The Universe that Should Not Exist

COPYRIGHT WARNING

Questions regarding the origin of the universe are not purely philosophical

There are those who make assertions that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Others claim that the universe exists by purely naturalistic causes.

Are these claims true, and is there credible evidence to believe in the existence of God and that intelligence is a crucial and absolute necessity for the beginning of the universe?

There have been two problems with attempting to set forth these principles:

One: many of the non-theists, particularly those in the 18-29 age group, notoriously refute the questions of why the universe exists, based on the aged and impeached argument that questions for the origin of the universe are entirely philosophical, and not scientific.

Two: The problem in seeking to make a scholarly answer to these questions, due to the fact that all the material tends to become overwhelming to the reader.

In this article, I will present a short list of empirical proofs for the existence of God, based solely on the existence of the universe. There are hundreds of other empirical proofs from a variety of sources, but again—too many in one place tends to be overwhelming.

There will always be those to whom no amount of evidence will ever convince or change their minds. These individuals are not really seeking wisdom or truth, but only seeking to win an argument, or as one young atheists told me recently: “I can poke holes in all of your arguments.” In his view, it was not whether or not the evidence is credible or compelling, but rather, could he make arguments and win the debate. This is apparently a tactic that his professors have taught him, which is neither intelligent, nor efficient.

There are many however, who are genuinely searching for logical answers to the questions of God’s existence and whether Jesus is who He claims to be. To those who are simply looking for reasonable answers to the question of God’s existence, there are many and diverse proofs which are sufficient to convince a rational person.

This is what I have learned over the past 40 years in conducting my own research; there are two types of people in the world:

1. Those who want to believe in God, who will find evidence for His existence.
2. Those who do not want to believe in God, and no matter where the evidence leads, they will not believe.

The difficulty is in knowing which category a person has placed themselves. We might think that they would simply tell us, but it is not that easy. Even those who have an ability to believe in God, will hide their true feelings behind a wall of skepticism and criticism. Some of the most prolific adversaries of the Christian Gospel are later found as strong advocates and defenders of the Christian faith.

This reality demands that we not judge a person by their immediate reactions to faith in God.

For myself, the most difficult aspect of writing to put forth the many proofs for God’s existence, is knowing what kind of a person is reading my books or articles. Of course, this is not impossible to know for certain. For this reason, I write to both categories: those who want to be convinced, as well as those who will never be convinced, no matter how great or profound the evidence.

I have found that it is best to simply state the evidence and then allow people to make up their own minds. It is fruitless and rather frustrating to try and argue a person into faith. I really doubt that this is possible anyway.

Those who will believe that God exists, and go on to a saving faith in Jesus Christ—do so, apart from human efforts. It is the Spirit of God which convinces a person of their sin and need to find Jesus as their Savior. No amount of coercing or convincing can make anyone come to a saving faith—unless the Holy Spirit is able to penetrate the heart of the person we are speaking or writing to.

There are many philosophical arguments for God, the least of which are very difficult for the average person to grasp. I have spent countless hours myself, reading these arguments and trying to understand them. For the most part, I can grasp their concepts, but they have little to do with convincing most people that God does in fact exist. For the super intellectual, these philosophical arguments may serve to convince, but I doubt that these intellectual arguments are effective for the average person. In the end, it is the person to person contact that seems to make the most difference in the lives of people. A man or woman gets to know you and discovers your faith in Jesus, and by this friendship and the exchange of thoughts, feelings, and ideas, they often find God in their own life.

The simplest and easiest to understand proofs for God, are those which are most visible to us. The universe serves as an ever-present reminder that something spectacular is right in front of us—which demands an explanation. Non-theists will tell you that they can explain the existence of the universe by purely naturalistic processes, which do not require God. This is not true. In fact, to do so, leaves the reader feeling as if they have not sufficiently been told the entire story.

The book of Romans describes the universe as the singular proof that God has left to us—which fully substantiates His existence. This is a very bold statement, for it it were not true, it could fully invalidate the rest of the Bible. Repeatedly, throughout the Bible, God asserts that He is the designer, engineer, and initiator of the Cosmos. He claims that He created this vast expanse to reveal His existence to those whom He made like Himself—for the purpose of experiencing His love and deep care for all of us.

