Does God Exist ? : Part 2

I quote and borrow heavily from All About God

Does God Exist – A Scientific Inquiry
Does God Exist? The other day I was asked to prove the existence of God. It was a one-on-one conversation with a skeptical friend, who somehow thrust the burden of proof on me. He didn’t want the religious, moral or philosophical arguments -- He wanted the scientific “proof.”

Does God Exist – Is a Scientific Approach Possible?
When it comes to the question, “Does God Exist,” there are really only two possible conclusions: God either is, or He isn’t. There’s no half-way. There’s no sliding scale. Whether you’re an atheist or whether you’re a theist, there’s a certain level of knowledge, and there’s a certain level of faith.

I thought for a moment… Can I prove the existence of God -- scientifically? In my religious/moral/philosophical experience, He’s been proven to me. However, my friend hasn’t walked the same journey as me. He wants the facts -- he wants the naturalistic proof for a supernatural reality.

I came to the conclusion that my friend’s question was a fair one. He deserved my best attempt at an answer. So, I gave it a shot…

Does God Exist – A Scientific Examination of the Evidence
God may not be provable through mathematical formulae or properties of physics, but we live in an era where the evidence of an Intelligent Designer is all around us. Just look through the Hubble Telescope and peer to the edge of the massive cosmos. View the monitor of an electron-scanning microscope and delve into the intricate world of a microscopic cell. Try to comprehend the massive library of complex information inherent in the digital code that turns a fertilized egg into a human being. Study principles of quantum mechanics and investigate the world of extra-dimensionality. Review the nature of your conscience, subconscious, standards of morality, and thoughts of religion. Then, try to reconcile all of these realities with a basic theory of randomness and chaos.

Based on what we know today, I truly believe that atheism (not believing in any kind of god) is a much bigger "leap of faith" than theism (believing that some kind of god exists).

I asked my friend, “Have you really thought about some of the evidences for God? Or, are you presupposing a purely naturalistic world, and closing your eyes to some of the possible evidence? If I propose some observational evidence, are you even open to examining it?”

My friend asked me to go on. So, here’s my attempt at some basic scientific observations that point to God:

• Causation. God provides the best explanation for the existence of the universe and all that's in it. (The alternative theory is that "nothing" exploded and resulted in everything that we see.)
• Order. God provides the best explanation for abstract notions such as numbers, mathematical formulae, chemical-based processes, and natural laws. (The alternative theory is that the chaotic first elements ordered themselves into complex information systems.)
• Design. God provides the best explanation for the absolute complexity inherent in cosmological, stellar, planetary, chemical and biological systems. (The alternative theory is that random chance engineered apparent design.)
• Encoded Instructions. God provides the best explanation for the digital DNA code contained in and controlling the functions of all life on earth. (The alternative theory is that complex code, such as binary code running computers, can pop into existence without any kind of programming, testing and debugging process.)
• Irreducible Complexity. God provides the best explanation for fully functioning biological organisms, systems, and subsystems that couldn’t come about through gradual evolutionary process without totally ceasing to exist at lower, evolutionary levels. (The alternative theory is that biological systems took huge, unseen leaps from simple to complex without any guided process or forward-looking instructions.)
• Duality. God provides the best explanation for the separate human functions of brain and conscience (matter and mind). (The alternative theory is monism -- only matter exists and the human brain only appears to have a separate subconscious ability.)
• Morality. God provides the best explanation for the existence of love, emotion, altruism, and inherent moral/ethical values throughout the world. (The alternative theory is that unguided materialistic processes evolve higher human consciousness.)

And now I quote Elizabeth Hensley and add some of my own viewpoints :

The Strong and Modified Weak Anthropic Principles:

Scientific Proof there is a Creator

The Anthropic Principles point out that there are over one hundred variables to this Universe, that would have made life as we know it impossible, if they were even slightly different. Either this Universe had to be finely tuned to the conditions that make the evolution of life possible, or there have to be googolplexes of Universes.

Consider the following analogy.

If you went down the street and saw a quarter on the sidewalk, you would think naturally, "someone dropped a quarter." If you went down the street and saw a handful of quarters on the sidewalk, you would think, "Someone had a big hole in their pockets, or dropped a roll of quarters." But if you went down the street and saw one hundred quarters on the sidewalk and they were all carefully balanced precariously on their edges, you would have to think somebody did this deliberately. The Universe as we know it, is that carefully balanced. This theory is known as the Strong Anthropic Principle. The only possibility other than this Universe was created, is there are so many universes that the equivalent of one hundred quarters falling out of someone's pocket and ALL of them ending up balanced on their edges occurred, completely by random chance. This theory is known as the, "Weak Anthropic Principle." So if you are a rational thinker here are your only two choices. Either this Universe was created , or that there are multitudes of Universes.

