More New Earths?

"Scientists say life may have already evolved on at least three of the planets."

Every time they announce that new "Earth-like" planets have been discovered, it is the same thing over and over again.

The headlines claim that three of the planets orbiting TRAPPIST-1 "could support alien life." But looking closer, the only reason they say that is because these planets might have temperatures that would keep water in liquid form--if they have water. Then the assumption is that since Earth isn't anything special (assumption), life must spring up fairly easily when there is liquid water (assumption).

The vast majority of planets that have been discovered elsewhere are "Hot Jupiters" i.e., enormous gas giants orbiting extremely close to their star, with no solid surface and temperatures that would make life impossible. So when the articles say that these planets are "just like earth" it is only by comparison to these Hot Jupiters.

The planets around TRAPPIST-1 are similar to Earth in mass, but still very different from Earth. Here are a few of the differences: 

1. They orbit a very small "ultra cool dwarf star" about 11% the radius of our yellow Sun. 
2. These planets are tidally locked to the star, meaning that one side of the planet always faces the star and the other side always faces away. This means that one side would be extremely hot and the other extremely cold. The only place liquid water might exists would be on the thin strip between the two halves. 
3. The three planets that could maintain liquid water (e, f, and g) are extremely close to their star. The closest is only 2.8% of the distance from its star that Earth is from the Sun. The furthers of the three is 4.5% the distance of the Earth from the Sun. This means they would be much more susceptible to solar flares and radiation. 
4. These planets orbit their star every 6-12 days. That is a very short year!

Also remember that any pictures you see of these planets are artist interpretations. We do not have actual photographs of these planets. The planets are detected by noticing the dimming of the star as the planets block some of the light when they orbit in front of it. The pictures--like the NASA illustration above--may show oceans, but those are from the artist rather than evidence.

I wrote an article on this several years ago about another planet they claimed was "just like Earth." Most of what I wrote applies to these new planets as well. The one big difference is that at the time they had only discovered about 500 planets outside our solar system. Now, the number is about 3,500. However, of the 3,500 they only think that maybe 22 do not already have the possibility of supporting life ruled out. That about half of 1%. For the other 99.4% they know there isn't the slightest chance.

I love these scientific discoveries, but what they tell me is that Earth is much more special than we assume.

Designed by an Idiot

If you look carefully at the car in this picture you will notice that it contains major design flaws. There are several. You might not be an engineer, so I will point them out to you:

• Notice the front, driver-side wheel. The way that it is bent down on an angle is a major design flaw. That is going to be terrible for gas mileage. It will also affect handling and give uneven wear on the tire. Ideally, all wheels should be straight. 

• The windshield on this car will provide terrible visibility. It will also provide less protection than if the windshield had been designed as one piece of solid glass.   

• The driver-side door also has major problems. The concave design is bad for wind resistance. It is also makes it difficult for the driver to get in and out of the car easily. 

Okay, enough pretending. Obviously this car has been in an accident. However, if somehow I actually thought that this car rolled off the assembly line in this condition, I could only conclude that the car was designed by an idiot.

There are people who make this same mistake when they look at the world we live in. The look around and they see sickness, and earthquakes, and violence. They conclude that there simply can’t be a perfect God who designed this world.

We live in a world of conflicting data. When we look at the world, it is obvious that there are things that point to its design. Even looking at the crashed car, a person can tell that certain parts were designed to fulfill certain purposes. The car was in an accident, but it wasn’t the result of an accident. It wasn’t put together by a tornado in a junkyard. There might even be some parts of the car that still work.

In our world we see a combination of design and disaster. There is beauty and there is ugliness. The world is finely tuned to support life. Statistically, we should be shocked that there is even one planet in the universe that is able to support life. When we think of our bodies, we should be amazed that they work even half as good as they do. But other people look at the world and see all of the things that are badly bent out of shape and ask why would God do that? 

Why do I have this sickness? Why did my family fall apart? Why are there birth defects and diseases if there is a God? Why did my friend die? Many people look at the disorder in the world and conclude that there simply can’t be a God. It just would not make sense. 

In fact, this was one of the motivating factors that caused Charles Darwin reject God and develop his theory of evolution. Nature was red in tooth and claw. In a letter, Darwin wrote:

“There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designed and created the Ichneumonidae [parasidic wasp] with the expressed intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that the cat should play with mice.”

Darwin saw too much pain and misery in the world to believe that it was designed by a good and all-powerful God.

There were many people in Darwin’s day who argued for the existence of God based on design. If you walk along the beach and find a watch, you can look at its parts and conclude that it was designed and thus that there was a Designer. But Darwin and others saw the flaws and reached the opposite conclusion. Darwin looked at the pain and suffering in the world and concluded that it could not be the work of a competent Designer. 

The problem was that people had forgotten the Biblical storyline. Creation, Fall, Redemption…

Deistic arguments from design failed because they didn’t take into account the Biblical narrative. And because of that failure there were unable to explain the real world that confronts us. We exist in a world that appears to contain both unfathomable design as well as unexplainable chaos.  Biblical Christianity is able to explain what other worldviews cannot. In fact, this world is exactly the one we would expect if Biblical Christianity is true. 

