<< back to Sermons
Watch a video of the sermon.
Listen to the sermon. You could also download the sermon.
This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. In accord with our non-profit mission to share the Word of Yahweh, we use the material only for that non-profit mission. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
Read about the sermon.
not guided by or based on good sense.
(It's what? unreasonable)
PSALM 14:1The fool says in his heart, “There is no Elohim.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is none who does good.
back in ancient times, even though they didn't have all the technology and scientific knowledge we have today, King David still had good sense and wrote in...
Psalm 19:1The heavens declare the glory of Elohim,
and the sky abovea proclaims his handiwork.
2Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
3There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
4Their voiceb goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
In them he has set a tent for the sun,
5which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
6Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them,
and there is nothing hidden from its heat.
Did Elohim Create The Universe?
(Show that when good sense prevails, the answer becomes clear)
(Using good sense we'll answer 3 questions)
1.The Product of Chance? 2.Or The Result of Design?
3. OR CAN IT EXIST ON ITS OWN?
Imagine a Giant lottery machine filled with billions and billions of white ping pong balls.
Mixed among all the white ping pong balls is a single yellow ping pong ball. Now imagine being told that one ball will be randomly selected out of the batch. Also the stakes are high. If the one yellow ball rolls down the shoot you'll be allowed to live; however if one of the billions and billions of white ping pong balls
Is selected, YOU'LL be executed. The odds of you surviving this game are incomprehensibly improbable. Now with the odds stacked against you the way they are. would it be reasonable or unreasonable to expect to live? (UNREASONABLE!!!) In fact if the yellow ping pong ball happened to slide down the shoot instead of a white one, you'd assume that the game had been rigged in order that you would live.
This is a good comparison to the odds against life existing on Earth.
Scientist say there are more than two hundred known parameters required for a life permitting planet. All of the conditions must be perfectly met or else our planet would be life prohibiting rather than life permitting.
Fine-Tuning For Life On Earth (Updated June 2004
Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, has compiled a list of 164 of these necessary parameters, and has explained why each of them must be met in order for a planet to support life. For example Dr. Ross explains that only a certain kind of galaxy; In particular, a spiral galaxy like ours can permit life.
Not only that, but the galaxy needs to be the right size, have the right mass distribution , be the right age, and be in the right location.
For instance, If the galaxy's mass were distributed to much in the central bulge, a life supported planet would be to exposed to to much radiation.
If the mass were distributed too much in the spiral arm, then the life supportable planet would be destabilized by the gravity and radiation of adjacent spiral arms.
There are other parameters relating to everything from having the right amount of stars in the planetary system,
to the thickness of the planets crust and the iron quantity in the planets oceans and soil.
Another important parameter is that a planet must have the right star in order to support life.
The star must be the right size, and mass, not to hot, and not to cold. The planet must be the right distance from the star. For instance if Earth moves just 2% closer or farther from the Sun no water would exist.
Related to this, the Earth's rotation cycle is exactly perfect. If it were any slower or faster, life could not be sustained due to temperature differences or wind velocity being to extreme.
Earth's moon is also utterly unique in the universe; and everything about it is just perfect for life to be able to exist. If anything were different the Earth would be life prohibiting, not life permitting.
If Earth's gravitational interaction with the moon were any greater, it would have an effect causing the tidal waves of the oceans, atmosphere and rotational period would be too severe for life to exist. If any less, the magnetic field would be to weak causing Earth's ozone shields to be inadequately protected from hard, stellar, and solar radiation.
To give one more specific example...
The largest planet in our solar system, Jupiter actually plays a big role in life surviving on Earth.
Jupiter's gravity helps to draw away asteroids and comets from crashing into Earth. If Jupiter were just a little further away from Earth or a little smaller , there would be too many asteroid or comet collisions for life to exist.
(5:19)However, if Jupiter were just a little closer or a little bigger, Earth's orbit would become unstable and life couldn't exist.
These are just a few of the conditions and ingredients that must be perfect in order for Earth to support life. There are many, many more.
Every aspect of the universe is perfectly ordered, interconnected and interdependent. If there were even the slightest variation in any of these parameters, we wouldn't be here. The tiniest alteration to one thing would effect everything else.
By the way, all of this is just for life to exist on Earth.
