Csc., who thinks up stories about how a person came from the mud of a planet."

Indeed, the Bible itself says, 

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 52:1)

To be intelligent does not mean that a person is wise. Many people are intelligent but are not wise and visa versa. The Bible adds, 

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom . . ." (Psalm 111:10a)

5) The miraculous regulation of the universe

"The laws and features of the universe are precisely fine-tuned to make physical life, especially human life, possible. The pervasive evidence for purposeful design tells us that the cosmic Causal Agent must be a personal Being." -Hugh Ross, astrophysicist [7]

Our universe contains many mutually, interconnected physical relationships and constants whose accuracy and "tuning" take away the breath of many scientists. In addition to this fact, there are many other necessary conditions needed for life in our universe to exist at all. These range from physical relationships and constants to the position of the earth in the universe. All of these aspects are very precisely tuned and there is a mutual interplay among them. For example:

• If the value of the gravitational constant were changed by a mere 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% our sun could not exist and therefore we could not exist either.

• Well-known Australian theoretical physicist P. C. W. Davies estimates that a change in the value of the weak interaction (weak force) from a simple 1:10 to 100 would prevent the existence of life in our universe (as a comparison – the number of atoms in the visible universe estimated mathematically is estimated to be 10 to the power of 81)

At this time, there is now known to be more than a hundred such closely defined values. One more of these examples is worth our attention:

- the ratio of the mass of protons and electrons. The ratio cannot be changed from its present values more than one part in 10 to the power of 37. The astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross wrote the following for a better understanding of this sensitivity:

"One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37." [54]

Consider the controversy about the origin of life. Scientists marvel yet do not have an inkling of how biological life came about – even though many already consider that all of the above-mentioned basic conditions for life have been fulfilled. As you can see though, it is not just a matter of course that there is life. If is true that this reality cannot be taken as a hundred percent proof that God exists. People can evade it by claiming such things as:

"We were lucky!"

"We are here so it happened somehow."

"Maybe an innumerable number of universes exist."

However, I am convinced that the above-mentioned facts cannot leave any honest/frank person cold. More and more scientists have been led to faith in God by modern cosmology. One of them is Professor of Mathematical Physics, Frank Tipler:

"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics. " [55]

Another very well-known physicist, Eugene Winger, once wrote an essay entitled, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences." where he wrote that 

"The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and there is no rational explanation for it. " [56]

Even physicist Paul Davies confirms this in these words:

"It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in numbers, has been rather carefully thought out... The seemingly miraculous concurrence of these numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design. " [4]

In addition to other well-known personalities in modern science, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, who never believed in God the Creator, expressed wonder at the precise tuning of the universe in the context of the Big Bang for example:

"If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size." [48]

In conclusion, let us let the Bible speak:

"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." (Psalm 19:1)

I attach an interesting thematic video documentary that elaborates on the argument.

6) The argument of a mathematical code

Do you know that not only the universe is created with perfect mathematical relationships but the natural world also shows signs of mathematical equations and codes? One of the most fascinating mathematical relationships is the Fibonacci Sequence, for example. It is found throughout nature in many plants, trees, some animals, and the spiral in galaxy for instance. For example, leaves on stemmed plants grow in such a way so as to be positioned to receive sunlight, raindrops, and wind in the most advantageous way. The stem, therefore, never forms leaves in a chaotic way during its growth but in a mathematically tuned structure that is most effective for its survival.

Closely related to the Fibonacci Sequence is the "golden ratio" according to which the human body and many other elements of nature are tuned. This mathematical principle is widely used in art and photography because it is considered to be the ideal ratio between various distances, from the size of individual parts of our fingers to the ratio of the torso to the body to the proportions in our faces, for example. All of these types of principles are regarded to be highly effective and practical, the result being that many come to a conclusion such as, "nature chooses the most effective solutions", "nature is a powerful witch", and so on. Which side of the "scales" is the heaviest – chance or purpose?

