Scientific Proof of God?

I don’t know why I do this to myself; in all likelihood because I find it so fascinating. While researching crater size from various asteroid impacts, a site claiming scientific proof of God muddied the waters. Do tell, my pondering mind clicked before common sense caught its breath.

Y-Jesus, The Facts About Jesus Presented By Scholars went on to give scientific “proof” of God.

Not able to stop myself; knowing full well that reading would make me grumpy – caution took a hike as I forged ahead. Y-Jesus’s scientific proof consisted of arguing probability based primarily on quotes. Using prefaces agnostic, atheist, and formerly atheist before scientist’s names, while quoting them and Stephen Hawking out of context. Seven pages later; scientific “proof” of God came to this – the “speculative” nature of physicists can lead to only one conclusion – science can’t offer a definitive explanation, therefore God is science “fact”. Yikes.

Ponder this statement…

Scientists who used to scoff at the Bible as a book of fairy tales, are now admitting that the biblical concept of creation from nothing has been right all along”

Keep pondering….

“Physicists calculated that for life to exist, gravity and the other forces of nature needed to be just right or our universe couldn’t exist. Had the expansion rate been slightly weaker, gravity would have pulled all matter back into a “big crunch.”

We’re not talking about merely a one or two percent reduction in the universe’s expansion rate. Stephen Hawking writes, “If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.”

On the flip side, if the expansion rate had been a mere fraction greater than it was, galaxies, stars and planets could never have formed, and we wouldn’t be here”.

Stay with me, I’m getting to the point….

For human life to be possible from a big bang defies the laws of probability. One astronomer calculates the odds at less than 1 chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.  It would be far easier for a blind-folded person—in one try— to discover one specially marked grain of sand out of all the beaches of the world.

Another example of how unlikely it would be for a random big bang to produce life is one person winning over a thousand consecutive mega-million dollar lotteries after purchasing only a single ticket for each.

What would be your reaction to such news? Impossible—unless it was fixed by someone behind the scenes, which is what everyone would think. And that is what many scientists are concluding—Someone behind the scenes designed and created the universe.

This new understanding of how miraculous human life is in our universe led the agnostic astronomer George Greenstein to ask, “Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon the scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?”

However, as an agnostic, Greenstein maintains his faith in science, rather than a Creator, to ultimately explain our origins.

Jastrow explains why some scientists are reluctant to accept a transcendent Creator,

There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe…This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.

It is understandable why scientists like Greenstein and Hawking seek other explanations rather than attribute our finely-tuned universe to a Creator. Hawking speculates that other unseen (and unprovable) universes may exist, increasing the odds that one of them (ours) is perfectly fine-tuned for life. However, since his proposal is speculative, and outside of verification, it can hardly be called “scientific.” Although he is also an agnostic, British astrophysicist Paul Davies dismisses Hawking’s idea as too speculative. He writes, “Such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation.”

Although Hawking continues leading the charge to explore purely scientific explanations for our origins, other scientists, including many agnostics, have acknowledged what appears to be overwhelming evidence for a Creator. Hoyle wrote,

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”

Although Einstein wasn’t religious, and didn’t believe in a personal God, he called the genius behind the universe “an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”

Atheist Christopher Hitchens, who spent much of his life writing and debating against God, was most perplexed by the fact that life couldn’t exist if things were different by just “one degree or one hair.”

Davies acknowledges,

There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe…. The impression of design is overwhelming.

And for life to exist, the conditions in our solar system and planet also need to be just right. For example, we all realize that without an atmosphere of oxygen, none of us would be able to breathe. And without oxygen, water couldn’t exist. Without water there would be no rainfall for our crops. Other elements such as hydrogen, nitrogen, sodium, carbon, calcium, and phosphorus are also essential for life.

But that alone is not all that is needed for life to exist. The size, temperature, relative proximity, and chemical makeup of our planet, sun, and moon also need to be just right. And there are dozens of other conditions that needed to be exquisitely fine-tuned or we wouldn’t be here to think about it.

