The Fine-Tuning Argument

Prominent atheist Christopher Hitchens (who has passed away recently) called the fine-tuning argument the most intriguing argument for the existence of a Creator, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSYKwAxyOG0).  While Hitchens was stubborn, hardheaded, and often unreasonable in my personal opinion, I have to admire him for being vulnerable and admitting that this isn’t a topic that should be easily dismissed.  It takes a lot of courage to admit a weakness in one’s own stance, especially when you’ve published on! 

 So, given the attention that it has received from atheists and theists alike over the years, I feel it would be beneficial to go over this matter briefly and highlight the primary points associated with it.  The fine-tuning argument (also known as the teleological argument) goes as follows:

1)     The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design

2)     It is not due to physical necessity or chance

3)     Therefore, it is due to design.

Now, let’s address how the universe cannot be a product of physical necessity or chance in order to identify how we come up with the conclusion that the universe is designed.

The first option for the fine-tuning of the universe is physical necessity.  The physical necessity option requires that the universe must have the required constants and quantities in order to produce a life-permitting universe.  This would also imply that a life-prohibiting universe would be impossible ¹.  The fact is that the constants and quantities are not products of the laws of nature and there is no reason to believe they couldn’t be different ².  As of today, there is no empirical evidence to support the claim that the constants and quantities of universe couldn’t have been different.  Therefore, the first option of physical necessity is an implausible one. 

The second option for the fine-tuning of the universe is chance.  That is to say, it was the luck of the draw that all the constants and quantities accidently fell into a life-permitting range.  I’ll start off with an analogy.  Suppose that you were dragged in front of one hundred trained marksmen for your execution and they were all commanded to simultaneously shoot you.  “Ready, aim, FIRE!” is shouted to the marksmen but you remain alive and you notice that every single marksman had missed!  Would this enormous improbability lead you to the conclusion that it was mere chance that every single trained marksman had missed?   None of us would conclude that every single marksman would have missed by mere accident.  The same principles of evaluation apply to the universe.  The fact is that the constants and quantities that govern the universe are set perfectly to allow for a life-permitting universe and the probability that every single one fell within the perfect life permitting range is incomprehensibly improbable ¹. 

Since physical-necessity and chance are not viable options to explain the fine-tuning, it follows logically that design is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe.  The fact is that if it appears designed, it likely is.    

Notes

1 William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books) Chapter 4

2 William Lane Craig, On Guard (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook) Chapter 5

Facts of the Resurrection

I would venture to say that most Christians have experienced some form of pushback regarding the issue of Jesus Christ’s resurrection.  Whether this pushback originates from the disbelief that such a miraculous thing could have possibly occurred or whether they claim that there simply isn’t evidence for such a grand claim to be true, we’ve likely heard many of these forms of opposition. In a world that is progressively becoming obsessed with scientism, how are Christians going to support a claim that Jesus rose from the dead after three days?   Are these claims that skeptics pose valid?  Is there evidence that supports our stance in believing that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead? 
 
The video above is of Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig as he discusses the facts of the resurrection.  Dr. Craig does highlight that a majority of New Testament scholars (even skeptics) accept the following four facts:

Fact 1: After the crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin named Joseph of Arimathea. 

 Fact 2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by his women followers.

 Fact 3: On multiple occasions, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death. 

 Fact 4: The original disciples believed that Jesus resurrected from the dead despite all predispositions to the contrary. 

 If these facts are believed by a majority of New Testament scholars, and even skeptics, what is stopping more people from believing in the resurrection?  In my personal opinion, it is a worldview issue.  A skeptic may find all of the historical facts compelling, however they’d prefer to place their faith in an alternative option because they are so convinced that miracles cannot happen in a natural world.  As Christians, we can only present the facts and let God take over and pray that the message touches their heart in a way that would relieve them of feeling that the only plausible possibilities are the ones explained by natural causes. 

