Does God Exist? | Evidence Based Faith

Note: Wix does not support superscript so mathematical exponents (e.g.10 to the 100th power) won't format correctly so I've written each out in descriptive form.

Section 2 Does God Exist?

Now that is an important question that humans have wrestled with ever since evolving from our ape-like ancestors! For those who believe that life ends at physical death, I hope the evidence from near-death experience research has you reconsidering the possibility that life continues on. And if life continues on, then our understanding of the physical world and our biology is inadequate and is in fact incapable of explaining this life beyond our physical realm.

Is it possible that the over four billion Christians, Muslims, and Jews who believe in God are right? Let’s take a look at the evidence:

Creation

For me, the place to start is with the beginning – the creation of the universe. In addition to being a believer in God, I am also a believer in science and science has discovered compelling evidence that the universe began roughly 13.8 billion years ago in what is described by the “Big Bang” theory.

Essentially the evidence suggests that the universe began unimaginably small (as described by Michael Greshko in an article in National Geographic: “In the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence, the universe was very compact, less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom”);[19] incredibly dense and hot (estimated to be 10 (to the 32nd power) degrees Celsius).[20] The theory then says it began to expand and cool which unleashed a sequence of forces and changes that eventually resulted in formation of the first stars 100-200 million years later.[20] Our sun and solar system formed 4.6 billion years ago.[20] This “Big Bang” moment also marked the beginning of space and time.

The Big Bang theory is a remarkable scientific achievement and more work continues to better understand the forces that formed the universe. While it makes for fascinating reading (although much is over my head), it doesn’t answer the questions of what came before or what caused the Big Bang.

Evidence for the Existence of God

With Ph.D.s in Philosophy and Theology, William Lane Craig has written and lectured extensively on the evidence for the existence of God. Building on arguments for the existence of God developed by an ancient Muslim scholar, Muhammed Al-Ghazali, Dr. Craig describes the Kalam Cosmological Argument[21] starting with three premises:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause (something cannot come from nothing).
The universe began to exist (see the evidence for the Big Bang theory).
Therefore the universe has a cause.

He provides the scientific and philosophical underpinnings for the conclusion that the universe had a beginning and addresses counter arguments that are too in-depth for this space but are well worth reading.

Dr. Craig then addressed the obvious next question about what caused the universe to begin to exist.

Clearly if the universe’s beginning had a cause, something had to be the source since it couldn’t have created itself. Dr. Craig argues that whatever caused the universe must itself be transcendent and uncaused, otherwise it would lead to an infinite number of causes – each one being caused by the previous until you reach infinity. The problem is you can’t reach an actual infinite number (you can’t count causes backwards to infinity since infinity can never be reached).

So what could be an “uncaused” cause of the universe? Something that transcends space and time since it created space, time and all matter. Which means it must be immaterial and non-physical.[21]

Dr. Craig argues that only an unimaginably powerful personal being (a Mind) that is eternal (since it created space and time) could be the original cause of the universe.[21] He then relays Al-Ghazali’s conclusion that the “First Cause” of the universe must be a personal being as well. Since the First Cause is timeless, why isn’t the universe timeless (eternal) as well? The answer proposed is that it was created by an act of free will which could only come from a personal being.

Some have argued that an alternative theory is that the universe itself is eternal but we know that it isn’t – it began to exist 13.8 billion years ago.

Here are video links to Dr. Craig’s website reasonablefaith.org (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/) for a more complete explanation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

Scientific overview: https://youtu.be/6CulBuMCLg0?si=tghvMS1Rd_RNU-x5 (7 min.)

Philosophical overview: https://youtu.be/vybNvc6mxMo?si=GTDXHeUygAOR3KTx (6 min.)

Lecture to university students: https://youtu.be/VeKavDdRVIg?si=5Mqbd6DONSSJguNM (9 min.)

