It has certainly been a long time since I last posted; and not without good reason – I've been rather busy with various things and have had hardly any long breaks that could have allowed me time to pen down my thoughts. Besides, this post, which I've long desired to write, needed much time to prepare. However, by the grace of God, I'm finally prepared to start writing this post of mine. Due to this post being extremely long however, those who know me personally may ask me for a soft copy of this post for easier reading if they so wish.
It's sad to see that there are so many who refuse to accept the existence of a God, or worse still, even consider its possibility when there are so many evidences in this world which points to one. Perhaps even more tragic are the excuses that many give which merely indicate their utter lack of interest or misinformed knowledge. It is thus my most sincere and humble desire that this post would cause you, the reader to at least start pondering about what is arguably the greatest question for us mortal and finite humans: Is there a God out there? And the question which follows after it: If there is a God, who exactly is He? Before I began, I must make a disclaimer that for the most part, the views expressed here are that of my own. Where exceptions arise, I shall so indicate. Although most of the views here are personal, the facts which I present are not so, and I certainly wouldn't dare take credit for them. I shall give appropriate references so that interested readers may, in their own time and convenience, read up on them. Finally, before we began, please, I beg you, do not dismiss this cynically for it is honestly something which I sincerely hope to share with you; and I pray that all which I write may be pleasing to God. Let us begin.
Psalms 19, verses 1 to 3:
'The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.' (King James Version)
In a somewhat more modern and readily understood version in modern English:
'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.' (New International Version)
As a young boy, I've always been amazed at the beauty of the universe. The countless stars that twinkle silently while hanging suspended in the night sky has always filled me with wonder. As I grew older and learnt of the vast expanse of space which lies beyond that which we call home and the countless stars which fill it, I was filled with awe at how great the universe is and at how insignificant we are compared to the whole of creation. I thought of the beauty of the nebulas in which countless stars much like our own are formed even today; and I hoped, somewhat naively, that I would one day be able to gaze at them with my naked eyes. As I grew even older, I wondered how things worked and how did this universe as we know it came into existence. And as I studied, I came to the realization, as many others have before me, that if this universe (more specifically, a universe capable of supporting life) came about only by random chance, then we have truly won the lottery of all time, one of unimaginable odds. And I reasoned that it is quite impossible, logically, for us to be so fortunate. Of course, the word 'unimaginable' is subjective. Thus, I shall now attempt to shed some light on why I've chosen to use such a word.
The accepted cosmological theory today regarding the beginning of our universe is the famous Big Bang theory. Despite it having serious problems (arising from the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity) in explaining the very, very early universe (from the birth till 10^-43 seconds after the bang), its description of all other subsequent events after the bang has been remarkably accurate and it can hardly be doubted that all which it subsequently describes are true. Some of the verifications of the Big Bang theory include the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) and the accurate prediction of the relative abundance of light elements formed during the period of primordial nucleosynthesis between a hundredth of a second and a few minutes after the bang.
Big Bang hypothesized that the universe began in a fiery explosion of energy (essentially, pure energy takes the form of electromagnetic radiation, of which visible light is a part of. However, because of the high energy content here, the radiation is of incredibly high frequency as compared to that of visible light which we are much more familiar with) and spacetime. The energy then subsequently cooled down to condense into matter after the fashion of Einstein's famous equation of E = mc^2 and photons, (the smallest bundle of light energy which exhibit particle-like properties) which were free to roam around the expanding universe. As the universe expanded, its temperature cooled, not too unlike how a compressed aerosol can cools when you release its compressed contents. Physicists thus predicted that the present day universe ought to have a temperature of around 2 – 3 degrees above absolute zero, and hence, the CBR ought to reflect this by having the radiation spectrum characteristic of a black body which has a temperature of 2 – 3 degrees above absolute zero. (For interested readers, you may wish to read up on black body radiation, first discovered by Max Planck. It can be easily found in most, modern physics textbooks). Subsequent measurement by NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite in the early 1990s, have allowed physicists to confirm, with high precision, that this is indeed the case with our universe. Currently, our universe is about 2.7 degrees above absolute zero, and we are bathed in a sea of low energy photons that is responsible for the static noises one hears on a radio when it is not tuned to any station. Score one for the Big Bang theory.