According to the Biblical story this world was designed and created by God. God is perfect in goodness and unlimited in power and wisdom. When the world that God created rolled off of the assembly line, it was in pristine condition. God inspected His handiwork and certified it as “good” (Genesis 1:31). 

Yet as soon as God handed over the keys of creation we proceeded to drive it directly into a tree. 

Our first parents rebelled against God and in doing so plunged God’s good creation into ruin. This is what we call “the fall.” Since the event of the fall in Genesis 3, this world has been a different place. There is still evidence of design, but the creation is horribly damaged. Romans 5 tells us that because of one man’s sin, death spread to all men. Romans 8:19-21 describes the created order as now being “subjected to frustration” and in “bondage to decay” because of the fall. Although God had created the world as "very good" things are no longer the way they were. 

The car was designed well, but it was in an accident. That’s the world we live in. 

If you don’t realize that, you might say to yourself, Why is my body such a disappointment if I am designed by God? How can there be a God when my aunt or uncle died of cancer? How can there be a God when my family fights so much? If there is a God and things are designed this way, why aren’t my parents together? Why did the person I love die? Why do tsunamis kill thousands? Why is there so much hurt? Why is there so much pain? Why do I struggle with these temptations? Why would God design me with desires that I’m not supposed to have?  

The Bible explains why there are things that are beautiful. It explains why there are so many things that work wonderfully. It explains why we can even be here. The Biblical story also explains why there is disorder and death and cruelty and suffering. It explains the order as well as the disorder. 

God has made a way to fix this broken world. He did this by coming into this messed up world and fixing it from the inside out. By Christ’s perfect and life and death, He is able to make all things new.  

Evidence from Design in the Universe

Design points to a designer. If we see evidence of intelligent design in the universe, then the reasonable conclusion is that this evidence points to an intelligent designer. 

For example, if you see rocks scattered in a random pattern on a beach, you would not assume that someone arranged them.  If you saw that the rocks were arranged so that the smaller ones were closer to the water, and the bigger ones away from the water, you would assume that they had been washed to those places by the waves.  Again, this would not be an example of intelligent design.  However, if the rocks spelled out the words “Nate Archer was here” then you would conclude that someone must have arranged the rocks. 

When you see something that is complex that communicates specific information, you know it was caused by intelligent design.  Let me give you another example.  If you saw a rock formation that looked somewhat like a person, you would probably assume it was a coincidence.  However, if you saw a mountain that looked exactly like the heads of four U.S. presidents, you would never assume that it just happened by chance.  You would assume that someone designed it and made it that way on purpose. 

This isn't a "God of the gaps" argument; instead it is what is known as "inference to the best explanation." Even in the world's fallen state, I believe that when we look honestly at the world around us overwhelming design we see should push drive us to realize that there is something greater than an accident at work. 

We see amazing examples of design in the design of the universe and the planet earth as well as the design of life. There are great books that go into more detail about these examples of design, but here are a few samples about the design of the universe that impress me: 

The Design of the Universe

• The oxygen level on earth is 21%.  If the oxygen level was 25% fires would erupt spontaneously.  If the level was 15%, human beings would suffocate.
• According to a UCLA research physicist, if the gravitational constant in the universe was different by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% our sun would not exist and neither would we.  To get an idea of how precise this is, imagine a radio dial that stretched across the entire universe.  This radio dial represents every possible value that the gravitational constant might have been.  If you moved the dial one inch to the right or one inch to the left, the universe would not be capable of sustaining life.   
• The fine-tuning of the cosmological constant has been called the single greatest problem facing physics and cosmology today.  The fine-tuning of the cosmological constant has been conservatively estimated to be at least one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion.  That is 10 followed by 53 zeros.  That would like throwing a dart at random from the far reaches of space and hitting a bull’s eyes on earth that is smaller than the size of an atom.
• Assuming the Big Bang, if the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, the universe would have stopped expanding and collapsed back in on itself before any stars had formed.  If the universe had expanded faster, no galaxies would have formed.
• There are many other factors that need to be just right for life to be possible, including the size of the earth, tilt of the earth, the distance of the earth from the sun, the right kind of star, the transparency of the atmosphere, the existence of the right kind of a moon, seismic activity, Jupiter, water vapor levels, and the list goes on.  Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated that there are 122 of these variables in all (and they are constantly finding more.)  Dr. Ross has calculated that the odds of any planet in the universe having all of these correct variables would be one chance in the number 1 with 138 zeros after it.  This is incredible when you consider that the number of atoms in the entire universe is only 1 with 70 zeros after it!  (And remember, each zero makes the number ten times larger.)  The number of planets in the universe is only 1 with 22 zeros behind it.  Therefore, we would be absolutely shocked that there is even one single planet in the universe with all of the factors needed for life!

