Does science support the existence of God?
Some people believe that science and religion are incompatible. That may be so, but religion is not the issue I'm defending. Organized religion is man-made and subject to corruption. I am generally not fond of it. Nevertheless, God is real and that data supports it. I am about to demonstrate this with a brief, scientific explanation for those of you who don't know God. The time is close when you will have to make an eternal choice. I never push my beliefs on anybody, but consider the logic and think about it for yourselves. The reconciliation of science and God is fairly simple...
The Second Law: Life violates entropy and supports the idea of providence.
The psalmist says, "Great are the works of the Lord, pondered by all those who delight in them." Basically, every scientist seeks to understand the mind of God. Even the most hard-core agnostic or dietistic scientist (as I use to be) accepts on faith that the universe is ordered. There is a rational basis to existence that is evident in this order. This is shown in the laws of science and math. These things are very predicable. So I think many scientists will agree that there is a God. How else can you explain order and design? The Second Law of thermodynamics states that entropy (or disorder) always increases with time, so we basically live in a decaying universe. All you have to do is stop making repairs around the house to see that principle at work! Eventually, the entire universe will "burn out" as it continues to expand and be reduced to nothing more that low level, background radiation, mostly in the form of microwaves. How then does life develop and thrive when the whole universe is in a state of decay? How is it that there are sophisticated, self-replicating organisms in the universe, known as life, that develop in spite of the Second Law? It is know as the Anthropic Principle and it shows divine providence without a doubt. If there was not a God that favored mankind, it simply could not have developed. Life shows an extremely high level of order and complexity that must have been created because order is not the natural state of the universe, disorder is. In other words, there is design and you can’t have design without a designer! Therefore, it stands to scientific reason that there should be a God.
Darwinian Evolution VS Divine Evolution...
Atheistic scientists are a different story. They believe that life resulted from random combinations of simple molecules in a spontaneous fashion and that the universe just happened without cause or that it always existed in a static state, but that's not mathematically legitimate and does not agree with common observation. Even Darwin said of the human eye that the odds that it "could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Darwinian evolution is simply not possible. It requires transitional life forms that do not exist in the fossil record. They are known as the "missing links". Why are there well-defined species in the fossil record with no intermediate forms? There are gigantic gaps in the record that can't be explained. I can sympathize with the rational of an agnostic scientist, but the atheistic scientist cannot be taken seriously. There's just too much evidence against the spontaneous appearance and progression of life or "naturalism" as some call it. Creation is the best explanation, and that is obviously precluded if there if no creator. Besides, if law and order are really the products of a mindless natural process, the human mind must be viewed as an accident too, in a series of many accidents. If that's so, how can we have any confidence that our mind could even recognize the truth anyway? How could a concept like truth even be possible? It just doesn't make logical sense without a God. There would be no need and no reason for any of this observed order, plus the observation itself would necessarily be questionable.
The First Law: Conservation necessitates creation to explain existence.
The First Law of thermodynamics is a fundamental, scientific property of the universe that also strongly supports the existence of God. It states that energy can change forms, but cannot be created or destroyed. That means that the overall energy of a finite system remains constant. Man can only refashion existing materials, but can't actually create anything new. The First Law shows that the universe must have had a finite beginning, and that it could not have just created itself. Just like naturalism can't explain the development of life, there isn’t any known natural process that can account for it's own origin. This scientific law is directly oppositional to a godless beginning. The reason energy can not be destroyed is stated in the Bible: God "upholds all things by the word of his power" Heb.1:3 and "preserves and keeps in store his creation." Peter 3:7 So basically, the Second Law shows that the universe must have had a beginning and the First Law proves it could not have just begun by itself. The total energy of the universe is constant, but the amount of available (or ordered) energy is steadily decreasing over time into a disordered form. If you could go back in time, this would reverse itself and order would increase. You would reach a point where total energy was equal to available energy. That was the beginning of time, and time can't go back any farther than that point. That point is known as a singularity and is part of the mystery of a singular God. Since energy can't just create itself, and there was no other imperative for it to exist, there is only one logical scientific conclusion: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Really, there are no other satisfactory explanations that match the known facts.
The Cosmological Argument demonstrates there must be some God out there.
There are only 4 possibilities as to the origin of the universe and thus the existence of life. This is an argument of universal causation and can be summaries like this:
The universe has no creator/cause.
1) The universe has never existed so it has no beginning or end. This model requires no creator, but it’s also rather absurd. We are here! We can all agree that we do exist and something is going on here, right? If this universe is all just an illusion, then the argument can stop here because the question is just an illusion too.
