Following the publication of my last article, a very smart friend of mine took me to task regarding the example I used to illustrate the compounded improbabilities involved for our improbable universe to result from extraordinary good luck.
My friend suggested that I misrepresented the underlying physics in my argument because Sir Martin Rees did not assert the cosmological factors were independent of each other.
While I have tremendous respect for my friend’s intellect and value his opinion, I admit being somewhat confused about his objection because that was exactly the point I had tried to make.
Not only did each fine-tuned variable depend on the others for the Big Bang to produce our anthropic universe, the improbability of abiogenesis, speciation and natural selection occurring from multiple happy accidents worsened as the success of each event was predicated on the success of the previous.
It is accurate to say that supernatural Creator provides a convenient solution to the grossly improbable fact that you happen to exist by replacing the element of random chance with intentional design.
But it should be noted the simplest, most convenient solution is not always wrong.For that very reason, the “KISS” principle was coined — meaning “Keep It Simple, Stupid.”
Directed and carefully controlled creation by design, while still improbable, has a probability factor that is greater than zero.
Truly it is rather difficult to believe in “the invisible man in the sky,” as some of my atheist friends like to joke.
Is it really harder to believe in a supernatural God compared to extraordinary good luck? Is the probability of a planned universe any greater than the probability of an unplanned one?
For the sake of argument, say the improbabilities of God or no God are “equiprobable” or basically a coin flip.
Under this scenario, God and “good luck” have equal chance of being established the answer for life as we know it.
However, what is the probability we “happened” by chance? My argument is that without an intelligent, deliberate cause for these events, the improbabilities become compounded.
For the record, I do believe there simply has to be some probability that life could have evolved purely by chance for the simple reason it would be tough to deny that we do exist.
I know I can’t prove God exists, and conversely, I also know that I can’t prove He doesn’t exist.
Professor and author Stephen Unwin noted there is even a slight possibility that within the next few seconds, you will be hoofed insensible by a wayward, miniature Mediterranean ass.
However small the probability, would you want to bet on it?
What do you think Vegas would set as the line against the odds that sort of random event might happen? A million to one?
A billion to one? A trillion?
If you get right down to it, virtually any event you can imagine has some associated probability it could occur. So the question really is, which improbability is more probable?
The improbability of an unplanned evolution of life as we know causes serious problems, leading to “scientific” theories like multiverses, directed panspermia, and punctuated equilibrium. These and other strange, rather far-fetched hypotheses have been proposed primarily as an attempt to explain our existence without any intervention from a God.
Yet another question remains: does anything improve the probability of a supernatural Creator?
In a word, yes.
My argument is that validation of NDEs, ADEs, OBEs, and other inexplicable phenomena substantially increases the probability of a supernatural Creator over good luck.
And there are thousands, if not millions of these stories.
My contention has been that if any one of these reports is true, it serves to validate belief in the existence of a supernatural, invisible, universe that we cannot see.
If the details of an NDE or OBE account could actually be verified, we would have compelling evidence to show that the mind and brain are separable.
By sheer numbers, the probability that one account will be proved valid increases with each new reported event.
In fact, we already have carefully authenticated accounts of such paranormal phenomena.
Documented records are preferable to anecdotes, and medical records the best source of information to consider for supernatural evidence.
There have been geniune, peer-reviewed scientific studies of the near death experience. To date, no one has been able to explain how a non-functioning brain could create new memories.
The mounting number of reported incidents and authenticated personal accounts weights the evidence in favor of belief in a supernatural Creator whom we cannot see.
Thus far, the stumbling block for acceptance within the scientific community appears to have been the issue of “repeatability of the experiment.”
Unfortunately, but for obvious reasons, there haven’t been any volunteers willing to undergo a near death experience simply for the sake of furthering scientific knowledge.
Actual NDE survivors do not fear death, but they also revere life.
And they don’t need any more proof of life after death.
Besides, that sort of stuff only happens in the movies.