 Many skeptics would accuse my approach as wishful thinking or even claim that I believe in the resurrection purely on blind faith.  I don’t believe so.  Given that the four facts listed above are widely agreed upon by New Testament scholars, I’d say all people should be comfortable in their historical stance on Jesus regardless of whether they believe Jesus actually rose from the dead or not.  However, this is where the fork in the road splits the believers from the non-believers.  Christians accept the resurrection hypothesis as being the possibility that has the greatest explanatory scope and power.  Many skeptics have come up with numerous conspiracy theories such as Jesus wasn’t actually dead but just appeared to have died, Jesus had a twin-brother that appeared to individuals and groups of people after his death, the disciples of Jesus stole the body of Jesus, the theory of cognitive dissonance, Joseph of Arimathea placed Jesus’ body in a graveyard for common criminals shortly after being placed in his tomb without telling anybody about it, everyone that saw Jesus was hallucinating, and many others ⁽¹⁾. 

 Upon observation of these conspiracy theories, we find that none of them are greater in explanatory scope and power than the resurrection hypothesis.  They do not account for all four facts as effectively as the resurrection hypothesis does.  This isn’t a matter of blind faith for Christians.  In fact, if skeptics highly value evidence, these are issues that you may want to respectfully discuss in a conversation with a skeptical friend if given the opportunity.

 Dr. Craig stated towards the end of the video, “You need a launching pad to launch this missile”.  This is very true!  I didn’t mention anything about how the expansion of the Christian movement drastically increased in the face of major opposition!  If you’re interested in this topic, I’d recommend N.T. Wright’s book, “The Resurrection of the Son of God”.  It discusses in much greater detail on this pivotal issue of the Christian faith!

Notes

 1 William Lane Craig, On Guard (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook) Chapter 9

The Moral Argument

The video above is of Dr. William Lane Craig describing the moral argument for the existence of God.  The moral argument is a very powerful argument as nearly everyone can relate with it.  At first glance a skeptic would likely be hesitant to agree because of the obvious theistic implications associated with it.  However, would an atheist stick to their worldview after seriously pondering the premises of this argument?  Let’s take a closer look at what those implications are after reviewing the moral argument itself:

1)     If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist

2)     Objective moral values and duties do exist

3)     Therefore, God exists

So, the first premise states that if God does not exist, there are not objective moral values.  Before we progress, I’d like to define objective as “existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions”.  Now, let’s dissect that premise.  For the argument to be valid, God would be the authority on morality if He existed.  If He didn’t exist, all observable signs of morality would be pure illusory.  That’s to say that these signs of morality would purely be a byproduct of socio-cultural evolution and nothing would be objectively right or wrong.  Essentially, by natural selection, our species has developed behavioral patterns that are beneficial to the propagation of our human species.

However, do we witness the lack of objectivity in the moral sense?  Do we consider the holocaust in Nazi Germany objectively wrong?  How about the raping of a little girl?  Or, when the terrorists crashed commercial jets into the Twins Towers on 9/11 and killed thousands of people?  If someone were to deny the first premise, that person would then be committed to affirming that these actions are not objectively wrong.  These people committing these atrocities are not morally guilty of anything objectively evil under an atheist worldview because there are no objective moral foundations.  If God does not exist, these actions would simply be categorized as behaving outside of what would be considered culturally acceptable. 

 However, many atheists confirm that there are objective moral foundations in this world but really can’t explain why outside of personally feeling there is a “right” and “wrong”.  One of the most prominent atheist apologists Richard Dawkins writes in his book “The God Delusion”, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”.  If Richard Dawkins can admit that if we are truly purposeless, it would follow logically that good and evil lack an objective foundation.  It is difficult to think that the holocaust, rape, or 9/11 as NOT being objectively evil, but that is what the atheist is faced with if they were committed to their worldview.  Many atheist philosophers have come to this same conclusion after realizing the theistic implications of morals being objective.

 That is NOT to say that atheists are incapable of being moral.  I have atheist friends and family members who are incredibly moral people.  This is a difficult topic because a majority of people affirm objective morals but don’t realize the theistic implication of doing so.  It is important to understand that we observe objective morality on a daily basis, and not as a byproduct of socio-cultural conditioning, but through God.  We are made in His image and that is why when good or bad things happen, we are able to objectively define them as such. 