According to nuclear theory and thermodynamics, it is possible for physicists to predict that about 23 percent of the universe should be composed of helium. Amazingly, measurements of the relative abundance of helium in stars and nebulae have confirmed their predictions. Of greater significance is the prediction and subsequent confirmation of the relative deuterium abundance in our universe since there is essentially no astrophysical process, other than the big bang, that can account for its small but definite presence throughout the cosmos. 'The confirmation of these abundances, and more recently that of lithium, is a sensitive test of our understanding of early universe physics back to the time of their primordial synthesis. This is impressive almost to the point of hubris. All the data we possess confirm a theory of cosmology capable of describing the universe from about a hundredth of a second after the bang to the present, some 15 billion years later.' – Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe, Chapter 14, Pg 349. Score two.
It is beyond the scope of this post to elaborate on the other experimental confirmations of the Big Bang, but I hope to have impressed upon you that there is little doubt in the accuracy of the Big Bang theory; at least in the description of events after 10^-43 seconds after the bang. We can thus quite safely say that the events which it describes after the initial 10^-43 seconds are facts. Indeed, the scientific community has little doubt in them. Well then, one might now quite impatiently ask: 'Just what exactly is so unimaginable about the universe being created by random chance?'
It is unimaginable for quite a number of reasons. When the universe was created, it was an explosion of pure energy in the form of highly energetic photons. A photon (energy) 'decomposes' into matter by transforming into a pair of matter and anti-matter particle. The problem is: when matter and anti-matter meets, they annihilate to form photons. Therefore, the universe today should logically just consist of pure energy since all the matter and anti-matter particles produced as the universe cooled ought to have annihilated each other. However, there has evidently been an instability of some sorts which has allowed for all the matter which one sees today to have formed. To this date, no one knows why the universe has something rather than nothing. All we know is that there is something because we're here today contemplating the why. Physicists have however, been able to extrapolate the scale of the instability. And it is incredibly small. Out of 1 000 000 000 (a billion) antimatter particles, they were 1 000 000 001 (a billion and one) matter particles created. From that one extra matter particle in every billion pair, comes all the matter than one sees in the universe today.
It is also nothing short of a miracle how atoms (and hence matter as we know it today in the everyday sense of the word) could have even formed. At the heart of an atom is its nucleus which consists of protons and neutrons, although in the simplest of atoms, the hydrogen atom, there is only one proton in its nucleus. However, in all other heavier elements, there is more than one proton in their nuclei. Protons, being positively charged, repel each other. As an analogy, try getting 2 like poles of 2 different magnets to come close together and I'm sure you'll understand the difficulty involved in trying to hold an intact nucleus together. However, the strong nuclear force holds the nucleus together in a very delicate manner. Delicate, because if it had been even slightly weaker, heavier elements which have more than one proton in their nuclei couldn't have formed since the strong force within their nuclei wouldn't be able to overcome the repulsive force of the electrically positive protons (A point to note here: more protons means a greater total repulsive force, but also a greater total attractive force since each proton (and neutron) contributes to the strong force. This explains why heavier elements with more protons can still form). If the above was indeed the case with our universe, then our universe could only consist of hydrogen atoms, wiping out almost all possibility of life (in fact, if I were less cautious, I would say all since while it may be possible for there to be alternative biochemistries not based on carbon, it is virtually ridiculous to suggest that life could originate from only one element – hydrogen). On the other hand, had it been only slightly stronger (2% according to John D. Barrow, Frank J. Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 322), hydrogen would have fused into an unstable form of helium (diproton), drastically altering the history of the universe.
And there's more to come. The initial mass/energy of the creation and the strength of the gravitational force play a big part in deciding the fate of the universe. If the initial burst of energy was too powerful or the gravitational force to weak, the universe would have expanded too fast for gravity to cause hydrogen to coalesce and form stars and galaxies. The universe would then be a very cold, big and empty place. On the other hand, had the initial burst of energy been too little or the gravitational force too strong, the universe would have re-collapsed on itself. 'If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million (100 000 000 000 000 000), the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size' – Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Pg 138.
