I really think that science points to God.
To demonstrate my first reason, join me now, if you would, and think of an idea. Think of a fairy tale. Now consider the conception of a new life. How about the creation of an artistic masterpiece?
All of things things came into being, whether mentally or physically. However, all these things had a previous cause.
It is almost universal now, for a number of reasons, most scientists hold to the idea the universe had a beginning. One of the reasons is that the total entropy of the system (the universe) is increasing. In other words, there is more disorder. In fact, philosophers show that it would illogical to have an eternal universe (we would never get to now).
However, we know, from universal experience, that everything that begins to exist had a prior cause, including the above examples. Since the universe had a beginning, it follows that it had a cause.
Plus, from universal experience, the thing itself can’t cause itself to come into existence. In other words, the cause of the universe can’t be part of the universe. We know that space is part of the universe. So is time, our fourth dimension. Obviously matter is part of the universe. None of these things can be part of the cause of the universe
Since this cause was timeless, it had to have always existed. Otherwise there would be an infinite regress of causes causing causes or creators creating creators for eternity past. It has to stop somewhere, there has to be an uncaused first cause, an eternal first cause. So this cause must be eternal, and the “uncaused first cause.”
This is interesting, but there’s more. This cause chose to create. Only persons have free will to choose. So this cause must be personal.
Also, this cause must be very smart to create such a finely tuned universe and very complex life. The information contained in the genes of life show that this cause must be intelligent. Thus, this cause must be very intelligent and very knowledgeable.
Most scientists now think that that the universe came from nothing, “popped” into existence (however you define nothing). Now, it really does not matter how old you think the universe is or even how it came into existence for this specific point, only that most think it came from nothing. So the cause had to have the ability to make such a massive universe out of nothing. You also see the cosmos and the biological world, while finite, seem infinite, which gives us a window into this causes “bigness”. This strikes me that this cause must be very powerful to create such a massive universe out of nothing.
From the telescoped night sky to the microscoped microscopic world, the universe and all that is in it is very majestic and beautiful. We all have to agree, I would think. So this cause, besides just being able to do hard stuff, appreciates beauty and majesty.
Nature seems to be based upon laws that we can count on. It seems to have uniformity, in the sense that we can expect the laws to work, from place to place and time to time. Thus, this cause must help form the bases of consistency and uniformity, where we get our idea of induction. In other words, this cause is dependable, or the same always and all places.
Let’s look at those attributes again…
- Uncaused first cause
- Extremely powerful
- Appreciates beauty
Interestingly this happens to be exact description of what the Bible calls “God.”
This should not come as a surprise to us, if God really is God, I don’t see why he would have got his description wrong in his message to us.
I have a passion to have answers for Christianity. I believe this is only reasonable and right for me to do. If you also desire to give answers to your family and friends, you will not want to miss a post! In the future, I plan on giving more resources and answers you can share with both believers and unbelievers. I would love to have you share my vision, so please click here so you don’t miss the latest resources and latest posts and get them straight to your inbox.
Can you think of any other attribute of God that we see corresponding in science? Do you disagree with the above? If so, why?