The Brushstrokes of God

Is There A Creator?

The heavens declare the glory of God;

the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Day after day they pour forth speech;

night after night they display knowledge.

There is no speech or language

where their voice is not heard.

PSALM 19:1-3

When I was growing up, my family lived outside a small town in southeast Kansas, and I used to take long walks through the fields surrounding our home. I remember standing in a pasture watching as imposing waves of thunderclouds began rolling in, tumbling over each other as the bluegrass swayed back and forth in the wet wind and birds chirped their wild warnings.

   I remember catching a sunset just as it exploded in the sky in a fiery display of crimson and fuchsia, as fireflies darted back and forth in the disappearing light and the sound of locusts echoed through the trees.

Page 40

   I remember walking in the evening after a snowstorm when the sky was an endless purple and ice crystals outlined each branch of every tree. The darkness of the sky was reflected in the snow with a shimmering bluish-purple cast, and the whole world was silent except for the shuffle of my footsteps.

   At times like these my heart involuntarily rose within me, and I couldn't escape the impression that although no one was around, I was not alone — the impression that somewhere sharing this moment with me was the ultimate Artist who made all of this, using only his own imagination and creative power.

   Have you ever received this impression when observing nature?

   If so, describe some of these times.

The First Question

It seems that no question is more fundamental in any search for truth than whether we and our world are the creation of a supreme being. And no question has more far-reaching implications. After that night in the chapel, I discovered that if I didn't believe in anything beyond this world, that decision would affect my entire view of life and set me on a totally different path.

   Though simply believing in a "higher being" is still far removed from believing in the God of the Bible or any other faith, it is an indispensable prerequisite. And yet this basic question is often at the crux of our doubts. It is almost as if an echo from doubters around the world can be heard asking, "But how can we even know there is a God?"

   The more firmly we establish the answer to this question, the more stable our faith will become. But how can we even begin to answer such a momentous question? In my own life I discovered it was the silent witness of the universe that became my foundation in answering this question.

More consequences for thought and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God, than from answering any other basic question. MORTIMER ADLER (twentieth-century American scholar)1

Page 41

   Think of two people you know — one who sincerely believes in God and one who doesn't. What difference does it make in their lives?

   Have you ever struggled with the question of how we can know God exists? If so, in what circumstances?

Evidence of Design

By the time I began struggling with doubt, my meandering walks and youthful impressions of nature had all but slid from memory. I was busy with school, friends, work and the tough business of trying to figure out life. But as I began focusing on the search for truth, I was drawn to long walks once more — this time in city parks and playgrounds. Concrete and telephone poles weren't enough, however, to hide the grandeur, and I was once again overcome with the artistry of the universe. A deep conviction in the existence of the Artist became the first stone in rebuilding my faith.

   Hardly anyone would disagree that we find ourselves surrounded by a natural world of awesome beauty, complexity and magnitude. The intricate design of a snowflake, the powerful interrelationships of the oceans, grasslands and mountains, the delicate biological systems involved even in the simplest organism — all these, even after centuries of study, still escape human comprehension and present the inevitable question of how this all came to be.

   Many have dismissed the complexities of the world as merely an effect of random mechanical processes, but for others that explanation is simply not adequate. Sir Isaac Newton wrote, "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being,"² Even Charles Darwin concedes in his On the Origin of Species, "To suppose that the eye, with so many parts all working together... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."⁴

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illuminant superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. ALBERT EINSTEIN3

   Many scientists believed that the introduction of the theory of evolution

Page 42

would bring about the end of all controversy about a "higher being." But the opposite has happened. As Patrick Glynn, a scholar and former atheist, explains in God: The Evidence, "Modern thinkers assumed that science would reveal the universe to be ever more random and mechanical; instead it has discovered unexpected new layers of intricate order that bespeak an almost unimaginably vast master design."⁵

   Physicist Paul Davies is among those who have been affected by these findings. He writes:

I belong to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact. There must, it seems to me, be a deeper level of explanation.⁶

   Do you agree that an intricate design gives evidence of a designer? Why or why not?

Made for Life

The artistry was what first struck me, but also I began to see other things in the world that seemed to point to a supreme being. One of these was the fact that not only does the world seem to manifest an intricate and complex design but it also seems to be strangely put together for the specific purpose of producing life. Scientists call this observation the "anthropic principle," and since its formal introduction by astrophysicist Brandon Carter in 1973, the implications of this principle have rocked the scientific community and refueled the debate about the existence of God in mainstream science.

   "Beginning in he 1960s," Patrick Glynn explains, "scientists began to notice a strange connection among a number of otherwise unexplained coincidences in physics. It turns out that many mysterious values and relationships in physics could be explained by one overriding fact: Such value had been necessary for the creation of life."⁷ Since the 1960s many more "lucky accidents" in our universe have been found, contributing to

Page 43

the acceptance of this baffling concept.

