In May 2019 I visited Uluru and Kata Tjuta in Central Australia. The explanations of these rock formations say that these sands and gravels were deposited about 500 million years ago. But where does this date come from? After all, it’s not written anywhere on these sedimentary rocks!
This post is based on a children’s book by Hughes and Cosner (2018).
Claims about the past?
If the Bible says that the earth is only thousands of years old, how do scientists know that fossils and rocks can be millions of years old? Fossils and rocks don’t have dates written on them like some historical events. This is explained by the fact that there are two stories about the past which are used to explain the facts we see today in different ways. One assumes the historical record in the Bible and the other a historical record constructed by those who disregard the Bible. Both of these stories are based on historical science.
There are two types of science. They are called operational science and historical science, and they deal with two very different things.
Operational science is the type of science that one might do in a laboratory, about how the world works today. It’s all based on what you actually see. You can perform tests and observe what happens. For example, at sea level, water will always boil at the same temperature (100 0C or 212 0F). In operational science, anyone can repeat an experiment and see if they get the same results. Testable and repeatable science is why we have smartphones, spaceships, and lots of other inventions.
Historical science deals with what happened in the past, but you cannot do experiments on events in the past. An example of this would be paleontology (the study of fossils). Scientists might unearth a dinosaur find and then tell a story of how long ago the dinosaur lived and died. But the scientist’s ideas about how old it is cannot be directly tested because it happened in the past without direct witnesses.
Is historical science real science? Can creationists use historical science?
Yes; creationists also use it to come up with ideas about what they think happened in the past, just like evolutionists. The difference is that creationists have eye witnesses for the big events of the past, and use historical science to explore the detail. For instance, creation geologists use what is known from small-scale disasters like the Mt St Helens volcanic eruption in 1980 to explain what may have happened during the global flood of Noah’s day (Gen. 7:11-19). The Bible has a better history than evolution (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The Bible is the history book of the universe, so it should be our authority when it comes to looking at the past.
Can historical science prove creation or evolution?
No, but it can give people ideas about what possibly happened in the past. Actually, creationists and evolutionists have the same set of facts – the same fossils, rocks, living things, and so on. Those facts are interpreted by creationists and evolutionists as evidence for one view or the other, but the facts themselves aren’t automatically ‘for’ one side or the other. So, everyone has the same evidence, just different interpretations. Different worldviews. A good example is what we think happened to the dinosaurs. An evolutionist might say it was the impact from an asteroid. And a creationist might say they became extinct due to changes in the weather after the catastrophic global flood, or even possibly as a result of humans hunting them.
Why do people only hear the evolutionary view?
For many reasons, evolution has long been the popular view of most scientists, but it wasn’t always that way. Almost all fields of science were started by Bible-believing thinkers. But, since creation is linked with Christianity and not natural processes, people argue that teaching creation in schools and museums is teaching ‘religion’, not science. What they don’t realize is that evolution is also linked with a religion – atheism, that denies God as the Creator (Rom. 1:20-23).
How do I know when historical science is right or wrong?
We can’t know for sure what happened in the past unless there is an eyewitness – and the Bible has a trustworthy eyewitness – God Himself! So when historical science disagrees with the Bible, it is wrong (Acts 17:10-11). For example, the age assumed for the Uluru and Kata Tjuta is an apparent (conditional, hypothetical, inferred) age that has been decided by the assumptions made in its determination. It’s about 5 orders of magnitude (about 100,000 times) different to the date of Noah’s flood when most of the sedimentary rock layers on earth were formed and eroded. That’s a huge difference! Appendix B shows why dating methods based on secular historical science are so unreliable.
Creationists try to develop scientific ideas based upon the Bible’s history in areas such as astronomy, geology, paleontology, and archaeology. But even these ideas can change when they make some new discovery.
There are two types of science: operational science and historical science. The dating of past events like the formation of sedimentary rocks and fossils uses historical science. But the accuracy of these dates depends on the accuracy of the assumed history. The Bible gives an accurate history (which provides actual dates), whereas evolutionists use an apparent (assumed, conditional) history (which provides hypothetical dates).
Appendix B: Methods used by secular historical science to date ancient events
No scientific method can prove the age of the earth or the age of events deduced in the fossil record, such as the date of extinction of the dinosaurs. No one saw these events, so we depend upon inferences made from present data, which is most cases relate to rocks and fossils. All dating methods are based on three main assumptions, and each method has its own particular additional assumptions. A dating method is a one that marks time by regular/systematic changes in a physical or chemical parameter over time. The three main assumptions are:
– The initial condition of the physical or chemical parameter.
– A knowledge between the initial time and now of the rate of a physical or chemical process that changes the parameter over time. This rate is usually assumed to be constant.
– A knowledge between the initial time and now of how much of the parameter has been lost or gained by other physical or chemical processes. This is usually assumed to be zero.
Secular historical scientists consistently choose the dating methods which they believe give sound ages (e.g. radiometric dating), and these are almost always the methods that yield the oldest dates. They choose to discard/ignore the dating methods that give much younger ages like: the salinity of the oceans, the decay of the earth’s magnetic field, and mutation rates, (Oard 2019). Likewise, they discard/ignore observations that give much younger ages like: fossils indicate rapid burial, parallel sedimentary rock layers with no erosion between them indicate that the layers were deposited rapidly in single a uninterrupted sequence, polystrate fossils, fragile organic molecules in dinosaur fossils, human observations of dinosaurs, C14 in coal and diamonds, and helium in zircon crystals.
