|
|
Proofs that God exists
Evidence of God's existence. Read how nature, the concept of right and wrong and numerous other facts point to the existence of the Creator, or God
This article discusses the existence of God and the evidence that points to it. It is an important topic because if God exists and man is an eternal soul and responsible to God, this topic cannot be ignored. It is downright absurd if we don't want to get clear about this issue and how to get in touch with God. It is worth familiarizing yourself with it. What about views regarding the existence of God? In this area, there are three common views in Western countries: theism, agnosticism and atheism.
• In theism it is believed that God exists and that He created everything. • Agnosticism leaves the existence of God open: God may or may not exist. Many believe this is something that we cannot be certain about. • The third alternative is atheism, which denies the existence of God and assumes Him to be merely a man-made concept. Atheists also like to pose as scientific. They want to distinguish between the scientific worldview, which they believe they represent, and the religious worldview, but they do not understand that their view is also a religious and faith-based assumption. It is a faith-based assumption similar to belief in God. How can an atheist be sure that God does not belong to that sector and area, about which he himself has no knowledge? The following picture illustrates the matter. If a person knows only a few percent of all information, he cannot refute things that he himself has not observed. God and his existence can be such a thing.
EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Next, we will examine the evidence for God's existence. They are not conclusive evidence, but conclusions can be drawn based on them. They point in the direction that God really exists.
Something exists. First, you should pay attention to the fact that something exists. The fact that there is no mere emptiness requires an explanation. Why is there an inanimate and an animate world? Why are there stars, moon and sun that bring light and warmth? Why are there people who drive cars, walk in space, write books and can run, talk, sing or feel emotions? Why are there mountains, rocks, soil, clouds, water and waterways? Why are there animals on land, sea and air like elephants, lions, worms, fish, chirping birds, butterflies or mosquitoes? Why are there trees and flowers? Or why there are good-tasting carrots, apples, strawberries, peas, oranges, bananas and blueberries that can be eaten? The fact that the previous things exist requires an explanation. We should not take this matter for granted, but should think deeply about it. When there are only two possibilities: something exists or there is nothing, an explanation must be found why the first option is true. Why isn't there just emptiness instead of being able to see diverse life around us and the things mentioned in the list. This observation is so simple in its rudimentary nature that we are not always even aware of it. We take it for granted, but it is extremely important. It should not be passed over lightly. Therefore, the fact that something exists, and is not just emptiness and non-existence, is the first reason to think about the existence of God. It doesn't directly prove the matter to be true, but it is one indication in that direction.
Everything has a beginning. Secondly, it must be noted that everything has a beginning. This encompasses two areas, both the inanimate universe and life:
The universe, i.e. the galaxies, stars, planets, sun and other celestial bodies in it, requires a beginning. For at present it is generally admitted among scientists that the universe cannot be eternal and infinitely old. It's because the universe is heading inexorably towards heat death - towards a state where all temperature differences have disappeared and where the amount of usable energy will decrease and eventually run out. This decrease in the amount of energy can be compared in principle to when the wood in a campfire burns out. Once they burn out, they cannot be burned again - they are unusable. It shows how usable energy is decreasing all the time, and that somewhere there must be an absolute beginning and a limit beyond which one cannot go. It can be called zero moment. There must have been a moment when the clock that is ticking towards heat death started and when it stopps. This applies both to our own sun and to other celestial bodies that are still emitting energy. So everything has a beginning, and the question of creation cannot be avoided. The beginning of the universe is a reference to the existence of God. In his book The Evolution of the Universe, Sir Fred Hoyle explains this remarkable paradox:
For creation to be reduntant, the building material of the universe should be immensely old. - - Hydrogen transforms slowly to helium - . How is it then possible that the whole of the universe is still mainly hydrogen? It being immensely old is completely impossible. Thus, as the universe is as we have noticed it to be, we cannot avoid questions about its creation. (Sir Fred Hoyle in his book Maailmankaikkeuden kehitys])
Life also has a beginning. Another important observation is the presence of life on Earth. It can't be forever either, and there's a simple reason for that: the sun's limited existence time sets exact limits on life. Because since the sun could not have existed forever and brought warmth and light to the earth, there could not have been life either. Without the sun, the temperature would be almost -273°C, it would be dark and the water would be frozen, and in those conditions no known life form could thrive. Therefore, it is impossible for life on Earth to be eternal, because the Sun is not eternal either. So the conclusion is that both the inanimate universe and life must have a beginning. Neither of them is eternal, so the question of creation and God cannot be ignored. The following verses are well related to the subject. The Bible suggests that there must be a greater power behind the visible things. The best explanation for this is a supernatural God whose actions prove his existence. Everything usually has a creator, and that also applies to the universe and life in it:
- (Rom 1:19,20) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
- (Ps 19:1) The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork.
Naturalistic theories are on weak ground. Two important points were brought up above: the inanimate universe and life must have a beginning. They can't be forever. So how do materialists try to explain the same thing? They admit that the universe is not eternal and that life has a beginning, but they say that everything came into existence by itself, without God's involvement. However, if you look at their alternative and naturalistic theories, they have no proper foundation. On the contrary, their theories are without evidence, a fact that many scientists have acknowledged. Next, we examine their theories.