Even the rest mass of elementary particles like protons, electrons and neutrons seem extraordinarily fine-tuned. Nature tends to favor low energy states, as such, should the combined rest mass of protons and electrons be significantly larger than the rest mass of neutrons, protons and electrons would combine to form more 'stable', lower energy neutrons. Such a universe would consist of nothing but neutron particles zooming about aimlessly. On the flip side, if the combined rest mass of protons and electrons be significantly lower than the rest mass of neutrons, neutrons will rarely be formed and any neutrons formed will quickly decay into protons and electrons. This poses a problem because as noted above, neutrons, which contribute to the total strength of the strong force holding nuclei together, are essential to the formation of heavier elements. Happily for us however, the rest mass of a proton, neutron and electron are 938.28 MeV, 939.57 MeV, and 0.51 MeV respectively (in subatomic physics, mass is commonly measured as a unit of energy since energy is mass and it's more convenient to measure it in terms of energy). As one can see, the 'coincidence' is quite remarkable. Indeed, 'as things stand, the neutron is just heavy enough to ensure that the Big Bang would yield one neutron to every seven protons, allowing for an abundant supply of hydrogen for star fuel and enough neutrons to build up the heavier elements in the universe' - John Barrow and Frank Tepler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Pg 371.
The formation of carbon, of which the biochemistry of all life here on Earth is based on, is highly dependent on certain 'quirky' properties of nature. Carbon, like all other heavier elements, are formed in the core of stars, not too different from our sun; and hence the popular saying that we are all literally the children of stars. Hydrogen, being the simplest element, was about the only element present after the bang. As gravity caused the massive clouds of hydrogen gas to clump and compress together, their temperatures increased, much like how pumping air into a tire causes the tire to feel warm to the touch. Gradually, the temperature increased to a point whereby it was sufficiently hot for nuclear fusion to take place within the core of a star. Here, hydrogen nuclei which smash into each other with sufficient energy can overcome the electrostatic repulsion caused by their positively charged nuclei to fuse together, and through a series of reaction, form a helium nucleus. Nuclear fusion gives off massive amounts of energy primarily in the form of highly energetic gamma rays which heat up the interior of the star and prevent it from collapsing under its own weight. Due to the heat generated, nuclear fusion, once started, is a self-sustaining reaction provided there is ample fuel. As the hydrogen fuel is burnt up, helium soon replaces hydrogen as the primary element present within a star. Once there is insufficient hydrogen burning to keep the star from collapsing on itself, it will once again undergo compression under its own gravitational force, causing temperature within its core to once again soar until it reaches a high enough temperature for helium fusion to commence. One of the primary products of helium fusion is, as you might have guessed, carbon-12, the element on which all of our biochemistries here on Earth are based on. The formation of carbon-12 from the fusion of helium nuclei is a 2 step reaction. When 2 helium nuclei fuse together, they form a highly unstable product, beryillum-8. This is a reversible reaction since beryillum-8 is, as mentioned previously, highly unstable. However, as the core of the star until to collapse under its own weight, the temperature eventually reaches a point whereby the rate of the forward reaction (helium fusing into beryllium) rivals and even overtake the rate of the reverse reaction (beryllium decaying back into helium). Thus, there will always be small amounts of beryillum-8 within the core to react with another helium nucleus to form the stable carbon-12. However, the probability of this reaction would have been extremely low if not for a rather strange coincidence in nature. It should have been extremely low because the half-life of beryillum-8 is astoundingly short. For carbon-12 to be formed from beryillum-8, the beryillum-8 nuclei has to, within 0.0000000000000001 seconds, collide with another helium nuclei with sufficient energy to form carbon-12. Yet, by an odd coincidence, if it indeed be coincidence, the energy of the reacting nuclei (beryillum-8 and helium-4) is exquisitely equal to the energy of carbon-12 in its excited state. This results in a resonance which greatly increases the probability of the reaction. A similar resonance present in the first step of the reaction further boosts the probability of the entire reaction. Indeed, it is sufficiently astounding that Sir Fred Hoyle, who first studied this reaction as an atheist remarked the following: 'A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question' – Fred Hoyle, The Universe: Past and Present Reflections, Engineering and Science, November 1981, pg 8-12.
Related to the above paragraph on nuclear fusion reactions within stars is the delicate fine-tuning of the relative strengths of the electromagnetic and gravitational force in our universe. The rate of nuclear fusion reactions within stars is highly dependent on the relative strength of these 2 forces. Gravitational strength affects how much the stars compress and is hence related to the temperature within the core. The higher the temperature, the more energetic the nuclei would be and the more likely they will fuse. The electromagnetic repulsion of one nucleus to another however, prevents the fusing. For fusion to take place, 2 nuclei must come sufficiently close to each other. And hence, their kinetic energy, which is dependent on the temperature and hence the gravitational strength, must be sufficient to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion. 'If this ratio of strengths were altered to 10^32 instead of 10^38 (meaning that gravity is stronger or the electromagnetic force is weaker), stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster' - John Leslie, Universes (New York: Routledge,1989), Pg 36-39. At first glance, this might not seem to be much of a problem. However, if stars were to burn much faster, there will be insufficient time for planets capable of supporting life like earth to form, and hence life would never have formed.