So the dates that historical scientists determine for ancient events are extremely unreliable, particularly because dates are rejected unless they agree with the hypothetical geological time scale. Based on the little evidence that is available to the scientist, and the many assumptions that need to be made, and the lack of observations in the past, and the extreme extrapolation over eons of time, the supposed dates are speculative.
Hughes E and Cosner L (2018), Creation answers for kids, Creation Book Publishers, p.10-13.
Oard M J (2019) The deep time deception, Creation Book Publishers, p.79.
Can the Bible’s miracles be explained away by science? Many people who refuse to believe in God think they can explain away His existence and miracles using scientific explanations.
This post comes from a children’s book by Hughes and Cosner (2018).
What is a miracle?
A miracle is an unusual event from God that He uses to tell us about Himself. Examples from the Bible include healings, raising from the dead, and displays of power over nature. This is different from God’s providential care over creation, which can be described scientifically (Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:3). For instance, the laws of physics partially describe how God is upholding creation in an orderly way (1 Cor. 14:33).
Why does God do miracles?
Miracles can have several different reasons. They can deliver people, such as God parting the Red Sea (Ex. 4:1-9; Dt. 6:22). And they can judge people. Like when Elijah asked God not to send any rain to Israel for three years. One of the main purposes for miracles is to prove that a person was God’s chosen messenger. When God did miracles through Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and Jesus, that meant that God was really with those men (Mt. 11:4-5; Acts 2:22-23; 17:31).
Do miracles make people believe in God?
Sometimes, but not always (Ex. 7:8-13). The Pharisees and Jewish leaders saw many of Jesus’ miracles, but they hated Him and refused to believe in Him (Jn. 12:37). Jesus taught that even someone being raised from the dead would not be enough to make people believe in God (Lk. 16:31; Lk.24:1-12). The Bible teaches, rather, that the Gospel – the good news about Jesus’ death for our sins and His resurrection on the third day is what people need to be saved, not miracles. But sometimes miracles in Scripture helped people believe in God (Acts 9:35, 42).
Some people say that because we can’t test miracles, they can’t be real. Are they right?
People who say that assume that God either isn’t real, or that He can’t do miracles. Everyone agrees that miracles don’t normally happen – that’s why they’re called miracles! But we have lots of trustworthy accounts of miracles in Scripture, and we should trust them because that are God’s Word (Lk. 1:1-4; Jn. 21:25; 1 Cor. 15:3-8). There are lots of historical accounts about other things, such as ancient kings and battles, that we trust on a lot less evidence. Also some of the same people that say we can’t trust miracles because we can’t test them believe in evolution, which is a claim about history that can’t be tested either.
But if I’ve never seen a miracle, should I believe that God did them according to the Bible?
We believe in all sorts of things we’ve never seen – if a source is reliable, we tend to trust it. In fact, we have to trust sources for what they say about most of history before we were born! The Bible is God’s Word, so we should believe it (Gen. 6:11-22; Jn. 20:24-31).
Can science explain the Bible’s miracles?
Science can’t test the Bible’s miracles, because miracles are by definition unusual events that scientific laws can’t describe (Ex. 16:4-7). We cannot re-create a miracle to test it. So the best way to determine whether a miracle is true or not is to see whether the source is a reliable one (Lk. 1:5; 3:1-2). The Bible was inspired by God, so it’s completely true, so we can thrust it when it tells us about miracles.
Did people in the Bible believe in miracles just because they didn’t have science?
That’s like saying that people weren’t as smart in ancient times because they didn’t know as much as we do. But ancient people were smart enough to build pyramids and other huge monuments using very precise mathematics. They also knew about astronomy and other facts about the natural world. They knew that miracles were unusual, that’s why they could be special signs from God (Jn. 11:28-44). If people thought that the Red Sea parted every time the wind blew a certain way, it wouldn’t be a special sign of deliverance for Israel like it was (Ex. 14:21-31).
Do scientists really disbelieve in all miracles?
A funny thing is that both Christians and atheists have to believe in miraculous things at the beginning of time. Both Christians and atheists believe there had to be something to cause everything at the beginning of time. Christians believe God was the cause (Gen. 1:1), but atheists must appeal to something outside the laws of science, because something had to cause the laws of science! So both Christians and non-Christians have to appeal to things that science can’t explain.
Science can’t explain miracles. But scientists depend on miracles to explain how we got here!
Science doesn’t invalidate miracles and miracles don’t invalidate science. So we can believe in both operational science and in the miracles reported in the Bible.
Hughes E and Cosner L (2018), Creation answers for kids, Creation Book Publishers, p.34-37.
Posted, August 2019
If you had the opportunity, what question would you ask God? After tragedy in his life, Job had many questions for God. But when they finally met the tables were turned and God asked Job “Where were you when I created the world”? Job was silenced because the answer was “Nowhere”.
Question and answer
The context is that God says that Job needs to be educated on mysteries that surpass his understanding (38:2). He should have realized that many things known to God are hidden from humanity.
The first question that God asked was:
4“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7NIV)
God used a metaphor of building a house to describe His work of creation. Verse 7 is a poetic description of the angel’s joy in God’s creation. The implication is that Job didn’t exist when God created the world, so how could he understand it? And who was Job (finite and created) to question the God (infinite Creator) of the Universe?