A hardcore skeptic might say that we shouldn’t be surprised at the odds because if life were impossible, we wouldn’t be here to notice. They often say that it would be like someone who was about to be killed by a firing squad but survived because all of the guns happened to jam.  The odds are bad for that to happen, but if it didn’t happen the man wouldn’t be around to notice. This is a poor example. If 19 guns jammed all at once, you would naturally assume that someone had sabotaged the guns… an act of design! If billions of guns jammed all at once, no one would assume that it was blind chance!

There are also massive amounts of evidence for design in the design of life. However, I will save that for another post. The design in the universe and the earth is enough to chew on for a while.

Consider these quotes: 

“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… I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama.”  -Paul Davis, prolific science writer and former professor of theoretical physics at University of Adelaide, Australia

 “I do not believe that any scientist who examines the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce in stars.”  -Sir Fred Hoyle, eminent astrophysicist

Even though our world is fallen and marred because of sin, I don’t believe that you need to be a scientist to look out at the world and realize that it was designed by an intelligent creator.  I believe that this fits perfectly with that Paul wrote in Romans 1:18-21, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” In fact, the evidence of design in the universe and life is what finally caused the famous atheist philosopher and debater Antony Flew to renounce atheism in 2005.  

See also The Creator and the Cosmos by Hugh Ross, and The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards. Examples also drawn from I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, as well as The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel.  

Related:
The Universe: Caused, Self-Caused, or Uncaused?
Faith With Reasons
How God Lets Us Know He Exists
Just Like Earth?
Universe, Create Thyself

The Universe: Caused, Self-Caused, or Uncaused?

The First-Cause Argument 

Why is there something rather than nothing? This is a big question. Everything that we see around us was caused by something else. The chair you are sitting on was built by someone. The screen you’re using to read this was built by someone. You yourself were caused by your parents, and they were caused by their parents. Like a chain of dominoes, everything we see was caused by something else.

This idea of cause and effect is at the heart of the first-cause argument for God. This family of arguments is also known as the cosmological argument because cosmos is the Greek word for world. There are different forms of the cosmological argument, but one that I find very persuasive goes like this:

·         Whatever began to exist has a cause.

·         The universe began to exist.

·         Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This argument is based on the law of cause and effect: whatever began to exist has a cause. However it is very important to state this law correctly. This law does not state that everything has a cause. Misstating the law like that results in the inevitable question, “Well, if everything has a cause, then what made God? Got ya!” I’ve heard university professors dismiss the first-cause argument in this way, demonstrating that they did’t really understand it in the first place. Instead, it is important to state that everything that began to exist must have a cause. If something never had a beginning—if it is eternal—then it didn’t need a cause. (In philosophy, this type of being would be referred to as a necessary being rather than a contingent being.) Therefore God doesn’t need a cause since God is eternal and never started to exist.

Further, if the universe has a cause, this cause must be outside of the universe. This is true since everything that has a beginning is caused by something outside of itself. Also, the chain of cause and effect cannot go back forever. There has to be a first-cause—a first domino that was pushed. Therefore, there has to be an eternal first-cause that exists outside of the universe and is powerful enough to bring the universe into existence. If this is true, it is a strong argument for the existence of God.

Caused, Self-caused, or Uncaused?

Let’s think about this another way. Was the universe created, self-created, or uncreated? There are only three options. Either (a) the universe was uncaused, or (b) it was self-caused, or it was (c) caused. If you’re having a discussion with someone, write these three options on a napkin and the other person to pick which one he or she things is correct. If you’re thinking through this for yourself, which one do you think is correct?

Self-caused
We can eliminate one of these three options right away. It is impossible for the universe to be self-caused.  That would violate the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot be both “A” and “Not-A” at the same time and in the same way. For example, something cannot be both “completely blue” and “not completely blue” at the same time and in the same way. But if the universe was self-created, it would need to exist and not-exist at the same time and in the same way. Unless the universe existed, it would have no ability to create anything—because it doesn’t exist. But if it already exists, it doesn’t need to be created! Therefore the universe cannot be self-caused. Being self-caused or self-created simply doesn’t make sense. We should eliminate it as an option.

Uncaused
If the universe is not self-caused it must be either caused or uncaused. If it is uncaused, there are two theoretical options: the universe could have came into existence with no reason, or it could be eternal and therefore does not need a cause. The first of these options—that the universe came into existence without a cause and for no reason—asks us to sacrifice a lot. That idea would sacrifice the law of cause and effect as well as the principle of sufficient reason. I do not think we should consider this a serious option. From nothing nothing comes. 

A more common response is to proposed that the universe itself is eternal. After all, it is asked, if something must be eternal, why can’t this thing be the universe rather than God? That is a valid question, however I believe there are two solid replies to this, one scientific and one philosophical.