I hope to have impressed upon you by now just how remarkable and 'unimaginable' the odds are; and I've hardly scratched the tip of the iceberg. Entire papers have been written at how fine-tuned the universe is and the above are but a few points. Furthermore, if one considers that our carbon-based biochemistry is the only possible way which life could have formed, then it is even more remarkable how life could have formed on earth since the formation of an earth capable of supporting carbon-based life is another set of ridiculous odds. The above are scientific facts, obtained through rigorous experiments and peer reviewed. While there may be many that disagree on the interpretation of the data, there is no disagreement that the universe in which we inhabit is delicately and exquisitely fine-tuned for life to form. As Freeman Dyson, a distinguished English-born American theoretical physicist puts it in Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Pg 318: "The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming".
Before we go on however, I would like to quote a verse, written more than a thousand years ago, before modern science was even conceived.
Romans 1:18-19
'Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse'. (King James Version)
Now that we know the universe is delicately and exquisitely fine-tuned for life, we can begin to ponder about its interpretation. Let us attempt to approach it rationally; the approach most atheists prefer. One of the explanations commonly given for the happy coincidences observed in our universe is that the Big Bang is not a onetime event. There are theories in which our universe is within another universe in which 'baby' universes are constantly being created with different physical constants and even perhaps, different physical laws. Our universe is hence not uniquely tuned to life; out of the infinitely many 'baby' universes created, one just happened to have the right conditions for life to form and thus we are here today, contemplating the why. It may be that these theories are true, and it may be that they aren't. There is just simply no way to proof it because all our scientific observations and tools are limited to within our own universe. We cannot, so to speak, see outside our own universe. If one wants to believe that this theory is true, than one can only accept it on complete, absolute blind faith since there is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, that can support it.
Another explanation given for the coincidences is that we're simply plain lucky. Never mind that the possibility is extremely small and 'the precision as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side' (Michael Turner - University of Chicago). Theoretically, it is possible that we could be that lucky; logically however, it is pretty much next to impossible (remember that the low probability is due to the quirky nature of the very laws and constants of our universe, things which are inherent to its very fabric. Since there is only one big bang (there would be absolutely no way of knowing if there was more than one bang as explained above), the universe would have to get everything right on its first and only shot).
The last explanation is that this universe in which we inhabit is not created by accident, but rather, was designed by a designer. If there is indeed a designer, then He must necessarily be outside of this universe in order to have created it. To paraphrase C.S Lewis, if there indeed is a designer, then He cannot be in this universe any more than how an architect can be part of the house (like for example, a wall) he designed. Well, if that be the case, than as with the theory of multi-universes, we would be unable to find any scientific evidences for it. Does this condemn us to choose only the second explanation that we are extremely lucky? Not quite. There is a subtle but yet significant difference between theories of multi-universes and explanations of a divine designer being involved: explanations of a divine designer being involved have been around for centuries whereas theories of multi-universes came about only after the inability of the Big Bang to explain the seemingly quirky nature and beginning of our universe became apparent. At this, you might argue that the reason for the former being existent since time immemorial is due to us humans often making the mistake of ascribing that which we do not know to the realm of the supernatural. It is certainly true that many of us have made that mistake and still do even to this day (and I pray that I've not made that mistake anywhere in this article). Yet, there are few religions in the world that actually expound an intelligent designer or give an account of the beginnings of the universe. Those who ascribe that which they do not understand to the supernatural often come out with a faith with many deities responsible for different unexplained phenomenon. Take for example Greek mythology with its many gods and legends and the direction from which I'm coming from becomes evident. The reason for this correlation is simple: the ancients who do not understand the causes of various natural phenomenon ascribe them to the actions of human-like (or in certain cases, personified inanimate objects or animals) deities whose behaviors and actions are familiar to them. But what about a faith which describes a one and only Creator (which in almost all practicality means an Abrahamic faith since almost all other major religions in the world which are not Abrahamic are polytheistic) who created all which is seen and unseen? Was it 'created' by ancients to explain away that which they could not comprehend? More specifically, is the God described by, for example, the Holy Bible, someone whom the ancients created to make sense of the world about them? To answer this question, one would have to at least read through some portions of the bible. Yet, the answer to this question is not too difficult to arrive at. If anyone were to pick up a bible and read it, he/she will soon come to the conclusion that whoever the author of the bible may be, he/she is certainly not the least concerned with explaining any form of natural phenomenon. Indeed, one would be hard pressed to find any form of explanation whatsoever on any natural phenomenon in the bible. Even in the first chapter of Genesis, it merely describes the formation of the universe. I dare say that in nowhere has the author of the bible ever attempted to explain to us the workings of the universe in the scientific sense. Thus, we can put to rest the claim that an Abrahamic faith was created by the ancients to explain away that which they do not comprehend. With that claim put to rest, we can then proceed to compare between the explanation given by an Abrahamic faith and the explanations given by theories of multi-universes on the birth of the universe.