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that people are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were they thankful…” —Romans 1:20-21

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” —Genesis 1:1 .

The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.” —Psalms 19:1

It is by these simple concepts–where we ask questions: why the universe exists at all, that a person will  begin on their own, to think about God and search for much more than simply a scientific explanation for the universe.

The Universe

The most compelling evidence for the existence of God is the universe itself. There are many profound examples from science and physics which confirm that the universe exists by characteristics which could not have occurred by chance. From a practical point of view, could we really expect any more evidence that the vast and complex universe which is displayed before us—that God exists?

Atheists will tell you that the universe just exists, and it has no cause. They will assert that in the beginning there was nothing and then suddenly nothing exploded into the entire mass of energy that makes up the present universe.

Have you ever walked out onto the street in the morning and looked at you car or truck and realized that this complex machine just came into existence by itself? The universe is infinitely more complex than any car. It exists by intricate machinery which allows gravity, physics and nuclear forces to make the universe possible. In fact, the entire universe is ordered by the universal language of mathematics. Men have been stunned for hundreds of years that the universe can be explained by a few simple laws of physics. Who created these laws, and wrote the language of the universe in mathematics?

Defining the term: “Law”

Most often, the word “law,” is defined by three sub categories:[1]

1. A system of laws which regulate the actions of people.
2. A statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural of scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present: the second law of thermodynamics.
3. A body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible.

The non theistic position of many scientists today is that the appearance of order which we observe in the universe can always be explained by natural laws. In essence, all of the conditions which are present in the universe, over the course of the past 14 billion years, took place as a result of natural laws.

Since it is clear by the above definition of “law,” that intelligence was required to create laws—it would not be possible for any law to create itself. Where did these natural laws which cause the order of the universe—come from? Those who deny the existence of God will simply state at the conclusion of this remark: “Now you are delving into the philosophical aspects of the universe, not the scientific reality of the universe.

If we examine the third subcategory for the definition of law above, we find that under science, that the natural laws of the universe are deduced from observation, not by philosophy. In other words, the natural laws are empirical. We might discuss the philosophical implications of these laws, but we cannot avoid the more important question of how these laws which govern the universe exist, apart from a law giver.

No person goes into a courtroom to have their case heard by a legal authority and imagines that the rules which will govern the outcome of their particular case—came about by random chance. We all understand that someone with intelligence has carefully thought out the entire process of how these laws will operate, and what the effects of these laws will be.

How is it that when we come to the natural laws of the universe, we could believe that they could create themselves and determine their own outcome, this is irrational.

Atheistic scientists will then tell us that all of the design which is visible in the universe can be explained by random processes. First of all, no law allows for anything random. The entire purpose of a law is to restrict the events of any particular process so that a specific outcome is realized. For example, in a chemical reaction, laws dictate what the results of that reaction will be so that the same results occur when the same processes are followed again and again. This is possible because of the laws of nature which regulate these processes. Regarding planetary orbits: the law of gravity dictates the concentric orbits of planets—these are not random processes.

If we are speaking of science, then we must stay with the observable and testable facts of science and not try to explain what natural laws do by stating that it was a random process, this is not science, but mysticism.

The facts are: every appearance of design in the universe—which allows for life to exist, is a result of laws which also require a designer. There is nothing random about laws, as there can be nothing random about the results which are caused by these laws.

Again, the fact that laws exist to allow the universe to exist and function in the manner that it does—demands an explanation for how these specific laws exist in the first place. We cannot explain away a scientific laws by arguing that trying to explain why they exists, is a purely philosophical argument—it is not. Science is based on explaining how things operate to exact specific results, by observable data. If we cannot explain why the event took place in the first place, our science is inadequate.

The universe came into existence at a specific moment—when there was no universe in existence prior to that moment. At the beginning of time, space, and matter, so also came into existence the laws which determined how the universe would exist and what it would exist for.

It is only logical that when there was nothing and suddenly something began to exist, with laws for how it would exist—these facts require an intelligence as the source. Once again, laws require an intelligence, which determines the specific results which will occur, as a result of the law.

The impossible existence of carbon

The most basic, necessary, element for human life, is also the least likely element to ever have formed in the universe. The carbon atom exists by impossible circumstances.