1. The scientific reply is that eternal existence of the universe doesn't fit the current scientific understanding of cosmology. The eternal existence of the universe seemed possible when the dominant model for the universe was the steady state theory. However, the steady state theory has been supplanted by the Big Bang model, and one of the significant implications of the Big Bang theory is that is includes a beginning to time and space. In fact, some scientists resisted converting to the Big Bang theory because of this implication. If the universe began with the Big Bang, we need to ask what caused the Big Bang. The Big Bang is not something eternal and it did not cause itself. (Please note: This argument does not require anyone to believe in the Big Bang or an old universe. The point is that even if that model is true, it does not eliminate the need for a cause for the universe.)

(If the universe begins with a singularity approximately 14-16 billion years ago this is the temporal limit for the universe. Based on Einsteinian physics, time and space could not exist before this point. And even if we could conceive of a temporal eternity for this singularity before this point, there would still need to be an outside force to cause this singularity to move out of its equilibrium—which it must have been in if it was eternal. Although some physicists have speculated that there have been a series of oscillating universes, it is calculated that because of entropy these oscillations could not be eternal and must end in the hot or cold heat death of the universe. If the universe were eternal, this would have already occurred.)

2. The other reason that the universe cannot be eternal is because it is impossible for there to have been an infinite amount of time that has passed before now. This is a fascinating and brain bending argument that I find absolutely convincing. Imagine that there is a series of dominoes extending from inside the room you are in, out the door and out of view. For all you know, perhaps there are an infinite number of dominoes. But, now imagine that you see the dominoes falling, one knocking over the next, as this series of falling dominoes comes into your room. If you saw the dominoes fall, you could know with certainty that there was not an infinite number of falling dominoes. Why? It would take an infinite amount of time for an actual infinite amount of dominoes to fall. And just like a person can never finish counting to infinity, an actual infinite number of dominoes could never finish falling. Therefore, if an actual infinite number of dominoes had to fall before getting to your door, then the falling dominoes would never reach your door. In the same way, if an actual infinite number of minutes had to take place before yesterday, time would have never reached yesterday, much less today. Therefore, just as there had to be a finite number of falling dominoes, there also had to be a finite—not infinite—amount of time before today. An infinite past simply doesn’t make sense. Therefore time must have a beginning. And if time had a beginning it must have a cause.

Caused
If the universe is neither self-caused or uncaused, the only remaining option is that it was caused. Whatever this cause was, it must be something that transcends the universe and something with the level of power needed to bring a universe into existence. Added to this, there must be some sort of necessary and eternal first-cause that—itself not requiting a cause—exists as the sufficient reason for contingent reality. With this in mind, it seems very reasonable to believe “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

Related:
Universe, Create Thyself
Why God But Not Thor?
Faith With Reasons

How God Lets Us Know He Exists

God lets us know of His existence through two complementary channels rather than just one. Thus I want to describe a “two-pronged” apologetic. Each of these prongs can work without the other one, but they both have different advantages and disadvantages. One prong has the advantage of being immediate and certain, but has the disadvantage of being subjective (in the sense that it can’t be verified by anyone beside yourself.) The other prong has the disadvantage of not immediate and certain—because it takes work and investigation—but it has the advantage of being objective, meaning that it can be examined and tested by other people. Prong A is based on a God-given intuition that He exists. Prong B is based on evidence, including empirical evidence (things we can learn from our senses) and historical evidence.

(Note: In this post I am not talking about the difference between general revelation and special revelation.)

Prong A: God-Given Intuition that He Exists

If God wanted to be certain that everyone knew that He existed, He could use His power to simply “make” everyone know that He exists. He could hard-wire this conviction into our inner being. If God did this, then no one could ever legitimately accuse God of hiding Himself from humanity. Also, it would mean that no one could legitimately accuse God of making it too difficult to know that He exists.

If an all-powerful God exists, then we have to admit that it is at least logically possible that this is something God could do. Now, I am not suggesting that this is true merely because anyone feels it or claims it. Anyone could claim this about any false religion. People can also be mistaken. However, if God does exist and if God chooses to do something like this, then this could be something real and effective.

I do believe that this is exactly what God has done. I believe that He has hard-wired each of us to know that He is there. The Bible hits on this in Romans 1:18-20 as well as Romans 2:15 and Psalm 14:1. This doesn’t mean that we intuitively know everything about Him, but I believe that we all, deep down, know that God exists.

The big drawback of this way of knowing that God exists is that there is no way to prove it to other people. In addition, other people can deny that they have this inner awareness. In fact, the Bible specifically says that people “suppress” this awareness. Romans 1:18-23 teaches that although God made Himself plain to humanity, men suppress this truth. Of course, if everyone really has this awareness, this might be the reason why some atheists work so hard to convince themselves that God doesn’t exist. Just because we all know He exists doesn’t mean that everyone likes it.

This way of knowing God is completely effective between God and individual people, but it is ineffective from person to person. God can convince you this way, but I can’t. I can’t cut open my chest and show you that God has put this knowledge in my heart. Likewise, atheists can fervently maintain that they themselves don’t have any deeply suppressed God-given awareness of God. I can’t cut open their heart and show it to them. Atheists can give alternate theories for why most of humanity believes in God. I could point to sociologists and scientists who are starting to believe that our minds are hard-wired to believe in God, but an atheist could claim that this is the result of evolution or other factors. At the same time, an atheist could try to convince me that I merely have a God delusion, but there is no way that he can cut open my heart to show me that either. This does not mean that different people have different truths, but it does mean that we can’t directly prove this to one another.

