by Steven Gledhill for FREEdom from MEdom Project
“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen that none will work without God… Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.” —James Clerk Maxwell, physicist and mathematician, credited with formulating classical electromagnetic theory, contributions to science considered to be of the same magnitude as those of Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton
So many that choose to reject the very existence of God will insist, “I cannot believe in a God I can’t see.” Atheists often insist that believing in an invisible God is ridiculous, and so many are so offended by those who believe in God that they’ll be insulting in their critiques of believers. Atheists can be quite passionate in their criticisms of Christians, in particular.
These are usually the same atheists desperate to prove theories that the universe came from virtually nothing. No that’s not the case. These atheistic scientists need to believe that the universe came from absolutely nothing. Either that, or the universe, or multiverses (other universes in addition to the one we live in), always existed. They point to theories in physics, such as general relativity, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, quantum fluctuation, and even something called quantum gravity, to explain how something can actually come from nothing… pop into existence, so to speak. But if that’s the case, are not these laws of physics—whatever they are—a thing? Are they not something, not nothing? Where did that something come from? Or, did it always exist, whatever it is?
“The general claim that the laws of physics could have created our universe suffers from a number of serious logical difficulties. Our understanding of the laws of physics is based on observation. For instance, our knowledge of the laws of conservation of momentum and energy come from observations made from literally thousands of experiments. No one has ever observed a universe “popping” into existence. This means that any laws of physics that would allow (even in principle) a universe to pop into existence are completely outside our experience. The laws of physics, as we know them, simply are not applicable here.” —by Jake Hebert, Ph.D., physicist, research associate, Institute for Creation Research
Dr. Hebert, in his article A Universe from Nothing? points out that atheistic theorists have a number of theories that argue against each other. The big bang theory requires enormous amounts of energy, while a theory like quantum fluctuation, necessary for something to come from nothing, requires that the universe consist of absolutely zero energy for subatomic particles to “live” before they are annihilated; meaning that something would become nothing again before “evolving” into something more.
These subatomic particles are, of course, a scientific reality. That’s not in question. The appearance and disappearance of these subatomic particles cannot be directly observed, though their effects are evident. The issue is whether or not theories of the origins of life in the universe without a creator can be substantiated at any point on any level.
Why does anyone find the need to refuse the existence of God? Is it simply because people cannot believe in something or someone they cannot see? Is that it? Is that really the case?
“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed.” John 20:29 (NKJV)
You know, people accept and believe and trust in things they do not (and will not) see everyday. Who has seen gravity? Who has seen oxygen? Who has seen hot or cold? Who has seen wind? Who has seen the actual nutrients in food? Have you ever seen the active ingredient in the medicine you’ve taken? Ever seen a cell phone signal, or electricity?
You see the substance and the evidence of things you cannot see all the time. Everyday of your life, you experience the evidence of gravity, electricity, cell phone signals, nutrition, and a stiff or gentle breeze. You may think you’ve seen and heard wind, but what you’ve seen and heard is the evidence (outcome) of wind. You’ve seen things blowing around. That howling sound you’ve heard is resistance to the wind. You have certainly felt wind. And of course, you have felt heat, and you have felt cold, but you’ve never seen them. You have seen the evidence of cold in something frozen but you have not seen cold. You’ll see something cook or melt but you have not seen heat. By the way, what does air look like, sound like, and feel like? Does anyone doubt its existence?
Believing in something we can’t see with our eyes isn’t far-fetched at all… so why not God?
I have not seen the person of God with my eyes. I have not heard God’s audible voice. I have, however, experienced God… known God from within. I know that I have heard from God in my thoughts. I have seen God in my circumstances. God has been directly involved specific to situations moved and directed beyond my understanding and explanation.
How have you experienced what you have not seen? How might you explain what you understand about the experience?
Unbelievable
Of course, these “unbelievable” responses to prayer can be explained away by cynical skeptics as coincidental; a fortunate turn, perhaps. It must have been this, or it could’ve been that. But I know better. I know in the very fiber of my being that the same God that banged the universe into existence, while forming its every detail, intervened in my very specific circumstance, having confronted and altered the most likely, even the most certain of, inevitable outcomes.
In some cases, God has changed my mind from the natural course of how I process things intellectually and emotionally, leading to stark contrasts in behavioral choices from my more natural tendencies. I’ve been protected, even saved, from probable danger and risk because of changes in how I think and act beyond and within the make up of typical character flaws of mine. It’s as though my brain has been transformed; renewed in some way. And I am most grateful to God for changing the way I think and behave.
Why did God… the originator of life… do that for me?
Why would the creator care enough to be involved in my life or anyone else’s?
Because I asked him to?
Really… it was God?
Yes! It was God! There was, and is, no doubt about it. God is involved with what God cares most about. Am I a fool to believe that? Then so be it. I’ll take what comes with being that fool every time. Why? Because the alternative is living life without God, and there is nothing… NOTHING… more fool-hardy than that. But you have to make up your own mind about that as you consider for yourself whether or not there is something more out there… bigger than you can imagine… personal, and willing to engage in relationship with you.
I’ll say this about my experience. Just as I have experienced gravity, and I’ve experienced wind, and I’ve experienced the benefits of nutrition, and I’ve experienced hot and cold, I have indeed experienced God. And not you, nor anyone else will ever take that away from me. Experiencing God is as real as having experienced anything else. And you know what? There are millions upon millions of people today, and billions throughout history, who would tell you the same thing about their experience with God.