What's required for the Universe to exist at all, is even more shocking!
Here's what Eric Metaxas, has to say from a recent article in the Wall Street Journal...
"The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces--gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces--were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction--by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000[One hundred Quadrillion]--then no stars could have ever formed at all. -- Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stopping astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row."
--Eric Metaxas, “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God.”
Before continuing, there is a in house debate regarding certain aspects of Big Bang cosmology and whether or not this model is compatible with Biblical revelation at least regarding things like the age of the universe.
The purpose of this message is not to get into those theological arguments, but to demonstrate that
Even within the dominate and mainstream scientific model of the universe, the reality of fine-tuning is inescapable. Thus, when properly considered, the data leads the logical mind to an intelligent designer.
The reason we're taking this approach is that atheist and sceptics do not accept Biblical revelation. Therefore theological about things like the age of the Earth are not particularly meaningful to them. Once a Atheist or sceptic comes to the realization that God exist, and the Bible is true, then it's worthwhile to engage in in-house debates, about such topics. For now, when speaking with sceptics, it's best to start on common ground as much as we can; so we can first get them in the house. Therefore, we will proceed as though the mainstream scientific model of the universe is true and the evidence of fine tuning within the mainstream model is overwhelming as we'll continue to see.
For instance, life existing in the universe can occur only when certain fundamental physical constants are within a very narrow range. As Dr. William Lane Craig explains...
In recent decades, scientists have been stunned by the discovery that the initial conditions of the Big Bang were fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life with a precision and delicacy that literally defy human comprehension. This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the gravitational constant. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants, there are certain arbitrary quantities put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate; for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe.
Now, all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by less than a hair's breadth, the balance would be destroyed and life would not exist.
William Lane Craig, Does God exist? TheCraig- Hitchens debate,"https://www.reasonablefaith.org
In other words, if only one of the many fundamental constants of our universe is altered ever so slightly, the universe would be unfit for the development of everything from matter to stars and planets, For example, you could imagine a universe with the exact same laws of nature but a different gravitational constant.
Such a universe could not be life permitting. If gravity attracted just a little bit more stronger, we couldn't have a solar system because everything would collapse on itself. If Gravity didn't attract strongly enough, nothing would fall into orbits with each other.
Also consider the cosmological concept of how after the Big Bang the universe expanded...
If the expansion rate of the universe had been slightly weaker, the universe literally wouldn't exist. As physicist Steven Hawkins said,
"If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part of a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size."
Stephen Hawking the illustrated a brief history of time p.156
If the expansion rate of the universe had been ever so slightly greater than it was the universe would have thinned out so rapidly that no galaxies, stars , or planets could have formed.
When you consider all the finely tuned constants that form the structure of our universe, the odds of them all happening by random chance is what? UNREASONABLE!!!, Yaeh, you can even say unbelievable. To put it simply, the chance of life existing is less than zero; and yet here we are.
All of the parameters necessary for life to exist have been met. It's really quite miraculous if you think about it. Life exist against the unfathomable odds!
The single yellow Ping-Pong ball was selected out of the billions and billions of white ones. So now the only question that remains is this: Was the game rigged? That is to say,
Is our universe so precisely fine-tuned because it was designed that way?
In order to answer that question in the affirmative, the other options must be eliminated. The only two alternatives to intelligent design are physical necessity and chance.
Asserts that the universe simply must be life-permitting. However, that would entail that a life-prohibiting universe is physically impossible.
There is simply no reason to believe that a life-prohibiting universe is impossible.—in fact, according to the numbers, a life-prohibiting universe is far more likely than a life-permitting universe like ours. Dr. Craig writes:
The constants are not determined by the laws of nature. So why couldn’t they be different? Moreover, the arbitrary quantities are just boundary conditions on which the laws of nature operate. Nothing seems to make them necessary. So the opponent of design is taking a radical line that requires some proof. But there is none.
Dr. William Lane Craig, “On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision”
Therefore, since there is no evidence that a life-permitting universe is physically necessary, that option can be reasonably discarded. The other alternative is..
Maybe we just got extremely lucky, and all of the constants and quantities of our universe just accidentally fell into this incredibly narrow range in order to support life.