Every carbon nucleus contains six protons and six neutrons; they are made from the nuclei of helium, constructed in a star.[2] Astrophysicists Edwin Salpeter and Fred Hoyle discovered that this process of forming carbon, only works by a very unique feature, during a mode of resonance with a finely tuned energy—such as a star. If any part of this feature was changed even minutely—say less than one percent in either direction—no carbon would exist in the universe to make life possible.[3]

The likelihood that a vastly different universe would have occurred from the one that we have, was an absolute certainty. Why then do we have a universe that has developed in such a way that it allows for life? The universe was engineered in such a way to make life possible.

This engineering began in the initial moments of the big bang (creation) when at −430 (seconds) planck time, electromagnetism, the strong interaction, and the weak interaction, were unified as the electronuclear force, while gravity separated from the electronuclear force.[4]

If the universe had not begun in a precise manner, the initial expansion of energy which unfolded at the beginning of the universe, then no stars, galaxies, or planets would have formed later. An intelligence of incomprehensible power was working in the moments of one trillion trillion, trillionth of a second to exact a result that would allow for human life—14 billion years into the future.[5]

The rate of expansion for the early universe was just right:[6]

• If the energy expansion in that first second was slightly larger, then the gravitational forces necessary to form stars and planets would not have taken place.
• If the expansion of energy was slightly smaller, the universe would have collapsed back on itself.
• If the initial expansion of energy was greater than the capacity of gravitational forces to pull all of this matter back together and eventually form galaxies and stars, life many billions of years later, would not have been possible. Mathematical physicists have calculated that at the first second of the universe, the expansion of energy and gravitational forces differed by less than 1 part in a million, billion, or 1015.[7]

The amount of weak nuclear force was just right:

• The ratio of protons and neutrons was perfect to allow helium to form that would be needed for the formation of stars later.

The amount of strong nuclear forces was just right:

• This allowed helium to burn precisely slow enough so that elements could form.

The ratio of gravity to electromagnetism are balanced precisely:

• If the ratio between gravity and electromagnetism was increased by only 1 in 1040, only very small stars would have formed.
• If the ratio were decreased by the same amount, only very large stars would have formed.
• In order for life to be possible, there must be both large and small stars present in the universe. Large stars produce the element needed for life, small stars burn a the precise rate required to sustain life on a planet, such as earth.[8]

Every human being is made from carbon. This carbon was made in a star that was formed before our solar system came into being. You will often hear of astrophysicist state that we are made from stardust. So that life might be possible, carbon must be scattered into space in the form of dust during the explosion of a star—formed into second or third generation star systems that will develop planets form this dust.[9] The Solar System in which the earth is located is one of these third-generation star systems.

The process whereby carbon is produced through a chain of nuclear reactions which build heavy elements in stars—begins with the collision of one helium nucleus with another in star. This produces a short lived element called “beryllium.” A second collision occurs between the beryllium and another helium nucleus—this process leads to the formation of carbon. Remember that this entire process takes place inside a second or third generation star—which would not be present itself were it not for impossible circumstance which occurred at the begin of the universe.

After carbon is produced, other elements are built up in additional nuclear reactions, such as nitrogen, and oxygen. If this specific step had not occurred in stars that are also unlikely to have formed, the entire universe would consist primarily of hydrogen and helium and there would be no possibility of any advanced life forms, such as man—anywhere in the universe.[10]

All life, is predicated upon this resonance energy level of the carbon nucleus. It this resonance had varied even slightly in either direction, carbon would not have formed.

Because of the near impossible circumstance required for carbon to exist, there should be no life anywhere in the universe, or it should be extremely rare.[11]

Physicist Richard Morris:

“How is it that common elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen happened to have just the kind of atomic structure that they needed to combine to make the molecules upon which life depends? It is almost as though the universe had been consciously designed…” [12]

Carl Sagan:

“It is easy to see that only a very restricted range of laws of nature are consistent with galaxies and stars, planets, life and intelligence.”[13]

Albert Einstein:

(The universe),”reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”[14]

When we examine the microscopic world of the atom, the evidence is even more compelling. The proton is 1,836 times heavier than the electron—no scientists know for certain, why. There is no natural explanation for this phenomenon, only that if this ration changed even by a minute quantity, the molecule required for life would not form—chemistry, which makes life a reality, would not take place.

Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking describes this critical ratio:

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”[15]

A finely tuned universe designed for life

The argument for a finely tuned universe is the most compelling evidence to prove the existence of God, because it demonstrates by science and mathematics that an intelligence is behind the universe. Leading atheist and author of “The God Delusion,” Professor Richard Dawkins admits that a finely tuned universe is a “wholly respectable reason for believing” the universe was created:

“There may be good reasons for believing in a god, and if there are any I would expect them to come from possibly modern physics, from cosmology, from the observation that (as some people claim), that laws and constants of the universe are too finely tuned to be an accident. That would not be a wholly disreputable reason for believing in some form of supernatural deity.”[16]

The reality that the universe exhibits design characteristics which are only possible by intelligence, demands a rational answer. We cannot satisfy science nor the questions of the existence of life by any other answer except that the universe was created.

The “God of the gaps” excuse that was used for many years by creationists in explaining certain phenomenon, is not necessary, for God is the solution to all the questions of how and why the Cosmos came into being and exists in the way that we observe it.

At the present time, we understand that these constants and quantities have to be within very narrow limits, to permit life in the universe. When scientists speak of the “fine tuning” of the universe, this is what they are referring to.

You will often hear objections by certain theoretical physicists that the fine tuning of the universe is a myth. In truth, this neutral fine tuning is without controversy in the world of Physics, having many settled foundations for fine tuning already established.

The following is a compelling list of 35 facts regarding the fine tuning of our universe that demand a designing intelligence as a first cause.[17]

Galaxy Size:

If our Milky Way had been larger, the infusion of gases in the stars would disturb our sun’s orbit and ignite deadly galactic eruptions, incinerating the earth. If the Milky Way was smaller, the infusion of gases would be insufficient to allow a star to exist long enough for life to form on a planet, such as earth.

Galaxy Type:

If the Milky Way was more elliptical, star formation would cease before sufficient heavy elements could form for life chemistry. If our galaxy was more circular, earth’s radiation exposure would be too severe (at times); and life-essential heavy elements would not form.

Galaxy Location:

If the Milky Way was too close to another dense galaxy cluster, the close proximity of this other galaxy would destroy all life on earth.

The Number of Stars in Our Solar System:

If we had more than one star in our solar system, tidal interactions would cause the orbits of life-supportable planets to be unsuitable for life. Most other solar systems do have more than one star. The fact that our solar system has just one star makes it atypical and allows for all life that is present on earth to exist.

Our Sun’s Age:

If our sun was either older or younger, it would be much brighter and make life impossible. There is an ideal age for a star in which its brightness is perfect for life. We just happen to exist during the perfect age of our sun’s existence.

The Sun’s Mass:

If the sun was larger, it would  burn its fuel much quicker, making life on earth impossible. If the sun was smaller, it would drastically alter earth’s rotation and make life impossible.

The Color of Our Sun:

Our sun is exceptional in that it produces white light as opposed to the light produced by a red or blue star which would not allow for plant growth or life, as we know it on earth.

The Size and Location of Our Moon:

The earth has a unusually large moon for the size of our planet, orbiting around it.

1. The moon did not come from the earth itself.
2. It could not have been caused by debris that was captured by the earth’s gravity, because the moon is so large.

The best explanation (other than outright miracle) for the moon’s existence is that a Mars-sized planet crashed into the earth around 4.25 billion years ago. The probability of two planets colliding in the same solar system is extremely remote. The moon is moving away from the earth (currently at 2 inches per year), as it has been moving since its formation. If we calculate the movement of the moon in reverse from its present course, we discover that it must have formed at about 7,300 miles above the earth’s surface. This is indicative of formation by collision from an outside body which struck the earth.

Why the Moon is Important to Life on Earth:

Scientists have suggested that perhaps the moon was created by a collision of earth with a Mars-sized planet.[18] This impact resulted in the ejection of the majority of the earth’s original atmosphere which was likely toxic.[19] If this collision had not occurred, our planet would have maintained an atmosphere similar to that of Venus, with a surface temperature of more than 800°F and up to 80 times more dense than the earth’s current atmosphere.[20]  By design, our earth was created with a very thin atmosphere that was necessary to maintain our great oceans, contributing immensely to the existence of life.

