If God made everything, who made God?

Critics are often frustrated when Christians ask them, “Where did everything come from?” They're frustrated because they really have no convincing answer. Many critics will attempt to turn the tables and ask the Christian, “Well, if everything has to come from something then where did God come from?” They ask this question intending to create the impression that Christians have a similar dilemma as atheists – namely, how can something exist without being created? They feel if Christians can believe God exists without a cause, then why can't atheists believe the universe exists without a cause? 

This reminds me of a funny story I once heard.

An astronaut was speaking to a group of elderly folks about his experiences, in particular about the first time he saw the earth from space. While he was speaking, a lady interrupted him and said, “Sir, I don't know what you're talking about. Everyone knows the earth sits on the back of a giant turtle.”

Not wanting to argue with the lady, the astronaut politely asked her, “Ma'am, what do you think that turtle is standing on?”

The lady didn't miss a beat, “Why, another turtle, of course.”

 

The astronaut saw he was going to have to press the issue a little. “Then what is that other turtle standing on?”

 

The lady shook her head and said, “Sir, I see what you're doing and it's not going to work. It's turtles all the way down!”

 

This is what is known as an infinite regress. It's a logical fallacy where a speaker projects a causal chain of events backward without any definite point that starts the chain. If someone created God, then it must have been by some bigger god. Then who created that god? It must be an even bigger god. Then that god must have been created too, by a still bigger god. Do you see where this is going?  There has to be a First Cause – an infinite God who was not created.

If something exists, it must either have always existed or it began to exist. If something began to exist – like the universe – then what caused it? You can't say it was caused by another created thing because that other thing would need a cause. There has to be an eternal Creator who started it all. An infinite God creating the universe is the only thing that makes any sense. Anything else is just turtles all the way down!

Why does God hide Himself?

In a list of arguments against God's existence, one critic at Backyard Skeptics questioned the existence of God based on what he called, “Divine Hiddenness.” From the article we read the following: 

Why is God so stingy with direct evidence?... [T]he supposed miracles that attest to a supernatural power all happened in ancient, pre scientific, times, in which there existed no means of reliable verification. These supposed miracles are not being duplicated today so that we could see that such things are possible. Scientific errors in the Bible and its other flaws, including the commanding of atrocities, all make Scripture much harder to believe. A loving God would not erect such high barriers to belief and then further compound the difficulty in believing by providing us with such strong evidential circumstances against the supernatural, such as the inviolability of the laws of nature.

The implication being made is that, if God were real, He would openly reveal Himself to His creation; since He doesn't openly reveal Himself, it is evidence that He is not real. I've heard this same argument raised many times. Often, critics will sum it up with the question, “If there is a God, why doesn't He just appear to us?” I don't recall having heard the term, “divine hiddenness” before but it seems to make the same point. Here are some of my thoughts on that subject.

First, I would question the premise that God would necessarily reveal Himself. In the above quote, the author stated rather firmly, “A loving God would not erect such high barriers to belief.” Really? I've always considered it a bit presumptuous of people to tell me what God will or will not do. I agree that I might expect Him to appear, but on what grounds could one argue that He must? I can't think of any reason that obligates Him. Constructing a false narrative about how God should act, then criticizing God for not acting according to the false narrative is a logical fallacy known as a straw man.  I’ve written about this before here.

 

Beyond that, though, I would say that God does not hide Himself. At the most fundamental level, we see God behind His creation. Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.”  The enormity, the complexity, indeed, even the existence of the universe tell us plainly that there is a Creator who made it all. Romans 1:20 goes even further, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”

 

God also revealed Himself in special ways to people of the Old Testament. He appeared to Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3:1-17). He led the freed children of Abraham through the desert as a pillar of fire or a cloud of smoke (Exodus 13:21). The people heard His voice audibly at Mt Sinai (Deuteronomy 5:22-24). These examples and others show that God is a personal God who has made Himself known to His people.

 

God also made Himself known through the prophets and apostles. In many passages, the writers recite the words of God verbatim, prefacing their remarks with, “Thus saith the LORD....” As evidence that they were speaking with the authority of God, they were often given the ability to perform miracles. By extension, the words given to the prophets of old have become our Scriptures today. The canon of Scripture is God's revealed word to us.

