One Truth, Many Evidences: 20 Compelling Evidences that God Exists

Breakpoint with Chuck Colson ^ | 7/28/2006 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

In the first chapter of their new book, 20 Compelling Evidences that God exists, Ken Boa and Robert Bowman write, “We don’t mean to discourage you from reading the rest of this book. But in the interest of full disclosure, we should tell you that, in a sense, there is only one good reason to believe that God exists: because it’s true.”

That statement is both profound and well expressed. Unfortunately, these days it’s not the kind of statement you can make in public without having scorn heaped upon your head. As the authors jokingly point out, the popular viewpoint regarding truth is, “Anyone who believes that he is right and others are wrong is intolerant.” Now that’s self-contradictory on its face, but it’s almost certain to be thrown at you if you assert a truth claim.

That’s why Boa and Bowman have titled their book 20 Compelling Evidences that God Exists—because they recognize that for any claim to truth to be taken seriously in today’s culture, it needs solid evidence to back it up. As the authors write, “There are many such evidences, but they all have value because they help us see that the God of the Bible is real.” In fewer than two hundred pages, they clearly and concisely examine some of today’s most pervasive worldviews and their flaws. Then they present their case for God’s existence and His revelation of Himself through Jesus Christ.

What kind of evidences are they talking about? There’s an amazing variety. They don’t state it right upfront, but they are organizing their “20 compelling evidences” in a way that takes readers through the doctrines of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration—the four basic elements of the Christian worldview that I set forth in How Now Shall We Live?

They start with evidence about the universe and the origins of life. And they talk, for example, about how finely our solar system and our planet had to be calibrated to support life. At “an extremely conservative estimate,” they say, the probability of our planet being capable of sustaining us is about one in a billion. It had to be at just the right place in the solar system, which had to be at just the right place in the galaxy. Even the expansion of the universe had to happen at just the right rate in order for all of us to be here today.

From evidence about the universe, the authors move on to evidence of humanity’s sinful nature; then evidence of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection; and finally, evidence of those who have lived and died for Christ. Examining concepts ranging from Greek philosophy to archeology to the Big Bang theory to postmodernism, the authors make a powerful case for the existence of a loving Creator.

In short, I highly recommend Boa and Bowman’s book. They provide in a very readable form an excellent apologetic resource for Christians wondering how to defend their faith in a world that’s “tolerant” of everything except Christianity.

Ken Boa is a great apologist—one of the most engaging and popular teachers in our Centurion’s training program. You can visit our website, BreakPoint.org, to find out how you can get 20 Compelling Evidences that God Exists. While you’re there, be sure to check out some of our other Christian worldview resources.

[ThinkDifferent]

That was beautiful.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Uh-oh. This is going to scare those FReepers stuck in the eighteenth century "enlightenment" (they're afraid Theists are going to scare away votes from atheist liberals and cost them their tax cuts).

[jwalsh07]

A few more numbers and comments excerpted from Gerald Schroeders website.

---

1) Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal "Scientific American", reflects on how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.

Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:

One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.

This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,

but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,

there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:

the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.

2) Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile:

The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.

3) Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding,

namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)

Penrose continues,

Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.

Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning remains the same.

It is appropriate to complete this section on "fine tuning" with the eloquent words of Professor John Wheeler:

To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, "How could it have ever been otherwise?"

[thomaswest]

Re 104: The folks making these goofy arguments are presuming far too much about things they really don't have a clue about yet.

And yet you expect them to understand exponents!?

I have yet to see on these threads any creationist or Trinitarian who can get as far as 3 without trouble. Hmm, three is one, yet one is three. And, there is not a single reference in the Bible to any "3" to support religious dogma.

It is odd to see references to "Judeo-Christian" values based on 10 Commandments. Judeo values emphasize 1 (one). And Judeo ancient texts say there are 613 commandments. 6.13 x 10^2 commandments. Hellbender and the like are very selective as to which commandments they choose to accept.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Maybe the system wasn't created by a God; it always existed, and therefore never had a beginning.

That is pretty hard to comprehend. Amazingly having a belief in a God that always existed and never had a beginning is easier to comprehend for most people. - tom

Actually, atheists today do not claim the universe is eternal. Instead they insist that it suddenly exploded into existence from nothing, but that it was nevertheless a purely natural phenomenon, even though nature did not exist until afterwards: in other words, they claim the "big bang" was caused by its result. And if this bothers you, they call you an unthinking savage.

[VOA]

"Just like in a court of law, not all evidence is forensic."

Just in case you don't know this fellow, here's a short biography on
a fellow who know a thing or two about the rules of evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Greenleaf

[jwalsh07]

Even under the most generous (and wildly unrealistic) scenario of every star having an Earthlike planet circling it, this means that the inhabitable fraction of the Universe is 2E10 mi^3 * 7E22 / 1E33 ly^3 / 2E38 mi^3/ly^3 = 7x10-39, or 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000007%. And if the Earth happens to be the only inhabitable planet after all, add twenty-two more zeros to that figure.

And yet the probability of life appearing on Earth in very short order after the initial "global warming" is 1. Very curious.

[ThinkDifferent]

I'll take the Enlightenment over the Dark Ages. Fascinating how much we learned once we determined that "God did it" wasn't a sufficient explanation.

[hellbender]

You seem to be doing just what atheists assume theists do: assuming that God is anthropomorphic, that he cares about things like "wasting space." We worry about space because we have little of it which is capable of supporting life here on earth. Why should God care how much of the billions of cubic light-years of space he allocates to life? Maybe, as theists have always said, "His ways are not our ways." Maybe He didn't want habitable planets close enough that their civilizations could reach and annihilate each other (not saying that's why, but it's conceivable, and the kind of thing a sci-fi author might think up). Maybe the habitable planets have to be far enough from stars that they are not destroyed by supernova explosions, deadly radiation, black holes, etc. etc. There are many conceivable reasons why more space might not be allocated to life, and no reason for believing that mere quantity of life had to be important. As you might say, you are making assumptions about things we don't know enough about yet.