Job’s answer was:
“I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
I spoke once, but I have no answer—
twice, but I will say no more” (Job 40:4-5).
Job didn’t answer the question in 38:4 because the answer was “Nowhere” – Job hadn’t been born when God created the world. He had no other answer to give. God’s questions were unanswerable. Job was reminded that there were many things that he didn’t know. He didn’t have the wisdom and knowledge to run the world and was ignorant of most of its processes. So he shouldn’t tell the Creator and Sustainer how to run the world.
In Job 38 God asked a series of questions about the earth (v. 4-7, 18); the sea (v.8-11, 16); the sun (v.12-15); death (v.17); light and darkness (v.19-20); the weather (v.22-30, 34-38); astronomy (v.31-33); and animals and birds (38:39 – 39:30). It was like a science examination! These questions show that God’s sovereignty, power and wisdom is evident in the created (natural) world. God is saying, “Before you criticize me, you should ask yourself if you could manage the creation as well as I do”.
Job couldn’t answer any of the questions because he felt powerless, ignorant, insignificant and unwise compared to God (Job 40:3-5). He was humbled. Job felt the immense difference between divinity and humanity. And if Job didn’t understand the natural world, how could he understand God’s dealings with humanity?
What about today?
Does this lesson still apply today as science can answer some of the questions in Job 38-39? Yes, scientists know more today than Job knew. But there’s also a lot that they don’t know. They know many secondary causes, but they are ignorant of primary causes (God’s role). And like Job, we should be overwhelmed with our ignorance, and not impressed with science.
Do we tell God how to run the world? Some say that the existence of suffering negates the existence of God. But like Job they are judging how God rules the world. Instead, they need to learn from Job’s humility.
When scientists study a subject it would be good for them to be mindful of God’s role. This could moderate their claims and introduce an element of humility as they consider the assumptions being made, the degree of extrapolation and the limits/uncertainty of the findings.
In particular, we have seen recently that scientists need miracles in their naturalistic explanations of the creation of the universe and the creation of life. They sound confident when they should be embarrassed. But one day God will ask them, “Were you there?” and the answer will be “No” (it’s not observational science). They didn’t observe God’s acts of creation. “Do you know anyone who was there?” “No”. The next question will be “Did you listen to my account of what happened (in the Bible)?” and the answer will be “No”. God was there – and He has given us an eyewitness account. How can they expect to understand creation if they only use the human mind and ignore the best information available on these historical events?
Written, May 2019
The big-bang model is the current scientific explanation of the universe (Appendix A). Did you know that this mathematical theory includes two miracles that can’t be explained by modern science? According to the Macquarie dictionary, a miracle is “an effect in the physical world which surpasses all known human or natural powers and is therefore ascribed to supernatural agency”.
A model is a mathematical explanation of something. Models that describe a current process can be tested experimentally against the real thing. Their predictions can be compared with observations. This is operational science which is reliable. But models about the distant past can’t be tested in that way because we can’t directly observe the past (and human records are fragmentary). This is historical (or forensic) science which is more speculative and unreliable than operational science. It involves the construction of tentative historical narratives to explain past events. And models about the distant future can’t be tested in that way because the future hasn’t occurred yet. This is futuristic science which is also more speculative and unreliable. Historical and futuristic science often rely on unreliable assumptions and extrapolations. But just because operational science is reliable, doesn’t mean that the others are also reliable. In fact, because they can’t be tested by experimentation, historical and futuristic science will always be less accurate than operational science. So operational science is more robust than historical and futuristic science.
Modern science is naturalistic and rejects the possibility of miracles because miracles defy explanations within the realm of nature. According to science, miracles don’t occur (they are supernatural) because it is assumed that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything. But we will see below that modern science isn’t consistent because it includes miracles in the area of historical science.
Something from nothing
The big-bang model assumes that the universe started in a hot, dense state and has been expanding over time since then. This is the beginning of space, time, and matter, which means that the universe had a cause. If something had a beginning, then it had a cause. But the cause of the universe could not have been spatial, temporal, or material because something cannot cause itself to come into existence. It’s absurd if something existed before it brought itself into being! This rules out naturalistic causes for the existence of the universe. Therefore, the universe had a supernatural cause.
According to operational science, we can’t get something from nothing (not anything). A vacuum remains a vacuum for eternity. But according to the historical science of the big-bang model, something (like a “quantum fluctuation”) came from nothing at the beginning of time. And that sounds like a miracle to me, because quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate. So this aspect of the big-bang model is inconsistent with naturalistic operational science.
The big-bang theory had a horizon problem (the universe is isotropic, it appears to be the same in all directions), a flatness problem (the density of energy/matter in the universe is fine-tuned) and a magnetic monopole problem (none have been observed). To fix these problems, a cosmic inflation theory was developed where there was a brief (less than one-billionth of a second) rapid expansion of space in the early universe (to say about 50% of its size today).
This hypothetical cosmic inflation defies all known laws of physics – it’s a miracle invoked to help the big-bang model. And what caused this rapid expansion to start and stop? No one knows.
