Monday Discussion - Science and God pt 1

Science and the Existence of God
History and the Truthfulness of Scripture

What would that mean for your life?
How would that affect how you live?

But how can we know that God exists?
Is it even possible to know with adequate certainty if a God
who is unseen, unheard, and unfelt really exists?
Wasn’t religion and a belief in God developed by ancient
peoples to explain phenomena that science can now explain?

And how can we know that the Bible is true?
It might have good teachings about morality and theology, but is it
really accurate historically?
Isn’t it full of legends and myths like Adam, Eve, and the talking
serpent in the garden of Eden?
Why does it even matter if a religious book
like the Bible is accurate historically?

If Genesis 1:1 is not true, then God does not exist.
If Genesis 1:1 is not true, then the Bible itself is not true.
So how do we know if Genesis 1:1 is true?
Or can we even know if Genesis 1:1 is true?

It is important to point out that Gen. 1:1 is not just the Bible’s explanation for
the existence of the universe, it is the only reasonable explanation for the
existence of the universe.
Consider what is called the cosmological argument for God’s existence…
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
If premises 1 and 2 are true, then conclusion 3 must be true. So let’s consider
each of these premises…

Every observation and experience by every person has proved this to be
true.
Every event has a cause….
When you see a ball rolling…
When you smell an odor…
When you hear a sound…
You ask yourself, “What caused that?”
By itself something cannot come out of nothing.
Events don’t pop into existence without causes.

Up until the 20 th century, most secular scientists believed that the universe
was infinitely old without a beginning. They denied the very first statement
of Scripture, “In the beginning…” (Genesis 1:1)
However, since the mid-20th century, scientific discovery has shown that the
universe is finitely old with a beginning. A universe without a beginning is
neither possible logically nor evident scientifically.

If the universe never had a starting point, then the present moment could
never be reached. What does that mean?
To reach the year 2019, how much time would you have to cross if you
started in the year 2000 A.D.?
How about if you started in the year 2000 B.C.?
How about if you started in the year 10,000 B.C.?
How about if you started from an
infinite past with no starting point?
Is it possible to cross an infinite amount
of time to reach the present moment?

It is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time.
For example, it would be impossible to cross an infinitely wide canyon where
there is a cliff on one side but no cliff on the other side.
If the universe never had a starting point, then this present moment – this
Monday night gathering – would never happen!

The Expanding Universe
In 1929, using the largest telescope at that time, Edwin Hubble observed that
the universe is in fact expanding.
Also, multiple Bible verses also speak of God stretching out or expanding the
cosmos: “Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the
heavens like a tent.” (Psalm 104:2) “It is he who sits above the circle of the
earth…who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent
to dwell in.” (Isaiah 40:22) “Who alone stretched out the heavens” (Job 9:8)
Thus the universe hasn’t been the same
size forever. It had a beginning point from
which it started to expand.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics
This law says that heat energy will always flow from an area of high temperature to
an area of low temperature, until everywhere is the same temperature.
If you light a fire in a fireplace, the heat will
flow to the colder parts of the room until
everywhere in the room becomes the same
temperature.
If you put an ice cube in warm water, the
heat will melt the ice cube until the water
throughout the glass becomes the same
temperature.
So if the universe was infinitely old without a beginning, then the entire universe
would already be the same temperature by now. However, that is not the case, so the
universe must have had a beginning.

However, scientists like Stephen Hawking argued that a finite universe with a
beginning “does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god.”
(Hawking, The Grand Design)
Why? Because our universe may be one of a seemingly endless
number of universes in a multiverse, and those “multiple universes
arise naturally from physical laws.”
However Hawking’s argument does not discount our argument for God’s existence
because…
Even a multiverse still has to have a beginning, and who or what caused that
beginning?
If physical laws themselves somehow form universes, who or what formed those
laws?
There is much scientific evidence pointing to a beginning of our universe, but no
evidence for a multiverse.

Remember the cosmological argument for God’s existence…
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
If premises 1 and 2 are true, then conclusion 3 must be true…
Since this is so, what kind of cause could start a universe?

Since this is so, what kind of cause could start a universe?
All Powerful – How much power would it take to start a
universe?
All Wise – How much wisdom would be needed to create a universe that is engineered with
complexity far beyond any computer, vehicle, or human technology?
All Good – Who would create a world with so much
beauty that can be seen, heard, touched, and tasted
for the sheer enjoyment of human beings?
Transcendent – This being would have to be immaterial and outside
of space and time in order to create space, time, matter, and energy.
Personal – An impersonal machine receives
information and programming but doesn’t
create it. Only a personal being can create
information and programming like DNA.
Why else must this cause be personal?

Consider at least3reasons whythe causeof the universe mustbe personal…
1) There are two types of causal explanations…
Scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions
Personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions (wills)
For example, if you ask why the teapot is boiling, what is the scientific explanation?
What is the personal explanation?
A first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, because there is
nothing before it. There are no prior conditions and laws operating on those conditions.
2) The personhood of the cause is implied by its timelessness and immateriality.
Only two types of entities possess these properties – minds or abstract objects like
numbers.
However, abstract objects like mathematical numbers cannot cause anything.
So the cause of the universe must be of the order of mind.

3) Impersonal cause and effect is immediate, while personal cause and effect is willed.
Impersonal forces cannot cause at will. They have no choice in how they effect their
environment. The moment an impersonal cause exists, its effect is immediate.
For example, imagine a gravity-free room in which everything is
floating mid-air. The moment gravity is introduced, its effect
would be felt immediately. Every object would fall to the floor.
If the cause of the universe were an impersonal force, then the
universe would be as old as the cause. In other words, an
eternal cause would have to produce an eternal universe, but
we know that the universe is not eternal.
So how does a timeless cause produce a temporal effect? If the cause were eternal and
personal, it could freely choose to cause a universe to begin to exist a finite time ago.

Who or what could be the cause of the universe?
Who is an all powerful, all wise, all good, transcendent, personal
being? Who has all of these attributes?
Only God, as it says in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created
the heavens and the earth.”

In response to this cosmological argument for God’s existence,
some have asked if God caused the universe, then who caused
God?
For example, Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion wrote,
“…the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of
who designed the designer.”
How would you answer this question?
Is it even a reasonable question, why or
why not?

The problem with this question lies in the nature of the question itself.
If I were to ask you, “What sound does silence make?” How would you answer?
The question itself is nonsensical, because by nature, silence is soundless. By
definition, silence is a lack of sound.
In the same way, by definition, God is eternal and uncreated.
It would be illogical to ask, “Who created the uncreated Being we call God?”
And as we’ve already discussed, the existence of an uncreated “first cause” is not
unreasonable. In fact, what is unreasonable is the proposition of a universe
without a first cause.