Size of the Moon:

Scientists believe that the earth originally had a rotational period of eight hours.[21] This greatly increased rotational period would have resulted in surface wind velocities in excess of 500 miles per hour. The fact that the moon was introduced at some point later in the formation of earth, caused the planet to slow to 1,000 miles per hour, resulting in 24-hour days. This allowed for a perfect balance of light and darkness necessary to promote plant growth—essential for life.

Hydrogen-Helium Balance:

If our solar system had less hydrogen and helium, the molecules essential for planet formation and life chemistry would never have formed. If the solar system had too much hydrogen and helium, planets would have formed at the wrong time and place for life.

Gravity is Perfectly Balanced:

If the gravitational force of Earth were stronger, our planet’s atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane for life. If the Earth’s gravity was weaker, the planet’s  atmosphere would lose too much water to maintain life.

Distance from the Sun:

If earth was farther from the sun, the temperature would be too cool for a stable water cycle. If Earth were closer to the sun, the planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle.

Angle of Orbit:

If our orbit around the Sun was longer, the temperature range on the planet’s surface would be too extreme for life.

Axial Tilt:

If the tilt of Earth’s axis was more than the current 23.5 degrees, surface temperature differences between night and day would be too great to sustain diverse life forms. If our axis tilt was less than 23.5 degrees, the same result.

Rotation of 1,000 Miles Per Hour:

If Earth rotated at a rate greater than 1,000 miles per hour, the differential temperatures between day and night would be too extreme for life. If earth’s rotation was less than 1,000 miles per hour, surface wind velocity would be too great for life.

Earth’s Age:

If Earth was a younger planet, the rotational velocity would be too rapid for life. If Earth was older than its present age, our rotational velocity would be too slow for life.

Earth’s Magnetic Field is Delicately Balanced:

If Earth’s magnetic field was stronger, electromagnetic storms would be too severe.  If it was weaker, our ozone layer would not be sufficient to protect us from harsh solar and stellar radiation.

Earth’s Crust:

If the crust of the Earth was thicker, it would rob the atmosphere of oxygen needed for life. If Earth’s crust was thinner, excessive volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, would make life impossible.

Reflective Light:

If Earth reflected more light, we would experience the presence of constant ice ages. If Earth reflected less light from its surface, we would be in a subtropical sauna.

Asteroid and Comet Collision Rates:

If Earth had experienced a greater number of collisions by asteroids and comet debris in the past, life would not exist today. If Earth had experienced less collisions by celestial bodies in the past, the surface crust of our planet would contain insufficient life-essential elements required for life.

Oxygen to Nitrogen Ratio:

The atmosphere of Earth consists of two primary gases: nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%). This happens to be the perfect balance required for human respiration. This precise combination also allows our skies to present the beautiful blue color we all enjoy. If Earth had more oxygen, our atmosphere would catch fire and burn everything on the planet. If our atmosphere had less oxygen, no human life would be possible on earth.

Carbon Dioxide:

If Earth had more carbon dioxide, we would have a runaway greenhouse effect. If we had less carbon dioxide, plants would be unable to grow.

Water Vapor Quantity in the Atmosphere:

If we had more water vapor present in our atmosphere, the temperature of the planet would be too extreme to permit life. The presence of less water vapor in our atmosphere, would inhibit the production of rain, resulting in massive desert regions all over the planet.

Atmospheric Electric Discharge:

If Earth had more electric discharge in the atmosphere, our forests would ignite in spontaneous combustion.

Ozone Quantity:

If Earth contained greater ozone in our atmosphere, the temperatures on our planet would be too low to promote ultraviolet radiation necessary for life. If there was insufficient ozone in our atmosphere, surface temperatures on our planet would cause ultraviolet radiation too intense for life.

Earthquakes:

If we had earthquakes in greater frequency than we currently experience, most life would be destroyed by the resulting damage to our ecosystem. If the earth experienced a lower occurrence of earthquakes, the nutrients found on our ocean floors that come from river runoff would not be recycled by the continents through tectonics, resulting in insufficient carbon dioxide being released from carbonate buildup.

Volcanic Activity:

If earth had a decreased number of volcanic eruptions, there would not be enough carbon dioxide and water vapor returned to the atmosphere, resulting in insufficient soil mineralization required for advanced life support. If Earth had a greater number of volcanic eruptions, most advanced life would be destroyed; and the entire ecosystem of earth would be damaged.