A Universe Fine-Tuned for Life

Over the past half century, scientists have come to understand how incredibly delicately balanced the initial conditions after the Big Bang had to be for intelligent life to develop. As explained by William Lane Craig, there are two types of fine tuning that were required for intelligent life: the constants of Nature and certain arbitrary physical qualities.[21] Dr. Craig explains it very well so I’ll try to summarize his key points:[21]

Constants of Nature

There are certain laws of nature that have unchanging values when expressed mathematically. Examples include the force of gravity; the electromagnetic force (acts between charged particles); the weak force (responsible for subatomic particle decay); and the strong nuclear force (binds fundamental particles of matter together).[22]
- As the name implies, their values are constant and unchanging.
- Understanding their numerical values is a critical foundation for physics as it attempts to provide a quantitative description of the physical universe.
- It’s also important to note that their values are not determined by the laws of nature so (for example), a universe governed by the same laws of nature would look very different if the values of the constants were different.

Arbitrary Quantities

There were certain quantities that existed from the beginning of the Big Bang that were arbitrary and not dependent on the laws of nature. They were a given quantity as an original condition and then the laws of nature took over to determine how the universe developed.
An example of this is the amount of thermodynamic disorder (or entropy) in the early universe. This is the amount of disorder at the atomic level.

Fine-Tuning

Scientists have learned that the values of these constants and arbitrary quantities must be in an extremely narrow range for the universe to permit the development of life – hence the term “Fine-Tuning.”
The “weak force” which operates inside the nucleus of an atom, is so fine-tuned that had its value changed by one part out of 10 (to the 100th power) it would have prevented life from ever forming.[21]
Had the value of the “cosmological constant” (which drives the acceleration of the universe’s expansion) varied by one part in 10 (to the 120th power), then life could not have developed.[21]
Roger Penrose [23], a mathematical physicist at Oxford University, calculated that the odds of the very ordered, low entropy state at the beginning of the universe occurring by chance alone are one out of 10 (to the 10th to the 123rd power). One way to visualize this extreme level of improbability is to imagine the precision required when attempting to hit one proton on a dart board the size of the visible universe.[24]

So there is very strong evidence of cosmic fine-tuning at the beginning of the universe that allowed the conditions for life to develop. But why was it fine-tuned? Dr. Craig addresses the possible explanations: either physical necessity; chance; or design.

Is the Universe Fine-Tuned Because It Has to Be? (physical necessity)

This alternative would mean that a life-prohibiting universe is a physical impossibility.
Since the constants are not determined by the laws of nature, they could be different which as we’ve seen from the points above, would quickly move them out of the incredibly narrow range of values that permit life to form. So it isn’t a physical necessity that the universe was life-permitting.

Does the Universe Permit Life Just Due to Chance?

To say that this is incredibly improbable is a vast understatement given the odds listed above of the universe starting in an ordered, low entropy state ((one in 10 (to the 10th to the 123rd) power)), or of the constants having their exact values.
Another hypothesis proposed to explain our life-permitting universe by chance is the Multiverse theory. This proposes that our universe is just one of a vast number of universes so the fact that the constants and arbitrary quantity values permit life in our universe is only due to chance since with that many universes, the odds are one would have the right mix of constants’ values and arbitrary quantities. In other words, we just lucked out!
- Given the incredible fine-tuning of these values in our universe (and their ratios to one another), consider the number of alternate universes that would be required for ours to have been life-permitting by chance.
  - Then consider the scope of just our universe which is estimated by NASA to contain 2 trillion galaxies.[25]
  - And then consider that NASA estimates that just our galaxy contains between 100 billion and 400 billion stars.[26]
- Even if there were this almost uncountable number of other universes (for which there is no evidence), that still does not solve the question of where did those multiverses come from since just like our universe, those universes still had to have a beginning.

The Anthropic Principle

This is an argument that no explanation is necessary for why we have a life-permitting universe when the odds against it are so incredibly high because of the fact that we do exist -- and so it’s the only kind of a universe we can observe.
To help understand how fallacious this is, Dr. Craig asks us to imagine being in front of a firing squad with 100 soldiers who fire their rifles at you at close range. When you discover afterward you’re still alive and unharmed, would you be surprised or would you say I’m not surprised since if they hadn’t all missed, I wouldn’t be here to be surprised about it! Or would you conclude that the soldiers had all missed on purpose (so that it was intentional and not by chance)? Then think of this example with something like 10 (to the 10th to the 123rd power) number of soldiers shooting at you and all missing. Would you conclude it was just by chance?