The beginning of the universe is something that must be explained in a naturalistic worldview. At the moment, the most common theory is the Big Bang theory, where everything – galaxies, stars, sun, planets, sea and water, rocks, man, birds, elephants, mosquitoes, flowers – is supposed to have been born from nothing. However, no practical observation suggests that things can appear out of nowhere. This theory is against the laws of nature. In addition, several scientists dispute the validity of this theory (Illustratively, in 2004, secular scientists who doubted this theory wrote an open letter to the New Scientist magazine. More than a hundred other cosmologists supported the letter. The letter said: "There is no open exchange of ideas, doubt and dissent will not be tolerated. In no other field of physics can constantly resort to new hypotheses to bridge the gap between theory and observations.").
New data differs enough from the theory’s prediction to destroy the Big Bang-cosmology (Fred Hoyle, The Big Bang in Astronomy, 92 New Scientist 521, 522-23 / 1981)
As an old cosmologist, I see the current observational data repealing theories about the beginning of the universe, and also the many theories about the beginning of the Solar System. (H. Bondi, Letter, 87 New Scientist 611 / 1980)
There has been remarkably little discussion of whether or not the big bang hypothesis is correct... many of the observations that conflict it are explained through numerous unfounded assumptions or they are simply ignored. (nobelist H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma 125 / 1981)
Physicist Eric Lerner: ”Big Bang is merely an interesting tale, which is maintained for a certain reason” (Eric Lerner: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe, The Big Bang Never Happened, NY: Times Books, 1991).
David Berlinski: ”It is pointless to argue that something comes into existence out of nothing, when any given mathematician understands this to be complete nonsense” (Ron Rosenbaum: ”Is the Big Bang Just a Big Hoax? David Berlinski Challenges Everyone.” New York Observer 7.7.1998)
The Big Bang theory is also against all logic and common sense, as it assumes that the entire current universe and life arose from nothing or a space the size of a pinhead. But can anything come from nothing or a space the size of a pinhead? This theory and thing can be compared to someone taking a matchbox (it's much bigger than a pinhead) and then saying that all kinds of things come out of it. He claims that it is a scientific fact and should not be doubted because all reasonable scientists believe in it. So, according to his words, from inside the box it is possible to get things many times bigger and more complicated than the box, such as:
• An elephant and the grass that the elephant eats • A stone weighing a thousand kilograms, other stones and rocks • A fast-running cheetah appears from the same box or void • Roaring lions • Birds that can fly and chirp • Mosquitoes that birds can eat • The fish and the sea around them are born from the same little box • Beautiful and fragrant flowers and tens of meters tall trees come from the same box • Billions of galaxies, stars and planets come from the same box • The sun, which warms and gives light • People who can talk and feel emotions: cry, laugh, get angry, fear, grieve and fall in love. • Delicious strawberries, bananas, blueberries, peas, grapes and nuts. They are also believed to have emerged from the same little box
Can the previous theory be doubted? You certainly can. It is the greatest miracle in the world if all the things before and around us have arisen by themselves from a space the size of a box or a pinhead, which is many times smaller than them. It is a complete impossibility and against logic, because mere non-existence cannot cause its existence. Something must first exist before something can come into existence. How can a "knob needle" or a smaller space turn itself into tasty strawberries, flying birds, a person driving a car, a hot sun, a roaring lion, reproductive organisms, fish and the ocean around them, rocks and everything that exists? If we believe in such a theory, we are certainly not wise. We have to abandon common sense.
The birth of galaxies and stars. What about the birth of galaxies and stars? It has not been possible to prove that either. The belief that they arise by themselves is on shaky ground:
I do not want to claim that we really understand the process that created the galaxies. The theory on the birth of the galaxies is one of the major unsolved problems in astrophysics and we still seem to be far from the actual solution even today. (Steven Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia / The First Three Minutes, p. 88)
A major problem, however, is how did everything come into being? How did the gas from which galaxies were born initially accumulate to start the birth process of stars and the large cosmic cycle? (…) Therefore, we must find physical mechanisms that bring about condensations within the homogenous material of the universe. This seems quite easy but as a matter of fact leads to problems of a very profound nature. (Malcolm S. Longair, Räjähtävä maailmankaikkeus / The Origins of Our Universe, p. 93)
The scary thing here is that if none of us knew beforehand that stars exists, the frontline research would provide many convincing reasons as to why stars could never be born.” (Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, p. 187, W.W. Norton & Company, 2007)
Abraham Loeb: “The truth is that we don’t understand the formation of stars on a fundamental level.” (Cited from Marcus Chown’s article Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998)
There are several theories about the origin of the solar system, but all are uncertain:
Even nowadays, when astrophysics has progressed enormously, many theories concerning the origin of the solar system are unsatisfactory. Scientists still disagree about the details. There is no commonly accepted theory in sight. (Jim Brooks, Näin alkoi elämä, p. 57 / Origins of Life)
All presented hypotheses about the origin of the solar system have serious inconsistencies. The conclusion, at the moment, seems to be that the solar system cannot exist. (H. Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History and Physical Constitution, 6th edition, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 387)
The birth of life. What about the origin of life? Materialistic scientists want to believe that life arose from itself, but this view is easy to question because there is no practical evidence for it. There is no experiential knowledge that inanimate matter can produce life—that some dead stone or similar inanimate thing suddenly begins to move, reproduce, eat, sleep, speak, or feel various emotions. Nothing points to such a thing, but the more information has accumulated, the bigger the problem is the emergence of life by itself. The gap between living and non-living matter has been found to be too great. The following quote is related to the topic. It is from an interview with Stanley Miller during the latter part of his life. He became famous for his experiments relating to the origin of life. J. Morgan says about the interview:
He was indifferent about all suggestions about the origins of life, considering them “nonsense” or “paper chemistry”. He was so contemptuous about certain hypotheses that when I asked his opinion about them, he only shook his head, sighed deeply and sniggered – like trying to reject the madness of the human race. He admitted that scientists may never know exactly when and how life started. “We try to discuss a historical event that is clearly different from normal science”, he noted. (1)
In relation to life, there is only one logical option, that is, God created life. For the clear rule is that life is born only from life, and no exception to this rule has been found. In terms of the very first plants and animals this points to an extraterrestrial source, God. Many atheist scientists are reluctant to admit this view as true, but if their view is true, the evidence for it should be presented. They haven't been able to do that. The problem is that these people do not want to accept God as the Creator and do not give Him glory. That's why they resort to other and obviously false explanations.