 

But above all these is the incarnation – the birth of Jesus, our Emmanuel (God with us). John 1:14,18 says, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth… No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” God has revealed Himself in the Person of the Son. He told us who He was and proved it through many miracles including His own resurrection. He told us that we can have eternal life through Him and He gave His own life as the atonement for our sins.

People who would claim that God remains hidden have to ignore the clear evidence for His existence in His creation; they have to ignore His revealed word in the Bible; and they have to ignore the historical certainty of Jesus Christ. Of course, some critics still complain saying that the Bible was written so long ago and where is Jesus now? I'm sorry, but God has already made Himself known to them and there is no obligation that He reappears every few years to remind them that He is still Lord of the universe and that they will someday have to give an account of their lives to Him.

Even if Jesus did appear today, it still wouldn't change the mind of some people. Many of the people He appeared to in the Bible refused to believe in Him. It's not so much that God is hidden from them but rather they have blinded themselves to the truth.

I'd say their theory is bird-brained but birds are smarter than that

From a Scientific American article:

Darwin concluded that color differences between sexes in birds... result largely from female preference for bright colors in males. This general rule has received much support since Darwin's time, but other influences have also been noted. For example, females of species that are exposed to predators while incubating tend to have dull colors.

Sometimes I'm fascinated with how evolutionists' minds work. Secular scientists claim they go wherever the evidence leads. In practice, though, they only go where evolution can lead them. As we study birds, for example, a creationist might ask, “Why are some birds brightly plumed?”  Evolutionists, though, will ask, “Why did bright plumage evolve?” You see, evolution is the paradigm through which evolutionists interpret data. Therefore, their conclusions will always seem to support their theory. It's a vicious, circular argument.

 

Let's consider the quote from Scientific American. Their point is that bright feathers in male birds evolved because female birds are attracted to the bright feathers (known as sexual selection). At the same time, female birds have drab plumage because, during nesting, bright feathers would make them more visible to predators. In both cases, there seems to be an obvious survival benefit in having bright or drab feathers. The evidence, therefore, could be said to support evolution. This is a standard argument which I've heard made many times before. Such simple attempts to describe the origin of bright plumage sound plausible at first. However, I don't believe they can stand up to scrutiny. I see in them a host of unanswered questions.

 

First, explanations like this still don't answer why bright feathers evolved. I know what they're trying to say: that the male birds with the brightest feathers are the most successful in attracting mates so the brightest plumage is selected more often over the drab. But evolution is not a directed process. The desire for bright plumage does not cause bright plumage. That would be sort of like saying that dinosaurs evolved into birds because they wanted to fly. For females to select bright feathers in a mate, bright feathers must already be present in the population. If there is not bright plumage, sexual selection will not create them no matter how hot the hens think colorful feathers are!

 

This tactic of using the survival benefit of a feature as the explanation of why the feature evolved is prevalent in evolutionary philosophy. I read an article a while back where some evolutionist suggested crying evolved as a way for humans to garner sympathy from each other. Um, no it didn't! Still, they repeat stories like this all the time: lions evolved heavy manes to protect themselves while fighting. Giraffes evolved long necks so that they could reach the leaves at the tops of trees. Poisonous frogs evolved bright colors to warn away predators. The list goes on and on. It's about as ridiculous as believing that Michael Jordan grew tall in order to play basketball. Merely pointing out the survival benefit of a trait is not a sufficient explanation of how or why the trait evolved.

 

Another funny thing about these types of explanations is that they are so flexible that they can describe anything. Male birds evolved bright feathers to make themselves more attractive to females while females of the same species evolved drab feathers in order to make them less noticeable to predators. Wow! Members of the same species evolved completely opposite traits in exactly the same environments for completely different reasons.

 

I've also heard that humans evolved altruism because there is a survival benefit in a peaceful, cooperative community. Except, of course, when we express aggressive behaviors like fighting, raping, and killing each other. In that case, years of field research has taught us that we're acting the same way as our cousins, the chimpanzees. One story... er, I mean, “study,” says that we're monogamous because that insures the greatest chance of rearing our progeny to maturity; but another story says we're habitually unfaithful because our evolutionary success hinges upon leaving the greatest number of offspring.  Therefore, altruism and violence, monogamy and infidelity are all explained by evolution - so what if the traits are completely contradictory to one another?!  