Information Contained within DNA

Above is a video of Dr. Stephen Meyer, the author of “Signature in the Cell”, describing the information found in DNA and elaborating on the source of information contained within the DNA by using the scientific method, which is to say by referencing a cause that is known to have produced a similar effect.  Dr. Stephen Meyer and many others within the field of biochemistry, biology, and life research have come to identify that the primary question in need of an answer regarding information contained within the DNA is, “where did it come from?”. This is an extremely complex topic; however it is important when studying Creation.  Regardless of all the complicated terminology associated with these fields of science, the primary issue is identifying the source of the information.  Many people within these fields have compared the information encoded within the DNA molecule to software.  Software carries millions of codes within it with the goal of achieving a functioning software program.  Essentially, that is all that DNA is but on a much more magnificent scale.

Many people have used an analogy of a book.  If you look at a book, you are able to identify that the words within it are arranged in a manner that communicates a message.  The arrangement of letters develops words.  The arrangement of words develop sentence.  The arrangement of sentences develops paragraphs.  You see where I’m going.  Even the title of the book along with the author’s name would be enough to indicate that there was an intelligent agent who wrote the message.  By contrast, if you were to flip through a book filled with random letters, there wouldn’t be a message.  It would be completely incapable of communicating a message.  In the case of our DNA, it is observed that our DNA contains highly complex codes that contain everything needed to develop a living organism.  It would be scientifically irresponsible to disregard the presence of information as pure chance simply because there could be a theistic implication.

Dr. Meyer recognizes the success of using the scientific method to identify causes.  If the atheist is placing faith in the information of DNA being formed at random and without cause, then he is placed with the burden of supporting how information can begin without intelligent causation.  Keep in mind, that burden is not only limited to the first single-cell organism but also the needed information required for an organism to evolve into a completely different species.

Below is a video of how the DNA encodes what’s called “protein synthesis” within a cell. This process only occurs as a result of information telling it how to function. Given the intricacies and vast functionality of DNA, it would be a blind assertion to claim that DNA is a product of mere chance. Watching the video below really gives you a perspective on the true brilliance of God’s design.

Causality in the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Since I discussed the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) in my prior post, I thought it would be appropriate to go over the argument in a little more detail.  The KCA is an extremely powerful argument that describes how something cannot be caused from nothing.  To reiterate from my last post, the KCA’s three premises are as follows:

1)     Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

2)     The universe began to exist

3)     Therefore the universe has a cause.

In the above clip, Dr. William Lane Craig addresses the absurdity of denying the premises of causation.  If someone suggests that the first premise is incorrect, they would have to prove that anything (not just universes) can come into existence without a cause.  If the universe can come into being from nothing, what would stop anything from coming into existence from nothing?  Dr. Craig poses the question, if you came home to find a horse defiling the carpet in the living room; would you chalk it up to a horse popping into existence from nothing in the living room?  That would be an absurd conclusion!  Even if you came home to find such a scene, you wouldn’t conclude that the horse came into existence from nothing.  In the same manner, making the assertion the universe came into being from nothing would be equally absurd.  

 Many atheists say that the universe is excluded from this premise.  However, why would nothing be so discriminatory about what it creates?  If nothing had creative powers, there is no reason for nothing to be so discriminatory against creating anything other than universes.  Obviously, this is purely hypothetical.  Being does not come from non-being.  As they say, “From nothing, nothing comes”.  That is why it is completely absurd to deny causation in the KCA.

 When we look at the last premise of the KCA, it logically falls into place that the universe has a cause.  This is where our atheist friends have a problem because of the theological implications that are associated with cause.  It is good to have dialogue with our atheist friends on this issue; fortunately, the current state of cosmology is continually reinforcing the fact that the universe is finite and doesn’t show any sign of producing a result that can depict how universe truly came from nothing. 

Who Created God?