However, if God does exist and has done this, then this is knowledge that you and I will be accountable for whether we deny it or not. If it is true, then none of us will be able to stand before God and claim that He hid himself or that He made it too hard to know that He is there.

Prong B: God Reveals Himself through Evidence

God has also revealed Himself to humanity in a way that is not just internal. He has also revealed Himself in a way that can be examined objectively, using empirical and historical evidence, and presented to other people. While prong A was immediate and certain, prong B take effort and investigation.  However, prong B has the advantage that it is something that can be presented to other people and examined by other people.  God gives us certainty with prong A and evidence with prong B. 

God-Given Internal Conviction that He Exists	God Reveals Himself through Evidence
Immediate	Takes effort and investigation
Certainty (although it can be suppressed)	Relative certainty at best (doubts always possible)
Available to all	Not everyone has access to all information
Internal	External
Private (cannot be examined by others)	Public (can be examined by others)

There are several disadvantages to this second avenue. First, this method takes a great deal of effort. Not everyone can or will exert this effort. Second, not everyone has access to all the relevant information. This was especially true in earlier eras of history. Also, this method cannot lead to absolute certainty. There is always something that a hardnosed skeptic could question. This is especially important when we remember that fallen human beings are not morally neutral about the question of the existence of God.

On the other hand, this avenue has some great advantages. Unlike internal intuition, evidence is something that can be shared with others. It is public. Other people can examine the same facts along with us. We can look at these things and discuss them together.

This is also something very helpful for those of us who already admit the belief in God. Without public evidence, one might wonder if their internal conviction is merely a delusion. External evidence and arguments help to strengthen our faith by seeing that there are reasons for what we already believe. Biblical faith is not blind faith.

In further posts we will explore these reasons in greater detail, but for now let me give you a summary of a non-circular argument for belief in the God of the Bible.

Overview  of a Case for God

1.    It makes sense to believe in God. There are strong reasons to believe that God, or at least something like God, exists. These reasons include arguments from the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, the existence of real moral standards, and the fact of human self-consciousness. At the very least, these reasons demonstrate that it is not crazy talk to think that God might exist. In fact, it makes very good sense. Also, if it is possible that God exists, then it is possible for God to interact with our world. This means that miracles are possible and should not be dismissed out of hand.

2.    Next, the New Testament documents are generally reliable historical documents. Contrary to the claims of some skeptics, the texts of the Bible have been accurately transmitted to us. We have over 5,700 handwritten copies of the Greek New Testament. This is far more than other ancient manuscripts. The time gap between the original writings and the earliest existing copies is far less than other ancient manuscripts. Finally, the texts were carefully copied. There were multiple lines of transmission ensuring that no one could person or group could have changed the text. The small amount of variations can be eliminated by comparing copies with each other. Also, the documents have earmarks of historical honesty and accuracy. This includes detailed knowledge of the culture and geography, embarrassing details, hard sayings and unpopular teachings, and other details they would not have invented. (Please note carefully, at this point in the conversation I am not claiming to prove that the Bible is the flawless Word of God. Please notice this so that you don’t give a wrongful accusation of circular reasoning.)

3.    Using historical evidence, including the generally reliable New Testament documents, history and logic show that Jesus had a tomb that was empty on the Sunday after He was buried. The best explanation for this is that Jesus rose from the dead, just as He had predicted. Other explanations do not stand up under scrutiny. (Remember, no one should claim this is “impossible” unless one has already assumed that God does not exist. That would be circular reasoning.)

4.    Finally, if Jesus rose from the dead, it validates His claim to be the God of the Old Testament. In addition, if Jesus really is God, then His view of the Bible is correct. (God wouldn’t be wrong about the Bible.) And since the generally reliable New Testament documents show us that Jesus viewed Scripture as the inerrant Word of God, this is the view of the Bible that we should have as well.

If God exists, this fact changes everything about the meaning of your life. These questions are worth your time exercising a few brain cells and searching your conscience. 

Related: 
Faith with Reasons
The Universe: Caused, Self-Caused, or Uncaused?

Faith With Reasons

Why doesn't everybody believe in God?
Did you ever wonder if you would be a Christian if you were born in India? I remember asking myself that when I was younger. If you were born in a Christian home, maybe you’ve had that thought as well. Are there reasons to believe the Christian worldview, or is that merely the result of what someone is brought up to believe? Is Christianity just a leap in the dark, or are there reasons to believe?

Some Christians think it is a lack of faith to have these kinds of questions, but I think it is natural and healthy. When I thought through these questions, I came to answers that helped me realize that there really was something to Christianity. Seeing the reasons why this worldview made sense made my belief stronger. Likewise, if you’re not a Christian I hope you care enough to seriously think about these things.  The whole meaning of our existence, and eternity, changes depending on what the truth is about God.