Design

Given the abundant evidence of design in the creation of the universe, the most obvious question raised is if there is design, then who is the designer and where did the designer come from?
While this is an important question, it seems to me that the model that fits the evidence is that of an eternal, unimaginably powerful, non-physical being who created space and time.
Also, as Dr. Craig points out, there is an elementary point in the philosophy of science that for an explanation to be the best one, you don’t have to have an explanation of the explanation. He cites the example that if astronauts discovered a pile of machinery on the dark side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent agents even if they had no idea who those agents were or how they got there.[21]

Here are links to videos from Reasonable Faith (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/) and Dr. Craig explaining the Fine-Tuning Argument:

Overview (6 min.): https://youtu.be/EE76nwimuT0?si=6nQutUfyP8l8eo-D

Series of 3 lectures: https://youtu.be/m4s7DBMn3d0 (32min.)

https://youtu.be/eoyH_BgsPdg (25 min.)

https://youtu.be/pQHnG07r9jw (38 min.)

The Moral Law

Another argument for the existence of God is the existence of what has been described as the “Moral Law” or as Francis Collins ([MD; Ph.D.] who led the National Institutes of Health [NIH] and the Human Genome Project) describes it, “the law of right behavior.”[27]

Unlike other species, humans seem to have an intrinsic understanding of what is right and wrong. There is virtually universal agreement that abusing children; or rape; or murder is wrong. As Dr. Collins puts it: “It is the awareness of right and wrong, along with the development of language, awareness of self, and the ability to imagine the future, to which scientists generally refer when trying to enumerate the special qualities of Homo Sapiens.”[28]

The question then becomes where does this intrinsic understanding come from? Do the moral laws we all recognize exist objectively (independent of peoples' opinions) so that they are good or bad/right or wrong regardless of what people think about them? Or are they subject to peoples' opinions? Dr. Craig provides the following example of this distinction: saying that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought it was right. And it was still wrong even if the Nazis had won the war and killed or brainwashed everyone who disagreed with them so that the only people left think the Holocaust was right.[29]
If God doesn't exist to establish what is good or bad/right or wrong (objective moral values not dependent on peoples' opinions), then where does our intrinsic understanding of good or bad/right or wrong come from?
Naturalists (who believe that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe) would say that this intrinsic sense of right and wrong is just the result of biological evolution and social conditioning. But does this idea hold up under scrutiny?
- The existence of altruism (unselfish concern for the welfare of others) in humans doesn’t seem to fit the proposed biological evolution theory of moral law. The impulse to jump in to save a stranger who is drowning at great risk to yourself is inconsistent with the drive to selfishly perpetuate one’s genes.
- In many species, males mate with as many females as possible in an evolutionary effort to spread their genes as far as possible. Lacking a moral law giver (God), why would this be considered inappropriate in humans?
- Another way to consider this is the example of many species whose males fight each other with the winner getting to mate with females. It's easy to understand how this behavior could have evolved so that the strongest males' genes are passed on, thus improving the species. If moral laws in humans are the result of evolution, why would similar behavior among humans be universally considered to be wrong?
Another concept put forward is that moral values simply exist but are not grounded in God. Dr. Craig notes the following:[29]
- Since moral values seem to be personal properties, it is difficult to think of them as abstract entities in the absence of people.
- If moral values simply exist, then presumably immoral values like hatred, greed, selfishness also simply exist. Lacking a moral lawgiver, why then are we obligated to align our lives with one set of abstractly existing objects rather than another?

The Problem of Suffering

Many people who reject the idea that God exists do so because they can’t reconcile the existence of suffering in the world. How could an all powerful God who created the universe allow the suffering many people endure?