7) The argument of scientific understanding/knowledge and conditions for life

"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility… The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle." Albert Einstein

Have you ever thought about the following facts?

• How is it really possible that we can come to understand the world and the universe? Not only the fact that we have the ability to understand at all, but also that nature is set in such a way that we can study it and come to understand it in detail.

• Do you know, for example, that our planet occupies the universe in the so called habitable zone (a very small part of the universe where the location could be said to be a win in the galactic lottery) and within the fame work of this zone, we live in the best possible position to study the universe?
• In order to sustain life on our planet, there must also be physical and chemical constants which are in an extremely unlikely "circumstantial interplay" in addition to those already mentioned. All of these factors in the galaxy must be fulfilled at the same time and in the same place in order for life to exist. Approximately 20 conditions are being considered at the present. Conditions such as the existence of water in liquid form, the correct distance from the sun, the correct thickness of the earth's crust, the correct pull of the magnetic pole, the correct atmosphere, the correct type of sunlight, the correct placement of the moon, as well as its size to stabilize the rotation of the planet, and so on. When scientists specified a relatively reasonable estimate to resolve all of these conditions at the same time, they came up with the probability of 10 to -15, which is 1 to a million billion. From the viewpoint of probability, this forms an extremely low number and underlines the thought that an intelligent being stands behind such a large combination of coincidences. In other words, the principle of commonality (something well-established among scientists) that expresses the opinion of that our planet is not in any way exceptional and that the universe is teeming with life that has been presented in past years is being discredited/questioned more and more now with the revelation of the conditions needed to maintain life. It appears that our planet is, after all, unique. It is not only the fact that these conditions are necessary, but that some of these conditions for maintaining life are perfectly "prepared" just for such scientific research (see for example, the book, The Privileged Planet).
• Do you know that the unique phenomenon of a full solar eclipse, visible from our planet, which requires in and of itself a precise fulfilment of conditions in order to follow it, has allowed scientists to understand this planet and also make many scientific discoveries?

It seems to me then, that there are many necessary and interdependent conditions existing that allow the preservation of the type of life that we are familiar with and that they are, at the same time, optimally set in such a way as to allow scientific discoveries and the observation of the universe. Astrobiologist G. Gonzales and philosopher J. Richards examined the hypothesis in various branches of scientific disciplines over several years and came to the following conclusion which is outlined in the book, The Privileged Planet (I also recommend the video documentary), states that:

"The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best overall setting for making scientific discoveries." [58]

Many scientists take the comprehensibility and the well-tuned alignment of the universe for granted. However, such precision and tuning in combination with the reality that we can study it is very remarkable. On the one hand, we have miraculously matched and ingeniously tuned conditions for the origin of the universe and of life, and on the other hand, the ability to study everything in great detail. How is this possible? From a naturalistic point, we "evolved" in such a way as to be able to hunt quarry, grapple with daily problems, and win over partners for reproduction. Therefore, many scientists ask rightly why we also have the ability to understand/study what goes on inside atoms or black holes, for example. This ability is on a completely different level of requirements than that which is needed for "good Darwinian survival".

Theoretic physicist Paul Davies concludes with these words:

"Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." [58]

8) The argument of beauty, culture, art…

Have you ever thought about why we take notice of beauty, ask what love is, and why we have pleasant feelings connected to the harmony of nature (eg. looking at a starlit sky)? Why are culture and art so important to humans? From a clearly biological viewpoint based on the evolutionary scenario, all of this seems pointless and unnecessary. On the contrary, all of these things appear to be of an ethereal and spiritual nature. It is not surprising then, that innumerable people see signs of God and something of him in all the wonder and harmony. God himself is the most beautiful of all, therefore we can see signs of this in his creation. Sadly, however, I must add that the world is no longer what it once was. Nevertheless, we have enough beauty available in order to stop and consider its meaning and origin. Internationally recognised Christian author, Dr. Timothy Keller made a telling remark on this point:

"Evolution can only be trusted to give us cognitive faculties that help us live on, not to provide ones that give us an accurate and true picture of the world around us. But if our cognitive faculties only tell us what we need to know to survive, not what is true, why trust them about anything at all" [43]

9) The cosmological argument

Another proof for the existence of God is the logical argument of causality which can be expressed in the following way:

A) Everything that has a beginning must necessarily have a cause

This thesis rests on one of the most important principles of science – the law of causality. If an event has a beginning in time, it has a corresponding cause. This is also our daily experience. If we find a meal on the table, it is evident that someone has cooked it and put it there. If my wife finds my socks on the armchair, it will be very difficult to explain to her that this "finding" does not have a cause. Here we come again to the objection, "What about the beginning of your God? We have already said that all that has a beginning in time must have a cause. However, if God does not have a beginning in time, he does not have to have a cause, and this argument does not apply to him (for more, see question 4).

B) We know that the universe had a beginning

It was not that long ago when the traditional Christian idea (that the world was created) was often a target of ridicule. Earlier European secular society, as well as Hindus and Buddhists, believed in an eternal universe. This situation has changed, however, and with a greater understanding and the belief has reversed. Now, only a few scientists doubt that the universe had a beginning (and will most likely have an ending).

C) Therefore, the universe must necessarily have a cause

On the side of logic, it is not possible to discredit this argument. Maybe this is why sceptics do not often try to attack this deduction and admit that it can be true. Consequently, they concentrate on the argument that although the universe can have a cause, we do not know what the character of this cause was from the given argument. In other words, what if we are dealing with the god of Muslims, or the gods of Hinduism, or just an impersonal being? The critics are right on this point. This argument in and of itself cannot prove that the Christian God created this world. We have different arguments for this claim. Nevertheless, if we think about the probable "profile" of the primary cause, then it would most likely have to be eternal, outside time and space, non-physical, intelligent, and last but not least, powerful. All of these aspects describe the Being who has revealed himself in the Bible…

10) The moral argument

A) If God does not exist, then objective, moral values do not exist either.

If all objective reality is the result of the blind interaction of impersonal matter, then we cannot claim that any kind of objective values exist. There is nothing that could lay any moral claim that a person should act in a certain way. Why should he/she – because of the gravitational pull or electromagnetic power? In other words, more than one philosopher has proposed that everything is permissible. [60]

B) Objective morality and obligations do exist

Since their beginning, humans have not had to be convinced that overriding values exist because of some kind of religious books. We have them coded in our conscience and live according to them intuitively. Even anthropologists have shown that moral standards exist in all past and present cultures. Certainly the rules differ in various details and some have become distorted, however, all distinguish between what is and what should be. For example, Professor of Anthropology, Donald Brown presents over 300 unchanged patterns of behaviour, including a series of moral principles, that exist in all known cultures in his study, Human Universals (1991). Therefore, we need not have a long discussion about the rape of women, the abuse of children, the murder of the defenceless, defrauding another, or "simply" tripping up an elderly person at a cross walk. All of these are not acceptable from a moral perspective. The Bible says that people are born with a natural ability to discern what is good.

The well-known Christian thinker, C. S. Lewis caught it well with the following:

"The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. "[60]

C) Therefore, God exists

Despite the evidence of these moral standards, many people try to cast doubt on their

existence. Jíří Lem reacts well to this behaviour in the following:

"The existence of objective moral norms is clearly seen from people's reactions. For example, someone can convincingly claim that he/she does not believe in the existence of any absolute standards of goodness or justice whatsoever, but as soon as you take a thousand koruna (about $45 USD) from him/her, he/she will loudly demand that justice and the rule of fair play be established. Everyone of us, you see, knows about absolute, objective norms. Even if we do not behave as we have been taught, all of us, without exception, expect others to behave in this way towards us." [60]

11) Mankind's desire for eternity and God

"He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end." (Ecclesiastes 3:11)

From time immemorial, people have placed their hope in the unknown, in various gods, and in the heavens. Something drives us to hope in a purpose and meaning for our earthly pilgrimage. We express this drive in various ways in practice, most often in our religious behaviour. In the Enlightenment, people celebrated that the Age of Reason had come and that there would no longer be a place for religion. However, they were greatly mistaken – mankind was, is, and will be a religious being.

