The Case for a Creator - Lee Strobel [41]
“Based on the evidence you’ve mentioned,” I said, “how do you complete the case for God?”
“First, theism, with its concept of a transcendent Creator, provides a more causally adequate explanation of the Big Bang than a naturalistic explanation can offer,” he said. “The cause of the universe must transcend matter, space, and time, which were brought into existence with the Big Bang. The Judeo-Christian God has precisely this attribute of transcendence. Yet naturalism, by definition, denies the existence of any entity beyond the closed system of nature.
“The fine-tuning of the physical laws and constants of the universe and the precise configuration of its initial conditions, dating back to the very origin of the universe itself, suggest the need for a cause that’s intelligent. Theism affirms the existence of an entity that’s not only transcendent but intelligent as well—namely, God. Thus, theism can explain both Big Bang cosmology and the anthropic fine-tuning.
“Pantheism can’t explain the origin of the universe, because pantheists believe in an impersonal god that’s coextensive with the physical universe. Such a god can’t bring the universe into being from nothing, since such a god doesn’t exist independently of the physical universe. If initially the physical universe didn’t exist, then the pantheistic god wouldn’t have existed either. If it didn’t exist, it couldn’t cause the universe to exist.”
“What about deism?” I interjected, referring to the belief that God created the world but has since let it run on its own. “Can’t deism account for the origin of the universe too?”
“Yes, I’ll provide that caveat—deism can do the same,” he acknowledged. “But I believe the existence of design subsequent to the Big Bang undermines deism as an adequate explanation.
“You see, deism can’t explain the evidence of discrete acts of design or creation after the universe was created. The deistic god never intervenes in nature, yet we’re seeing evidence of intelligent design in the history of life. For example, the high information content in the cell provides compelling evidence for an act of intelligent design of the first life, long after the beginning of the universe.
“Taken together, what we know today gives us heightened confidence—from science—that God exists. The weight of the evidence is very, very impressive—in fact, in my opinion it’s sufficiently conclusive to say that theism provides the best explanation for the ensemble of scientific evidence we’ve been discussing.
“Science and faith are not at war. When scientific evidence and biblical teaching are correctly interpreted, they can and do support each other. I’d say to anyone who doubts that: investigate the evidence yourself.”
Meyer’s whirlwind tour was exhilarating. At first blush, the cumulative case for God, built point by point from the discoveries of science, seemed staggering. Of course, I had a whole slew of follow-up questions, some of which I intended to pose to Meyer, and others I would save for the experts I planned to interview in each of the categories of evidence Meyer had mentioned. I decided to begin with the issue of just how much evidence for God is needed to establish the case for a Creator.
THE GOD HYPOTHESIS
In the legal arena, different courtrooms have different standards of proof. In criminal cases, the prosecutor must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In most civil cases, the plaintiff must prevail by a considerably lesser standard, called a preponderance of the evidence. In some civil cases, there’s even a third level of proof situated between the other two: clear and convincing evidence. 16
When I asked Meyer what standard of proof he considered appropriate in the theological realm, he gave me an interesting history lesson on the topic of evidence for God. I decided to sit back and let him talk, reserving my follow-up questions for the end.
“One extreme is to deny that there is any evidential basis for Christian belief and instead to say that all