“Apologetics” is the discipline of giving a reasonable answer or defense for Christian belief. This word doesn’t mean to “apologize” in the modern sense. Instead, it means “to give an answer” in the sense of 1 Peter 3:15, “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect…” This article is the first in a series that will give a basic overview of the reasons for believing in the reality of God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible. However, before we can launch into the reasons there are some things we need to say first.

1. God doesn’t believe in atheists.

If God is real, why doesn’t everyone believe in Him? Why are there atheists? The Bible answers this question in the opposite way that you might expect. We usually describe “atheists” as people who don’t believe in God, but according to the Bible, God doesn’t believe in atheists. I’m not saying this to be cute. Look at what Romans 1:18-20 teaches:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Notice some of the key words in these verse: “made known,” “plain,” clearly seen,” “being understood,” and “without excuse.” What this passage teaches is that—at least deep down—everyone knows that God exists. The reason for this is that God Himself “has made it plain to them.” God has designed us so that we are automatically aware that God is real. It is as if this sense of God has been hardwired in our hearts.  Another way to think about it is as if we’re built with automatic God-detectors that look at God’s creation and detect His presence just as a smoke detector detects smoke. We can look at the stars or our own hard and infer that there must be something behind all of this.  I think this explains why the vast majority of people throughout history have believed in some sort of God. Even today in America, between 85% and 90% of people believe in some sort of God.

This doesn’t mean that anyone can look at the mountains and know that Jesus Christ is the person of the Trinity who became fully man while still remaining fully God so that He could die on the cross as a substitute for all who will place their faith in Him as their sin-bearer. We need special revelation to know that. What we can know from creation is more basic: there is a God, He must be powerful and intelligent, and we owe Him our obedience.

2. Sinners suppress the truth that is plain to them.

But still, you ask, why are there atheists if this passage is true? Look at what this passage also says. It says that people “suppress the truth by their wickedness.” We all have some knowledge of the true God, but we suppress it; we push it down and deny it because we don’t like that truth. The passage goes on in verses 21-23 to say that we substitute our knowledge of the true God with ideas of our own making. The real God terrifies us so we try to substitute Him with something more comfortable—something more to our liking that we can control. This explains why most people who believe in God do not believe in the true God of the Bible. We’re aware that God is holy and that we are sinful. These feelings of guilt make us want to run from God rather than running to Him.

Suppressing the knowledge of God is like a little boy trying to hide a dog from his parents by stuffing it in a hamper. The more it barks, the more we have to push it down. This explains why some atheists have so much anger while denying a God they claim doesn’t exist. As it has been said, there are two things that many atheists believe: (1) There is no God. (2) I hate Him.

Still, we all have enough true knowledge of God to make us accountable to Him. If these verses are true, no one on Judgment Day is going to be able to say, “God, I would have believed in You, but I had no idea that you were there!”  God will say, “You had some knowledge of Me? What did you do with it? You didn’t seek after more truth—You squandered what I gave you and did what you wanted to do.”

3. Unbelief is more of a heart problem than a head problem.

When I was young I thought I could write a book answering every possible objection to Christianity. People would read it and they would have to believe. Now I realize how foolish that idea was. Unbelief is more of a heart problem than a head problem. Sure, there are intellectual obstacles that people have, but even when they are cleared away it does not mean that people will want to believe in the real God. The Israelites that God brought through the Red Sea had plenty of reasons to believe that God was real, but they still turned away from Him. We are rebels. The real God makes people uncomfortable and cramps our style. You can know that God exists but not like Him.

4. Nobody is neutral.

People can always find some sort of smokescreen excuse not to believe in God.  This means that just because someone doesn’t accept some of the evidence for God that there is a problem with the evidence. If Romans 1 is true, then we are not impartial judges. We have reasons of the heart that keep us from looking at the evidence clearly. We tend to see what we want to see. Don’t expect yourself or anyone you talk to to be neutral. If God exists, then He is the real judge. Don’t try to take over His job.

5. Don’t have unreasonable standards for certainty.

There are not many things that we can know with absolute, mathematical certainty. You can know that you yourself exist, and that  2 + 2 = 4, but beyond that there is always some remote possibility that you are being deceived. Some people can find a way to doubt anything—that George Washington existed, or that the sky is blue. If you’re skeptical enough, I couldn’t even prove to you that I really exist. Even if I come to your house and hit you upside the head, you could still claim that maybe you’re in the Matrix or high on acid. Still, we never demand that level of certainty with other things in life. If you intentionally run over some people with your car, you’re going to go to jail. It won’t help if your attorney claims that maybe those people were holograms. In the same way, don’t think that you will be off the hook with God just because you think some bizarre loophole might still be possible.

6. Our attitude should be described as faith seeking understanding.

There is a difference between asking questions and questioning. Having questions about Christianity isn’t a bad thing as long as you are seeking answers, not excuses.  Christians should have the attitude of Anselm of Canterbury who wrote, “I do not seek to understand so that I may believe; but I believe so that I may understand.” Having this attitude keep us from forgetting that God is the judge, not us.