Scientists who believe in God may have expected such fine-tuning, but atheists and agnostics were unable to explain the remarkable “coincidences.” Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, an agnostic, writes, “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”

And finally….

As noted previously, leading atheist Antony Flew’s atheism came to an abrupt end when he studied the intelligence behind DNA. Flew explains what changed his opinion.

What I think the DNA material has done is to show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence…. It now seems to me that the finding of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

Although Flew was not a Christian, he admitted that the “software” behind DNA is far too complex to have originated without a “designer.” The discovery of the incredible intelligence behind DNA has, in this former leading atheist’s words, “provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

All above paragraphs in italics – from Y-Jesus.



13 thoughts on “Scientific Proof of God?

  1. I say that the word probability means what is sayus and that had it bbeen a second shorter or faster is negated by the fact that what was a shot in the dark reached its maximum potential of probaility or else we wouldnb’t be having this exchange. I doubt very highly in an ‘unmoved mover’ and even if there were such a sentient being its interest in us is probably a thousand times less than what it took to get us here. Or at least it doesn’t give a flying f**k what we do. I’m all for being on our own–at least we have a fighting chance. >KB

  2. This argument is so flawed that it proves that God exists.

    Yesterday i read in a paper on a new data quality system the term “multi-truth”, referring to data that is relevant and valuable in one context is not so in another.

    This is now my favorite word of the week. Science knows that truth is relative to the problem posed and the resolution method applied. Beyond that such truth is irrelevant.

    Any proof of God will only ever lead to a relative truth and have to live alongside other proofs in which God is irrelevant. To date, proofs of God only work in religious contexts of bibles and reported miracles. Fine. Whatever. Have a nice day.

  3. When one considers the number of man made religions we have all trying to explain why it is their god that is responsible for creation I feel confident that if there is an omniscient deity it would understand perfectly why I choose to be an atheist.

  4. You can’t ‘prove’ God anymore than you can prove evolution, but I find it easier to believe in God. Being only a small child, I was too stupid to know that God might not be real, and I started praying to Jesus to help me. I do believe Jesus got me through my childhood relatively unscathed. We keep in touch to this day.
    If you believe in the Big Bang theory, then you also have to go with “like begets like”. So, how many rocks colliding would it take to create the diversity of life we have on this ball? Nowhere in human history have 2 humans created a monkey. If you believe in evolution, that is a real possibility that within our DNA a quirky combination would had showed up, creating a monkey. Besides, I read once that we are more closely related to pigs than monkeys. I never checked to see if that was valid or not; but it sounds funky.
    Look at the harmony of nature; look at the placement of the planets. You can honestly say that no intelligence was needed?
    Yes, there are thousands of religions out there; but your soul knows when it finds the right one. We are created with an emptiness that only God can fill. I’m glad He’s my friend, and I’m glad I have Jesus as my Savior.

  5. Well, that was painfull. Yet, somehow intriguing. The so called fine tuning argumentation line is so funny. Trying to establish some sort of likelyhood for life based on the information we have of our own type of life can only come to the conclusion, that biological life on earth is terribly rare in the universe. How is it that somehow should prove an “intelligent” designer behind the universe? Does it not tell us exactly the opposite? What sort of “intelligence” would make a universe where life is so rare? Does not the fact that it is so very rare and needing of very specific conditions for life to appear tell us that even though it seems like unlikely, it is possible in the limitless space, countless amount of stars and planets and vast expanses of time, it is possible for life to appear from minerals and electromagnetic reactions?

    Our appearance may seem unlikely, but as we are here, what we can conclude from it is that it happened, but not much more. Gods do not appear much elswhere exept in old folklore and in the inner monologue of superstitious people, whose gods are always taken from their own personal cultural heritage. Faith is seen as a virtue in religious cultures, but people who try to find proof for their particular gods do not share that virtue, as they try to conjure evidence, that would make faith unnecessary and obsolite. Why?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s