As previously noted, there is no way in which we can scientifically prove either explanation. However, the subtle difference between the two is that an Abrahamic faith, at its core, does not attempt to explain the birth of the universe. Rather, its explanation is a 'side-effect' of its claim of a God who is the Creator of the heavens and of the earth; a God who is the designer of this world. If an Abrahamic faith's core business is not to explain the birth of the universe (as the core business of a multi-universe theory is), then what exactly is it concerned about? A quick cursory glance at the texts of Abrahamic faiths will quickly show that they are concerned about, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, us humans. On the one hand, we have theories of multi-universes whose authenticity we have absolutely no way to prove (scientific or otherwise); on the other hand, we have Abrahamic faiths which have had a long history and texts from which we may use to judge their reliability. At this juncture, you are probably bristling with objections. After all, even if the texts are absolutely accurate in that which they describe (us in general), it by no means provide any assurance that they will be entirely accurate. It may well be that despite them being entirely accurate in that which they mainly describe (us), there are portions of it which are erroneous (like for example, there being a God who created the world). You are certainly well within your rights to make such an objection; however, I submit to you that making such assumptions are not as illogical and/or uncommon as you might think.
To prove this assertion of mine, I'm afraid that I'll have to take you through a brief trip in scientific history. Ever since the advent of modern science, numerous theories have been formulated and successfully tested out by vigorous experiments. The use of mathematics in describing the natural world has been nothing short of a stunning success. Indeed, it has been so successful that there are some who now question the unreasonable effectiveness of it. After all, mathematics is a logical and ordered science; nature, by comparison, is random and disordered. The underlying ordered laws of the universe beneath the apparent random and disordered world which we live in is something which continues to amaze scientists. However, this amazement is becoming more than just awe; it is becoming a guiding rod for physicists as they probe deeper into nature's mysteries. Theorists and experimenters have always worked in tandem since the birth of science. The latter gives the former much needed feedback to correct their theories and to point their advance towards the correct direction. However, as theoretical physics (especially in the fields of superstring, super symmetry and other viable theories of everything) becomes increasingly advanced, our existing technology is unable to keep up. In short, the experimenters now do not have the means to experimentally verify the predictions of new (superstring and super symmetry) theories; a key requirement for any new theory to be accepted. Without experimental confirmations to guide their paths, superstring and super symmetry theorists are now left to tread the unknowns blindly; and it is here where one sees that even physicists who are arguably among the most logical and rational of all people, subscribe to the assumption which I proposed in the above paragraph (that if many portions of a text is true, then it is likely that the whole text is true). Bereft of aid from experiments, theorists use all their prior experience that the universe has, beneath its random and disordered appearance, elegant and symmetric laws to guide their advance into the unknown. Every day, thousands of physicists, with nothing much left to guide them, use the assumption that because nature's laws are always elegant and orderly, the new theories which they are creating should also reflect elegance and an over-arching unity throughout the universe. Does the reliance on such assumptions by physicists justify it? No, it certainly does not. However, I merely wish to point out that such faith in a pattern is not uncommon, but rather, quite prevalent in not only science, but everyday life.