 

I'm reminded too how often we hear that similar structures in different species are evidence of shared ancestry – except of course when they occur in species not closely related; In that case, they’re the result of convergent evolution. How predictive can any scientific theory be if it can be used to explain anything – even completely opposite results in the evolution of members of the same species?

 

Yet perhaps the funniest thing about the Scientific American's explanation is the seeming circular nature of it. Think about it: make birds evolved bright feathers because female birds are attracted to bright feathers. It's a tautology. The next question should be obvious: why are female birds attracted to bright feathers? If evolution were true, the preference for bright feathers is also an evolved trait. The evolution of bright feathers isn't necessary unless a preference for bright feathers had already evolved. Yet how could a preference for bright feathers evolve before there were bright feathers? What a pickle! And by the way, what survival benefit is there for the female members of a species to be attracted to the males who are the most visible to predators? That part of the equation isn't as neatly explained.

 

It's sad, really, that scientists waste their time inventing these “just so” stories that have no value as scientific theories and, frankly, don't even explain anything. They then foist these half-baked ideas upon the unsuspecting public and have the nerve to be appalled that lay people just don't understand evolution.

In a NY Times interview, Bill Nye once said, "There are just things about evolution that we should all be aware of, the way we’re aware of where electricity comes from." Is this the kind of evolution Nye believes kids need to learn in order to be good scientists?

 

“Good morning, class. Today we're going to talk about bird evolution. Please turn off your critical thinking skills and don't ask any questions.”

The Law of Large Numbers meets an infinite amount of monkeys

Evolutionists are rather cavalier in their attitude toward abiogenesis. The supposed first ancestor of everything was not observed. Neither can it be repeated or tested. It's outside of the scope of scientific inquiry yet evolutionists, because of the religious-like tenets of methodological naturalism, dismiss any possibility of divine intervention in the origin of life. It's not a scientific conclusion; it's a faith based one. 

Outside the revelation of the Creator, we could not possibly know about the true origin of life. How it did happen can never be known scientifically because it was a unique event in history and we weren't there to see it. However, scientists are also in the dark about how it even could have happened. In spite of years of trying, scientists have not been able to create life from non-living chemicals. They've not even devised a plausible scenario. The best they have are fanciful, “just so” stories that are no more scientific than Dr. Seuss.

 

Seeing that scientists have not been able to create life via their own intelligence, it's rather far-fetched to believe that life could randomly begin without the aid of any intelligent design whatsoever. Many creationists have ridiculed the idea of abiogenesis using a purely statistical perspective. That is, given the length of even the simplest protein, the odds of that many amino acids lining up in just the right order to create life seems impossible. Talk Origins summed up the creationists' argument this way (source):

 

So the calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears. This gives the impression that the formation of even the smallest organism seems totally impossible.

That's not a bad summary of the creationists' position and I think the improbable odds is a serious objection to abiogenesis. Now, don't get me wrong. By citing them, I'm not saying TO is not a bunch of closet creationists nor do they cringe when hearing the probability argument. It's just that evolutionists aren't daunted by the mind-numbingly small chance of abiogenesis. In a textbook example of circular reasoning, they know that abiogenesis has happened because we're here!

When considering abiogenesis, evolutionists usually dismiss the matter with the tired argument, “that's not part of the theory.” That's rather odd because they always seem to include something about the “primordial soup” or the Miller-Urey experiments in biology text books. So even though they like to claim it's not part of their theory, they spend a lot of their own time talking about it.  Never mind that right now.  In this post, I'd like to explore another tactic sometimes employed by evolutionists in their effort to climb “mount improbable.” Even though the odds of amino acids combining to form even one, simple protein are astonishingly small, evolutionists place their hope in a near infinite number of trials. After all, even the most improbable combination – even a seemingly impossible combination – will be accomplished if all possible combinations are tried. In a universe as large as ours, there are chemical processes occurring everywhere. If you have billions of years of trial and error, even something as unlikely as abiogenesis becomes almost a certainty.