7. Doubt Your Doubts

Some people have a superhuman ability to doubt everything about Christianity. But what if those same people applied as much effort in doubting the alternatives to Christianity? You have to believe in something. If you think that the Christian worldview is wrong, then what do you replace it with? Skeptics should invest as much effort in doubting their own worldviews, not just Christianity. Personally, this is a main reason that I think the Christian worldview is true. I can’t bring myself to consistently believe in anything else. If Christianity isn’t true, then I assume materialism would be. But when I’ve tried to seriously imagine that we are all nothing more than physical and chemistry, thrown together by accident with no purpose—I can’t believe it. I can’t consistently believe that love, goodness, and beauty are just chemicals in my brain. I can’t believe that I can be self-aware if I’m nothing more than an advanced calculator. And I can’t believe that this all came about with no design. I doubt the alternative to Christianity more than I doubt Christianity. It has the least contradictions, the least problems, the best evidence, and the most power to explain all of reality. We should believe whatever complete worldview makes the most sense.

If God exists, He could let us know that he exists just by planting this knowledge within us. He could also let us know that He exists by giving us evidence. I believe that He has done both of these things. We will think about that more in the next post.

Related:
How God Lets Us Know He Exists
The Universe; Caused, Self-Caused, or Uncaused?

Why God But Not Thor? (or, "Pagan gods are Marvel Superheroes")

I was once asked by someone, “What makes your religion more valid than any other one? And also, why [isn’t it] considered myth like the older religions that make the same claims?”

I'd had discussions with this person before, so I could guess a little bit about what was behind his question. He was wondering why Christians will say that the God of the Bible is real but the other gods and goddesses of pagan mythology are not. Since Christianity and pagan religions supposedly all make the same claims, shouldn't we all consider Christianity to be a myth just as easily as we consider the pagan gods to be myths?

Here is part of my reply:

First, this question contains an assumption that I reject. Your question implied Christianity has the same elements, teachings and details as pagan myths. I know that this is a common assertion from some atheists, especially on the internet. People point to supposed parallels between Jesus and other dying and rising gods and suggest Christianity is just borrowing the same themes and therefore isn’t true. If that is what the question meant, then I reject that part of the question because I don’t believe that Christianity actually does make the same claims as pagan mythology. The similarities are very superficial and often forced. Also some of these supposed sources for Christianity actually come after the time of the New Testament. (If there are specific myths and details that you are thinking of, let me know. There are a lot of obscure myths and I can’t guess them in advance to deal with them.) Also, I need to add that even if it were true that Christianity had the same specific details as many older pagan myths, it wouldn’t actually prove that Christianity was false.  If there were movies made in the 20th Century about skyscrapers being destroyed by terrorists, that wouldn’t mean that the destruction of the World Trade Center was false or invented based on these stories.

Now, let me give you one major reason why I believe the pagan gods fail as being valid. Simply, the pagan gods aren’t even “Gods.” Sure, they have power and abilities, but they are limited. They are closer to Marvel superheroes than to the God of the Bible.

The pagan gods don’t actually explain anything. They don’t provide a sufficient reason the explain why the world exists. This is because the pagan gods are not eternal. Apollo is the son of Zeus. Zeus was the son of Cronus, and so on. So, none of these gods ultimately explains anything because each of them needs something else to explain them. On the other hand, the God of the Bible is of an entirely different quality. He is not a Marvel superhero. The God of the Bible is not only omnipotent, and omniscient, but also eternal. Because He is omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing) He has the power and wisdom needed to design and create the world. But even more importantly, He is eternal. Since God did not have a beginning, He did not need anything or anyone to create Him. If you’ve always existed, you don’t need to be created. Because the God of the Bible is eternal, He is a “sufficient reason” for everything else. The pagan superhero gods are not.

If you needed someone else to make you, don’t even claim to be a real God. The real God is in an entirely different category.

Just Like Earth?



an artist's interpretation of the
newly discovered planet,
complete with visible oceans
(of which there is no evidence)

Are we alone in the universe?  Is earth nothing all that special?

There is an assumption by many naturalists that since there is life on earth, life must be easy to come by.  But for life to be easy to come by, you need planets that are at least potentially capable of developing life.  The problem is that we haven't found any.  Out of the 500 planets that have been found outside our galaxy, none of them have been found to be enough like earth to potentially support life.  Gas giants in close rotation to their stars just won't work. 

But it is now claimed that this this has all changed.  A planet "just like earth" has been found.

In a recent article AP science writer Seth Borenstein describes the recent discovery of a earth-like planet by astronomers R. Paul Butler and Steven Vogt.  The article states:

Astronomers say they have for the first time spotted a planet beyond our own in what is sometimes called the Goldilocks zone for life: Not too hot, not too cold. Juuuust right.

