The God particle and the trump card

The recent discovery of the "God Particle" has been a major breakthrough for science across the globe.  Not only has the scientific community promoted the particle, but the media has hyped it as well.  The "God Particle" is known properly as the Higgs boson particle and the quest for this particle was pursued for many years.  Why all the hype and what are the implications of this newly discovered particle?

One of the main reasons for the hype is the discovery of the most fundamental piece of the universe's beginning that has ever been discovered.  According to the scientific community, this particle is so important that it is responsible  for springing the universe into existence after the "Big Bang"  and giving mass to all particles of matter.  It is so named because it helps us to understand the process of the universe's earliest stage of development.

It is interesting that the Higgs bosen is refereed to as the "God Particle."  The "God Particle" reference is used because of the fact that God has traditionally been understood as the creator of the universe.  However, some might be willing to say that this discovery explains away the existence of God, hence the name - "God Particle."  But does the particle really render God useless?

A couple of points need to be made to counter those who would say that God is now officially dead.  First, The "God Particle" did not create the universe, for the universe was already in existence, according to the "Big Bang."  And, secondly,  for those who still want to hold on to the universe from nothing idea, a scientific explanation must be given to explain the origin of something from nothing.  This last explanation will never be given, because science is unable to address this point.

Why all the hype?  For many, there is always a quest to try and disprove the existence of God.  Scientism claims that science is the trump card of explaining away the universe, but is it?  Science ultimately fails, because as it has already been stated, explaining something from nothing is not something science can do.  Science assumes only the material universe and tests within that realm, therefore, the something from nothing question is relegated to philosophy.  Philosophy is the field that possesses the real trump card.  The "God Particle" may have made many delight in the possibility of destroying God, but in the end, no evidence from a scientific perspective can accomplish this task.

It appears

In Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker, he makes this startling comment in the preface, "The problem is that of complex design."  Dawkins realizes that design is present and further states, "The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design.  If anyone does not agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up."  Of course, Dawkins would never admit that the complexity of living organisms was designed by God, but what if the argument were developed further for not just the complexity of life, but for all the complex questions of the universe?

• It appears that there are numerous gaps within the fossil record linking a multitude of organisms.
• It appears that at times life did not evolve slowly over time as predicted by Darwin, but, in fact, life appears suddenly (i.e. Cambrian explosion).
• It appears the simple animal cell is incredibly complex, especially the component parts that allow the cell to operate properly.
• It appears that the parts of the cell exhibit irreducible complexity.  In other words, the parts had to all be in place at the same time for the cell to properly function.  It appears the cell parts were not added slowly over time.
• It appears that Darwinian evolution does not have enough time to evolve into the complexity we see today, if life exploded (Cambrian Period) some 600 million years ago.
• It appears mutations will not facilitate Darwin's evolutionary model, given that most mutations are degenerate and do not add new parts.
• It appears that DNA exhibits specified complexity and chance evolution does not suffice as an adequate answer.  The DNA information seems to cry out for an informer or God.
• It appears that the beginning of the universe by way of the Big Bang needs to have a banger or God.
• It appears that nothing pops into existence by chance, because for anything to begin there needs to be a causer or God (i.e. Kalam Cosmological Argument).
• It appears that the universe is fine-tuned for life and would need to have a tuner or God.  
• It appears that objective morals exist meaning an objective moral law giver or God exists.
• It appears that the conscious mind cries out for an ultimate mind or God.
• It appears that science is not able to answer all questions such as why we have 1st person awareness and the laws of logic.  In other words, science cannot  test why certain quantities exist in the universe.
• It appears the best explanation of the empty tomb and the eyewitness accounts of Jesus after his death is the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

It appears that much within the universe cries out for explanation as Dawkins so eloquently stated, the question is, what best explains apparent design and the multitude of questions presented?  In Dawkins world, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it cannot be a duck.

What If ?

A common argument that is often referred to as a proof of God is Pascal's Wager. Actually, Pascal's Wager is not an argument at all for the existence of God, but more of a what if proposal. Pascal's Wager simply states, What if you believe in God and I don't. If God does not exist, then at death we both win or lose nothing. However, if God does exist, at death you gain everything and I lose everything. What if this logic is applied to what makes the most sense here on earth for a variety of subjects? In other words, in examining various "What If" questions, conclusions can be drawn to follow the most logical outcome. The "What If" questions will follow the logic of the law of the excluded middle (either A or non-A).

What if the universe had a beginning? Either the universe had a beginning or it did not. Almost all scientist believe that the universe began to exist in an event called the big bang. How did the universe come to exist? Stephen Hawkins recently stated that the laws of Physics spurned the universe, but Hawkins never mentions where the laws of Physics came from. According to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, whatever comes into existence has a cause. If the universe came into existence then it was caused to exist.

What if the universe was designed? Either the universe was designed or it happened by chance process alone. Prominent Evolutionary Biologist, Richard Dawkins states, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” [1] Dawkins, of course, discounts the universe is designed, but instead believes the universe happened by chance. One of the arguments that is commonly used to show the universe could have come into existence by chance is the multi-universe hypothesis. Simply stated the multi-universe hypothesis proposes that millions of universes have been spawned and ours happened to be the one where everything fell into place in order for life to exist. There are two main problems with this argument. First, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support this. Secondly, it never answers the question of where the original universe came from.

On the flip side of the chance argument is the idea that the universe was designed. There is powerful evidence that the universe did not occur by chance, but by way of fine-tuning. Astronomer, John O'Keefe, has commented, "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." [2] The universe appears to be designed as opposed to a chance happening.

