My Logical Case for God

Dear Nephew,

I have viewed with interest your comments on various issues as an atheist. I see that you claim there is no logical case for the existence of God and that religion is just emotion. May I suggest some logical arguments for you to consider?

To frame the discussion, let us start by defining God as a possible intelligent creator of the universe we can see and study. Let us assume that if he exists, he allows us agency or freedom of action. This is a reality we see in little children at a young age, our own desire for liberty, and the existence of good and evil (in a socially generic sense) because of individual choice. Let us also acknowledge that if he exists he has not shown himself to men at large – we do not see him peering down on us from the heavens. The question then becomes, is there a logical argument for an intelligent being that ordered creation and gave us life as free agents?

First – what does scientific man think? The greatest minds of the 19^th, 20^th, and 21^st centuries (Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking respectively) all invoked God in their arguments, i.e., they recognized God and pondered how he had created the universe. Individually they may not have accepted the Gods of specific religions, but they saw an intelligent hand at work in the cosmos. If they acknowledged God, is it not logical that we, as inferior intellects, also acknowledge God? 

Second – what does scientific man observe? The finely-tuned balance of all matter and life in the universe bespeaks an intelligent, ordered design. How many big bangs would it take to create by chance a perfectly operating BMW, yet a BMW is a very simple machine when compared with the operations of a single biological cell? A specific example of fine-tuning I came across recently was in Michio Kaku’s book “Parallel Worlds”. (Michio contributed significantly to String Theory) In cosmology, the value Omega refers to matter density in the universe. Quoting Michio, “For Omega to be so close to 1 so many billions of years after the big bang would require a miracle. This is what is called in cosmology the fine-tuning problem. God, or some creator, had to ‘choose’ the value of Omega to within a fantastic accuracy … (of) 1.00000000000000 one second after the big bang. In other words, at the beginning of time the value of Omega had to be ‘chosen’ to equal the number 1 to within one part in a hundred trillion, which is difficult to comprehend. Think of trying to balance a pencil vertically on its tip … for years!” He points out that if this matter density had not be set so precisely neither the universe nor us could exist. To list just a few other examples of fine-tuning in the universe (including biology) would require volumes. Some people know how to fine-tune materials into a working BMW. Is it illogical to think that an intelligent creator knows how to fine-tune a big bang and the complexity of a single biological cell to create a universe full of life?

Third – if One and Two suggest there could be an intelligent creator, is there evidence a creator has communicated specifically to man in a scientific expression? Yes, as scientists see in the laws of General Relativity and Quantum Physics, but let me use a different more interesting example. The Bible Code may be such evidence. It is the first five books of the Old Testament or more specifically the Torah. It was given to Moses about 1,500 BC. He was instructed to write it letter by letter without punctuation and it was to be copied exactly the same way. Throughout the centuries Jewish scholars suspected something special when they found the names of very prominent Jewish leaders, that lived after Moses, “hidden” in the text. In the computer age, Jewish scholars subjected the text to scrutiny and found the names of 66 prominent Jewish leaders using “equidistant letter sequences in the book of Genesis.” This paper was reviewed by three peers before being accepted for publication in Statistical Science in 1994. Other prominent historic events were found such as details about the Kennedy assassination. Some events were found before they happened, such as the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (one year prior but not the exact date), and comet Shoemaker-Levy’s impact on Jupiter and the exact date of the occurrence (a few months prior). The current perspective is that it is a holographic code so complex that it includes all probabilities of all our choices in life. With today’s technology we can find things in the code easily after they happen. We do not have computers powerful enough yet to decipher the future probabilities clearly. How is it possible that Moses was given a program containing all our lives and the probabilities of our choices in 1,500 BC? Who gave this advanced computer program code to Moses? I think we can agree that Moses did not have the knowledge to write it. He that gave it to Moses, said his name was Jehovah and that he had created the heavens and the Earth under the direction of his Father. Given the computer analysis of the code and its evident complexity, which is well beyond our current knowledge, is it logical to accept Jehovah’s claim?

As an aside, one of the great experiences in my life was to visit Jabal Musa (the Mountain of Moses) in NW Saudi Arabia. The layout is exactly as the Book of Exodus describes – unlike the traditional site of Mt. Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula.