- (Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
- (Rom 1:19,20) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
- (Rev 4:11) You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created.
- (Rev 10:5,6) And the angel which I saw stand on the sea and on the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, 6 And swore by him that lives for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer
- (Rev 14:7) Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
Lack of intermediate forms - a reference to the Creator. We should also pay attention to the origin of the current plant and animal species. There are two opposing views on their existence: either God created plants and animals, or they all evolved from a simple primitive cell to their current forms, as required by the theory of evolution. There are no other alternatives than these two, which are creation and evolution. So what does the evidence point to? Evolutionists want to believe that organisms have evolved from a single primordial cell, and that there are intermediate forms between different species, but this has been impossible to detect. No one has been able to present a single proof of that. Darwin's finches, variation in bacteria, in peppered moths and other species is always variation within basic groups. (Almost always, when evolutionists talk about evidence of evolution, they refer to adaptations, where, for example, bacteria adapt better to their environment. Therefore, an important question is to find out what is meant by evolution; macroevolution, i.e. the birth of new species, or just adaptations and changes. Everyone admits the latter, and it is not there is no ambiguity, but the dispute concerns the first area. If this question is not addressed first, the matter cannot be moved forward.). Finches, peppered moths and bacteria have not changed into some other species as a result. What about the fossil record? It is the best way to find out what has happened in the past. If we see a gradual development in the fossils - from a simple primitive cell to the present forms, it can be considered as good evidence for the theory of evolution. On the other hand, if gradual development is not discernible in fossils, it suggests that the species were separate from the beginning and that they originated through creation. So what does the evidence point to? On this subject, many well-known leading paleontologists have given direct statements. They deny the existence of intermediate forms and admit that no gradual development can be observed in the fossils, even though it should be a basic premise of the theory of evolution. This has the same problem as the fact that no one has been able to prove that life arose by itself. There is no clear evidence for either view. Let's look at a few comments that cover the same topic. They show that the lack of intermediate forms between basic groups is a real problem that has not been solved. The evidence better fits the model that the species have been ready and separate from each other from the beginning. They must have originated through creation. This points to the existence of God. The comments also include a statement by the well-known atheist philosopher Richard Dawkins. It is from his book The Blind Watchmaker (pp. 240,241). Dawkins is not a paleontologist, but he makes the same point, the absence of gradual evolution. In his comment, Dawkins also refers to the fact that the fossil record is not yet complete, but that is a bad argument. Because when tens of millions of fossils have been dug out of the ground, and no intermediate forms and gradual development can be observed in them, they are certainly not in the material that is still inside the ground either:
Richard Dawkins: Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have known that fossils arranged in chronological order are not a series of small, barely noticeable changes. - - For example, the Cambrian deposits from 600 million years ago are the oldest, with fossils from most of the main periods of vertebrates. Moreover, many of them are already quite advanced. Since there are no earlier fossils, they seem to have appeared in these strata out of nowhere... Regardless of school of thought, all supporters of evolution are of the opinion that at this point there is a gaping hole in fossil discoveries.
On the basis of paleobiological facts, it is not possible to draw up even a caricature of the evolution of some organism. The fossil material is now so complete that the absence of intermediate series cannot be attributed to the scarcity account of the data. The gaps are real and will never be filled. (Statement by Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson about 50 years ago) [2])
The greatest mystery of the fossil materials is that we have not found any clear factor that takes evolution forward in the history of life. (…) We have set the finds in order based on our wishes, but this order cannot actually be found in the real world. (Stephen J. Gould, The Ediacaran Experiment. Natural History, vol. 93, Feb. 1984, p.23)
No matter how far in the past we go in the series of the fossils of those animals that have lived before on earth, we cannot find even a trace of animal forms that would be intermediate forms between great groups and phyla... The greatest groups of the animal kingdom do not merge into each other. They are and have been same since the beginning... Neither has an animal that could not be set in its own phylum or a great group been found from the earliest stratified rock types... This perfect lack of intermediate forms between the great groups of animals can be interpreted in one way only... If we are willing to take the facts as they are, we have to believe that there have never been such intermediate forms; in other words, these great groups have had the same relation to each other since the very beginning. (Austin H. Clark, The New Evolution, p. 189)
The late Dr. Colin Patterson was the older palaeontologist of the British Museum (natural history) – a supporter of the evolution and a fossil expert. He wrote a significant book on evolution – but when someone asked him why there was no picture of the intermediate forms (organisms which are in the transitional stage) in his book, he wrote the following answer:
"I agree completely with your opinion concerning the lack of illustrations in my book about organisms which are evolutionarily in the transitional stage. If I were conscious of any such, of a fossil or of living, I would have willingly included them in my book. You propose that I should use an artist to illustrate such intermediate forms but from where would he get information for his drawings? Honestly saying, I could not offer him this information, and if I should leave the matter for an artist, would it not lead the reader astray? I wrote the text of my book four years ago [in the book he tells that he believes in some intermediate forms]. If I were to write it now, I think that the book would be rather different. Gradualism (changing gradually) is a concept in which I do believe. Not just because of the prestige of Darwin but because my comprehension of the genetics seems to require it. However, it is difficult to claim against [famous fossil expert Stephen J.] Gould and other people of the American museum when they say that there are no intermediate forms. As a palaeontologist, I work much with philosophical problems when recognizing ancient forms of organisms from the fossil material. You say that I should also at least 'present a photo of a fossil, from which the certain organism group evolved.' I speak directly – there is no fossil that would be a watertight piece of evidence." (3)