Assuming that you are able to swallow the above pill of making such an assumption, we are now faced with the challenge of choosing which Abrahamic text to scrutinize. Before we go any further however, let us recall that we have agreed at how exquisitely fine-tuned our universe is. Of the 3 possible explanations for this fine-tuning, we are now trying to compare the theories of multi-universes with that of a divine Creator being involved. We have recognized that there is no way, scientific or otherwise, to prove the theories of multi-universes; however, while there is also no way to scientifically prove the existence of a divine Creator, we can, from the religious texts of various religions, judge if they are true on the basis of the assumption that if the majority of a text is true, then it is likely that the entire text is true. Also, we have narrowed down the religions to be examined by cancelling out all polytheistic religions (which are mostly pagan and do not have an account of the creation of the universe), leaving us with mainly the Abrahamic faiths. The Abrahamic faiths include: Judaism, Christianity, Islam; and arguably, Baha'i and Druze. However, out of these 5 faiths, only the texts of Judaism and Christianity offer an account on the creation of the universe. By default then, the other 3 are irrelevant. We are thus now left with Judaism and Christianity, both of which are closely related. In fact, the text of Judaism, the Torah, is a subset of the text of Christianity, the Holy Bible. Indeed, Genesis 1, the chapter which describes the formation of the universe, is found on the first page of both texts. For our purposes of comparing the explanations of the theories of multi-universes and the explanation of a divine Creator being involved in the creation of the universe, it does not matter whether the Torah or the Holy Bible is used since they are both describing the same Creator in identical chapters of Genesis. In this instance, we shall use the Holy Bible as the text to be scrutinized.
The Holy Bible consists of 66 books and can, in large print, be thousands of pages long. It would be near impossible for us to scrutinize a majority of the text here. There is no easy way out, I'm afraid. If you wish to pursue this argument in its entirety, you will have to read the entire bible. However, what I hope to have achieved by now is to at least arouse your curiosity in this matter and to have pointed to you the correct direction for further reading. Still, to prevent you from labeling me as a cheat of your time, I shall help you in your scrutiny of some verses by quoting some of them below as food for your thought; and hopefully, these will serve to lead you on to further read the bible.
Romans 3:10
'As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one' (King James Version)
Ecclesiastes 7:20
'For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.' (KJV)
Romans 7:15
'For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.' (KJV)
'I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.' (New International Version)
If one were to be honest with oneself, the truth of the above 3 verses becomes painfully evident. 'That which I do' in Romans 7:15 (KJV), when read in its context, was meant to mean the sins which we always seem to commit, the things which we do to hurt others and God. 'What I would' in Romans 7:15 (KJV), when read in context of the passage, refers to the kind deeds that we know we ought to do but almost always fail to. Have you ever felt helpless in being unable to not do something which when done makes you feel guilty? Or have you sometimes felt this sense of emptiness within you that Ecclesiastes 1:2-8 and 11 below describes?
'Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth forever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. All things are full of labor; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing nor the ear filled with hearing.'
'There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.'
Perhaps somewhat more intriguing are the prophecies that the bible contains. One of which that can be most clearly seen as being fulfilled today is the re-birth of the state/nation of Israel. Recorded and spoken of by Jesus himself in Luke 21:24, 'And they (the Israelites) shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled'. There can be no historical doubt that Jesus died before the Israelites were utterly scattered in AD 73 after the last Jewish resistance was crushed by Roman forces at the mountain fortress of Masada. Neither can it be doubted that he died before AD 1948 when the modern state of Israel came into existence and survived against all odds; implying that the statement was certainly a prophecy. No other ethnic group has ever been scattered all over the world only to regroup as a national state in their original land thousands of years later. There was absolutely no basis for Jesus to believe that the Israelites could pull off such a stunt; after all, no one has ever done it before. Nonetheless, he predicted the above with boldness and today, we are left only to marvel at the stunning truth in His words.
At this point in time, it is perfectly understandable if you remain skeptical that the bible is true; after all, these verses can hardly be said to represent the majority of the bible. For one to accept that the bible is entirely true one has to first accept that the majority of the bible is amazingly accurate; and hence, by reason of the assumption spoken of earlier, it is entirely true. And there is no way that you can judge for yourself whether the majority of the bible is accurate until you have picked up one for yourself to read. Therefore, here is my challenge to you that have followed me thus far into this article: read the bible and judge for yourself its content.
As I draw near to the close of this article, let us recall that there are 3 possible explanations to this exquisitely fine-tuned universe (of which there is no dispute) in which we are living in. The first of which is that there were multiple bangs and hence multiple universes. Many universes with various different laws and natural constants are constantly being created. We aren't lucky or special; we just happen to be in a universe that is tuned to supporting life. The second explanation would be that we are simply just plain ridiculously lucky. And finally, the third explanation is that there is a Creator who designed this universe and us.
