The Big Banger
To some, the idea of belief in an all-powerful God that created the universe is like believing in Santa Clause or the tooth fairy. They think of God’s miracles in the same way they think of Santa bringing presents to billions of kids in one day: impossible. In one respect it makes sense that so many would reject faith once they grow up. After all, they were told fun lies about things like the Easter Bunny and the stork that delivers babies, why shouldn’t they think all the nice stories about Jesus, Noah’s flood and the Garden of Eden fall into the same category?
In my last entry I blurred the line that divides natural and supernatural. I indicated that my next blog would attempt to show that it is most reasonable to believe in some kind of god. In the process I also intend to strengthen my argument about belief in the supernatural and miracles.
What if I could demonstrate, using solid scientific evidence, that a miracle actually did take place? After all, science is what most atheists appeal to as a case against God (they would do the same for our Santa myth if any adults truly believed and taught that he is real, and rightfully so). So, lets measure God using their tools and see what we find.
What is a miracle?
Here is a standard definition:
1. A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.
2. A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment.
Miracles are by definition supernatural occurrences, as seen in “1.” above. I have already addressed this part in my last blog.
The second part of the definition focuses more on probability. What is probability?
Probability
Probability is how we measure how likely something is to happen. For example, if I flip a coin, there is an equal 50% probability that it will land on heads or tails. If I roll a die, there is a one in six chance that it will land on any of the numbers on it. Probability can be expressed as a ratio, percentage, fraction, or in decimal form. Most often it is expressed on a scale from 0 (impossible) to 1 (certainty) or as an equivalent percentage from 0 to 100%. Numbers that are extremely small are expressed as a negative exponent (e.g. 10-40) because there would be too many zeros after the decimal to write out. (It can get way more complicated than this, but for the sake of my point this should suffice.)
If God exists, it would not be possible to calculate the probability of him existing simply because He, by very nature of being God, would have to transcend everything else that is. If God made the universe, he could not be made from the stuff inside the universe and thus could not be measured by it. So, how can we use probability to show that it is most reasonable to believe in some kind of god? First, let’s use it to show that there is such a thing as miracles.
The Universe
The universe we live in is a miracle. I don’t mean that as a euphemism. I mean it in a literal technical sense. The generally accepted definition of “impossible” is anything with a probability of 10-50 or less (although probabilities much, much larger than this are highly unlikely). What is the probability of our universe being finely tuned as it is to support life?
Astrophysicist Hugh Ross Ph.D., in his book The Creator and the Cosmos, provides a list that gives an estimate of the probability of 128 parameters required for life support on earth. That probability is 10-166. He also provides a list of 35 characteristics in the universe that must fall within narrowly defined values in order for any life to exist. “Narrowly defined” in astronomy means something different than us lay folk are accustomed to. For example: the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational force constant. If the electromagnetic force relative to gravity were increased by only one part in 1040, life could not exist. That is astronomically narrow (pun intended). And that’s only one of the 35.
Now to further exacerbate the situation, understand that all of these probabilities must be compounded because they must all exist at the same time. Let’s use our coin again to make the point. I wrote above that a coin has an equal 50% (.5) chance of landing on heads or tails. What if we had two coins? The chance that they would both land on heads is .25. We have to multiply the first probability with the second one: .5 x .5. If we have three coins, then: .5 x .5 x .5, and so on. If you do that with all of the fine-tuning odds we know about (which are exponentially smaller than .5), you come up with an inconceivably low probability. The popular cosmologist Carl Sagan estimated the chance that life could evolve on any planet as one chance in 102,000,000,000. How’s that for impossible? Even atheist scientists know this is a significant challenge to a purely materialistic view of origins. I recently heard this quote from Stephen Hawking: “The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications.”
Indeed.
Some would argue that nothing is impossible (from a probability standpoint) given the right circumstances, and theoretically, they may be right. For example, I think we would all agree that it is impossible to roll a two on a die 100,000 times in a row. However, if we rolled that die many trillions of times, there may be a chance that it could happen, however improbable. The more we rolled, the greater the odds that it could happen. But if I were playing a dice game with you where twos were desirable and I rolled even 20 in a row, you would rightfully assume I was cheating. It would be most reasonable to believe so. In the same way, it is most reasonable to believe that some higher power, a transcendent god of some kind, was involved with creating our universe for life. I will strengthen that point below. For now, I have used science to show that a miracle did happen: life and the universe that supports it. This is true regardless of how we define ”impossible” because if we refer back to the second definition of “miracle” above, we see that it does not have to be impossible, only highly improbable. Obviously the enormously improbable has happened.
The Big Bang
Back to belief in God being most reasonable.
All respected astronomers agree that the universe started with the Big Bang. This is very important. Why? Because the implications are that space and time had a beginning. The Bible is the only holy book that claims that the universe and time began ex nihilo (from nothing), and that is exactly what astronomers say about the universe and Big Bang cosmology. But both science and philosophy are aware that nothing comes from nothing. According to the law of causality, something must have caused the Bang. If there was a beginning, there was a Beginner. If there was a Big Bang, there must be an even Bigger Banger because, as I’ve already alluded to above, if some agent caused something, it must transcend the thing it caused; it must be above and beyond it. If God made the universe, he could not be made from the stuff inside the universe. Therefore, Big Bang cosmology leads to the conclusion that there must have been a causal agent that transcends our physical laws, so it is most reasonable to believe in some kind of god.
An objection
What if science revises its findings about the Big Bang or even the laws of probability? Does that ruin the argument above? Well, I guess in one way it would. However, what if there actually is no conflict between science and religion to solve? Even if I had the time, I’m not sure I would be able to summarize this argument. If you are interested and have some scientific and / or philosophic knowledge, I highly recommend the book, Where The Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism by the brilliant philosopher, Alvin Plantinga.
Finally…
What is it in us that we think that when we understand something by natural cause, we exclude the possibility of the hand of God being involved? Why are the natural and God so often put on a different planes? I believe God is the author of all natural and supernatural processes. Our understanding or lack of understanding does not change what is (although it helps us master it). In this way, science seems arrogant to me. Our correct reaction to the knowledge we gain from studying our universe would be worship.