We come, therefore, to the argument that for many is a proof of human weakness and superstition. Many sceptics even try to use it in the defence of evolution and claim that it is a question of an advantage that saves the mind from the insanity of the senselessness of our existence. I, however, am of the opposite point of view. A desire for God, eternity, and meaning is encoded in us simply because the Creator himself has put it in us so that we would look for him.

The well-known Christian thinker Dr. Gregory A. Boyd once wrote:

"If the ultimate canvas against which the cosmos is painted is not personal like we are, then we are very much like fish out of water. We desperately cry out for water, but there never was such a thing as water! But how could such a state of affairs ever come about? Where did our longing for something that never existed, and that never could exist, come from? "[62]

Our hearts continually desire eternity, truth, beauty, and love. Even all of our objections to God because of evil confirm that we think the world should be different. The long and the short of it is that we are drawn, even against our wills, towards something, something that cannot be described, something beyond us. Is this evolutionary protection against insanity, or is it the kind voice of a loving Father calling, "Come home!"?

12) Jesus, the Bible, human experience

In the preceding chapter of this book, we gave close attention to the proofs and arguments that show the unrivalled uniqueness of the Bible, the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the personal experience of Christians who confirmed that God is alive and at work in their lives. I believe, therefore, that these arguments should be brought to mind here. Many of the arguments mentioned above are of a more general nature and in reality only state that "some kind of God" stands behind all of life. If however, we begin to inquire after the identity of this God, we need to use different indices. These are the Bible, the person of Jesus Christ, the confirming experiences of Christians, and so on. The Lord Jesus was the One through whom our world came to be created. The apostle John wrote:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made… He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God…" (John 1: 1, 3, 10-12)

13) Christianity taken in reverse

Let us look at the question concerning the existence of God in a different way. What would we expect to find in our world if we only believed what was written in the Bible? I emphasise beforehand that it is important to filter out various untrue myths (for example a flat earth, which in reality the Bible does not speak about, and other such things). If I believe in the Bible, I will expect:

• proof that only intelligence produces life

• proof confirming that animals exist according to their kind
• proof of a worldwide catastrophe (flood – billions and billions of quickly buried animals, biomass, and geological layers)
• proof that we came from one race
• proof that the world was purposefully arranged
• proof of natural values that are precisely tuned
• and much more.

All of these expectations are fulfilled. What the Bible shares with us concerning general features is what we find in the world.

To sum up

Let us briefly sum up our existence and the arguments given above from the perspective of probability.

• The reality that the universe was formed with such a precise and perfect tuning of physical constants and mathematical relationships by itself is inconceivable.

• The fact that our planet is set in the "lucky" habitable galactic zone/band in our universe is, in and of itself, very unlikely.
• The fact that our planet is placed exactly within the framework of the galactic zone where we have the best possibility for scientists to study it. This is remarkable.
• The fact that there are tens of other necessary and exactly tuned conditions for life within this framework is extremely unlikely (that it just happened).
• The fact that other conditions (a solar eclipse, for example) occur at the same time that help to move science further along is, in and of itself, amazing.
• It is only now that we arrive at the question of the origin of life. The fact that literally so many miracles could coexist is even now simply unimaginable. Yet we have another miracle in front of us – the origin of life and information from nothing. We have seen that the scientific community marvels and does not have a clue as to how life could have originated. Many scientists who are atheists consider the probability of the origin of life to be exceedingly negligible that they cannot imagine that it ever happened, yet they believe that it happened somehow.
• We now come to the origin of human consciousness, cognizance, and many other phenomena that are also in and of themselves unexplainable and their probability possibly incalculable.