Oceans-to-Continents Ratio:

If the earth had larger oceans, diversity and complexity of lifeforms would be limited. If we had less oceans, no complex life forms could form. If our planet had a lower proportion of land-to-sea ratio, advanced life forms would be impossible. If greater land mass had developed, the resulting changes would be too radical for advanced life to survive.

Distribution of Continents:

If there were too many continents in the southern hemisphere, sea-salt aerosols would be insufficient to stabilize surface temperature and water cycle, resulting in increased seasonal differences that would limit the available habitats for advanced land life.

Gravitational Interaction with the Moon:

If the moon had more gravitational pull on the earth, tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would destroy all life by massive waves. If the moon had less gravitational pull on the earth, all weather on earth would change so severely, that life could not exist.

Jupiter’s Distance from the Earth:

If the planet Jupiter was at greater distance from Earth, the beneficial gravitational force which this massive planet exerts in our Solar System would have a significant impact on the number of asteroid and comet collisions which strike the earth. Described as the “vacuum cleaner of the Solar System,” Jupiter’s immense gravity, as well as its precise placement in the Solar System, shields the earth by drawing most larger asteroids and comets that pass through our inner Solar System, into the asteroid belt.[22] Without the specific placement of Jupiter where it is located, it is likely that life on earth would be impossible—as our planet would be repeatedly struck by extinction level asteroids and comets. If Jupiter were any closer to the Earth, its gravitational force would throw off our orbit and kill everyone on the planet.

Orbit Around the Sun:

If the orbits of the planets in our solar system were longer, Earth’s orbit would be radically changed and life could not exist.

The Frequency of Forest and Grass Fires:

If Earth had more forest fires, smoke and soot would choke out all life. If we had less forest fires, the forest would accumulate growth inhibitors that would make soil unsuitable for food production.

Amount of Sea Salt:

If the earth’s seas had greater salt content, this would precipitate greater cloud formation over the oceans, radically disrupting the climate and atmospheric temperature balances. If our seas contained less salt, there would be insufficient clouds formation, resulting in inadequate water cycle, which would significantly disrupt atmospheric temperature balances of the earth.

Stunning Evidence:

When we consider the singular or cumulative effects of all these precise requirements that are necessary for life to exist on earth—we are struck with the reality that these life-giving physical constants of nature were designed to make life possible on our planet. It is inconceivable that every necessary element which allows for an environment—perfect for life—came about by accident. These types of precipitous events do not occur by coincidence. Any one of these 35 necessary constants being altered even slightly, would cause the death of all advanced life on earth.

The total probability that all 36 of these factors could occur by chance—which make life possible on earth: 1:10148

These are the facts of science, empirical and undeniable. They are not philosophical arguments, they are conclusive evidence that the universe exists by impossible circumstances. Whatever we might believe about the existence of God, the fact that our own universe display evidence of design, purpose, and engineering is evidence enough for a reasonable person to conclude that God must exist.

For those who are looking for truth, this is reason enough to consider the God of the Bible, who claims to be the source of the universe. We can take this basic beginning and start a whole new approach to the issue of God and whether we will continue in our search to know Him.

One point that is certain: Science cannot explain the deeper questions of why the universe exists in the first place, and why life is possible at all—when given the evidence. Science cannot tell us why we should be here on this planet, when there is every scientific reason to dismiss this possibility, given the requirements that were necessary—over a period of almost 14 billion years. None of these important questions can adequately be explained by any purely naturalistic method.

This is an impossible universe, made possible by an infinite intelligence. Call Him God, the ultimate supreme being, the greatest extra-terrestrial—it is all the same. He is transcendent of time, space, and matter, although He is the source of all these. He claims to reveal Himself by the words which are written under His inspiration—in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures of the Bible. He has left us with an intellectual basis to conclude that He exists, by the things He has made. If we chose not to believe in His reality it will not be for lack of compelling evidence.