Dr. Craig responds to this question as follows:[30]
- He points out that God’s creation of a world where mankind has free will is logically inconsistent with creating a world without suffering since given free will to choose, people may choose actions that result in pain and suffering. So if He wants people to have free will to make their own choices (including whether to believe in Him or not), then they must have free will to do any number of things that could lead to suffering.
  - To me, a current example of this is the choices many people have made that are leading to climate change that will result in considerable suffering. Could God have intervened to prevent this as a puppeteer might pull the strings? I think the answer is yes but I believe He wants people to come to Him of their own free will and so that same free will may lead to decisions and actions that result in pain and suffering in the world.
- Dr. Craig also points out that given God’s perspective over the entire course of human history, He may have good reasons for allowing suffering that aren’t clear to us during the brief perspectives of our lifetimes.
While choices from free will don’t account for all suffering (e.g. diseases, some natural disasters), I do think those fit into a model where God created the universe and the conditions for life to develop and then used the forces of nature through evolution for humans to develop – which also resulted in the creation of viruses, etc. and the forces of nature causing natural disasters.
This “hands-off” approach by God may be a result of His eternal perspective versus our short-term perspective (our physical life spans). If our lives continue eternally after our physical death, then the perspective of suffering during our lifetime against a timeframe of eternity in Heaven, is truly less than a drop in an ocean of time.
I also believe that the existence of pain and suffering in a world created by an all-powerful being makes more sense with the Christian/Jewish/Muslim concept of God. If the purpose of our lives is to know God and want a relationship with Him, and that He wants us to come to Him of our own free will, then the existence of pain and suffering makes more sense since that requires that we have the free will to make choices.

Harm in the Name of Religion

Others reject the idea that God exists as they point out how much harm has been done in the name of religion over history. While this is certainly true, it is important to consider the following:

Human beings are eminently fallible creatures as we demonstrate every day (just look at the news!). However, as Dr. Francis S. Collins (author of The Language of God) says: “The pure clean water of spiritual truth is placed in rusty containers”[28]. In other words, don’t reject the message because the messenger is flawed.
Throughout history, human attempts to discern the will of God through our own filters have resulted in many misguided interpretations and resulting actions that have caused harm, wars and suffering. But is that because of God’s message to humans to live lives filled with love, peace and compassion for others or does the blame lie with those who have perverted those messages either out of ignorance, misunderstanding or their own evil motivations?
In addition to the harm done in the name of religion, religious institutions and their representatives have also done many wonderful things throughout history including helping the sick and the poor (think of Mother Theresa).

Summary

For those of us who don’t have Ph.D.s in Cosmology, Physics, Philosophy or Theology, these can be challenging concepts and I strongly recommend reading more about them (see the suggested reading list). But as a layperson, to me these are the key points to take away:

There is strong evidence and scientific consensus that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago.
Space, time, matter and the four fundamental forces of physics were created with the “Big Bang.”
The conditions that permitted life to form are so fine-tuned that there is very strong evidence that they resulted from design and not by chance. Although there was no space or time prior to the “Big Bang,” something had to cause it.
Whatever caused it had to be non-physical, timeless (since it created time) and unimaginably powerful.
Since the universe didn’t always exist but its creator must have always existed, that creator must be a personal being since creation of the universe was evidence of an act of free will.
The idea of a Designer of the universe certainly stretches the imagination since it is so far removed from our day-to-day experiences on earth. However, the evidence clearly leads us there and the alternatives that the universe created itself or that we just got lucky with the fine-tuning (multiverse theory) strain credulity to the breaking point. Plus the multiverse theory still requires an explanation of where all those universes came from since they would have had to have a beginning so that brings us back to the same point.
The Christian/Muslim/Jewish concept of God meets all of these criteria and best fits the evidence. As a reference, here is a brief summary of major religions’ beliefs about the creation of the universe:
- Christianity/Islam/Judaism: The eternal God created the universe.[31]
- Hinduism: There is no single accepted belief. Alternate theories include a universe cyclically created and destroyed by a god or goddess; or it was self-created; or it came from a golden egg or womb; or self-created multitude of universes.[31]
- Buddism: The universe is eternal and there is no creator.[31]
- Sikhism: The eternal Waheguru (God) created the universe.[32]
- Jainism: The universe is eternal with no beginning.[31]