The big-bang theory also includes hypothetic “dark (unseen) matter” and “dark (unseen) energy”. Like hypothetical inflation, scientists have added these to the theory to make it work, but they have never been observed! To explain the accelerating expansion of the universe, they proposed “dark energy”, that was a seeming anti-gravity force pulling the cosmos apart. Dark matter and dark energy are said to compromise about about 96% of the mass-energy content of the universe! Because of the need of such large fudge factors, the big-bang model is a poor theory for the structure and origin of the universe. There are at least six major assumptions that are accepted by faith in the Big-bang model (Appendix B).
These aspects of the big-bang model of creation defy all known laws of physics and involve speculative ideas. And the model has other unverifiable assumptions like that the universe has no center or edge. So, it takes a lot of faith to believe the big-bang model!
The inflationary big-bang model includes at least two miracles that can’t be explained by operational science. The first is how something came from nothing in the beginning. And the second is how there was a minute burst of supernatural cosmic inflation soon after the beginning. This is a fatal flaw for a model that doesn’t accept miracles! But the big-bang can’t start without these two miracles.
I’m skeptical of a model that claims to be based on naturalism, yet requires miracles! It’s like pulling a rabbit out of a hat! This kind of historical science isn’t consistent.
But the Bible is consistent when it provides the cause of the universe as the all-powerful spiritual God (Gen. 1:1). He isn’t spatial, temporal, or material. But at the beginning of time at the creation of the universe, He created space, time and energy/matter as we experience it today.
Appendix A: Summary of the Big-bang theory (from John Harnett)
A “quantum fluctuation” produces the matter and energy of the future universe, which then goes through a brief period of “inflation”. This inflation produces “flatness” in the energy distribution and prevents the universe from collapsing in on itself. After stars form, “dark matter” is required to explain the shape of galaxies and “dark energy” is required to explain the apparently accelerating expansion of the universe. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the afterglow of the post-inflation fireball, but the light is extremely red-shifted due to the stretching of space.
This theory assumes that the distribution of matter throughout the universe is homogeneous (uniform) and isotropic (the same in all directions).
Appendix B: Six assumptions accepted by faith in the Big-bang model
These are assumptions that can’t be verified by scientific experiments. None of the proposed entities can be measured directly (using operational science) because of the limitations of time and space.
- A “quantum fluctuation” produced the matter and energy of the future universe.
- Galaxy redshifts are explained by “expansion of space”.
- Cosmic microwave background radiation is explained as the “afterglow of the big-bang”.
- Rotation curves of spiral galaxies are explained by “dark matter”.
- As distant supernovae are dimmer than expected, the universe is assumed to be accelerating, which is explained by “dark energy”.
- Flatness and isotropy are explained by “inflation”.
Harnett J. (2014), “Exposing the Big Bangs fatal flaws”, Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, Creation Book Publishers, p.215-231.
Written, May 2019
Also see: An evolutionary miracle
Donald Trump points from his podium to the assembled news media and yells, ‘Fake news… They’re all fake news!’
His menacing words and tone are nasty. And because it’s a blanket condemnation, his words are unfair and untrue. Yet, Trump has tapped into a global grievance. According to the annual Edelman Trust Barometer, worldwide trust in the media is at an all-time low. And it’s not hard to see why. The media’s commercial and ideological agendas seem all too obvious.
Certainly, there is a bias directed against Christianity. Too often, media commentators are ill informed and dismissive when they speak about God and the Bible. Many blithely assume the most qualified person to determine the existence of God is a prominent scientist (usually a physicist).
For example, a few years ago on the 7:30 Report, Leigh Sales asked the following question of the cosmologist, Lawrence Krauss, “Why has science not yet done away with belief in God?”. The assumption amongst many journalists is that religion and superstition overlap perfectly – but that, hopefully and eventually, science will do away with God. After all, if He were real, God should be detectable in a test tube or with a large radio dish.
Such boundless confidence in science seems to come from the fact that science keeps providing technological marvels to help us in our everyday lives as well as in understanding the natural world. But God is supernatural and spiritual. Which means, He’s not a measurable part of our natural world. Instead, as Creator, He’s outside its bounds.
Ironically, the one place where God intervened publicly and dramatically is a place where observational scientific methods (such as repeatable experiments) aren’t applicable. That place is the cross of Christ nearly 2,000 years ago. There, God sent His Son to die for the world making it possible for us to return to Him in relationship. This was a historical event, which is more like forensic science than operational science.
However, the cross makes for a pathetic news story. Indeed the Bible says, ‘The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God’ (1 Corinthians 1:18).
But how do we know what’s fake? Perhaps the Bible itself is fake news? Consider this, when Jesus’s empty tomb was found, the Bible recounts how the chief priests conspired to bribe the Roman soldiers guarding Jesus’s tomb to spread a report that Jesus’s disciples had stolen the body. If the Bible is trustworthy then Jesus rose from the dead. If it’s fake news then that story is spin.
As always, the only way forward is to think carefully (and prayerfully) about the reliability of the source.
Bible verse: 1 Corinthians 1:18, “The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God”.
Prayer: Dear God, thank you for the way your words in the Bible reveal your integrity and faithful love to all generations.
Acknowledgement: This article was sourced from Outreach Media, Sydney, Australia.
Images and text © Outreach Media 2018
I have been asked to provide evidence of the existence of God. While researching this topic, I discovered the following article by Dr Gregory E. Ganssle of the Department of Philosophy at Yale University.