The above video is of philosopher/mathematician John Lennox discussing the schoolboy argument, “who created God?”.  This is often a question that many atheists pose when a Christian states that God is the cause for the universe.  However, have many Christians really thought about it?  It is important to check out our views and rationale for God being a timeless being and knowing how to properly respond to such a question.  You might find that it may be a little more difficult than you originally thought. 

Using the Kalam Cosmological Argument, we see that:

1)     Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

2)     The universe began to exist

3)     Therefore the universe has a cause.

Not only philosophically is this true, but scientifically as well.  A vast majority of scholars in the field of cosmology hold that the universe is not timeless but had a beginning.  Therefore, we see that since it began to exist, it therefore must also have a cause.  Our universe is contingent upon this cause.  Since the universe is contingent upon this cause, this cause must be a timeless, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and a even personal being to create a universe that is so finely tuned that if only one of the hundreds of physical constants goes astray, life on this planet would be impossible for habitation. 

Given the above description of the Kalam Cosmological argument, we see that our universe had a cause, which is God.  This is where this question, “who made God?” starts to come into play.  I recently heard a good analogy on this.  If you were to visit Mt. Rushmore, you would acknowledge the fact that the President’s faces did not carve themselves into the side of the cliff.  You would realize that sculptors designed the President’s faces and took the time to carve their faces into the cliff.  However, would you need an explanation for who created the sculptor in order to answer the question, “how did the President’s faces get carved into the side of this cliff?”.  ABSOLUTELY NOT!  Therefore the same method applies here; you do not need an explanation for the cause of the universe to explain whether or not the universe was caused. 

Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins uses this question as one of his foundational arguments against God in his book, “The God Delusion”.  As Dr. Lennox discusses in the video, Dawkins must be under the false assumption that we are talking about created Gods.  This is obviously not the case in the matter of the universe.  Many other prominent atheist writers are also finding creative ways to get around there being an initial cause.  One example would be Daniel Dennett who claims that the universe caused itself (I’m not joking) or Lawrence Krauss who believes the universe came into being from nothing as the title of his newest books suggests, “Universe from Nothing”.  Other atheists hold to the universe being eternal to avoid there being an initial cause.  However, this is stance that cosmological science has refuted for decades.

No matter how you look at it, there was an initial cause for the universe.  Regardless of how you want to justify the cause, whether it is through simply denying it because you can’t explain the cause (Dawkins), declaring that the universe had the power to create itself (Dennett), or whether it randomly came into being from nothing (Krauss), a cause is inevitable for the universe.  As for me, I place my faith in God. 

Evolution for the Christian...

Above is a video of Dr. William Lane Craig discussing the Biblical perspective on evolution.  This is a topic of great sensitivity for many Christians as many Christians are committed to a literal interpretation of the creation account found in Genesis.  However, are we Biblically obligated to a six day creation?  Is there a set interpretation of Genesis that would obligate all Christians to believe in a six day creation?  There are many Christians that believe in a six day creation however this view isn’t supported with modern day science.  From an exegetical stance, we find that there isn’t any verbiage within Genesis or elsewhere that would indicate to its readers that the creation was literally completed by God in six 24 hour days.  God wants us to love Him with all of our heart, soul, and our minds.  As Christians, it is important to be open to where the evidence leads us without fear that it will contradict our Lord.  Christians should welcome all scientific evidence because it will ultimately reinforce our belief in God.

In this video, Dr. Craig highlights the improbability of Darwinian evolutionary theory as it accounts for the massive complexity of biology.  Dr. Craig states that, “If evolution did occur on this planet, it was literally a miracle, and therefore evidence for the existence of God”.  As Christians, we should feel secure in following the evidence where it leads us.  As for atheists, evolution is “the only game in town” because they have no other explanation to account for the origination of living organisms on this planet.  As it stands today in modern biology, it is still a mystery as to how the first single-cell organism originated.  The atheist has to justify how being came from non-being in the biological sense as well as the cosmological sense.  In all matters of origin (whether we speak of organisms or the universe), the atheist is placing faith that science will one day justify how things such as living beings and universes come into existence without causation.  Now…that is blind faith.