The complexity and beauty of nature can be considered as one reason that points to creation and the existence of God. If birth of life by itself were possible (which it has not been found to be), nature would probably be filled by some simple mass of cells. Instead, we can now see the beauty of nature and the complex structures around us: flowers, trees, beautiful animals or cells, even the simplest of which contain complex information in their DNA. In fact, the more beautiful and complex structures we see, the more likely it is that there is an intelligence behind them and a greater power. It is easy to explain such things about creation, but not by chance. Simply saying "evolution did it" is not enough to explain all the beauty and complexity. This kind of magical thinking often occurs in naturalistic thinking. Some may deny the existence of intelligent design, but that is where they make a big mistake. All they have to do is look at their own self in the mirror and they should come to other conclusions. It is not reasonable to assume that, for example, the following things in the head area would have arisen by themselves from some stone or primordial gas:
• Individual appearance • Hair that grows in the head area • Eyelids that close during sleep • Breathing, which can be through the mouth or nose • Sense of smell through the nose and sense of hearing through the ears • A mouth with teeth and a tongue for eating and an esophagus from which food passes to the stomach • The tongue and mouth have a sense of taste • The mouth and tongue can also be used for speaking and singing • Inside the head is the brain, which is more complex than any known thing in the universe. Through them, a person can plan and think about things • Emotions such as love, infatuation, joy, sadness, anger and fear are also things that we know are related to the head area and not e.g. to the feet
One indication of nature's practical structures is how we constantly look for intelligent ideas in nature and put them to use. For example, ideas for the design of airplane wings have been obtained from the wings of birds. Another example is the bows of Japanese high-speed trains, which are designed using the beak of a kingfisher as a model. This is how the trains have been made quieter, faster and they consume less electricity. In a recent Finnish science journal (Tiede 3/2014), more examples of how nature has been sought as a model in technological design are reported. One article tells how Canadian researchers made a glass plate 200 times more impact-resistant than usual by taking a model from the mother-of-pearl of a seashell. Another article in the same magazine tells how batteries can be made even more durable by imitating the structure of a pomegranate. Such examples all point to intelligent design in nature, and how it can be put to good use. Many technical solutions have started through this. Design and complexity in nature are evident and can be considered evidence of God's existence. At times, however, some scientists have suggested that they themselves would have been able to design better structural solutions than what can now be observed in nature. They reject the idea of intelligent design, thinking that all complex forms have evolved by chance. However, it is much more logical to believe that complex structures as well as reason, emotions and senses have emerged through creation. It is an arrogant idea to dismiss the idea of intelligence from the very beginning. No one can or has been able to show how inanimate matter like a chip of rock can become living beings with feelings, reason, and complex structures. It is not wise to believe that such things have arisen on their own. The following quote refers to the topic:
In section 18 of the Britannica encyclopedia of 1988 there is i.a. the following specialist’s statement in the chapter containing the evolutionary theory: “From a practical viewpoint it is inexplicable that a tortoise can swim, a horse run, a human write and a bird or a bat fly with structures that are based on similar bone structures. An engineer could design better fitting limbs for each of their purpose. However, if we accept that all these bones are inherited from a shared ancestor and transformed only through different developmental stages, we can find a rational premise for similar structures.” This utterance made Paul Nelson criticize this evolutionary view as follows: “Ha! Introduce me to an engineer that can design a better structure than is the wing of a bat or a bird! Show me an engineer that can design a better leg for a cockroach! The thought of this is absurd. Where do the people come from, who present these ideas? We are far away from the knowledge that was required to construct animals – we are on the other side of the universe, millions of light years away, millions. We don’t even understand the compelling nature of the question. Think about it: the leg of a cockroach will fix itself, sense its environment better than any robot, it is equipped with tactile hair and other sensors throughout, from which we cannot evaluate more than a fraction. A cockroach doesn’t need fuel, electric current or compressed air. Only a little bit of waste, where the general structure of the leg will be formed by growing, which can make the strength of titanium feel like playdough. If a cockroach was the size of a human, it would easily move forward ca. 300 km per hour. This comparison could go on forever… The writer of the encyclopedia clearly doesn’t know, what they are talking about – to say something like this in a reference book is really silly… As an engineer I have noticed the highest possible intellectual arrogance in the writer”. (gnelson@falstaff.mae.cwru.edu,) (4)
The same thing, planning, is evident in the speeches of the well-known philosopher Socrates, as well as Darwin. Both understood that the senses are complex and that their development on their own seems irrational. However, only Socrates drew the right conclusion from this and understood the influence of the designer:
Darwin: The presumption that the eye with all its inimitable structures that focus images at different distances, regulate the amount of light, fix spherical and chromatic aberration (color aberration) could have been formed as a consequence of natural selection is, I do admit openly, absurd to a great extent. (...) The idea of an organ like the eye forming through natural selection is more than enough to confuse anyone. (5)
Socrates: Do you think that he, who in the beginning of time made men, gave them senses for their benefit, eyes to see what there is to see, ears to hear what to hear. - - Don't you think it also shows consideration that the eyes are closed with lids like doors that open when the eyes are needed. They close in sleep, and so that the winds don't damage them, lashes were put on them like sieves. The eyebrows are like an eave so that sweat falling from the head won’t injure eyes. Besides, the ear catches all sounds but never becomes filled. (...) - - When everything is planned like this, I ask again, is it the result of chance or consideration? (6)
