Order from chaos/disorder does not work for me. When it comes to the existence of God, or less specifically the existence of a powerful Intelligence, I do not need to look farther than the existing universe. Evidence abounds in the Earth alone that points definitively to a Creation. So why do atheists look at the world and then say, “There is no evidence to support or suggest the existence of God?”
This one discussion point leads to a question for all of us. If there is evidence (the universe), why does a conclusion of Created Order not follow as a deduction?
The question is this: What would you accept as evidence? If someone refuses to believe based on the evidence, is the evidence insufficient, or is there something wrong with the lens of the observer? If I show you a rock, let you touch the rock, watch you taste the rock, and hit you with the rock, and you still say to me, “There is no rock,” then any number of things might be true. You might be insane. We all might be insane. We may all just be a bundle of perceptions. You might not be willing to accept the evidence of the rock’s existence. However, your unwillingness to admit the rock’s existence is not a determining factor of its reality.
Simply choosing to “believe” a thing exists is not an act of creation or abolition. The rock I hit you with (depending on your philosophy, of course, but here I’m going with what I consider to be normative) exists, whether or not you believe it. This brings me back to the argument for the existence of God from the Ordered Universe.
The universe reflects order in many ways. We have genetic code that works, by and large. Physics laws are generally reliable. When you breed a cat with a cat, you get a cat. Horses can’t mate with fish. Solar cycles repeat themselves in predictable patterns. Even our thoughts have general order to them.
Since we know from reliable scientific discovery that human genetics are incredibly complex, why would someone argue that human life could happen any other way than being created by some Intelligence? Why would a person examine the overwhelming evidence for Created Order and then deny that a Powerful Intelligence was responsible for its existence?
Think through this one example with me… You have 26 twenty-six sided dice. Each die has every letter of the American English alphabet on it, one letter per side. Imagine you had a large area in which to roll these dice as many times as you like. Would they ever land perfectly lined up in order from A to Z? Of course not. Is is possible? I’d have to say Yes, it’s possible. However, it is plainly reasonable to assume they will never correctly line up. Even given billions of years. The odds are astronomical that it would ever happen.
Is the human genome less complex than the alphabet? I should think not. A cursory glimpse into the night sky or through a microscope should stew in us a sense of wonder and awe, and should serve as a giant helping of evidence for a Creator. When cleanly examined by an honest mind, the world and universe lend themselves to the idea of a Creator. This is apart from a historic, Christian understanding of the Bible. This idea stands alone, by itself, with what I can only see as a mountain of evidence that a Creator not only exists, but fashioned this here universe.
I’ve wrestled with this issue before (not to mention many others, and not to mention continued wrestling – grin). I agree with you regarding the probability examples you presented, and the research continues to underscore your point (whether from the synthesis of heavy metals in the early universe, biogenesis, blood clotting mechanisms, etc.), but I struggle to find a defensible pushback to the atheist’s charge that, regardless of the improbability, the universe is here, in all it’s complex machinations. We can rightfully state that the atheist is asking us to accept that, at multiple stages, the nearly impossible has occurred, and has occurred with no evidence supporting a viable mechanism. The problem I think, is that the argument hinges a bit on how comfortable one is with the improbabilities. This comfort level could vary with mood, disposition, level of understanding, etc.. And if someone has chosen to reject even the possibility of God, then they will be content with whatever scant level of comfort they can muster in the face of the improbable. I was wondering what you think about that. Could the argument be strengthened somehow? I personally find cosmological arguments (like William Lane Craig’s Kalam) to be more persuasive, as they’re deductive in form, and leave little room for subjectivity.
Hello again, Neil… you wrote “I struggle to find a defensible pushback to the atheist’s charge that, regardless of the improbability, the universe is here, in all it’s complex machinations.”
What is that charge? Can you flesh it out a bit more, what is the atheist saying here? If in this case the atheist is bringing a, “But here we are, and here is the universe,” then I’m not sure that changes what I’m trying to work through.
I agree with the atheist who says the universe exists. What I am more concerned with is how it came to be. If the atheist is charging that the universe and/or material has always been, and our examples for her fall short of what she would accept as arguments to the contrary, then that would leave us back at the question, “What would you accept as evidence (that the universe was actually created by an Intelligent Designer)?”
When a person, as you say, chooses to reject even the possibility of God, I think I would argue from the negative, “Prove to me that God does NOT exist.” The premise there is to say you must have infinite knowledge and have looked everywhere (literally everywhere) in the universe and any subsequent universes in order to show God is not there. Furthermore, you would have to look everywhere in every universe at exactly the same moment, because otherwise God might simply be in another location while you spend your time looking.