You Cannot Prove God’s Existence
Ever since Immanuel Kant wrote his Critique of Pure Reason, it has been common for thinking people to insist that it is impossible to prove the existence of God. In fact this claim has been elevated to the level of dogma in American intellectual culture. The reason I know this is considered unquestionable dogma is the reaction I get when I call it into question. When someone says “You cannot prove the existence of God”. I want to ask “How do you know? You just met me! How do you know what I can do?”
What do most people mean when they recite this claim? Most people mean that I cannot provide a philosophical argument for the existence of God which will convince all thinking people. It is impossible, so the story goes, to provide an argument which will compel assent. If my argument will not convince the most ardent atheist, I have not proven God’s existence. Since I cannot convince such an atheist to believe, my arguments do not count as proof. If they do not count as proof, what good are they?
I agree that I cannot provide an argument that will convince all thinking people. But what does this tell me? Does this tell me anything about God? No. This tells me more about the nature of proof than it does about whether God exists. I cannot provide an argument which will convince everyone, without a possibility of doubt, that God exists. That is no problem. You see, I cannot provide an argument for any interesting philosophical conclusion which will be accepted by everyone without possibility of doubt.
I cannot prove beyond the possibility of doubt — in a way that will convince all philosophers that the Rocky Mountains are really here as a mind-independent object. I cannot prove that the entire universe did not pop into existence five minutes ago and that all of our apparent memories are not illusions. I cannot prove that the other people you see on campus have minds. Perhaps they are very clever robots.
There is no interesting philosophical conclusion that can be proven beyond the possibility of doubt. So the fact that arguments for the existence of God do not produce mathematical certainty does not by itself weaken the case for God’s existence. It simply places the question of God’s existence in the same category as other questions such as that of the existence of the external, mind-independent world and the question of how we know other people have minds.
Does this mean that arguments for the existence of God are useless? Not at all. Sure, I cannot provide an argument which will convince all thinking people but this does not mean I don’t have good reason to believe in God. In fact some of my reasons for believing in God may be persuasive to you. Even if you aren’t persuaded to believe that God exists, my arguments may not be useless. It is reasonable to believe that the mountains are real and our memories are generally reliable and that other minds exist. It is reasonable to believe these things even though they cannot be proven. Maybe some argument for God’s existence will persuade you that belief in God is reasonable.
So how can we know that God exists? Instead of looking for undoubtable conclusions, we weigh evidence and consider alternatives. Which alternative best fits the evidence? We will choose one alternative or another. There is no neutral ground.
Where Can we Find Information about God?
When you get to thinking about it, it seems that there are only two basic sources of information about God, if such a being exists. They are the following:
We can infer what might be true about God from what we observe in the universe. We look at the physical universe, human nature and culture and we observe things which may be clues to the existence or nature of the supernatural. God may have entered the Universe and told us true things about himself, morality, meaning and how to have a relationship with him. This is called Revelation.
Let me explain each of these. One year my wife and I drove from Los Angeles to Rhode Island. It took a long time. The country is pretty big. From this observation it makes sense to think that if there is some person or being who is responsible for making the physical universe, this being has a lot more power than we do. Now this is a rather simplistic example. Another observation we can make is that every culture we know anything about has a deep sense that certain things are morally permissible and certain things are morally prohibited. This leads us to infer that if there is some supernatural being responsible for human nature, that being is personal. He has a moral aspect to his nature.
The second source of information is that God may have taken the initiative and stepped into the universe to reveal himself. He may tell us true things about his nature and purposes and about human meaning and morality.
Christianity holds that both of these are good sources of information. We have clues to God’s existence which can be observed and God has entered the physical universe through the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth in History and told us about himself.
Now in this article I am concentrating on the first source. Can we know anything about God from what we observe? Are there good reasons to believe in God based on these observations? I think there are.
Reasons to Believe in God
I want to pick up two observations which I think give us good reason to think there is a God. First, the existence of the universe is better explained by the existence of God. Second, the existence of objective moral values is better explained by the existence of God.
The Existence of the Universe is Better Explained by The Existence of God.
I will begin by laying out the argument:
1. There are things which come into existence.
Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else. There cannot be an infinite series of past causes. Therefore, there exists a first cause which did not come into existence. In other words, the first cause always existed. Let us look at each of the steps in the argument:
Premise 1. “There are things which come into existence.”
Many things have come into existence. This article is coming into existence as I write it. You came into existence and so did I. This premise is not uncontroversial.
Premise 2. “Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else.”
It is obvious that Nothing can cause itself to come into existence. Anything that causes itself to come into existence has to exist before it exists. This is impossible. Perhaps something can come into existence from Nothing without any cause whatsoever. Can a thing just pop into existence with absolutely no cause? This also does not seem reasonable.
I have three children. If I walk into the dining room and see a picture of Pinky and the Brain which is drawn on the wall in Permanent Magic Marker I will ask “Where did this picture come from?” My daughter Elizabeth (who is almost five) might say “It came from nothing, Dad. Nothing caused it. It just popped there. I think it is quite strange — don’t you?” Will I accept this? No! Things do not come into existence from Nothing without cause. So, we have good reason to think that premise two is true. Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else.
Premise 3. “There cannot be an infinite series of past causes.”
Is the series of past causes infinite? Can the universe have an infinite past? The answer is that it cannot. First, there are philosophical reasons to think the past cannot be infinite. Second, there are scientific reasons which support this view.
Why can’t the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.
The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite, that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.