The laws of physics are a reference to the existence of a designer. The remarkable thing about these laws is that they can be defined mathematically. Chance can hardly produce such precise mathematical ratios that man can observe when studying nature. G. Galilei wrote in his time: "The great book of nature can only be read by those who understand the language in which it is written. And that language is mathematics" (7). The English astronomer James Jeans stated centuries later: "The universe seems designed by a pure mathematician" (8). Let's look at a quote that deals with the same thing, mathematics in the universe. Theoretical physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies presents a few examples in which mathematical rules appear. He mentions e.g. falling bodies, magnets, gases, planetary motions and gravity. Such facts point to the existence of a designer, or God:
In two seconds the ball falls four times as far as in one second, in three seconds nine times as far, etc. School children learn this law as a 'fact of nature' and usually move on without giving it much thought. But I want to stop right here and ask why. Why does such a mathematical rule work for falling objects? Where does the rule come from? And why is the rule like that and not another? Let me give another example from the laws of physics; a law that made a great impression on me during my school days. It's about the way magnets lose their grip on each other as the distance increases. I put the magnets next to each other and measure the force between them when the distance is increased. We find that the force decays proportionally to the cube of the distance; so if we double the distance between the magnets the force is reduced to one eighth, if the distance is tripled the force is 1/27, etc. Again, I have to ask, why? Some laws of physics bear the name of their inventor, such as Boyle's law for gases, which states that if the temperature of a given amount of gas is kept constant and the volume is doubled, the pressure of the gas is halved. Or Kepler's laws concerning the motions of the planets, one of which states that the square of the orbital period is proportional to the cube of the radius of the orbit. Perhaps the most famous are Newton's laws of motion and the law of gravitation, the latter of which has been cited as the inspiration for an apple falling from a tree. According to it, the force of attraction between bodies weakens in proportion to the square of the distance between the bodies. Thus, the force that binds the Earth to the Sun and prevents it from flying off on its own path through the galaxy would only be reduced to a quarter if the Earth's orbit were twice as large as it is today. This is known as the 'inverse square law'. (9)
Historical events. When it comes to the events of the Bible, they tell about many remarkable things, such as miracles that happened through Jesus, the apostles and others. What is the significance of this fact in terms of the existence of God? At least they are one reference to the supernatural world and the existence of God. There are reasons to believe that God exists and that he can intervene in the events of this world. Miracles are not a complete proof of God's existence, because according to the Bible they can also be done by false prophets, but they show that there is more than just the visible world. How should this issue be approached scientifically and to gain clarity? The best starting point is to examine the overall reliability of the Bible. If it is reliable when telling about worldly things, it is probably reliable when it comes to telling miracles. These things are connected. One reason to believe in God's existence is precisely the fact that several events and things in the Bible are confirmed by other sources. For example, at least 30 people from the New Testament are mentioned in other sources, so the question is about historical people and things. In fact, the more information has been accumulated in the field of historical research and archaeology, the better confirmed several events mentioned in the Bible have become. The following comment is related to the topic. It deals with Luke's reliability as a historian. He wrote one of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. If he was accurate in describing worldly things, why would he have lied about miracles? Only the naturalistic prejudice that many scientists have prevents us from accepting the view that there is a supernatural world and that God can intervene in world events.
In a sense, this is exactly what archaeology does. If ancient historical details have been proven to be correct time and time again, we should also trust the stories of the historian in question that cannot be confirmed in the same way. I asked for a professional opinion from McRay. – What do you think: does archaeology prove or disprove the reliability of the New Testament when archaeologists study the details included in the stories? McRay immediately replied. – The reliability of the New Testament increases with research, there is no doubt about that. Just as the reliability of any ancient document is enhanced by the fact that, as the excavations progress, it is established that the author has provided correct information about some place or event (...) – The consensus among both liberal and conservative scientists is that Luke was very precise as a historian,, McRay replied. – He was a learned man, he was eloquent, his command of Greek was almost classical, he wrote like a well-educated man and archaeological findings have proven time and time again that Luke was very precise in his writings. McRay added that in many cases related to the harbour stories, scientists at first thought that some of Luke's references were false, but later findings have confirmed that he wrote the information correctly. (...) One prominent archaeologist carefully studied Luke's references of 32 countries, 54 cities and nine islands without finding a single error. (10)
Intelligence requires its own explanation. Why is it in the universe? Its existence can be observed especially in inventions and technology made by people. Cars, airplanes and other innovations prove that to be true. We live in a universe where it exists. Where does intelligence come from? In naturalistic and atheistic theory, it is thought that reason and intelligence have come into the world by themselves. They originate from primitive life forms and even from a space the size of a pinhead in the Big Bang. In this conception, it is assumed that from an impersonal and senseless beginning intelligence has come into the world through random processes. Non-intelligent matter has produced intelligent beings. However, the explanation that impersonal and senseless matter has produced intelligence is a poor foundation for its existence. How can reason be trusted if it comes from an inanimate substance like a rock or even a pinhead-sized space in the big bang? Many consider themselves scientific, critical and intelligent, but if the beginning of everything is impersonal and irrational, the base of rational reasoning disappears. Then there is reason to doubt all our thoughts and their reasonableness. We cannot trust them. This is one of the weaknesses of the atheistic theory. Another option and a better explanation for the existence of intelligence is that it has always existed. It is likely that human intelligence is part of the greater intelligence we have received from a supernatural being, God. We have intelligence and personality because these things were in God before us. Man is created in the image of God (Gen 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.) and that explains his intelligence, personality, speech and other abilities.