2) The universe has always existed in a steady state and has no beginning or end. This model requires no creator, but is also disproved by the First Law and not supported by the Second Law. Mathematically, a static, infinite universe just can't work and doesn't match scientific observations. This is like saying you've always been alive, and will also never die. Once again, we all know better than that.
The universe has a creator/cause.
3) The universe has a beginning and created itself. This is a formal contradiction because how can something create itself before it even exists? Nothing finite can cause itself, because it is connected to another, prior cause. Sorry Darwin, self-creation is scientifically disproved and lacks the imperative that this cause and effect universe requires. That's like saying you created yourself, and did it before you were even born!
4) The universe has a beginning and God created it. By a process of elimination, if we exist in a finite universe that had a beginning that could not have caused itself, then God is the only other explanation. In other words, God is the uncaused cause. The universe exists because of a first cause, there cannot be an infinite series of causes. Therefore, the first cause had to be God.
Statistical odds of random, advanced life (does God play dice?)
Let's look at the math involved in universal considerations. Consider a very simple microorganism consisting of 200 cells. Let's not even consider the math on where the cells came from (that's too much math and I'm not that smart) but just think of the combination of those cells to form a primitive organism. The probability of forming that ordered cell system by chance is 1 in 200 factorial. That factorial (expressed as 200!) can be calculated by multiplying all the numbers together from 1 to 200 and yields a result of 1 chance in 10E_375. I will not bother to type out 375 zeros, you get the point. You actually have much better odds of jumping out of a plane with no parachute and surviving the impact every single day for the rest of your life even if you lived to be 100 years old. Would you really gamble your life on odds like that? If you deny the likelihood of God, that’s what you’re doing. As the complexity of a system increases, the odds of an ordered outcome occurring by chance become exponentially dismal, even for the random existence of a simple 200 celled organism, much less a human being. It's safe to say that it takes much more "faith" to be an unbeliever than it does to believe in God.
Which God specifically?
So maybe you're starting to take the reality of God a bit more seriously, but why Christianity? Many of the great scientists were Christian, like Boyle, Newton, Pasteur, Joule, Kelvin, Faraday, Flemming, etc.. Biblical creationism correlates with the known scientific facts extremely well. Naturalism doesn't, and neither do any other religions I’ve studies. I have studied this in depth, applied many branches of science and analyzed the facts. I have tested it in my own life to see if it holds scientific truth. No other religion in the world has a god that claimed he could provide what Christ did. No other religious leader even made the claim that they would return from the dead. Only the one, true God of the universe has the power over life and death. Only the God of the Bible even made that claim. So, either Christ is who he said he was (the sovereign God of all) or he was a total lunatic, but he can’t be both.
What is faith and can it be justified?
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, so once you see the manifestations of your faith becoming reality, that proof in turn substantiates your faith. Don't just believe blindly, faith demonstrates and justifies itself over time. God cannot be seen (at least I have not seen him) but can be clearly detected by indirect means, just like the position and velocity of sub-atomic particles are measured. It’s scientifically explainable by the Exclusion Principle. You can never know the exact position and velocity of a particle at the same time because one is necessarily modified while observing the other, thus one of those measures can be directly observed and the other must be determined by indirect means. It does not mean that the particle lacks either property of position or velocity, only that they cannot be directly measured together. It's the same with God. You may never observe his existence directly, but when you see the effect God has in your life, it becomes possible to validate the cause.
The Third Law (angels and demons)
Newton’s Third Law states that there can be no force without an opposing force to balance it. That means that good cannot even be defined unless there is evil as a reference. In other words, forces come in pairs, so the Third Law would validate that some force should exist in opposition to God. Looking at our world today, the presence of a strong evil force has a scientific explanation that fits this observation. Why would somebody support evil and not side with God? Maybe because they have been deceived since childhood. People have been conditioned to believe that God makes a bunch of restrictive rules, or that they have to work their way to heaven by some church doctrine. Has God ever asked you for anything, or is it really some organization with their rulebooks and their hands in your pocket? God made you free! God is not looking down from heaven shaking his finger, waiting for you to screw up so he can strike you down. That's what some churches and religious establishments want you to think, and that's definitely what your demonic enemies (some people call them Aliens) want you to believe, but it’s a huge lie. You don't need anyone else in order to have a relationship with God. All you have to do is seek truth in prayer, and he does the rest. If you accept what he is, he’ll accept you too, and I can personally testify to this truth. Think about it and consider that the existence of God is more scientifically probably than not.