There's an old analogy used to demonstrate this principle: if there were an infinite number of monkeys typing randomly on typewriters, eventually they would type all of Shakespeare's plays. Now, I'm not a math wizard but even I can understand that books are merely combinations of words and words are merely combinations of letters. If someone could attempt every possible combination of letters, then of course he will chance upon the same combination of letters found in a Shakespeare play. If I may be so bold, I might even correct the analogy: in an infinite number of attempts, the correct combination would immediately be reached, not eventually.

However, there's something that's always nagged me about the monkey analogy (besides evolutionists' seeming obsession with monkeys – RKBentley snickers). First, the universe isn’t infinite.  It isn’t infinitely large nor is it infinitely old.  It may be very big but, at the end of the day, there still could have been only a finite number of trials.  To use an analogy where there are an infinite number of trials, is a subtly deceptive way of making their unlikely position seem more plausible.

But besides that, like I said, I'm not a math genius but I do have a degree in business and have worked in financial services for over 30 years so I'm not a stranger to math. There's a widely understood principle in the business world known as the law of large numbers. The law is used in many different ways but basically the law predicts that the larger a sample is, the more typical it will be. Let me explain how it works.  If I tossed a coin 10 times, I should theoretically get 5 heads and 5 tails. However, 10 trials is not a large sample so my results are not easily predicted. I could get 7 heads and 3 tails. 10 is just too small to be representative. If I next tossed the coin 100 times, I still might not get exactly 50 heads, but it will likely be closer to 50/50 than 70/30. If I tossed the coin 1,000,000,000 times, I can almost guarantee that approximately 50% of the tosses will be heads. As a matter of fact, if I got 70% heads after 1 billion tosses, I would suspect that the coin is not truly random.

The difference between the law of large numbers and the theoretical monkeys is that the law of large numbers has been tested many times over. Casinos, insurance companies, lotteries, and many other businesses rely on this principle in their business models. For example, an insurance company with 5,000,000 customers can predict with uncanny accuracy how many 45 year old, insured men will die this year. If slot machines are truly random, I could theoretically win 100 jackpots with 100 pulls. The odds of doing that may be remote but they exist in theory. Yet by using the law of large numbers, casinos know almost to the penny how much they will pay out in winnings for every 1,000,000 pulls of a slot machine.

The law of large numbers puts a kink in the infinite monkey analogy. I'm not sure how many words typically make up a play but let's say it's 200,000. We'll further assume an average word length of 5 letters. Therefore, a typical Shakespeare play is 1,000,000 characters long (we'll also assume that includes spaces). There are 26 letters in the alphabet plus a space so each peck of the typewriter could yield 27 possible outcomes. 1 million pecks is a reasonably large enough sample that the law of large numbers should apply so we know that 1/27th of the letters will be “A,” 1/27th will be “B,” 1/27th will be “C,” etc. In other words, after 1 million pecks, you will have about the same number of “X” as “A.” In English, the letter A occurs far more frequently than the letter X so I don't care how the letters are arranged, you can never have a Shakespeare play when there are as many X's as A's!  

 

Don't forget too that there are punctuation marks on the keyboard so you will actually have as many $, @, and % as you have A, B, or C.  The more outcomes that are possible, the more unlikely it becomes to get the desired outcome.

Even in an infinite number of trials, the letters typed out by each monkey should be distributed evenly if each trial is truly random. Any 1,000,000 long string of characters will look approximately the same as any other 1,000,000 long string. There will roughly be equal numbers of A's, Q's, X's, spaces, and punctuation marks. An infinite number of monkeys will yield an infinite number of manuscripts that will all resemble each other and will all be gibberish.

 

Time is not a magic formula that suddenly makes the improbable likely. Amino acids combining over and over could be likened to letters being spit out by the monkeys. In a large number of trials, they will randomly combine in similar sequences over and over. There's no certainty or even likelihood that they will ever combine in that fortunate sequence that creates life. Some things are truly impossible.

The Drake Equation: it might sound good on paper

Evolutionists are believers in junk science. I've known it for a long time yet I've never become used to their level of absurdity. These people, who claim to be the epitome of scientific inquiry and objective thinking, should simply resign themselves to the fact that they are producing science fiction and not actually practicing science.