Thomas Nagel: The problem is not how rational thinking can be valid when we practice it, but how we can practice it if rational thinking is universally valid. There are not many possible answers to this question. Probably the most popular non-subjective answer today is evolutionary naturalism: Humans are capable of universally valid reasoning because it is the result of a more primitive way of forming beliefs that had survival value at the time the human brain evolved. This explanation has always struck me as ridiculously inadequate - - Another well-known answer is religious. The universe is comprehensible to us because it and our reason are made for each other. (11)
Emotions are a reference to the existence of a personal God, and that man in particular has received these qualities through creation. Naturalistic and atheistic theory assumes that our emotions come from inanimate, non-intellectual and impersonal matter, but that is a poor explanation. Does anyone even believe that an inanimate substance like a stone suddenly starts to smile, cry, laugh, get angry, fall in love, fear or feel sexual desire? It is difficult to explain these things from a naturalistic perspective.
Artistry and a sense of beauty are qualities especially related to humans and also a reference to the existence of a personal God. Why is there poetry, literature, listening to music, producing music, art and mathematical talent? Or why do people have such a sense of beauty that they put attractive paintings on the walls or photograph nature with cameras and look at the pictures taken of it? If these things are not a reflection of God's limitless creation work, then where do they come from? Such things are difficult to explain from a naturalistic theory. It is hard to imagine how stone and other inanimate matter suddenly begins to feel a sense of beauty, likes music and begins to write stories. A more reasonable explanation is that these things are qualities obtained through creation that man can experience and practice.
The difference between humans and animals can be seen in numerous aspects. The more these differences there are, the more difficult it is to explain them with the theory of evolution, according to which all current life forms originate from the same primitive cell. Much more logical is the description that the First Book of Moses tells, that is, man was created in connection with God and in His image. This points to the existence of God. In the same Genesis, it is also told how man named all the animals. That too shows his difference from the rest of creation:
- (Gen 1:27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
- (Gen 2:19,20) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: and whatever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Language is only a human characteristic. Animals do not speak, write or have any grammar, but in humans language is an innate ability. There is no culture where people do not use language and grammar. Furthermore, we can communicate even without actually speaking. The following example from the world of deaf children demonstrates that. Such examples refer to how man is meant to be in the company of others, but also to live with God - that is, the thing that points to God's existence. Why would only humans have developed a clear linguistic ability, when it is not observed anywhere else in creation? It is difficult to explain this with the theory of evolution, but if a person is destined for God's communion, and he has received these skills as a gift already through creation, there is an explanation for it.
When children grow up in an environment of deafness, the inner compulsion to communicate can be seen more clearly, because it can be done even without spoken words. If the child is deaf, and the parents use sign language, the child quickly learns to express himself in sign language too. If the parents are deaf, the child will learn just the same; and if his own hearing is intact, he will also learn to speak fluently and naturally through his contact with other people. In effect he becomes bilingual, because sign language is a true language with recognizable grammatical and syntactic4 structure, only using hand gestures and facial expressions instead of sounds. So the desire and ability to communicate via language is there, with or without actual speech ability. A particularly striking example of this is to be seen in the experience of some deaf children in Nicaragua, reported by Peter Radetsky (12a) Around 500 such children came together for the first time in schools for the deaf, established in 1980. Until that time they had had no established form of sign language. They had been living in scattered parts of the country, communicating with hearing relatives by gestures. Yet each child’s set of gestures had little in common with another’s. But when they came together in the schools, they quickly developed a form of sign language between themselves. At first it was rudimentary, but before long it became a regular language with characteristic rules of grammar and syntax. Judy Kegl, a behavioural neuroscientist at Rutgers, described it as ‘the first documented case of the birth of a language.’ She continued, ‘Little kids about the age of three or four got exposed to that makeshift pidgin and absorbed it. And then, by virtue of their own language-generation capability, they came out with a full-fledged language.’ This sign language had no precedent. In our own culture, sign language has been handed down from one generation to another, but these children had no such background. Their language was entirely of their own making. ‘There is nothing that they could have used as a model’, says Kegl. ‘It’s clear evidence of an innate language capacity.’ (12)
Morality, or the sense of right and wrong, is an indirect reference to God and how man is created in his image. It does not directly prove the existence of God, but it shows the difference between man and animals. If man's origin were from mere matter, he would certainly not distinguish between different actions. Mere inanimate matter cannot produce morality and a sense of right and wrong. How could a stone, an earth substance or a gas affect the fact that someone starts to feel guilty about what he has done (A father who has neglected his children because of drinking and wants to make up for it), that someone starts to feel bitterness about what others have done (“He stole from me, lied about me, was offensive to me") or that someone makes a distinction between different actions? There must be a better explanation for these things than just matter. What can be concluded about morality? The best starting point is that the beginning of morality and ethics is beyond and is based on the good nature of God. Because he is good and perfect and because man is created in God's image, it explains the meaning of moral values and norms. It is difficult to explain them from a materialistic worldview, but theism and the existence of God is the best starting point for their occurrence. Even several naturalists have admitted that it is difficult to explain moral values on the basis of naturalism, but theism is a more likely option:
J.L. Mackie: If (...) there are (...) moral values, God’s existence is more likely than it would be without them. Thus (...) morality is a defensible argument for the existence of God. (13)