Now here is what I call the Modified Weak Anthropic Principle. If there are that many Universes, then the chances of a Being Like God evolving would also be equally increased by all that abundance. Ecological niches tend not to stay empty. You could, of course call such a Being something other than "God." But if it quacks like a Cosmic Duck and waddles like a Cosmic Duck and builds little universe nests that produce baby Cosmic Ducklings, why not call it a Cosmic Duck?

The Blind watchmaker may have started out blind, some universe somewhere, some when, but He/She/It evolved eyes right along with the rest of Life, and you can be quite sure sure, He/She/It will do whatever is necessary to guarantee His/Her/Its own development and continued survival, just the same as any other Life Form would. God does not play dice. He Plays poker, and He continually stacks the deck in His favor! Or, if we say He plays dice, He throws so many some are bound to land with the right numbers up."

To name just a few of the finely tuned variables that are mentioned in the books, "God the Evidence," by Patrick Glynn, John Leslie, in Universes" and from George Greenstein's "The Symbiotic Universe."

Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been merely 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster.

The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example)

A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons, --yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars.

The charges of the electron and proton have been measured in the laboratory and have been found to be precisely equal and opposite. Were it not for this fact the resulting imbalance would force every object in the universe--our bodies, trees, planets, rocks, stars, to explode violently. The Universe would consist solely of a uniform and tenuous mixture not so very different from air. There would be nothing else. Greenstein's "The Symbiotic Universe."

The very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery. Unique among the molecules water is lighter in its solid form than its liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and Earth would be covered with solid ice. This property is traceable to unique properties of the hydrogen atom.

The synthesis of carbon--the vital core of all organic molecules--on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the center of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4. beryllium-8 and carbon-12--allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long.

A remarkable feature of the Universe is its emptiness. Stars are extraordinarily distant from one another. However, were it not for these vast reaches of empty space, violent collisions between stars would be so frequent as to render the Universe uninhabitable. The yet more frequent near misses would detach planets from their orbits around their suns, flinging them off into interstellar space where they would quickly cool to hundreds of degrees below zero.

I propose that the term, "supernatural" does not mean "antinatural." God is as natural a Being as any other life form. I propose as Teilhard De Chardin did, that if the evolutionary process really is so strong that Humans and Whales can evolve from pond scum in just five billion or so years, God is perfectly capable of evolving in ten billion or so years. The pond scum did not even know where it was going and it had no will. We at least have a vague idea of where we are going, and we have the desire. Heaven also is buildable because Humanity is so tenacious we get what we want eventually. We saw birds fly we learned to build machines that let us fly. We saw the Moon, we went there. We want to live forever, we evolve into God and build Heaven, just as we built Manhattan, the International Space Station and Disney World. To understand the Universe, all of space and time, one must see it as a whole. The next five billion years are every bit as real as the five billion years that have just come. The Universe (and us) are works in progress and are nowhere near finished yet. We are looking at a half unfinished construction site and seeing a mess. Do not judge any construction site by what it looks like while still half finished. Judge it only by its finished state. God is the natural result of a perfectly natural process we can understand. Every link in the long evolutionary chain is the natural result of the link right before it, one stair step after another, one long and difficult but far from impossible climb. The journey is difficult and often painful but I believe the results are well worth it!

The laws of Biology teach us that survival of the fittest favors a nurturing God. Sea turtles lay many eggs and then abandon them. Alligators lay many eggs and guard them carefully. Sea turtles are very endangered. Alligators are prospering. Survival of the fittest favors both a God who multiplies enormously and a God who nurtures His offspring. We can be sure God did not "wind up the Universe" and abandon it, as some Deists claim. The nurturing of offspring is a survival technique that works. He sticks around to guard His "nest." That is why prayer has been proved to affect organic tissue in double blind experiments.

Survival of the fittest also favors One who doesn't do too much for His children. Interfere too much and evolution ceases to be efficient, and we would have no motivation to grow up into the Head. Death must occur so there is room for evolution.

I conclude the second part....and leave you with some food for thought..........