Not too far from its star, not too close. So it could contain liquid water. The planet itself is neither too big nor too small for the proper surface, gravity and atmosphere.

It's just right. Just like Earth.

Well, maybe not.  Before you head up to the roof to wait for the Vulcans to beam you up, let's think through some of the details in this particular article.  If anything, this is a good opportunity to notice how facts are sometimes presented in a way to lead people to a conclusion that is assumed ahead of time.  For example, in this article there are a few things that you might find strange. 

Strange comparison

Just like earth?

This new planet is three times the mass of earth and much closer to its star.  While earth is 93 million miles away from our yellow star, this planet is 14 million miles away from Gliese 581, a red dwarf star.  The planet, "g" orbits Gliese 581 every 37 days.  Because it is so close to the star the planet's orbit is locked so that it does not rotate.  One side is constantly exposed to the sun with estimated temperatures, according to this article, of 160 degrees and the other side always away from the sun with temperatures of negative 25. This means that the best chances life supporting temperatures and for liquid water--if there is any water--would be at the thin rim between the permanent-night half and the permanent-day half... just like earth.

In The Privileged Planet, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards point out many of the problems for a planet with a close orbit around a M dwarf star, the coolest type of dwarf stars.  The dark side of the planet would act as a cold trap "not unlike cold traps used in vacuum pump systems to extract water from the air" and would eventually trap and freeze all the water--if there was any--on the planet's cold dark side, leaving the bright side hot and dry (133-4).  The thin rim between the two halves would experience indirect and weak starlight which would only leave a potential for very weak biological productivity.  Further, M dwarf stars exhibit flares just like our sun.  Fortunately for us, we are 93 million miles away rather than only 14 million miles away. 

Strange math

Out of the other 500 planets outside of our solar system that have been found, this is the first one that seems to be somewhere in the habitable zone.  Yet the article later states that, "Vogt and Butler ran some calculations, with giant fudge factors built in, and figured that as much as one out of five to 10 stars in the universe have planets that are Earth-sized and in the habitable zone."  That is 10 to 20% of all stars!  Yet none of the other 500 planets discovered so far are potentially habitable. 

These astronomers seem more influenced by the "Principle of Mediocrity" than by actual data on hand.  The Principle of Mediocrity is the assumption that earth is a fairly ordinary planet orbiting a fairly ordinary star, thus there must be a countless number of life supporting planets out there as well.  On the contrary, others such as Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, the authors of Rare Earth, discuss the multitude of factors that are needed for a planet to be even potentially life-supporting.  These include everything from being the right distance from the right star, in the right part of the right type of galaxy, with the right mass, plate tectonics, a large moon, liquid water, the right tilt, the right atmosphere, the right amount of giant impacts, and many more.  If any of these have a factor of zero, the chances for potential life to develop on that planet is zero.  Factored together, the odds are so miniscule that even with billions of galaxies with billions of stars, we should be surprised that there is even one planet in the universe that is capable of supporting life. 

Yet according to Vogt and Butler's calculations the odds are 10 to 20% for each star.  Perhaps the "giant fudge factors" had something to do with that?  Magic fudge, after all, is the essential ingredient for life.

Strange optimism

These astronomers deeply want to believe that earth-like planets are common and that life evolves easily.  If not, that might seem to suggest some sort of intelligent designer for the planet earth and human life, and that is not a popular option in some circles. 

Here is the most amazing part of the article.  You don't need the Hubble telescope to see the galaxy-size presupposition in this paragraph:

It's unknown whether water actually exists on the planet, and what kind of atmosphere it has. But because conditions are ideal for liquid water, and because there always seems to be life on Earth where there is water, Vogt believes "that chances for life on this planet are 100 percent."

This astronomer is actually telling us that if there is water there is a 100% chance there will be life.  That means that if there is water, there is 0.00% chance of not finding life!  Why?  Because there seems to be life everywhere on earth where there is water, of course. 

And as Vogt is quoted as saying, ""It's pretty hard to stop life once you give it the right conditions."

You see, once you start with the assumption that there is no intelligent designer, then since life does exist we know that it must be easy to come by.  The logic is as tight and circular as this planet's orbit around Gliese 581.

Also notice that the artist's rendering of planet g shows it complete with oceans.  I've seen some news reports now that haven't even mentioned that this is merely an artist's interpretation.  It gives people the impression that we've actually been able to see the planet through a telescope.  That isn't the case.  Astronomers detect these planets by noticing the periodic dimming of the star because of the planet passing in front of it blocking some of the light. 

Keep Looking

In April of 2007 Gliese 581c, another planet orbiting this same star, was hailed as an earth like planet in the Goldilocks zone.  However it was later concluded that planet c would have runaway greenhouse conditions like Venus, making it an impossible host for life.  The conclusion about planet g might end up the same.  But if and when that happens, I doubt that it will make any headlines.  (Do you remember any headlines when planet c was discredited?)  All of this leaves the public with the impression that earth like planets are a dime a dozen. 

Let's keep looking to see what can be discovered, but don't assume ahead of time that earth is not something special.