What if a moral law exists? Either a moral law exists or it does not. Some say that morals simply cannot exist. They posit that the appearance of morals are just the result of Darwinian evolution. Philosopher, Michael Ruse says, "Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction... and any deeper meaning is illusory." [3]

Many recognize that a moral law does seem to exist. There are some things that we intuitively know are right and wrong or good and evil. For example, torturing the innocent for sport and the raping and murder of small children can easily be seen as immoral. Where does this sense of morality come from? It seems a moral law exists, and this would necessitate a moral Law-Giver or God.

What if Jesus is the only way to God? Either he is or he is not. Jesus claimed that he is the exclusive way (John 14:6, Acts 4:12). If he is the exclusive way then Christianity is the one and only religion that counts for anything. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 asks us to "Test everything." Testing everything includes the testing of Christianity.

What if Jesus rose from the dead? Either Jesus did rise from the dead or he didn't. If Jesus rose from the dead, it validates the religion of Christianity and the testimony of Jesus. Some have offered reasons against the resurrection such as the stolen body theory, the swoon theory, the wrong grave theory, the legendary Jesus theory, hallucination theory and the idea that the resurrection was not a material resurrection. All of these theories came about many years after the resurrection event and can be discounted with a lack of evidence.

There is great evidence to show that the resurrection actually took place. First, the resurrection story is early. 1 Corinthians 15 is an early creedal passage that goes back to the resurrection itself. Second, there are multiple independent attestations of the resurrection. Third, non-Christian sources support the resurrection story. Fourth, women are mentioned as discovers of the empty tomb and the first to see the resurrected Jesus. If a woman's testimony was considered invalid in the first century, then why would all the gospel writers mention this? The mentioning of the women as the discoverers of the empty tomb and the first to see Jesus points to the truthfulness of the resurrection story. Fifth, Christianity was birthed in Jerusalem, which is the central location of Judaism. If Christianity is an invented religion then why would anyone want to claim that Jesus was the resurrected Messiah of Judaism in the hostile environment of Jerusalem? Sixth, the changed lives of those who encountered the resurrected Jesus counts as evidence for the resurrection.

What if the universe had no beginning, happened by accident, and exists without a moral law? What if Jesus is not the exclusive way, because he did not rise from the dead? If all these "What Ifs" are true then life has no ultimate purpose, meaning, or hope - we are simply one big directionless accident.

What if, however, the universe began to exist? If it did - the universe had a cause, and a cause means there must be a Causer. What if the universe was designed? If the universe was designed, then a Designer exists. What if the universe has a moral law? If a moral law exists, a moral Law-Giver exists? What if Jesus is the only way? If Jesus is the only way, then all other religious beliefs, including atheism are false. What if Jesus rose from the dead? If Jesus rose from the dead, then he and he alone offers the only true purpose, meaning, and hope that can be obtained in one's lifetime.

The important "What If" questions of life are framed by the law of the excluded middle. These questions are in the form of an either - or question. The direction that one chooses can make all the difference in the world. When considering the "What If" question, evidence overwhelmingly tips in the favor of the Christian worldview. As Pascal proposed so many years ago, the "What If" question is one that cannot be avoided if Christianity is the one true worldview.

[1] Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1
[2] Heeren, F., Show Me God, p. 200
[3] Ruse, Michael, Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics, p. 262-269

Testing 1,2,3

A recent article has entertained the thought that quantum physics may have discovered the mechanism of time travel and the existence of parallel universes. The article also mentions the possibility of multiple universes. The idea of multiple universes is not that new. This idea started to emerge after the almost universal acceptance of the Big Bang creation of the universe, but why?

I believe one of the chief reasons for the multi-verse hypothesis is to facilitate unlimited natural chances of trial and error through which life could spring. In other words, the Big Bang coupled with the fine-tuning of the universe delivered a huge blow to the atheistic metaphysical view that everything is just one big cosmic accident. The fine-tuning of the universe and the Big Bang has led many scientist to conclude that the universe must have had a Divine Designer. Consider this quote by astrophysicist, Paul Davies, "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all...It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe...The impression of design is overwhelming."[1]

In considering the multi-verse view, it should be noted that this is purely a philosophical view that can never be tested. "Sean Carroll, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology and a popular author, accepts the scientific basis for the multi-verse -- even if it cannot be proven."[2]

There are problems that exist with the multi-universe view. Problem #1 has already been mentioned; there is no way to prove a multi-verse. The multi-verse hypothesis, I believe, has been put forth to avoid the view that perhaps the universe was designed by a Divine Being. Problem #2 doesn't answer the question of where the first universe came from. There must have been a start. From nothing, nothing comes, so the muti-verse hypothesis dodges the question of origins. Problem #3 deals with the philosophical leap of faith that one must take to believe that the multi-verse is in fact viable.

I believe the philosophical ramifications are exactly why this multi-universe hypothesis was given in the first place. It seems that some will not even consider the possibility of any Supernatural Being or event, but instead are bent to look at only naturalistic explanations. If this is the case, then truth itself is being compromised. In considering any explanation, the evidence needs to be weighed carefully to discern which explanation has the best explanatory power. It is my belief that Christian Theism offers the best explanation to not only the start of the universe, but to why we are here at all. The New Testament, and Christianity encourages testing as stated in first Thessalonians by saying "Test everything." Even though the multi-universe cannot be tested, it can still be weighed as evidence. The evidence, however, for a naturalistic, random, and blind creation of everything simple does not bear the credible weight of truth to tip the scales in its favor.

[1] Davies, Paul, The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries In Nature's Creative Ability To Order The Universe, p. 203
[2]Brandon, John, Freaky Physics Proves Parallel Universes Exist, Accessed on line from Fox News on 6, April, 2010
* A good article explaining how evidence is weighed.
* Quotes from scientists who see Divine design in the universe.