Logically it seems difficult to create an infallible proof that denies God’s existence. Simply seems to me that it can’t be done.
But you’re right… how someone views this or other arguments may well depend on the things you mentioned: “mood, disposition, level of understanding, etc…” Is the question here more for the one who believes in God’s existence or the one who does not believe in God’s existence?
Something else that I have yet to dive into on the blog is in bringing the Bible into the discussion. My faith in what I believe God has said through the Bible is a significant part of how I think, how I view the universe, how I interpret conversations, read blog posts, talk with my wife, and parent my son. At what point is it acceptable to 3rd parties for me to bring the Bible into these discussions, if at all?
Curious as to your response… until next time.
Hi Chad. I’m sorry for being terse and vague (grin). Hopefully, I can flesh things out a bit regarding my statement that “I struggle to find a defensible pushback to the atheist’s charge that, regardless of the improbability, the universe is here, in all it’s complex machinations.” The existence of the universe was not in question. Outside of Hindus, few would doubt the universe’s existence. I find the evidence for each stage of evolutionary development to be insufficient justification for belief. The steps from inorganic > organic matter, from organic matter > proteins, from proteins > microorganisms, etc. have (to my knowledge) not been explained or demonstrated. Given that, I think we concede too much when we state that they are merely highly improbable. In doing so, we are allowing for at least the *possibility* that, given sufficient time, the crucial combination that forms the mechanism for each step, could occur. And since the complex universe now exists, one can assert (albeit weakly) that the unlikely has occurred, and God was neither involved in, nor required for, the process. This is the weakness of the argument in my view. Now, if we are “inferring to the best explanation”, which is the dominant method in science, we can justifiably point to the lack of evidence for each necessary step as well as the immense improbability of random combinations advancing each step, and thus maintain that a creative and intelligent God is the more likely source. If one has other arguments for God’s existence, then the design argument can be useful in underscoring how unlikely a random process would be. But as a solitary argument, I find it somewhat weak, if we are willing we concede even the possibility of a random mechanism. But, again, I don’t think that ground must necessarily be conceded. This is why I wondered if the argument could be refined or strengthened in some way. In essence, we see things that *appear* designed. They are either designed or the product of a random process. If we can show that a random process could not produce the thing in question, then they are designed. And “to design” is an action. And actions are taken by entities. Ergo…
Shifting gears, you are right to observe the difficulty in proving the proposition “God does not exist”. I think it’s called a “universal negative proposition” in logic, and is the hardest statement to prove, as it requires exhaustive knowledge. It hardly needs mentioning that while we hope to be always rational, we are not, and we may believe things not because we have evidence for them being true, but because we can maintain a feud with a person we dislike, or be accepted by a group we admire, or permit ourselves to engage in something we enjoy or something that rewards us with greater power, etc.. But I think the confidence we are capable of having with respect to our beliefs is commensurate with the quality of evidence we have in support of them.
Lastly, to touch briefly on your final paragraph. The Bible will ultimately have it’s role, but becomes “on the table” once someone is open to God’s existence (perhaps through the arguments we’re discussing). It becomes even more compelling when it’s historicity can be reasonably established. This is not to say God cannot work through the Bible when read by an atheist. The reality of sin, weakness, longing, thirst – all of this can be revealed to the reader if God chooses, but I think a more “classical” approach (natural theology > biblical historicity > nature of Christ > Gospel) is a more intuitive progression, and requires the fewest “starting assumptions”.
Your thoughts?
As you said, and I agree, “I find the evidence for each stage of evolutionary development to be insufficient justification for belief. The steps from inorganic > organic matter, from organic matter > proteins, from proteins > microorganisms, etc. have (to my knowledge) not been explained or demonstrated.”
How is it, then, that Evolutionists or Atheists make a different remark about the (lack of) evidence? I mean, honestly, how do you come to a truly scientific conclusion that allows those steps to happen in time and space? I suppose we are conceding too much by admitting the possibility of random causation, though my intent with the probabilities matrix IS to say that it is impossible, not just improbable.
Regarding the introduction of the Bible, it is quite interesting to me that, theologically, if your interpretation of Romans supports the idea that the unregenerate heart of man *cannot* please God, nor can his mind, then at some point all the debate in the world is meaningless… Unless, of course, that debate is part of a conversion process.