I will not develop these. Rather, I will simply point them out.
Big Bang theory does not prove that the universe had a beginning, but it supports this claim.
The second law of thermodynamics does not prove that the universe had a beginning but it also supports this claim.
We can see that we have good philosophical and Scientific reasons to reject the idea that the Universe has always existed.
About the Universe, there are only three alternatives:
1. The universe has always existed. It has an infinite past.
2. The universe was popped into existence from nothing with absolutely no cause.
3. The universe was caused to exist by something outside it.
We have strong reason to reject the first two alternatives.
Alternative Three is the most reasonable. There was a first cause. This cause existed eternally. It initiated the big bang and created the universe. Now what can we know about this cause? Why think the cause is God? I will briefly sketch a few implications.
First, the first cause is not a part of the space-time physical universe because it caused the space time universe to begin. Therefore it is outside of space and time. It is not physical. Second, it has a great deal of power. Third, it is a personal agent. This means it is not an inert force but it must have aspects of person hood; namely, that it wills. How do we know this? This is because it is the best answer to the question of why the Big Bang happened when it did. Why not sooner? Why not later? All of the conditions for producing the Big Bang existed from eternity. The only kind of cause we know of that can initiate an effect when all of the conditions are already present is the will of a personal agent.
I have not argued that it is logically impossible that the universe popped into existence from nothing without cause. I have argued that it is more reasonable to hold that it has a cause and that this cause is a non-physical personal agent — God.
So it seems that the first argument is fairly strong. The existence of the universe is better explained by the existence of God.
The Existence of Objective Moral Values is Better Explained by the Existence of God.
People experience a sense of morality that leads them to hold strongly that certain things are right or wrong for all people in all cultures. For example, it is wrong to torture another person just for fun. It is wrong for me today. It is wrong for a citizen of the Philippines and it was wrong for someone living in 500 BC. Our moral sense provides strong reason to believe in a personal God.
It will help clarify what I am saying if we put it into the form of an argument.
If there is no God, there are no objective moral values.
There are moral values which are objective.
Therefore, God exists.
Before I discuss this argument, I must make it clear that I am not claiming that one must believe in God in order to be moral. I am not claiming that statistically those who believe in God are more moral than those who do not. I am also not claiming that our knowledge of morality depends upon God. This argument is to the effect that objective moral values themselves are foreign to a universe without God. They do not fit.
Defending Premise 1. “If there is no God, there are no objective moral values.”
I have to admit that this claim is quite controversial and many philosophers disagree with me. I think, however, that objective moral values are not sufficiently explained in a universe without God. Many have agreed with this claim. For example, Dostoevski had Ivan Karamazov claim, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” Sartre wrote of Dostoevski’s statement, “That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to” [see his essay Existentialism]. John Mackie — probably the best philosophical atheist of the twentieth century recognizes this: “[Objective moral values] constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events, without an all-powerful god to create them. If, then, there are such intrinsically prescriptive objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them [The Miracle of Theism, pp 115-116].
Mackie recognizes that these objective values do not fit in the universe if there is no God. His answer, since he rejects God, is to claim that there are no objective moral values. His book on ethics is appropriately titled Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. I agree with Dostoevski, Sartre and Mackie. If there is no God, there are no objective moral values.
Defending Premise 2. “There are objective moral values.”
We know there are objective moral values. By this I mean that the content of morality is not determined by the individual, or by culture. Rather some things are objectively wrong. Other things are objectively obligatory. Actions such as rape, racist discrimination and torturing an innocent baby to death for no reason are really wrong. Furthermore, It is wrong for me to do these no matter when I live and no matter from what culture I come.
Now many people believe that morality is not objective. This view comes in three basic varieties.
1. The individual determines morality.
If the individual determines morality, then if I believe it is morally permissible to steal your stereo and beat up your girlfriend, it is permissible for me to do it. But it is not permissible for me to beat up your girlfriend. Therefore, the individual does not determine morality.
2. Society determines morality.
If I lived in a completely racist society, would racism be right for me? Not at all. When an American university student protests against South Africa’s policy of apartheid, he is assuming that morality is not determined by society. It is transcendent of cultures. All of our greatest heroes have been men and women who have stood up to society’s wrongs and appealed to a morality that is transcendent to society in order to demand change. If society determines morality, it is always morally wrong to criticize society. There is no morality outside of society which can form the basis of a moral critique.
3. Morality has survival value.
Some people claim that the reason we have this moral sense is that it helped the human race survive. Those individuals with moral sense grouped together for mutual protection and these did better than those without the moral sense. This is a kind of prehistoric social contract theory of morality. The problem with this is that we do not need morality to survive today. In fact, if you and I know that morality has no objective validity and the rest of our culture still thinks it is valid, we can take advantage of this to get the most we can. There is no moral reason to refrain from rape, robbery and murder.
These inadequate objections show that our sense is that there is a morality that is trans-personal, trans-cultural and trans-temporal The existence of a personal God is the best explanation for this. It is not up to the individual or the culture whether it is permissible to rape simply for fun. Any individual who believes it is morally permissible to rape for fun has a false belief. Any culture whose moral guidelines include the claim that it is permissible to rape for fun has simply got it wrong.
If it is true that Hitler was morally wrong, it is true that there are objective moral truths which are trans-cultural. If it is true that it was wrong for Romans to leave baby girls to die on the trash heaps — simply because they were girls, then morality is not determined by culture. If it is true that Martin Luther King was a moral hero because he criticized his own culture by appealing to objective morality, then it is true that morality is not determined by culture.
