Where is the evidence for God? (continued)

• Fine-tuning for Life:

As discussed, the fact that the earth is precisely positioned in our solar system to sustain life; that the Earth, Sun, and Moon are working together as one intricate system; that the mass of Jupiter is acting as a cosmic shield; and that the constants which govern multicellular life are precise, all this points to intention in the creation and the sustenance of organic life on this privileged planet.

Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), in his article: “Life in the Quantum Universe,” Scientific American, 1995, writes:

“…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.” (https://quotablemath.blogspot.com/2019/07/steven-weinberg-collected-quotes.html, para. 3)

According to Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:

“If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature —like the charge on the electron—then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.” (https://tinyurl.com/3zwxecnm, para. 2)

Nobel Laureate in physics Charles Townes states:

Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe; it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity, nuclear laws, magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here. (https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml, para. 19)

Some atheists propose multiple universes to explain the order in this Universe without a designer. According to them, if there are trillions of universes, it is not far-fetched that one of them (ours) happens to have the perfect conditions for life. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwyFGFs7voI&feature=youtu.be)

This is like saying that, since there are millions of empty canvasses, a particular masterpiece painting didn’t need a painter.

According to Richard Swinburne, an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford:

“It is crazy to postulate a trillion (causally unconnected) universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity (God) will do the job.” (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9028275-it-is-crazy-to-postulate-a-trillion-causally-unconnected-universes)

Paul Davies is an English physicist who won the 1995 Templeton Prize, the 2001 Kelvin Medal, and the 2002 Faraday Prize awarded by The Royal Society (See Part 1). He says,

”The problem [of origin for the universe] has simply been shifted up a level: from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse,”  (https://w.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jun/26/spaceexploration.comment, para. 7)

Incidentally, the multiverse is not a new idea.

It has been present since the first Divine Revelation. Believers can vouch for at least two other universes: Paradise and Hell!

Other atheists say the universe just is…it was born this way: with a perfect knife-edge balance between its components. But explaining away precision and fine-tuning by saying things are “just the way there are” is giving up on science, which is concerned with finding out how and why things are the way they are.

• Modern science tells us that light can be outside of time, yet some ridicule the idea that God can be outside of time. And even though some now accept that particles with “entanglement” —even when separated over great distances— continue to interact instantaneously (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn7YQOzNuSc&feature=youtu.be), nevertheless, some atheists reject the idea that God, the Creator and Sustainer, can see and hear everyone and everything simultaneously.

Moreover, with Him are the keys of [the realms of] the Unseen. No one knows [of] them but Him. And He knows[, as well,] all that is in the land and the sea. Not even a leaf falls but He knows it. Nor is there a [single] grain [hidden] within [the veils of] the darkness of the earth—nor anything [moist] therein nor anything withered— but that it is [recorded] in a clear Book [preserved in Heaven]. (Quran 6:59)

• The scientific community is passionate about the sanctity of patents and the rights of the inventor, yet some scientists have no compunction in giving full credit to the discoverers of the universal laws and none to their Designer/Creator.

In summary, this universe needed a cause in order for it to emerge, a designer to create and fine-tune its laws and a sustainer to stabilize and preserve it.

Yet, we are asked to believe that this ordered universe happened randomly (at a probability of 1 in 1010123 — see Parts 2 and 11) and that this amazing design and the interrelationships between laws and complexity of systems continues to occur with consistent results! Would anybody believe that the jackpot-winning lottery ticket (the probability of winning the jackpot is 1 in 302,575,350) can show up in their home by itself, then keep showing up, with the exact same winning number, every single time the lottery is drawn, without fail!

If we claim it was a physical necessity for the universe to exist as is, then we are saying that a universe which does not permit our existence is impossible, which is a baseless statement.

Even if we are used to the fact that the universe has features to permit our existence, we should be very surprised at how improbable are these features permitting our existence.

We should be amazed that separate parts of a universe —which supposedly evolved randomly— share the same material compositions and follow the same laws, processes and motion patterns. There is no reason for consistency and uniformity in a random environment.

• We should be even more amazed that these features continue to occur consistently without variation, in order to allow our continued existence. There is no reason for reproducibility in a random environment.

Albert Einstein, the most famous scientist of our time, put it well. He said:

…The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations…. (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/263668-your-question-is-the-most-difficult-in-the-world-it)

…To be continued in Part 13