Is it possible to know that there is a God? Is it possible to show that God exists? The answer to both questions is “yes.” In fact, it is possible not only to know that God exists, it is possible to know God.
There are three laws of science to consider as evidence for the existence of God. What is special about a scientific law? A law is model of science that has been tested thousands of times with the same results and no exceptions. Credible conclusions and interpretations of science are constrained to conform to laws of science. Explanations that contradict laws of science lack credibility.
The First Law of Thermodynamics is a scientific law that leads to the conclusion that the origin of the universe is best explained by supernatural creation. Here is a four point argument for the supernatural creation of the universe.
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created by natural means. As of today, there has never been an exception to the law observed.
The universe exists as energy is a variety of forms such as matter, light, heat, and sound.
The logical conclusion for the origin of the universe is that it was created supernaturally.
There must be a God.
A typical rebuttal is that supernatural creation is really an undiscovered natural law. First, this is an admission that the conclusion is logically derived whether it is supernatural or undiscovered. Second, to propose a hypothetical natural law that contradicts an empirically derived natural law is irrational. Third, a supernatural conclusion is the most plausible because it does not contradict a law.
Another typical rebuttal is that energy always existed. This brings us to the next law, the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The third point of evidence for the existence of God is the Law of Biogenesis.
To insist on natural origins is irrational and inconsistent with scientific laws of today. Credible conclusions must conform to the laws and knowledge of today. To conclude that there is no God is illogical and contradictory to scientific observation.
Biochemist, H.P. Yockey, reported in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, “With regard to the appearance of a single molecule of the cytochrome c family, even the deus ex machina needs 1036 [chances] with just the right conditions [and] 1 billion years... One who finds the chance appearance of cytochrome c a credible event must have the faith of Job.” In light of the mathematical calculation for impossibility being 1030, it is rational to conclude that the natural origin of proteins necessary for life is impossible.
If the natural origin of a single protein is impossible how much more a whole cell! Biochemist, Harold Morowitz, wrote in his book, Energy Flow in Biology, that theoretically the simplest of cells would require a minimum of 124 proteins to function. Based on this imaginary, simple organism, he calculated that the probability of its natural evolution would be 1:10340,000,000.
Scientists have spent years trying to create life in the laboratory with the most sophisticated equipment available in carefully controlled and intelligently designed experiments. If life cannot be artificially assembled under these conditions, how much more impossible it is for molecules to naturally assemble themselves into living cells! The best explanation for the origin of life is supernatural creation. There must be a God!
The famed British philosopher and outspoken proponent of atheism Antony Flew announced that after fifty years of atheism, he is now a theist. Why? He says, "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."1 In a telephone conversation with Philosophy and Theology professor Dr. Gary R. Habermas, Flew explained that he, "had to go where the evidence leads." 2
The only logical and rational conclusion consistent with the laws of science and knowledge of the day is that there must be a God. To deny Him is to deny the methodology, history, tradition, purpose, and knowledge of science. Denial of God is a rejection of rational thought and the power of human reasoning to enlighten mankind.
I leave you with these questions and thoughts to ponder. Is it more unscientific to believe in God or in evolution? Is it more unscientific to believe in supernatural or natural origins? Is necessary to put God in a test tube or require that He demonstrate His creative methods in the laboratory before we can conclude that He exists? You have seen the evidence. Does God exist or not?
1Philosophy Now magazine, August-September 2004. Reported in "Famous Atheist Now Believes in God", ABC news.
2 My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: an Exclusive Interview with Former British Atheist Professor Antony Flew Gary R. Habermas, Philosophia Christi Vol. 6, No. 2 (Winter 2004).
Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure Science. (Edwin Powell Hubble, The Nature of Science, 1954)
Facts are not science - as the dictionary is not literature. (Martin H. Fischer)