Now, It is true that Hitler was wrong. It is true that the Romans were wrong. It is true that Martin Luther King was right — heroically right. So, we know there are objective moral truths. But objective morality makes no sense in the Universe if there is no God. Objective moral values point to the existence of a moral being who created the universe. His moral character is the standard for objective right and wrong.
I have briefly presented two arguments for the existence of God. These show that it is more reasonable to believe that God exists than that He does not exist.
A. The Existence of the Universe is Better Explained by The Existence of God.
B. The Existence of Objective Moral Values is Better Explained by the Existence of God.
So we see that some of the things we observe about the natural world ground a strong inference to the claim that God does exist. This gives us reason to consider with renewed openness the possibility that God has entered the space-time universe and revealed Himself through the person and life and death of Jesus of Nazareth.
I have not claimed to prove with mathematical certainty that God exists. I have, however, provided good reasons to think that He does. If someone wishes to argue successfully that God does not exist, they must first, provide an answer for each of these arguments and second, they must offer arguments that God does not exist. Until they do this, we can conclude that we have good reason to claim that God does exist.
This article was written by Dr Gregory E. Ganssle of the Department of Philosophy at Yale University.
Posted, November 2017
In March 2016 the NSW Environment Protection Authority served notice requiring a company to conduct a mandatory environmental audit of its waste oil processing facility near Maitland. This followed a pattern of environmental non-compliance at the facility, including serious breaches involving air emissions and water discharges. The audit of site practices and procedures includes assessment of testing waste products, operation and maintenance of pollution control equipment, bunding and spill management, and potential impacts on groundwater. In this post we carry out an audit of the naturalistic explanation of the origin of life.
In 1999 New Holland published a book, ‘In six days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation’. The editor, Dr John Aston, noted in the preface that:
‘Why would educated scientists still believe in creation? Why wouldn’t they prefer to believe in Darwinian evolution or even theistic evolution, where an all-powerful intelligence is seen as directing the evolutionary processes? Could scientists believe that life on earth is probably less than 10,000 years old? How would they deal with the evidence from the fossil record and the ages suggested by the radioactive dating of rocks as millions and billions of years old?’
‘During the past century, the biblical story of Genesis was relegated to the status of a religious myth and it was widely held that only those uneducated in science or scientific methods would seriously believe such a myth. However, my experience in organizing this book, is that there is a growing number of highly educated critically thinking scientists who have serious doubts about evidence for Darwinian evolution and who have chosen to believe in the biblical version of Creation.’
The scientists gave their personal response to the question: ‘Why do you believe in a literal six-day biblical Creation as the origin of life on earth?’ The responses were divided into two categories ‘Science and Origins’ (dealing with the scientific critique of evolution as well as the scientific basis for creation) and ‘Religion and Origins’ (dealing with a more philosophical approach to the question of evolution and creation). My contribution was in the latter section (p.322-327).
There are two main views about the origin of the universe and the origin of life: those based on naturalism and those based on an intelligent Creator. As these events occurred long ago and are not subject to direct observation or experimental tests, both of these perspectives are mainly philosophical beliefs based on certain assumptions about the physical world.
This fact is ignored or distorted in most modern treatments of the topic of origins. For example, the March 1998 issue of National Geographic included an article titled, ‘The rise of life on earth’. The editor of the magazine wrote concerning this article on the origin of life: ‘Science is the study of testable, observable phenomena’, and religious faith is ‘an unshakeable belief in the unseen’. This ‘straw man argument’ diverts the discussion away from the issues of science and logic to the separate topic of science versus religious faith. It also ignores the fact that there are no obvious ‘testable, observable phenomena’ on the origin of life. Furthermore, the language used in the article demonstrates that naturalism also relies on faith in the unseen.
The naturalistic view of origins is that everything that exists can be explained by physical and chemical processes alone. This differs from the view that matter, energy, physical and chemical processes and life were established by a Creator as revealed in the Holy Bible.
Searching for truth
An environmental auditor relies on two main factors: objective evidence and agreed standards. The outcome of each part of an audit depends on comparing the observable evidence against the relevant standard. Of course, environmental standards change in time and space across the world. Similarly, any explanation of origins should be consistent with the body of ‘observable evidence’ and any relevant ‘standards’. This is complicated by the fact that the evidence is viewed today, a long time after the beginning of the universe and life. Also, in a changing world, it is not immediately obvious which standards are relevant. The Bible is the only reliable and consistent source of truth; it is like a fixed frame of reference. Other authorities, such as science and logic, are not sufficient, as they may change in time and space; they are like a changing frame of reference.
The laws of physics and chemistry are examples of the relative standards of science, which change with time as knowledge develops. They were developed under present conditions and assume that the universe already exists. Two of these fundamental laws are that life always comes from earlier life and that mass/energy is conserved. Applying them to the origin of life assumes that all these conditions were true at that time. To say; then, that naturalism explains the origin of life is ‘circular reasoning’, as the outcome is largely determined by the assumptions made. Although these laws may describe the present world, it would be a gross assumption to extrapolate them back to the unobserved initial conditions. Yet this is done frequently by those with a naturalistic viewpoint, without acknowledgement of the uncertainties involved and the limitations of the scientific method.