Paul Draper: “The moral world (...) is very likely, if theism is true.” (14)
Religion. Those with a naturalistic and atheistic worldview explain that man has evolved from lower animals. It is considered clear the human connection with the rest of creation and and that man evolved from lower forms of life. No distinction is made between humans and animals. However, one thing separates humans from animals: religion or praying (language, greatness of intellect, versatility of emotions are some of the other distinguishing factors). Animals have no religious consciousness, dreams of eternal life, sense of responsibility to God, and they do not pray. What is the reason for this, if all current species are inherited from a single primordial cell? Why do only humans have this sense of God? The best explanation is the Bible's teaching that God really exists and that specifically man was created in connection with God and to live forever. Prayer, i.e. calling for God's help, was involved already in the early stages of humanity (Gen 4:26:… then began men to call on the name of the LORD.). Its existence and religious consciousness are a reference to the existence of God. There is not a single nation on earth that does not have faith in a higher being:
"There is no place on earth where the influence of religion is not felt," says Dr. Waitz in his great work Antropologie der Natur Völker. Dr. Taylor, in his work Primitive Culture, states the following: “As far as I can deduce based on the several pieces of obvious evidence, we must admit that even the lowest of races we have studied believe in spiritual beings.” ...Professor Tiele asserts in his work Outline of Religion: "The claim that there are nations or tribes without religion is based on either poor observations or a mixture of concepts. Not a single tribe or nation has yet been found that lacks faith in higher beings... So it is correct to call religion in the general sense of the word a common phenomenon among the human race." Professor Müller testifies to the same: "We can certainly assert that, despite all the searches, human beings have never been found anywhere who did not have anything that they considered religion, or, to state the matter a little more generally, a belief in something other than what they can see with their eyes see." (15)
Changed lives. One reference to the existence of God is a changed life, especially when God renews a person through the fullness of the Holy Spirit like the apostles at Pentecost. We look at a couple of good examples from this area, not from the lives of the apostles, but from over a hundred years ago. They are related to the famous men of God D.L. Moody and T.B. Barratt's life. Both received great love from God and were thoroughly changed when God's Holy Spirit came into their lives in a new way. Admittedly, experiences of the same level as they had are rare, but they are nevertheless a small indication that the Bible's teaching about the fullness of the Holy Spirit and changing is possible. It is an indirect reference to the existence of God. How else can such large, long-term changes be explained?
Moody: The blessing came upon me like a flash of lightning. I remember walking the streets of New York, and right there on the street the power of God seemed to come upon me in such a wonderful way that I had to ask God to stay His hand. I was filled with a sense of God's goodness, and I felt as if I could take the whole world into my heart. (16)
Descriptions from beyond the border. Finally, we pay attention to life after death, which many do not take seriously. They may have so-called a naturalistic world view, according to which there is nothing after this life, but in death our personality and individuality cease to exist. We are only material beings and there is no soul or spirit that survives after death. So why pay attention to this issue when talking about proofs of God's existence? The reason is simple. Because if God exists, it is very possible that the afterlife – including heaven and hell – also exists. This issue should not be passed over lightly. This is one of the weaknesses of the atheistic view. No atheist can be one hundred percent sure that life does not continue after death. It is like a leap of faith into the unknown, like diving into deep waters where one does not know about possible dangers. He takes a risk when he goes into the water or an area where he has no personal experience. The question is how probable we consider the possibility of life after death and, for example, that wrongdoers will have to answer for their actions. Is the probability of it maybe 10%, 30% or more? Or if the probability of it is only one percent, isn't even this small possibility worth taking into account when it's about our eternity? One reason to be serious about the continuation of life and specifically the possibility of hell is negative experiences on the border of death. For example, Maurice Rawlings, who has been reviving the clinically dead for decades, states in his two books that almost every second person interviewed after resuscitation has had painful experiences (Similarly states Dr. Charles Garfiel in Robert Kastenbaum's book "Is there life after death?"). He noted that often these painful experiences are quickly buried in the subconscious, but if patients were interviewed immediately after resuscitation, bad experiences would likely be found as much as good ones. He writes about one such case in his book "Kuoleman tuolla puolen" (s. 12,13):
Sometimes it has also happened that people have been dead for longer periods of time and then come back to life. One such case is described by Mel Tari in his book "Kuin väkevä tuulispää" (pp. 77-80). He tells about a man who had been dead for two days and his body was already starting to rot, but who nevertheless came back to life:
When we arrived, we noticed that there were over a thousand people. The deceased had been dead for two days and had begun to smell heavily. In our tropical land, the dead start to rot six hours after death. But after two days – oh, it is almost impossible to be closer than thirty metres from the body. The smell is awful. In America, you cannot understand this because your funerals are organized so well. But they also cost you 2,000 dollars. In Indonesia we do not have the possibility to make the dead look attractive. The local dead look terrible two days after death. (…) We went and stood around this dead man. We started to sing. (…) Nothing happened even after the fifth song. But during the sixth song, the man started to move his toes – and the group was afraid. There is a story in Indonesia that sometimes the dead may wake up and come back to life. They will suffocate some person between the lid of their coffin and then die again. Despite of that we continued our singing. When we were singing the seventh and eighth songs, the dead brother woke up, looked around him, and smiled. He did not suffocate anyone. He opened his mouth and said, 'Jesus has brought me back to life. Brothers and sisters, I want to tell you something. Firstly, life does not end when you die. I have been dead for two days and I have experienced it. Hell and Heaven are real. I have experienced it. The third thing that I want to tell you is that unless you find Jesus in this life, you can never get into Heaven. You will then certainly be judged to hell.’