NOTES:
[1] Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, 2014
[2] Audi, G; Bersillon, O.; Blachot, J.; Wapstra, A.H. (1997). “The Nubase evaluation of nuclear and decay properties”. Nuclear Physics A 624: 1. http://amdc.in2p3.fr/nubase/nubase97.pdf
[3] Hoyle, F. 1982. Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20. P. 16
[4] Allday, Jonathan (2001). Quarks, Leptons and the Big Bang. Institute of Physics Publishing. ISBN 0-7503-0806-0
[5] Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London, J M Dent & Sons
[6] Davies, Paul. Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life. Great Britain: The Penguin Press, 2006.
[7] 1. Hoyle, Fred. “The Universe: Some Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science (1981): 12.
2. Polkinghorne, John. “The Anthropic Principle and the Science and Religion Debate (PDF).” Faraday Papers, no. 4 (2007).
[8] Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London, J M Dent & Sons
[9] Whittet, D. C. B. (2003). Dust in the Galactic Environment. CRC Press. pp. 45–46. ISBN 0-7503-0624-6.
[10] Steven Weinberg, “Life in the Universe,” Scientific American (October 1994), p. 49.
[11] From Heeren, Fred (2012-08-23). Show Me God (Kindle Locations 7685-7689). Day Star Publications. Kindle Edition: Resonance describes the behavior or the amount of “excitement” in the nucleus of an atom. Nuclei are normally in what is called the ground energy state, configured for stability and minimum energy. Bur nuclei can become excited as a result of colliding with other nuclei. When this happens, one of the protons or neutrons of the nucleus moves into a higher energy state, in much the same way that whole atoms are said to become excited when an electron moves from one orbit to another, Fred Hoyle correctly predicted the precise resonance that would allow carbon to form in abundance, as required by all living things.
[12] 1.Richard Morris, The Fate of the Universe (New York, Playboy Press, 1982), p. 155.
2.Heeren, Fred (2012-08-23). Show Me God (Kindle Location 8235). Day Star Publications. Kindle Edition.
[13] Carl Sagan, “Cosmos,” (New York: Random House, 1980), page 260.
[14] Albert Einstein, “Ideas and Opinions-The World as I See It.” (New York: Bonanza Books, 1931), page 40.
[15] Stephen W. Hawking, “A Brief History of Time-From the Big Bang to Black Holes.” (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), page 125.
[16] Richard Dawkins on the announcement that Antony Flew now believes in God. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEPUn__hYso
[17] Paul G. Falkowski, “Evolution of the Nitrogen Cycle and its Influence on the Biological Sequestration of C02 in the Ocean,” Nature, 387 (1997), pp. 272-274.
Peter Olson, “Probing Earth’s Dynamo,” Nature, 389 (1997), p. 337.
Weiji Kuang and Jeremy Bloxham, “An Earth-Like Numerical Dynamo Model,” Nature, 389 (1997), pp. 371-374.
Xiaodong Song and Paul G. Richards, “Seismological Evidence for Differential Rotation of the Earth’s Inner Core,” Nature, 382 (1997), pp. 221-224.
Cowen, R. 1992. Were spiral galaxies once more common? Science News 142: 390.
Dressler, et al. 1994. New images of the distant rich cluster, CL 0939+4713 with WFPC2. Astrophysical Journal Letters 435: L23-L26.
Davies, R.E. and R. H. Koch. 1991. All the observed universe has contributed to life. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series B 334: 391-403.
Ross, H. 1995. The Creator and the Cosmos. NavPress, Colorado Springs, CO, chapters 14 and 15
Ross, H. 1998. Big Bang Refined by Fire. Reasons To Believe, Pasadena, CA.
Rudnick, R. 1995. Making continental crust. Nature 378:571-578.
Ward. W.R. 1982. Comments on the long-term stability of the Earth’s obliquity. Icarus 50: 444-448.
Murray, C.D. 1993. Seasoned travelers. Nature 361: 586-587.
Laskar, J. and P. Robutel. 1993. The chaotic obliquity of the planets. Nature 361: 608-612.
Schlovskii, I.S. and C. Sagan. 1966. Intelligent life in the universe. Holden-Day, San Francisco, CA, pp. 343-350.