We thus see that a belief in atheism requires one to either believe in explanation number one or two. If an atheist believes in explanation two, he/she has to illogically believe in impossibly small odds because one is required to believe that this exquisitely fine-tuned universe in which we live in came about by pure chance. As stressed earlier in the article, this fine-tuning is inherent to the very laws and fabric of our universe. It is manifested immediately at the moment of the bang. Since there is only one bang (there is absolutely no way that we can know if there were more than one since there is no way that our scientific measurements can look out of our universe. One has to rely on absolute blind faith to say that there was more than one bang), the universe had only one chance to get everything right at its first attempt. This accounts for its impossibly small probability; but an impossibly small probability alone does not make an atheist who believes in it illogical. He/she is being illogical because he/she is refusing to accept the other possible explanation that there is a Creator who designed the world; an explanation which has a much higher probability of being true because if there is Creator, everything else falls neatly into place. On the other hand, if as he/she believes that there is no Creator, even if one parameter of the universe falls into place, there are still many that has to fall into place for it to work. To paraphrase John Leslie, suppose an individual faces a shooting squad of a 100 top marksmen and the order for the execution is given. To the surprise of everyone at the scene, all the 100 marksmen missed their target which was but a mere 20 meters (anyone who has ever fired a decent rifle will know that one has to be monumentally gifted to miss a man size target at 20 meters) away from them. Would you then, rationally conclude that the guilty man was ridiculously lucky or would you infer then that there is a conspiracy among the shooters to let the guilty go unpunished? On the other extreme, if an atheist believes in explanation one, then he/she simply believes it on absolute blind faith alone since there is no way anyone can, by scientific means or otherwise, prove it. Again, it is rather illogical to choose explanation one over explanation three in this case because although the existence of a Creator also cannot be scientifically proven as well, there is at least another means by which to judge its reliability: reading the bible.
Given the difficulty that an atheist faces in substantiating his/her point of view, it might be easier to be an agnostic. However, if you have kept with me to this point, I'm reasonably sure that you're not just content to accept the answer that there can be no answer. Curiosity and the desire to know more is surely the bane of a mild agnostic viewpoint. Or perhaps you think there might or might not be a God, but that His existence does not matter a lot to you. Take up my challenge and read the bible. See for yourself if there is indeed a God, and find out for yourself just who He is. You might of course ask the question: "Why Christianity?" Well, firstly, it's a monotheistic religion. Polytheistic religions are often the result of an over-active human imagination; if there's going to be a Creator of the universe it seems to me that He has to be the one and only God. If He wasn't, then someone else had to have created Him and hence, He wouldn't be the Creator.
Secondly, it is the only religion in the world whereby a person actually claims to be the Son of God and that no one else can go to the Father except through Him. You realize of course, that this is an enormous, almost preposterous claim. In all honesty, it is indeed, and one which ultimately cost Him His life. It is so preposterous that in all the religions in the world, Christianity is the only unique one that has someone claiming that He is God.
Thirdly, the historicity of the bible can hardly be doubted. The bible contains scores upon scores of historical records that can and has been cross referenced against secular historical records with amazing accuracy. The historicity of ancient documents is judged using various measures; one of which measures the time elapsed between the writing and the event being described. Obviously, the shorter the time elapsed, the better the historicity of the document. Compared to most other historical documents that are typically written hundreds of years after the event in ancient times, the bible is astoundingly accurate in that most of the writings in the New Testament were written less than a hundred years after the events. In certain cases, they were written a mere 20-30 years after the event. Another measure includes the number of reliable, early manuscript produced. As in the previous case, the bible beats all other ancient historical documents hands down on this measure. Indeed, as F. F Bruce has written, 'The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar.' (F. F Bruce, The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable?)