"The folks making these goofy arguments are presuming far too much about things they really don't have a clue about yet"...."folks straining for "evidence" of deities often feel compelled in that direction anyway, no matter how shaky the ground."

It's not creationists, I.Ders, or people who started out trying to support "deities" who came up with the arguments about the fundamental physical constants being very critical for life. It's physicists, astrophysicists, cosmologists, etc. Maybe you think all theoretical physics is "philosophical masturbation?" Thank goodness for the oh-so-superior intellects of the atheists, who can save us from these "goofy" cosmologists and their anthropic principle! I bet those guys are all really a bunch of crypto-creationists, anyway, right?

Scientists usually don't like to spend much time considering hypotheses which can't be tested. Minor changes in physical constants would make for a universe which couldn't have intelligent life, like scientists; so such universes could not be witnessed, described, or comprehended by anyone. In effect, they are unknowable to us.

There is absolutely no evidence, in our rather extensive modern knowledge of physics, that variables like the charge on the electron, the mass of the electron, Planck's constant, the gravitational constant, etc. are dependent on each other, or that 'there's only *one* variable which necessarily determines the values of all the rest."
So I think it might be you who is the one "straining for evidence" of your particular worldview.

[thomaswest]

Re 123: in arbitrary units

There you go. You remember when a Mars probe failed because some idiots at NASA used inches&feet instead of centimeters? Cost us taxpayers $300 million.

Arbitrary units?--with this lame argument, you can 'prove' that an inch is a mile; that a kilowatt is a pound; that a calorie is a volt; that blood pressure is miles per gallon.

Your whole post is just silly.

[jwalsh07]

The "Dark Age" is a myth created by Italian secular humanists and perpetuated by their fellow humanists throughout history. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Zon]

You wrote in post 7: Not a compelling argument for a divine creation given that there are quite probably trillions of planets in the universe.

How many? 

I don't know. There's probably more planets than stars so my guess is at least 32 sextillion planets.

And what's your point?

Assuming the above, expressed in trillions-of-planets, there's 32 billion-trillion planets. I assumed you weren't aware that it was even remotely close to that many trillions -- 32 billion-trillion. And even that may be two to four times too few.

[jwalsh07]

Oh without a doubt! Weinberg, Penrose and Turner are simply dolts when compared to the brilliant, if seldom quoted, thomaswest.

[hellbender]

"And Judeo ancient texts say there are 613 commandments. 6.13 x 10^2 commandments. Hellbender and the like are very selective as to which commandments they choose to accept."

If you read the New Testament, you will find that Christians (which is what I am) are freed from almost all the old Jewish laws, which is presumably what you mean by those 613 commandments. You will also see that Jesus said the totality of the Law could be summed up in only two commandments: 1)Love God. 2) Love thy neighbor as thyself.

"Three is one and one is three."

That's no harder than believing that something can be both a wave and a particle, or that two photons can be "entangled' over vast distances. Both strain human understanding, but why should anyone believe that everything in the universe should be easy for humans to understan?. After all, we're just highly evolved primates, right? Nothing else.

"Judeo values emphasize 1 (one"

Judaism emphasizes one God, not one commandment. Surely you can see the difference.

[hellbender]

"And Judeo ancient texts say there are 613 commandments. 6.13 x 10^2 commandments. Hellbender and the like are very selective as to which commandments they choose to accept."

If you read the New Testament, you will find that Christians (which is what I am) are freed from almost all the old Jewish laws, which is presumably what you mean by those 613 commandments. You will also see that Jesus said the totality of the Law could be summed up in only two commandments: 1)Love God. 2) Love thy neighbor as thyself.

"Three is one and one is three."

That's no harder than believing that something can be both a wave and a particle, or that two photons can be "entangled' over vast distances. Both strain human understanding, but why should anyone believe that everything in the universe should be easy for humans to understan?. After all, we're just highly evolved primates, right? Nothing else.

"Judeo values emphasize 1 (one"

Judaism emphasizes one God, not one commandment. Surely you can see the difference.

[elcid1970]

Oooooo... nice try! But post #66 sounds like no theist, but a Scriptural believing Christian. Just like me.

So flame away......

;^)

[stands2reason]

Is it because I'm a gnostic that I'm not impressed? Yes.

[Sofa King]

Well, I think it's worth saying that there obviously are, always have been, and always will be powers greater than ourselves. The forces that make up the universe, whatever you believe they are, are unarguably wildly beyond our control.

Mankind has always wanted to understand these, partially because of curiosity and partially because understanding them represents at least some power to deal with them. Humans also have a tendency to personify things. Combine these two impulses and what do you get?

Just beyond whatever the limitations of are knowledge are, there be monsters.

[ThinkDifferent]

Arbitrary units?

In fairness, it appears that the two numbers are a ratio, so the units cancel. The assertion seems to be that if a specific value were different by one part in 10^120, then life would be impossible. As Ichneumon details in #104 this doesn't prove anything even if true, but it's not unreasonable on its face.

[thomaswest]

Re 129: You seem to have a thing against electrons. It is true that they are charged. And also true that they often "pair up" in atomic and molecular orbitals.

Your objection to electrons on moral grounds is duly noted.

"The folks making these goofy arguments are presuming far too much about things they really don't have a clue about yet"...."

Your point is well made.