The assumptions of both naturalism and biblical creation and the principles of the scientific method are stated clearly in W Gitt’s ‘Did God Use Evolution?’ 1993, CLV Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung e. V.
The Bible is a source of ‘absolute’ truth that has stood the test of time much longer than any other document or philosophy. Of course, as in the case of any literature, it requires interpretation as to what is historical and what is metaphorical or symbolic. Besides obvious literary techniques, the most reliable method is to use the whole message of the Bible to interpret any particular passage. Otherwise, an interpretation may not be consistent with the rest of the Bible.
The Bible contains three clear tests for determining whether a belief, teaching or philosophy is true or false. To be true it must pass each of the three tests:
The Jesus test: This test states that, ‘Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist … This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood’ (1 Jn. 4:2-6NIV). The question to be answered in this test is: What does it say about Jesus Christ? The Bible teaches that Christ was unique: divine and human, sinless, eternal and the Creator. It is false to deny that Christ was the divine Son of God. Beliefs that fail this test usually claim that Christ was, at best, a great teacher or a prophet. They may even encourage the view that Christ and other events in the Bible are mythical.
The gospel test: The Bible warns about those promoting a different gospel, ‘If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!’ (Gal.1:9). The question to be answered in this test is: What is its gospel? In other words: what is the core belief or hope? The Bible says that the root cause of all our problems is that everyone has sinned and fallen short of God’s requirements—resulting in death. The only means of rescue is salvation by faith in Christ. ‘Different gospels’ are those that differ from this. They either add to it or take away from it. There is a warning against adding to or taking away from the words of the Bible (Rev. 22:18-19). Broader aspects of the gospel include the original creation and the ultimate restoration of all things (Rev. 4:11; 21:1-22:6). We need to be careful when applying this test because a ‘different gospel’ may deceive by using words similar to the true gospel but give them different meanings.
The fruit test: Jesus Christ warned, ‘Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them’ (Mt. 7:15-20). The question to be answered in this test is: What kind of fruit is evident? In other words, what type of attitudes and behavior does it encourage? Is the divine nature or the sinful nature most evident? The former is characterised by the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. The sinful nature may involve: idolatry, sexual immorality, selfish ambition, pride, hostility, quarrelling and outbursts of anger (Gal. 5:19-23).
These tests will now be used to assess the naturalistic view of origins.
The Jesus test: As naturalism means that nature is all there is, it is associated with atheism. For example, the American Association of Biology Teachers states, that; ‘The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.’
This view of origins has no need for a Creator or the divine, and so is consistent with a belief that Jesus Christ was only a human being and not divine. Naturalism clearly fails the Jesus test.
The gospel test: As naturalism assumes there is no God, it accepts no absolute standards of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, and rejects the existence of ‘sin’ in the sense of falling short of God’s standard. Therefore, it teaches that there is no need of a savior. Its gospel is that nature has made itself and the Genesis account of origins is not true. A biblical consequence of this is that if there was no paradise at the beginning as described in Genesis, then there can be no hope for a future paradise (Acts 3:21). In fact, naturalism rejects all the basic biblical truths, such as: creation, the beginning of evil, the need for salvation and the ultimate destiny of human beings. So, naturalism fails the gospel test.
The fruit test: Naturalism supports and is associated with: materialism, humanism (humanity is self-sufficient, capable of solving all their difficulties) and pantheism (‘nature’ replaces God). Its acceptance leads to: less value on human life (practices such as abortion and euthanasia are more acceptable). Another example from the past is racism; less value on family life (biblical marriage is less important; divorce is more acceptable); less value on morals (truth is now relative, not absolute); a ‘might is right’ attitude that supports the strong, but not the weak (survival of the fittest; a competitive world; compassion involves saving ‘weak genes’). As these are opposite to the values of the Bible, naturalism fails the fruit test.
It is clear from this that the viewpoint of naturalism fails all the three biblical tests for determining what is true. Therefore, it is false and is not consistent with the overall message of the Bible.
Due to the influence of the above philosophies, claims are often made in the name of ‘science’ that go far beyond the available evidence, and some aspects of modern science have become increasingly tenuous and speculative. In fact, the everyday use of the word ‘science’ has changed from dealing with things that are observable and testable to meaning ‘naturalism’ and so includes conjecture and dubious hypotheses.
Although we live in a ‘cause-and-effect’ universe, ultimate causes, such as origins, are outside the realm of reliable science. Science can only reliably deal with the present world; it cannot reliably deal with the past (such as origins) or the future (such as ultimate destinies), as it cannot directly observe these. I believe all scientists should be wary of their assumptions, as these can largely determine their findings. They should also be wary of extrapolations outside the range of observation. The further the extrapolation, the less reliable the prediction. Changes in the assumptions will change the prediction. This applies in particular to boundary conditions, such as those involving initial conditions (or origins). Therefore, scientists can only speculate, imagine and guess about the origin of life.
Dr Hawke is a Senior Environmental Consultant with an electricity supply company in Sydney, Australia. He holds a BSc with first class honors in Physics from the University of Sydney, and PhD in Air Pollution Meteorology from Macquarie University. Over the past 22 years, Dr Hawke has worked as an environmental scientist and environmental consultant for a state government regulatory authority and the electrical power industry. He is also a Certified Environmental Auditor with the Quality Society of Australasia.
Published in 1999