Have you heard of the Drake Equation? When I first wrote about it 10 years ago, Wiki described the Drake Equation as “a mathematical equation used to estimate the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy.”  When I began writing this article, I revisited Wiki and saw that they’ve changed their characterization of the equation.  They now say the formula is “not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the first scientific meeting on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). The equation summarizes the main concepts which scientists must contemplate when considering the question of other radio-communicative life.  It is more properly thought of as an approximation than as a serious attempt to determine a precise number.”  Hmm, it sounds like a case of backpedaling to me.  

Let me give a little backstory to the Drake Equation.  Evolutionists, of course, believe in a natural, un-designed origin of life.  They describe the event as abiogenesis (or formerly, spontaneous generation) and even though such an event has never been observed, they’re sure abiogenesis must have happened many times throughout the history of the galaxy.  Since evolutionists are sure life must exist, Frank Drake came up with a formula to estimate how many alien civilizations might exist.  

The Drake Equation states that N = R* · fp · ne · fe · fi · fc · L where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);

and

R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy

fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets

ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets

fe = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point

fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life

fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space

L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

Now, I'm a firm believer in probability. My degree is in business and I know there is a principle used by insurance companies, lotteries, and casinos called the Law of Large Numbers.  According to that Law, if we have a large enough sample, we can predict the outcome with uncanny certainty. However, we can still predict probability even in small samples if we know all the variables. Consider a deck of cards: I know that there is a 1 in 52 chance of drawing the ace of spades at random. I know there is a 1 in 13 chance of drawing an ace of any suit. I also know there is a 1 in 4 chance of drawing any spade. I am able to calculate the odds because I know the number of cards in the deck, the number of aces, and the number of spades. As we read through the Drake Equation, though, we see a lot of variables have unknown values. How should we go about finding the probability of them? Let's look at a few.

R* is the rate of star formation per year in our galaxy. That's curious. What is the observed number of stars being formed each year? Would it surprise you to know that, even with all our advanced technology, we've never once observed a star ignite? We've seen many extinguished but none formed. Not one time. Ever! So the actual observed rate of star formation per year is zero. Since the rest of the formula is multiplying by R*, the product is necessarily zero but let's look at a few of the other variables for the fun of it.

fe is the fraction of habitable planets that actually go on to develop life at some point. Now that's funny. We've never once observed life formed spontaneously. Not one time. Ever! So how do we estimate the fraction of planets that would develop life? If we apply the scientific standard of observable and repeatable, then this variable must also be zero. That is the only scientifically valid possibility. Any value other than zero assigned to this variable is merely fanciful speculation.

If we understand the value of fe to be zero, then fi and fc must necessarily be zero as well. After all, if life does not form, then neither will intelligent life nor technology. Once again, any value other than zero assigned to these variables are merely inventions. Any other value that scientists assign to these variables does not have any basis in science.

Drake himself assigned some crazy values to these variables. He estimated that 1 star per year has been formed over the life of the galaxy (remember, we've observed zero). He estimated that 1/5 to 1/2 will have planets and stars with planets will have between 1 and 5 planets capable of supporting life (we've actually discovered extrasolar planets so I'll not press this point). Here's where he really loses it: he says that 100% of planets capable of supporting life will not only evolve life but will also evolve intelligent life. Ha! We've never observed abiogenesis and he claims it happened on every planet that could support life. When it's all said and done, Drake believed there are between 1,000 and 100,000,000 civilizations in our galaxy! Incredible!! We've observed none and he believes there could be 100 million!

How does this kind of stuff not get laughed at by the rest of the scientific community? Where is “peer review” and critical examination? Where is going wherever the evidence leads? Are we really supposed to believe there is evidence for even a single, extraterrestrial civilization (never mind many)? This is obviously a case of having a conclusion then looking for the evidence to support it.

OK, I admit that Drake has his critics. However, a belief in extraterrestrial life is mainstream in the scientific community. Sagan, Dawkins, Hawking, and many others have all endorsed it. They have endorsed it without a shred of scientific evidence for it. They believe it merely out of faith in their theory. So even though some scientists might nit pick at Drake's equation, they will never dismiss his premise outright because they are too invested in the crackpot idea of ET.

The Drake equation might sound good on paper but it's no more scientific than an episode of Gene Roddenberry's, Star Trek. Drake might as well have calculated the odds of discovering Vulcan.