I asked my young grandson, “Have you ever seen your brain? How do you know that you have one? Have you ever seen your heart?” He looked at me like I was simply messing with him, as I am prone to do. What I sought in asking what seemed to be ridiculous questions, was for my grandson to take a critical look at his belief in God, rather than just accepting it because of what someone else expected of him. I hoped that he would see the sensibility of what he believes.
We know we have a brain and a heart through the evidence of our experience. Since it’s so common to our collective experience, it is common sense for all of us to expect they exist within us. The way billions have come to have faith in God is not blind acceptance of a presentation, but has been experienced within and throughout day-to-day life. So believing in the reality of God, and having relationship with God is so common to the experience of so many that it is indeed what makes the most sense.
To all who believe, relationship with God is common sense. It’s a culture of faith; not just some religious crutch to survive the chaos, injustice, and brutality within and throughout our social culture. We see the struggle of the masses that don’t believe or have faith, and from an attitude of love, are compelled to share the witness of our own experience. That (divine) love is my motivation for this presentation.
I believe that should you take a critical approach to examining God’s existence—rather than blindly rejecting the possibility—you’ll be able to conclude that it actually makes more sense to rationally accept God as the originator of all that is and ever was.
It’s like anything, though. Until you experience it for yourself, it’s typically not enough to take my word for it; or anyone else’s, for that matter. For everyone else outside of what I, and millions more, have experienced, it is merely speculation.
Atheist types will tell me that they believe in science for truth. But asked what science looks like, feels like, and sounds like, well, that’s a particularly challenging question to answer. The other question about science that cannot really be answered objectively is, where did science come from? And if that sounds like an overly ignorant question, it can be more eloquently asked, where did the materials, intelligence, and all of the ingredients essential to the make-up of science come from? And if the questions can never really be definitively answered, then why ask them? If the problem of the unknown mysteries of it all cannot be solved, then why try so hard to solve the mystery?
If atheistic scientists are honest (beginning with themselves), they should admit that evolution by “natural selection” without God is indeed theory and not fact. Once a theory is proven it is no longer a theory. Then, it is simply fact; undeniable and indisputable, according to the evidence. So atheists who say they put their trust in science for their explanations of life’s origins, have put their trust—their confidence—and yes, their faith, in an unproven idea, and not in an actual experience that validates their lives.
Atheists who put their faith in the scientific theories of evolution say unapologetically that faith in a supernatural, spiritual deity is ridiculous, but then have no issue with something such as RNA and DNA, the foundationally essential ingredients for life, evolving initially from absolutely nothing. They must believe that something somehow came from nothing… they have to… or else they are left with, well… nothing.
Sure, atheistic scientists get excited about “revelations” along the way that fuel their speculative notions (a few identified briefly in this article), even though they’re still not, and will never be, definitive. They have not, and still cannot, prove theories of how life originated.
“With the laws of physics, you can get universes… We should trust the laws of physics.” —Alexei Filippenko, Ph.D., astrophysicist and professor of astronomy, University of California, Berkeley
Now, where does speculating in these indeterminate possibilities get them? What is the destination? What is the ultimate reward for the atheist’s human experience when all is said and done?
“Many scientists suggest that the laws of physics lead to trust in God, not from it.” —Brian Thomas, M.S., biotechnology
When common sense prevails in the minds of the most educated, sensible people living in the universe, they throw up their hands and submit to the reality that it requires more faith to be believe in a universe and the life therein without God than the faith it takes to believe that God must exist. Sometimes, conclusions for something are derived in the absence of rational sensibility of something else.
This is the case when the atheist the concludes that believing in God (what they refer to as religion) is a crutch creationists lean on while they continue their pursuit of what they deem to be absolute, concrete truth. They claim to only rely solely on facts. However, atheists then are quick to jump on the next theory train coming through their town.
Guess who said…
“The question, then, is, ‘Why are there laws of physics?’ And you could say, ‘Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes.”
None other than the same Dr. Filippenko. Can you believe it? But since the good doctor could not affirm in his own mind the origin of the “divine creator,” he has chosen to believe in the same laws of physics he suggested cannot exist without that “spark.” How does that make sense?
How about documentation for the divine creator?
It’s been said that you cannot believe in spiritual literature (i.e., the Bible) as indisputable truth since it was written by human people. But we accept historical literature as truth and reality all the time. Whether it’s something written about that happened decades ago, centuries ago, or millenniums and even millions and billions of years ago, these literary accounts are accepted as fact again and again; usually without argument.
We are always trusting in the historical written word that we sense is reasonable. It’s not a bother so long as we’re not threatened by it; so long as it doesn’t render us uncomfortable. No threat… no risk… no conflict… no problem.
Who has a problem accepting that George Washington was the first President of the United States of America? A few out there might dispute it, but almost all Americans believe it to be historical fact. Has anyone you know ever seen George Washington? Was anyone around around when the first “George W” was the President? We’ve read about it. We’ve heard about it. There does not seem to be any argument concerning what has been said and written. Therefore, it’s reasonable to suggest that this written documentation of history is indeed factual, beyond dispute.
The same can be said for the theory of evolution. Evolution is taught to children throughout most of the civilized world as historical fact. How does anyone know? How can anyone prove the origins of life through this idea known as natural selection; these random mutations over time that evolved into everything living today? Was anyone there? Was there anyone throughout human history that was there? Who can substantiate the claims for any of it with any degree of certainty? So why then is evolution without a creator being taught to our children as something factual?
“If God didn’t always exist then, well… what did?” continues with Why God? Why Not God?