Kuhn, W.R., J.C.G. Walker, and H.G. Marshall. 1989. The effect on the Earth’s surface temperature from variations in rotation rate, continent formation, solar luminosity, and carbon dioxide. Journal of Geophysical Research 94: 11, 136.
Abell, G. 1964. Exploration of the Universe. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, pp. 244-247.
Brandt, J.C. and P.W. Hodge. 1964. Solar System Astrophysics. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 244-247.
Hart, M.H. 1979. Habitable zones about main sequence stars. Icarus 37: 351-357.
Jenkins, G.S., H.G. Marshall, and W.R. Kuhn. 1993. Precambrian climate: the effects of land area and Earth’s rotation rate. Journal of Geophysical Research, Series D 98: 8785-8791.
Zahnle, K.J. and J.C.G. Walker. 1987. A constant daylength during the precambrian era? Precambrian Research 37: 95-105.
Monastersky, R. 1993. Speedy spin kept early Earth from freezing. Science News 143: 373.
Campbell, I.H. and S.R. Taylor. 1983. No water, no granite – no oceans, no continents. Geophysical Research Letters. 10: 1061-1064.
Peterson, Ivars. 1993. Newton’s Clock: Chaos in the Solar System, W.H. Freeman and Co.
Taylor, G. Jeffrey. July, 1994. “The scientific legacy of Apollo” Scientific American 271 (1): 40-47.
Giant Impact Theory For Moon Formation Boosted (from SpaceDaily.com)
Rudnick, R. 1995. Making continental crust. Nature 378:571-578.
Maher, K.A. and D.J. Stevenson. 1988. Impact frustrations of the origin of life. Nature 331: 612-614.
Rasio, F.A. and E.B. Ford. 1996. Dynamical instabilities and the formation of extrasolar planetary systems. Science 274: 954-956.
Dicke, R.H. 1961. Dirac’s cosmology and Mach’s principle. Nature 192: 440.
Laskar, J., F. Joutel, and P. Robutel. 1993. Stabilization of the Earth’s obliquity by the Moon. Nature 361: 615-617.
The editors. July 1993. Our friend Jove. Discover, p. 15.
George Wetherill, “How Special Is Jupiter?” Nature 373 (1995), p. 470.
B. Zuckerman, T. Forveille, and J. H. Kastner, “Inhibition of Giant-Planet Formation by Rapid Gas Depletion Around Young Stars,” Nature373 (1995), p. 494-496.
Ray Jayawardhana, “No Alien Jupiters,” Science 265 (1994), P. 1527.
Laskar, J. 1994. Large-scale chaos in the Solar System. Astronomy and Astrophysics 287: 112.
Rasio, F.A. and E.B.Ford. 1996. Dynamical instabilities and the formation of extrasolar planetary systems. Science 274: 954-956.
Elliott H. Lieb, Michael Loss, and Jan Philip Solovej, “Stability of Matter in Magnetic Fields,” Physical Review Letters, 75 (1995), pp. 985-989.
Rob Rye, Phillip H. Kuo, and Heinrich D. Holland, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Before 2.2 Billion Years Ago,” Nature 378 (1995), pp. 603-605.
Robert A. Muller and Gordon J. MacDonald, “Glacial Cycles and orbital inclination,” Nature, 377 (1995), pp. 107-108.
T. R. Gabella and T. Oka, “Detection of H3+ in interstellar Space,” Nature, 384 (1996), pp. 334-335.
Peter D. Moore, “Fire Damage Soils Our Forest,” Nature 384 (1996), pp. 312-313.
Christine Mlot, “Tallying Nitrogen’s Increasing Impact,” Science News, 151 (1997), p. 100.
Wei-jia Su, Adam M. Dziewonski, and Raymond Jeanloz, “Planet Within a Planet: Rotation of the Inner Core of the Earth,” Science, 274 (1996), pp. 1883-1887.
[18] Taylor, G. Jeffrey (31 December 1998). “Origin of the Earth and Moon”. Planetary Science Research Discoveries. Web Site: http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Dec98/OriginEarthMoon.htm
[19] Zahnle, K.; Schaefer, L.; Fegley, B. (2010). “Earth’s Earliest Atmospheres”. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 2 (10): a004895.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Poropudas, Hannu K. J. (1991-12-16). “Using Coral as a Clock”. Skeptic Tank. Web Site: http://www.skepticfiles.org/origins/coralclo.htm
[22] Described as the “vacuum cleaner” Michael Zolensky in an article by: Lovett, Richard A. (December 15, 2006). “Stardust’s Comet Clues Reveal Early Solar System”. National Geographic News. Site: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061215-comet-stardust.html