Some people believe that science and religion are incompatible. That may be so, but religion is not the issue I'm defending. Organized religion is man-made and subject to corruption. I am generally not fond of it. Nevertheless, God is real and that data supports it. I am about to demonstrate this with a brief, scientific explanation for those of you who don't know God. The time is close when you will have to make an eternal choice. I never push my beliefs on anybody, but consider the logic and think about it for yourselves. The reconciliation of science and God is fairly simple...
The Second Law: Life violates entropy and supports the idea of providence.
The psalmist says, "Great are the works of the Lord, pondered by all those who delight in them." Basically, every scientist seeks to understand the mind of God. Even the most hard-core agnostic or dietistic scientist (as I use to be) accepts on faith that the universe is ordered. There is a rational basis to existence that is evident in this order. This is shown in the laws of science and math. These things are very predicable. So I think many scientists will agree that there is a God. How else can you explain order and design? The Second Law of thermodynamics states that entropy (or disorder) always increases with time, so we basically live in a decaying universe. All you have to do is stop making repairs around the house to see that principle at work! Eventually, the entire universe will "burn out" as it continues to expand and be reduced to nothing more that low level, background radiation, mostly in the form of microwaves. How then does life develop and thrive when the whole universe is in a state of decay? How is it that there are sophisticated, self-replicating organisms in the universe, known as life, that develop in spite of the Second Law? It is know as the Anthropic Principle and it shows divine providence without a doubt. If there was not a God that favored mankind, it simply could not have developed. Life shows an extremely high level of order and complexity that must have been created because order is not the natural state of the universe, disorder is. In other words, there is design and you can’t have design without a designer! Therefore, it stands to scientific reason that there should be a God.
Darwinian Evolution VS Divine Evolution...
Atheistic scientists are a different story. They believe that life resulted from random combinations of simple molecules in a spontaneous fashion and that the universe just happened without cause or that it always existed in a static state, but that's not mathematically legitimate and does not agree with common observation. Even Darwin said of the human eye that the odds that it "could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Darwinian evolution is simply not possible. It requires transitional life forms that do not exist in the fossil record. They are known as the "missing links". Why are there well-defined species in the fossil record with no intermediate forms? There are gigantic gaps in the record that can't be explained. I can sympathize with the rational of an agnostic scientist, but the atheistic scientist cannot be taken seriously. There's just too much evidence against the spontaneous appearance and progression of life or "naturalism" as some call it. Creation is the best explanation, and that is obviously precluded if there if no creator. Besides, if law and order are really the products of a mindless natural process, the human mind must be viewed as an accident too, in a series of many accidents. If that's so, how can we have any confidence that our mind could even recognize the truth anyway? How could a concept like truth even be possible? It just doesn't make logical sense without a God. There would be no need and no reason for any of this observed order, plus the observation itself would necessarily be questionable.
The First Law: Conservation necessitates creation to explain existence.
The First Law of thermodynamics is a fundamental, scientific property of the universe that also strongly supports the existence of God. It states that energy can change forms, but cannot be created or destroyed. That means that the overall energy of a finite system remains constant. Man can only refashion existing materials, but can't actually create anything new. The First Law shows that the universe must have had a finite beginning, and that it could not have just created itself. Just like naturalism can't explain the development of life, there isn’t any known natural process that can account for it's own origin. This scientific law is directly oppositional to a godless beginning. The reason energy can not be destroyed is stated in the Bible: God "upholds all things by the word of his power" Heb.1:3 and "preserves and keeps in store his creation." Peter 3:7 So basically, the Second Law shows that the universe must have had a beginning and the First Law proves it could not have just begun by itself. The total energy of the universe is constant, but the amount of available (or ordered) energy is steadily decreasing over time into a disordered form. If you could go back in time, this would reverse itself and order would increase. You would reach a point where total energy was equal to available energy. That was the beginning of time, and time can't go back any farther than that point. That point is known as a singularity and is part of the mystery of a singular God. Since energy can't just create itself, and there was no other imperative for it to exist, there is only one logical scientific conclusion: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Really, there are no other satisfactory explanations that match the known facts.
The Cosmological Argument demonstrates there must be some God out there.
There are only 4 possibilities as to the origin of the universe and thus the existence of life. This is an argument of universal causation and can be summaries like this:
The universe has no creator/cause.
1) The universe has never existed so it has no beginning or end. This model requires no creator, but it’s also rather absurd. We are here! We can all agree that we do exist and something is going on here, right? If this universe is all just an illusion, then the argument can stop here because the question is just an illusion too.