But again, the odds against this possibility are so great that it becomes what? UNREASONABLE!!!.
It would be like the same person winning the lottery 10 billion times consecutively after buying only one ticket for each game.
If that happened, everyone would immediately conclude that someone had rigged the game in the person’s favor. When it comes to our universe, that’s the exact conclusion that many scientists are coming to. Astrophysicist and cosmologist, Fred Hoyle, writes:
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.
Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.”
Physicist Paul Davies writes:
There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all […] It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe […] The impression of design is overwhelming.
Paul Davies, “The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Creative Ability to Order the Universe”
Indeed, since the fine-tuning of our universe is unlikely due to chance, the option that it was designed is the most plausible option, and therefore should be preferred. But this design, of course, entails a designer.
Some have attempted to rescue the “chance” option by going beyond empirical science and positing something called the multiverse hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, there is actually an infinite number of universes that have emerged by chance alone. These universes have separated into their own distinct entities and have their own properties, laws, and values of the basic constants of physics. From among these infinite universes, it is argued that perhaps a few universes might emerge that could support life.
The problem with this hypothesis is there is no evidence for it. This so-called multiverse cannot be detected nor observed.
To assert an infinite number of universes to explain our universe goes against Occam’s razor. That is to say, the idea of an infinite number of universes requires far more assumptions than the idea of an intelligent designer. As British philosopher Richard Swinburne states:
It is the height of irrationality to postulate an infinite number of universes never causally connected with each other, merely to avoid the hypothesis of theism. Given that simplicity makes for prior probability, and a theory is simpler the fewer entities it postulates, it is far simpler to postulate one God than an infinite number of universes, each differing from each other in accord with a regular formula, uncaused by anything else.
Richard Swinburne, “The Existence of God,” p. 185
Philosopher Alvin Plantinga gives this analogy to demonstrate the logical flaws in the multiverse hypothesis:
Imagine you are with members of the mafia playing poker. One player has been dealing the cards for the past twenty hands, and for each turn he has dealt himself four aces. After the last turn, the mobsters turn over the table and point a gun at the dealer, accusing him of cheating. But then the dealer defends himself by saying this:
“Possibly there is an infinite succession of universes, so that for any possible distribution of possible poker hands, there is a universe in which that possibility is realized; we just happen to find ourselves in one where someone like me always deals himself only aces and wild cards without ever cheating.”
Alvin Plantinga, “Dennett’s Dangerous Idea,” Books and Culture: A Christian Review, Vol. 2, No. 3 (May-June, 1996)
What is more reasonable? Accept the dealer’s explanation and just keep playing, or do we realize that it’s far more likely the dealer is cheating? Everyone would immediately recognize that dealers explaination is what? UNREASONABLE!!! The game had been rigged! We would recognize that intelligence was involved in the arrangement of the cards. The aces ending up in the hand of the dealer didn’t just happen by random chance. As Christian apologist Michael Jones explains:
In everyday life when we encounter situations that seem to be rigged, we do not assume it is chance. We know intelligent design when we see it. It could be the case that it is just random chance, but we know the odds are never in that favor. So when we encounter odds like the ratio of Electromagnetic Force to Gravity being finely turned to 1:1040 [one part in 10 to the 40th power] or the Cosmological Constant being finely tuned to 1:10120 [one part in 10 to the 120th power], logically we shouldn’t say, “Well it’s possible, by accidental chance, that there is a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion universes and we just happen to be in the one that is capable of producing life.” […] So although the fine-tuning argument cannot “prove” the existence of an intelligent designer, it shows us that the existence of God is far more logical than everything just happening by random chance.
Michael Jones, “The Teleological Argument: What It Really Says,” www.inspiringphilosophy.com
So what is the best explanation for the single yellow Ping-Pong ball being selected out of the billions and
billions of white ones?
The game was rigged in order that you and I would live.
Our universe was finetuned for life (picture of a rain forest)—and the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe is that there is an intelligent designer of the cosmos.
Romans 1:20 (RSV) Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made, they are without excuse.
With the progress of the science of mathematic and technology we have even more reason to see Yahweh handiwork in the things that were made. Common sense tells that any excuse for why we don't believe there is a Elohim who created the universe is what?UNREASONABLE!!!