We can also find another description of the afterlife in the book “Visions of heaven and hell” by John Bunyan, a preacher who lived in the 17th century (He also wrote the well-known piece “Pilgrim’s progress”, which is one of the most distributed books in the world.). This book tells about a lost person, who says the following:
Why was I given the chance? Why had I been equipped with an immortal soul? Why did I not care about it? Oh, how my own neglect pierces me so dreadfully and I still know that I cannot and will not die. But to live a deadly life is worse than ten thousand deaths, and I still could have been helped once but I did not want to! Oh, this is the gnawing worm that never dies. Once, I could have been happy; once I was offered salvation but I rejected it. If it had happened only once and I would have rejected it, even that would have been unforgivable foolishness, but it was offered to me a thousand times, and I resisted it as often (so lousy I was). Damn the sin, which with its deceitful enjoyment enchants mankind to eternal destruction! God called me often but I resisted Him as often. He reached out his hands but I did not care. How often did I go against His commands, how often I resisted His reprimands! But now, the situation has changed, for now He follows my accident and mocks the ruin that has come for my part. He could have helped me then, but I did not want His help. Therefore, these eternal pains are just a reward for my own deeds and I am condemned to suffer." (John Bunyan, Näkyjä taivaasta ja helvetistä [Visions of Heaven and Hell], p. 67)
What, then, is the Bible's message to a person who wants to make sure that he is doing well in eternity and that he is forgiven of his sins? If eternity exists, how can a person enter into communion with God and receive forgiveness? Here we move to the very basics of the Christian faith. For God has already prepared the forgiveness of sins for every person through His own son Jesus Christ. We do not have to earn salvation by ourselves, but everything is given as a gift as the following verses show:
- (Eph 2:8,9) For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
- (Rom 3:24) Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus
- (Rev 21:6) And he said to me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to him that is thirsty of the fountain of the water of life freely.
- (Rev 22:17) And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is thirsty come. And whoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
However, salvation and grace do not automatically come to any person, but each person must personally turn to God like the prodigal son in Jesus' parable. Let this come true in your own life and take a step in God's direction.
- (Luke 15:17-20) And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before you, 19 And am no more worthy to be called your son: make me as one of your hired servants. 20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
- (1 John 1:9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Also put your trust in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, because only through Him can we be forgiven of our sins. He is the way to the heavenly God:
- (John 14:6) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.
- (John 5:39,40) Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.
- (Acts 16:30,31) And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.
The prayer of salvation: Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.
References:
1. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley 2. Heribert Nilsson: Synthetische artbildung, 1953, s. 1212 – Cit. from "Evoluutio - tieteen harha-askel?", Mikko Tuuliranta. 3. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 15,16 4. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 41,42 5. Charles Darwin: Lajien synty, p. 236,237 6. Ksenofon: Sokrates (1985, Helsinki, Otava), p. 30 7. Stillman Drake: Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, (Douple-dayAnchor, New York, 1957), p. 70 8. James Jeans: The Mysterious Universe (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1930), p. 140 9. Paul Davies: Kultakutrin arvoitus (The Goldilocks Enigma, Why is the Universe just right for life?), p. 20, 21 10. Lee Strobel: Tapaus Kristus (The Case for Christ), p. 132-134,136 11. Thomas Nagel: The Last World. New York; Oxford University Press, p. 75 12. Kevin May: Syntynyt kommunikoimaan, Luominen-magaz ine number 7, p. 13, http://creation.com/born-to-communicate 13. J.L.Mackie: The Miracle of Theism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. 14. Paul Copan: “The Moral Argument” teoksessa Paul Copan & Paul K. Moser (toim.) The Rationality of Theism. London: Routledge, 2003. 15. Arno C. Gaebelein: Kristillisyys vaiko uskonto?, p. 6,7 16. Dwight L. Moody – biography 17. Martin Ski: T.B. Barratt - Helluntaiapostoli, p. 108-110
"There is no intelligent design" "Nothing can be known about God" Creator, Judge, Savior. God is the Creator, Judge, and Savior. Creation can be inferred logically, and our conscience refers to judgment. In addition, the revelation of the Bible tells of the Savior Looking into creation. Creation or the birth of the universe and life by itself and the idea of evolution? Which view is true? The evidence clearly points to creation
Conditions for life – coincidence?
Fine-tuning in the universe and on earth clearly refers to God’s work of
creation. Life is not born by chance
|
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!
|
"There is no intelligent design" "Nothing can be known about God" Creator, Judge, Savior. God is the Creator, Judge, and Savior. Creation can be inferred logically, and our conscience refers to judgment. In addition, the revelation of the Bible tells of the Savior Looking into creation. Creation or the birth of the universe and life by itself and the idea of evolution? Which view is true? The evidence clearly points to creation
Conditions for life – coincidence?
Fine-tuning in the universe and on earth clearly refers to God’s work of
creation. Life is not born by chance
|