Fourth – is there evidence the creator has communicated directly to our most intelligent scientists in a manner similar to Jehovah with Moses? Not to my knowledge. I am not aware of any that have claimed such communication. Is it logical to conclude then that an intelligent creator does not exist? Is it logical to conclude, because he has not communicated to our top scientists, that he has not, will not, and cannot communicate with anyone?

Fifth – since I claim a personal experience with Jehovah or Christ – the son of God and creator of our heavens and Earth – is it logical to accept that as valid? Logic says it cannot be denied as possible if a creator exists. Logic also suggests that a creator’s direct communication with the things he creates is entirely possible and probable. My children accept me as their “creator” and we have regular contact. There are also children who do not know their creator parents, but that does not suggest they do not exist. Does your lack of experience with God logically negate or disprove his existence, or does it invalidate my experience with him?

Sixth – my experience with Christ was very emotional, and I did not see him. Does that emotional experience logically negate the interpretation of that experience? First, the experience was shared equally by the man with me – very strong evidence for its reality. But second, let me deal with your issue about religion being just emotion. Emotion is real and it connects us to many things – some very special to us. How do I know I love my wife? How do you know you love your wife? Because you feel the love you have for her, does that logically negate the relationship? What is interesting about emotion, is that it is not limited by distance or time. Of course cell phones now give us visual and audible connection over distance and time, but I think you know my meaning. Scientists have observed for years the connection between twins, even when separated by great distance. Married couples also develop this closeness.

In the age of snail mail I had an experience with Pat that transcended distance by future time. I was in Korea and she was in Hawaii with the kids. I got very sick on a Saturday and knew I would be DNIF (Duty Not to Include Flying) and would therefore not get to join my family in Hawaii as scheduled – I had to complete my checkride in the RF-4C first. On Sunday morning I was in bed, sick enough to not get up for church. The phone rang. It was the Command Post with a letter from Pat, sent two weeks earlier to my friend in Okinawa, to be dispatched up to Korea on the courier flight that had just arrived. I dragged myself out of bed and went to retrieve the letter. In the letter she expressed concern about me getting sick, and counseled me to get a Priesthood blessing, so that I would complete my checkride and arrive in Hawaii on time – she wrote this two weeks prior! I went to church, got a blessing, was healed, completed my checkride on time and arrived in Hawaii on schedule.

Is this emotional connection understandable in science? Yes – in Quantum Physics this is explainable in “quantum entanglement” or “association” and the related “effect at a distance.” In quantum theory, if I create two communications devices and associate or entangle them during their manufacture, I can create what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.” If I have one device and you the other, let me send you to New Zealand. When we communicate with the device, it will be instantaneous (not the speed of light) and completely secure. If I send you to Pluto, when we communicate it will be instantaneous. If I send you to the other side of the universe, when we communicate it will be instantaneous. Chinese and American military scientists have already demonstrated these principles – there was a news item about this just one week ago. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) demonstrated such communication over about 30 km at MIT in 2005. The Chinese reported similar success last week. So, entangled twins and couples have the ability to be in communication with each other over great distances – usually connected emotionally or telepathically. Is it illogical to consider that we could be associated with the creator and receive emotional/telepathic communication from him? We could of course, use our liberty to shut him out or ignore him – just as we can a spouse or twin.

Seventh – let us go to Court. The case being considered is this: Is there a God? Can I be a witness for God? Yes, because I claim an experience with him and can describe his attributes and detail the knowledge that was passed to me. Can you be a witness against God? I submit that logically you can not be. Why? Because you have had no such experience and therefore cannot witness against my observations of God – that I am mistaken – he is really someone else who you know as Mr. X. To put it another way, you may have an opinion about Michael Jackson’s doctor being a murderer, but your opinion will never be accepted in court. On the other hand, if you had experiences with the doctor, you could present your experiences as evidence for or against him.

I therefore submit that your atheism is simply a lack of experience – that your experiences are not sufficient to argue against God, or sufficient to negate my experience with God. One day you will be a witness for God along with me and it will be a great and wonderful thing to you.

Love,

Uncle Neil