   What were the chances that all these variables would lock into place at precisely the right time to produce exactly the right universe in which life would exist? Consider nature's four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. "Every one of these forces," states physicist Richard Morris, "must have just the right strength if there is to be any possibility of life."⁸ And "luckily" they do. This is just one small example of the "fine-tuning" necessary for life to exist. Some scientists have compiled long lists of such "cosmic coincidences."

   

Yet as biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that the chances of its originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life cannot have arisen by chance. FRED HOYLE (astronomer)9

  These observations have brought a variety of responses. Some scientists simply shrug their shoulders and say that of course all these coincidences would have had to converge or we would not be here to talk about them. But others don't find it so easy to dismiss.

   In an attempt to avoid any supernatural explanation, some scientists have proposed that there perhaps are an infinite number of universes and so it can be expected that in at least one of them the right variables would come together to produce life. Many unsolved problems still exist in this proposed explanation, however, not the least being that there are no scientific data to support it. A person "might find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than in an infinite Deity," according to Paul Davies, "but such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation."¹⁰

   Some have gone so far as to suggest that the universe has actually caused itself in some quasi-life-force way to develop in such a manner that life could flourish. Another group projects that perhaps our descendants will continue to develop into higher and higher life forms so that they will become like gods and create the necessary conditions for life in their and our past.¹¹ But some are accepting the anthropic principle as evidence of what some religions have claimed all along — that a Creator God designed the universe specifically to nurture life.

   Physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne writes, "The theistic conclusion... can claim serious consideration as an intellectually satisfying understanding

Page 44

of what would otherwise be unintelligible good fortune. It has certainly struck a number of authors in this way, including some who are innocent of any influence from a conventional religious agenda."¹²

A Home Prepared

   When we brought our newborn son home from the hospital two years ago, we had already spent months preparing for him. Child locks, toys, a dresser full of tiny pajamas, a bassinet for sleeping, pacifiers for sucking, diapers for changing, a rocking chair for rocking — all these things greeted him at his arrival. Thinking about all the preparations in nature to support our lives reminds me of this — air for breathing, water for drinking, sun for warming, soil for growing and exquisite sunsets that seem to exist for no other reason than to lift the soul.

   What is your response to the observation that the world seems to be specifically put together in a way to nurture life?

In the Beginning

Another characteristics of nature that I found pointing to a supreme being involved the need for a beginning and a first cause. The prevailing view among scientists used to be that the universe was eternal, that it had existed for an infinite number of eons in the past. But this view has almost unanimously changed in the last century. Now, primarily based on two discoveries, most in the scientific community agree that the universe had to have a beginning.

If I were a religious man, I would say that everything we have learned about life in the past twenty years shows that we are unique, and therefore special in God's sight. Instead I shall say that what we have learned shows that it matters a great deal what happens to us. JAMES TREFIL (physicist)13

   When Einstein first proposed his relativity theories in 1915, he assumed the current view of a static eternal universe. Yet under this assumption he had to add a "cheat factor" to his theories to account for why the universe did not collapse in on itself. He couldn't explain why this factor was necessary. Then in 1927 evidence was uncovered suggesting that the reason the "cheat factor" had been necessary was that the universe was actually expanding.

Page 45

   The consequences of this discovery were far-reaching: if the universe was expanding, it was not possible that it has existed forever. For if the universe is expanding in all directions as it seems to be, then by playing an imaginary video of the history of the universe in reverse in our minds, we can see that if we put no limits on the age of the universe, there would be a time when all matter would come together into an infinitely dense ball. And scientists agree that an infinitely dense ball has no volume; it is the same as nothing.

The Logic of an Eternal Past

   In addition to scientific evidence, a few philosophers have proposed some convincing arguments that it is not logical to think the universe could have existed forever in the past. For one of these arguments see the essay "The Finitude of the Past and the Existence of God" by William Lane Craig in Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology.¹⁴

   The second discovery that caused scientists to change their minds about the universe's being eternal has to do with the second law of thermodynamics. Briefly stated, this law asserts that heat flows spontaneously from hot entities to cold entities and never from cold to hot. Davies explains:

This law is therefore not reversible.... Scientists were quick to draw the conclusion that the universe is engaged in a one-way slide toward a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. This tendency toward uniformity... became known as the "heat death." ... The fact that the universe has not yet so died ... implies that it cannot have endured for all eternity.¹⁵

   So why does it matter that the universe had a beginning? The implications are significant. If the universe had a beginning, the next logical question would be what caused that beginning? And this question has led many back to the concept of a Creator.

   C. D. Broad, a twentieth-century philosopher, writes:

I must confess that I have a very great difficulty in supposing that there was a first phase in the world's history, i.e., a phase immediately before which there existed neither matter, nor minds, nor anything else... I suspect that

Page 46

my difficulty about a first event or phase in the world's history is due to the fact that, whatever I may say... I cannot really believe in anything beginning to exist without being caused... by something else which existed before and up to the moment when the entity in question began to exist.¹⁶

There is a kind of religion in science; ... every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause... This religious faith of the scientists is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid.... Science has proven that the Universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter and energy in the Universe?... And science cannot answer these questions. ROBERT JASTROW (astronomer)17

   This question becomes even more intriguing when we consider Einstein's laws of relativity. According to the scientific evidence on which these laws are based, space and time are inseparably linked. That means the beginning of the universe was also the beginning of all space and time. But this raises a critical question: if the beginning of the universe was also the beginning of all space and time, what would have existed to cause this beginning to happen? This strangely points to the idea of a transcendent God — a God existing beyond space and time who created the universe out of nothing, the very picture the Bible has presented for thousands of years.

   Some have asked why, if the issue is that everything must have a cause, we don't ask who caused God. Isn't it just as difficult to imagine a being without cause as a universe without cause? But this question reflects an improper understanding of the above data. Inherent in the very definition of a Creator God is the concept of an uncreated Creator existing outside of our time and universe — for if this being created our time and universe, how could this being exist within it? And if God exists outside of our time and universe, then God is not subject to the cause-and-effect laws of our universe.

   What possible explanations can you think of for why the universe would suddenly explode into existence before any space, time or matter existed?

   Do you agree that if the universe had a beginning this would point to the possibility of a Creator? Explain.

Page 47

Using Science to Find God?

   Some question the use of scientific findings to support belief in God. After all, if a theory were presented tomorrow that offered a scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe or the anthropic principles, would I become an atheist?

   Human understanding is always imperfect and continually changing as it grows. Our belief in God shouldn't rest solely on scientific findings. But this doesn't mean we should overlook the fact that some of the latest scientific findings actually support the existence of God. This is noteworthy, especially for those who are afraid they cannot believe in God because of science. Currently no scientific finding disproves the existence of God, and there are many findings that raise the possibility.

The Artist Behind the Masterpiece

When visiting the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City once, I was particularly struck by a huge wall-sized Monet painting. The gigantic swirls of blue, green and purple were overpowering, but as I looked closely, it occurred to me that despite the magnitude of the painting I could still see the individual brushstrokes of the painter — an unmistakable connection with the artist behind the masterpiece.

   When it comes down to it, I find only two possible explanations for all the beauty and grandeur of our universe — a natural explanation or supernatural explanation. Either the universe came into existence solely by blind natural phenomena or it was the creation of a supreme being. It seems significant that the majority of people throughout history have believed in a god or gods. Even in our "scientific age," only 6 percent of Americans are atheists or agnostics.¹⁸ Romans 1:20 says that the universe proclaims God's "eternal power" and "divine nature." I myself find this to be undeniably true.

Other Options?

   A life-force? Some add another option to the two I have mentioned and insist that perhaps it wasn't a supreme being but rather some kind of "life-force" at work in the universe. But as C.S. Lewis explains in Mere Christianity, "when people say this we must ask them whether by Life-Force they mean something with a mind or not. If

Page 48

they do, then 'a mind bringing life into existence and leading it to perfection' is really a God, and their view is thus identical with the Religious. If they do not, then what is the sense in saying that something without a mind 'strives' or has 'purposes'?"¹⁹

   Aliens? Some movies and television programs have popularized the theory that perhaps beings from another world were behind the development of life on earth. But this theory doesn't answer the questions raised in this chapter; it just moves them back one step. How did these creatures come into being, and who created their universe?

   On a scale from one to ten, how convincing do you find the natural evidences for a Creator? Explain.

   Do you believe the natural world points to the possibility of a Creator? Why or why not?

Digging Deeper

   God and the Astronomers by Robert Jastrow (New York: W.W. Norton, 1978). Written by an agnostic scientist, this short book will give you a taste of the scientific debates surrounding the issues discussed in this chapter.

   God: The Evidence — The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World by Patrick Glynn (Rocklin, Calif.: Prima, 1997). This is an intriguing and easy-to-read book by a former atheist about some of the most recent evidence for the existence of God in natural science, psychology and medicine. The first chapter deals exclusively with the ramifications of the anthropic principle mentioned here.

   Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God by Fred Heeren (Wheeling, Ill.: Searchlight, 1995). Heeren offers a much more detailed look at the subjects discussed in this chapter, including interviews conducted with leading scientists.

Chapter Five  ||  Table of Contents