Fourthly, Christianity is the only unique religion in the world which teaches that God actually reaches down to us humans. In all other moralistic religions, humans are always taught to 'earn' their way into heaven by doing good deeds. However, Christianity is unique in that it is the one and only religion whereby God Himself actually came down onto earth to die as a human being so that we may be saved and be with Him in heaven. One might ask if such an act was truly necessary. Yet, the answer to such a question can perhaps be best answered by each and every one of us as we search deep into our own hearts. Unique to us humans is perhaps the existence of what C.S Lewis calls the Moral Law. It is that deep silent voice within all of us humans that seem to point to something greater. Why do we feel guilty when we have done something which we instinctively know to be wrong? This wrong might not be noticed by anyone else but us; nevertheless, that guilty pang continues to nag at our heart. Take for example a student contemplating cheating. He has yet to commit the wrong, however, the very thought of cheating feels him with guilt. This should not be confused with the fear of being caught. The fear might or might not exist depending on the student's prior experience; the guilt however is present regardless of his prior experience. Even when he has successfully committed the act without being caught, he still feels guilty for it. Why? Or have you ever wondered why do we have this innate altruistic desire to make a positive difference in another person's life, to make another person smile? Some have attributed this to evolutionary pressures. However, evolution does little to account for true altruism. True altruism is the selfless giving of oneself for another without expecting any return. Consider the following scenario: You see a man drowning in a pool. You're not exactly a strong swimmer, but yet, the Moral Law compels you to save him. Why? And how can evolution account for it? Think about it personally. If you were in that situation, would you save him because you want to save his life, or would you save him because you think that by saving him, he might one day save your life too? It is of no evolution benefit for us to risk saving another person of the same gender. Yet, the inner voice deep within us urges us to do it. You argue perhaps, that there are indirect evolutionary benefits for the practitioner of altruism. However, that does not explain away the innate desire for us to do the small acts of kindness that goes unnoticed. Still others have persisted by arguing that there are evolutionary group benefits of altruism. However, that too does not hold water. Let us further extend our previous thought experiment involving the drowning man. For evolutionary group benefits of altruism to work, it would require an opposite response of hostility to those outside the group. Therefore, if evolution was right, then if the drowning man was an enemy outside of my group, I should ignore his dire pleas for help. Strangely though, the Moral Law continues to insist that we save him. Why? Clearly, this Moral Law is not due to evolutionary pressure. If it is not due to evolutionary pressures, then is this Moral Law universal to all human beings? Many have argued that morality is relative; relative depending on the culture that one was brought up in. Nevertheless, as C.S Lewis has found out, that is simply not true. '(that morality is relative is) a lie, a good resounding lie. If a man will go into a library and spend a few days with the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, he will soon discover the massive unanimity of the practical reason in man. From the Babylonian Hymn to Samos, from the laws of Manu, the Book of the Dead, the Analects, the Stoics, the Platonists, from Australian aborigines and Redskins, he will collect the same triumphantly monotonous denunciations of oppression, murder, treachery and falsehood; the same injunctions of kindness to the aged, the young, and the weak, of almsgiving and impartiality and honesty.' ("The Poison of Subjectivism", C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967 Pg 77) If morality is not of evolution, and is absolute and universal among human beings, then if we are honest with ourselves, it is a law with which we break frequently. But what implications does that have? Indeed, why does this make Jesus' sacrifice necessary? Well, if a God who created us placed such high standards of morality within us all, it is not difficult to infer that He is a righteous God who cannot bear our iniquities. And if we are honest with ourselves, we realize that we are so stained with wrongs that it becomes impossible for us to be reconciled to Him. Thus, His sacrifice is necessary to bring us to Him, because by our own power, we are unable to be righteous before Him.
Fifthly, of all the moralistic religions in which there is a Judgment day whereby God judges and holds everyone accountable for their deeds, Christianity is the only religion that can claim to have a fair judge because God the judge, came down to earth Himself as a human to face the very same trials and temptations as us; but despite facing the same temptations as us, he did not succumb to any of them. We are thus robbed of the defense that God does not know what it feels like to be a human facing the trials that we faced here on earth.
The list goes on. However, I would like to close here with one last point with regards to 'Why Christianity?' Above all, Christianity is a religion in which God wants to have a personal relationship with us as individuals. At its heart, it is all about that personal relationship between you and God, your heavenly Father. Have you ever wondered why is there this desire to love and to be loved deep down within you? One might argue that this is once again, a product of evolution. But is it really? How many times in this article has evolution been shown to be erroneous? Ultimately, you will always need to make that leap of faith to believe in Him. But I sincerely hope that this article will serve to make you want to find out more about Him. Read the bible and judge for yourself. In closing, I would like to leave you, the reader who has faithfully stayed with me thus far, with a few verses.
Matthew 7:7-11
'Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?'
Seek Him with a sincere heart and attitude, and you'll find Him closer than you think He is. You might not find Him immediately, but persist and you'll find Him. Give yourself a chance; read and find out more about Him, because ultimately, you have to make that personal decision. And do not by troubled by Genesis 1 whereby God created the world in 6, literal, 24 hours day. Modern science is not incompatible with Christianity. Indeed, as the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 6:20-21 to Timothy, 'O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.' It is however, beyond the scope of this article to discuss how Genesis 1 can be compatible with modern science. I shall do so in another article when time permits. Till then, please, do make an effort to read and judge for yourself the bible.