Basically, it is such that a naturalistic explanation that rejects God equals a win in the galactic lottery – meaning wins many times one after the other. My question then is this, can anyone wonder that we believe in a perfect God who exceeds us all and who perfectly explains all the perfection and complexity? The long and the short of it is that I do not have the faith to believe that all of this originated by itself. To reconcile all of the conditions needed is not only unimaginable, but I dare to say and believe (I am not the only one) that it is simply not possible.

Possible Objections

As I have already said, these proofs are not beyond questioning and it even seems that they are part of God's purpose so that we would look for him without our freedom to choose being impaired. Despite everything, these arguments (and many others) very strongly point to the fact that a powerful and intelligent Creator stands behind all of creation. I am not able to cite more wonderful and fascinating details from nature and the universe because of a lack of space, therefore, I want to encourage you to study/investigate God's work and allow yourself to be enveloped in its beauty.

What then, are often used objections against these and other arguments for God's existence? They take various forms. Several of the most often used and that are of a general character can be stated as follows:

• Just because we cannot imagine how something happened does not mean that it did not happen that way. We exist because it had to happen somehow.

• Even if the odds of winning in a lottery is unbelievably unlikely, it does not mean that someone will not win.
• Believers have very little imagination, therefore they take the simplest explanation which in turn, prevents further progress in research.
• In the past many things could not be explained, but now they are understood and can be explained. To try to explain things using God means to insinuate that our knowledge has reached its pinnacle and we will never be able to know more.

In summation – all of the arguments given above by sceptics are only arguments from what is not known. According to them, just because we cannot explain many things does not mean that we have to fill in the gaps with God. This is because they believe that the answers may come to light in the future. In other words, the explanation of the origin of the universe and life by evolution has very many fundamental gaps and puzzling places. However, it is not correct to fill them in with the supernatural and in this way prevent further scientific research. We always have hope that we will find the answers to the gaps in the future. What can be said to this argument? The assumption that everything originated from matter alone and it is not possible to consider the supernatural is itself completely faulty. It strikes me that just possibly the proponents of a theory rejecting the existence of God must really have a very strong faith, a faith in what does not exist and a hope in what possibly might exist. Another question offers itself. How do evolutionists know ahead of time that the gaps in knowledge will be filled over time and only with facts that support evolutionary processes and not the complete opposite, the necessity of intelligence? We are dealing here with an argument that is completely without substance.

A rebellious humanity has created its own theory with the goal of denying the Creator and taking him out of the game completely. This theory is, however, full of holes, just like a strainer, and stands on very shaky foundations. Its proponents often assume that it is the only correct theory and if we suggest an alternative explanation (the existence of a perfect Creator), we should adjust it to their rebellious viewpoint. Woe to us if we want to fill in the gaps in their understanding! We are immediately marked as pseudoscientists, ignorant and so on. The problem is that God is God and the fact that someone has decided to deny his existence does not mean that we are going to accept his/her prejudiced/preconceived rules of examining reality and keep quiet. God has his rules and they are the ones that are valid. We should conform to them and in no way should God conform to ours. Consequently, their argument goes both ways and we can also announce in the same way they do – just because creationists do not have a full understanding of how God created everything does not mean that in the future they also will not find out what is lacking. In this case, a gap does not need to be filled with an evolutionary explanation. Choose then, who you want to reject…

"To him who by understanding made the heavens, for his steadfast love endures forever" (Psalm 136:5)

Summation

We could find unlimited evidence in nature for the existence of God. The world is absolutely fascinating and it takes the breath of many away by its perfection and complexity. If we look at it without any preconceived ideas, no other words could occur to us than, "This could not have just happened." God says in his Word (Bible) that we are without excuse. When we stand before him one day, many of us will be judged by the fact that we denied what was self-evident, the world was created by an intelligent being.