Chandra Wickramasinghe, the cosmologist quoted yesterday also said, “The chances that life just occurred on earth are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junk yard and constructing a [Boeing] 747.” As ‘Discover’ magazine stated, “The universe is unlikely. Very unlikely. Deeply, shockingly unlikely.” And yet we are here!

So which world view fits the observations? We believe in God because of what we know. Observational science does not conflict with the Biblical world view of God. Science is not anti-Christian. Science is not atheistic. Many scientists were and are Christians. Scientific facts are pointing more and more to the fact that this world had a creator and everything we see is part of that creation including ourselves.

If you have the time check out this YouTube “Why This Atheistic Scientist Became a Believing Christian.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMBQwGzn_TE

It is historical science that seeks to reconstruct the unobserved past. However, this historical forensic science is limited by its ability to reconstruct the past without making huge leaps of faith. Our world view will always influence the data of historical science. This is where the conflict of belief systems comes from.

If there is no God many of the ‘God’ questions disappear. There is no accountability. On the other hand, if God does exist, then a whole set of other questions arise. Have you ever asked yourself, “How do we explain the existence of morals and values?” God is the best explanation! Even atheists recognize that some things, for example, the Holocaust, are objectively evil. But if atheism is true, what basis is there for the objectivity of the moral values we affirm? Evolution? Social conditioning? These factors may at best produce in us the subjective feeling that there are objective moral values and duties, but they do nothing to provide a basis for them. If human evolution had taken a different path, a very different set of moral feelings might have evolved. By contrast, God Himself serves as the standard of goodness, and His commandments constitute our moral duties. Thus, belief in God provides a better explanation of objective moral values and duties.

If there is no God, then an absolute standard of right and wrong only becomes culturally relative. Moral values become patterns of behaviour that have just evolved in a social context. However, moral values and duties do exist. Some things are really wrong. Rape, torture of a little child, molestation, hatred, and cruelty are really wrong. Similarly, love, generosity, and self-sacrifice are really good. From these two premises it follows, therefore, God exists.

If objective moral values and duties cannot exist without God, and objective moral values and duties do exist as is evident in our moral experience, then it follows necessarily that God exists. The argument is not that belief in God is necessary for morality. The argument is that God is necessary for morality.