2) The universe has always existed in a steady state and has no beginning or end. This model requires no creator, but is also disproved by the First Law and not supported by the Second Law. Mathematically, a static, infinite universe just can't work and doesn't match scientific observations. This is like saying you've always been alive, and will also never die. Once again, we all know better than that.
The universe has a creator/cause.
3) The universe has a beginning and created itself. This is a formal contradiction because how can something create itself before it even exists? Nothing finite can cause itself, because it is connected to another, prior cause. Sorry Darwin, self-creation is scientifically disproved and lacks the imperative that this cause and effect universe requires. That's like saying you created yourself, and did it before you were even born!
4) The universe has a beginning and God created it. By a process of elimination, if we exist in a finite universe that had a beginning that could not have caused itself, then God is the only other explanation. In other words, God is the uncaused cause. The universe exists because of a first cause, there cannot be an infinite series of causes. Therefore, the first cause had to be God.
Statistical odds of random, advanced life (does God play dice?)
Let's look at the math involved in universal considerations. Consider a very simple microorganism consisting of 200 cells. Let's not even consider the math on where the cells came from (that's too much math and I'm not that smart) but just think of the combination of those cells to form a primitive organism. The probability of forming that ordered cell system by chance is 1 in 200 factorial. That factorial (expressed as 200!) can be calculated by multiplying all the numbers together from 1 to 200 and yields a result of 1 chance in 10E_375. I will not bother to type out 375 zeros, you get the point. You actually have much better odds of jumping out of a plane with no parachute and surviving the impact every single day for the rest of your life even if you lived to be 100 years old. Would you really gamble your life on odds like that? If you deny the likelihood of God, that’s what you’re doing. As the complexity of a system increases, the odds of an ordered outcome occurring by chance become exponentially dismal, even for the random existence of a simple 200 celled organism, much less a human being. It's safe to say that it takes much more "faith" to be an unbeliever than it does to believe in God.
Which God specifically?
So maybe you're starting to take the reality of God a bit more seriously, but why Christianity? Many of the great scientists were Christian, like Boyle, Newton, Pasteur, Joule, Kelvin, Faraday, Flemming, etc.. Biblical creationism correlates with the known scientific facts extremely well. Naturalism doesn't, and neither do any other religions I’ve studies. I have studied this in depth, applied many branches of science and analyzed the facts. I have tested it in my own life to see if it holds scientific truth. No other religion in the world has a god that claimed he could provide what Christ did. No other religious leader even made the claim that they would return from the dead. Only the one, true God of the universe has the power over life and death. Only the God of the Bible even made that claim. So, either Christ is who he said he was (the sovereign God of all) or he was a total lunatic, but he can’t be both.
What is faith and can it be justified?
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, so once you see the manifestations of your faith becoming reality, that proof in turn substantiates your faith. Don't just believe blindly, faith demonstrates and justifies itself over time. God cannot be seen (at least I have not seen him) but can be clearly detected by indirect means, just like the position and velocity of sub-atomic particles are measured. It’s scientifically explainable by the Exclusion Principle. You can never know the exact position and velocity of a particle at the same time because one is necessarily modified while observing the other, thus one of those measures can be directly observed and the other must be determined by indirect means. It does not mean that the particle lacks either property of position or velocity, only that they cannot be directly measured together. It's the same with God. You may never observe his existence directly, but when you see the effect God has in your life, it becomes possible to validate the cause.
The Third Law (angels and demons)
Newton’s Third Law states that there can be no force without an opposing force to balance it. That means that good cannot even be defined unless there is evil as a reference. In other words, forces come in pairs, so the Third Law would validate that some force should exist in opposition to God. Looking at our world today, the presence of a strong evil force has a scientific explanation that fits this observation. Why would somebody support evil and not side with God? Maybe because they have been deceived since childhood. People have been conditioned to believe that God makes a bunch of restrictive rules, or that they have to work their way to heaven by some church doctrine. Has God ever asked you for anything, or is it really some organization with their rulebooks and their hands in your pocket? God made you free! God is not looking down from heaven shaking his finger, waiting for you to screw up so he can strike you down. That's what some churches and religious establishments want you to think, and that's definitely what your demonic enemies (some people call them Aliens) want you to believe, but it’s a huge lie. You don't need anyone else in order to have a relationship with God. All you have to do is seek truth in prayer, and he does the rest. If you accept what he is, he’ll accept you too, and I can personally testify to this truth. Think about it and consider that the existence of God is more scientifically probably than not.
Last edited: