God's existence: evidence and proof

Clinton Chisholm, Contributor

"The heavens declare nothing really, the firmament showeth nothing really, day unto day uttereth nothing really and night unto night showeth nothing really. There is no speech or language from them, full stop, end of pre-scientific rubbish."

Such would be a possible rewording of Psalm 19 in the hands of the so-called 'new atheists' like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, all of whom are militant atheists who reject the argument from/to design, which contends that the structure of the universe, the totality of nature testifies to the existence of God. Nature's evidence does indeed constitute proof of the existence of the God of the Bible.

But why do I call it nature's evidence? Because I wish to emphasise the nature of evidence in law and in life in general and the level of proof by which we operate in law and in life in general and ask that when we consider the existence of God we require nothing higher than that level of proof by which we operate in law and in life in general.

Our law courts deal with two basic classes of action, civil and criminal. In a civil case the level of proof is "a preponderance of evidence" which means, on balance, which side has more evidence in its favour.

In a criminal case the level of proof is higher than in a civil case, it is proof "beyond reasonable doubt" which does not mean proof beyond every doubt but proof beyond reasonable doubt, that is, proof that would move a reasonable, rational, logical-thinking person to be convinced about the truthfulness of the case being presented by the prosecution.

We all act on levels of proof in life and the standard is usually proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' or, to put it another way, proof to a high degree of probability.

Learn this neglected fact of life - absolute certainty in life is possible only in the area of mathematics or where God is sovereignly and totally in charge. Of everything else, we operate only a high degree of probability - beyond reasonable doubt.

decisions on probability

So whether it's an option to cross the road during busy traffic, marrying someone 'until death us do part', planning to go from point A to B via whatever means, we make our decisions on the basis of a high degree of probability.

That same yardstick has to be applied to our assessment of evidence for the existence of God. Is the evidence adequate to ground belief 'beyond reasonable doubt'? Is there evidence enough to conclude with a 'high degree of probability' that there is a God. Is God 'the best explanation' for nature and its complexities?

Let me quickly clear away some philosophical cobwebs from your minds. Since we are going to be arguing about cause and effect then at the very outset, let us understand another big basic fact of life.

If you concede as fact that something is there in the world, as opposed to nothing, then one entity in the universe must be eternal, uncaused - not self-caused, which is absurd - and possess within itself the causal explanation of everything else in the universe.

In philosophical terms we would say (contra Michael Dingwall) an infinite regress of existential (real) causes is nonsensical.

Appealing to chance as a key explanatory option re origins is useless. Though we tend to use the word 'chance' loosely, chance is not a substance or entity that can cause anything. Chance is not an entity with causal power. Chance is a non-entity, technically chance is no thing = nothing. Chance is a word we use when we mean to say 'not planned by anyone' e.g. 'we met by chance at the mall yesterday'. We do not mean, I hope, that the causative entity called 'chance' brought us together at the mall yesterday.

Prior to 1913 most, if not all astronomers, chose to believe that the universe was eternal, had no beginning, and that fact allowed for any possibility over time. Astronomer Vesto Slipher's 1913 discovery of galaxies rapidly moving away from the Earth was confirmed by Edwin Hubble in the late 1920s and this led to the realisation that the universe was expanding which also meant that the universe had a beginning.

one conclusion

Robert Jastrow, who professes to be an agnostic, said in his book, God and the Astronomers, "Five independent lines of evidence - the motion of the galaxies, the discovery of the primordial fireball, the law of thermodynamics, the abundance of helium in the universe and the life story of the stars - point to one conclusion; all indicate that the universe had a beginning." (1992 edition, 103)

Since the 1913 discovery by Slipher the Cosmic Background Explorer COBE satellite, in 1992, provided additional confirming information on the nature of the origin of the Universe. The satellite discovered background radiation from the universe's origin (= Jastrow's primordial fireball). The findings of the satellite attracted the attention of major newspapers and TV programmes across the world.

George Smoot, project leader for the COBE satellite and joint winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics, declared, "What we have found is evidence for the birth of the Universe ... If you're religious it's like looking at God."

So based on current scientific findings, it is no longer sensible to say what Carl Sagan said years ago, "The COSMOS is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be." Wrong, wrong, wrong.

There was a time when the universe was not and by the only logical option conceivable, a supreme mind/will was exercised to bring time and space into being. That supreme mind/will is the personal God, whom the Bible says repeatedly, transcends time and space and is the best explanation for the evidence that nature provides.

I highly recommend the DVD The Privileged Planet, Illustra Media for another line of this evidence from nature. This is just a thin slice of the proof for God from astrophysics. Microbiology and information science can also be called on as compelling witnesses.

The Rev Clinton Chisholm is the former senior pastor for the Phillippo Baptist Circuit of churches. He may be reached at clintchis@hotmail.com. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.