Is Life an Accident?

The idea that we are a happy occurrence or an accident of chance is something which science has failed to prove  and as our knowledge of the cosmos increases and honest evaluation of this insight has led us to become more informed with an innate awareness that we are not alone in an absurd universe as there is a transcendent reality beyond mere coincidence. This reality becomes apparent due to the vast amount of evidence which shows irreducible complexity of life with such beauty and preciseness that it becomes obvious that a designer and orderer with a purpose and plan has established what we observe and beyond.

Listed below are some of the things that make up this overwhelming sense of phenomena with such awe inspiring data as establishing a sound teleological argument of intentionality and conditioning:

  • If the expansion rate of the universe was faster than 1 part in 1055  then galaxies would not have formed and if it were one millionth slower then the earth’s temperature would have been 10000 °C. 
  • If the axial tilt of the earth was off then the earth’s surface temperature would not be able to support life. 
  • If the distance from the earth to the sun was any different then a stable water cycle would not of been possible. 
  • If the span separating the stars were slightly different then it would vary the orbits and lead to severe temperature fluctuations on earth. 
  • If the earths crust was any thicker then too much oxygen would be transferred to its surface and any less would result in too much volcanic and tectonic activity. 
  • If the gravitational pull of the moon was varied it would create havoc on the tides and severe atmospheric conditions.
  • If the gravitational force varied by 1 part in 1040 the sun would become non-existant and the moon would plunge into the earth or be diverted off into space. 
  • If there was a slight increase in the force of gravity then the sun would combust too quickly and erratically to promote life. 
  • If the earth’s gravity had been any greater it would cause ammonia and methane gas to be trapped; any less the earth’s atmosphere would lose too much water. 
  • If the length of a day varied it would create too many temperature extremes and high wind velocities making life too difficult to survive. 
  • If oxygen levels deviated just 5% either way then too much oxygen would have led to the uncontrollable outbreak of fires and not enough would asphyxiate humanity. 
  • If the centrifugal force of the planetary movements did not balance the gravitational forces then nothing could be sustained in orbit around the sun. 
  • If there were small deviations to the speed of light it would change the constants and inhibit the prospect of life on the earth. 
  • If jupiter was not in its current position then the earth would be pelted with space junk 

Thats a a lot of “ifs”  for it to become a matter of luck as it would be infinitesimally impossible to say that all these events and activities were just inadvertent occurrences apart from the intervention of an omnipotent and omniscient being as playing the sovereign and providential role to this whole shebang. Science would rather go to such extremes to excuse this phenomena by funding such mystical research as SETI to find an explanation as giving credit to extraterrestrial beings from distant civilizations as a paranormal fantasy in defiance to a theistic worldview or come up with some philosophical multiverse theory which is just unfoundedly out there.

Scientists give such credence to such things as naturalism as if it is a being or entity like an impersonal god who is able to save them from theism. Its evolutionary companion, mother nature waves her magical wand to orchestrate and control life which is a fairytale of sorts that is more consistent with folklore, myth, imagination, and superstition rather than science.

Stephen Hawking avoids such god talk but goes as far to say that it “seems”  and “appears” that life has been designed but stops short to say that he doesn’t really know why the universe exists. Einstein went a step further by calling it an intelligence which speaks of personality apart from the inanimate force of big bang cosmology and natural selection. Even religions which have somewhat an atheistic philosophy abstractly refer to some sort of life force. So whether it is a secular or a religious perspective there seems to be a bias to accommodate self interest while marginalizing the apparent.

This is because a non theist or agnostic has a natural hostility towards the personal God of the bible and likes to refer to Him with such negativity as assigning calamity and chaos as being “an act of God” or by using His name as a curse word and yet either way its seems ironic to make a reference to something which to them is unimaginable and fictitious.


Romans 8:7-8

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.


One objection to the God of the bible is that He has not received human permission “to be” as He has failed to meet some peoples expectations who command more evidence for His existence before offering their commitment which in essence is really a way of shaking their fist at God in defiance with a semblance of presenting Him a sincere peace offering as a superficial red herring which is just fishy in making stinky excuses to avoid Him by determinatively remaining justifiably ignorant.  Yet if God is God then what right does mankind have to set the rules for engagement and disclosure and if God has already given sufficient evidence through a general or basic revelation than what obligates Him to give a special or specific revelation of His character when others are unwilling to properly utilize or synthesize the intuitive knowledge that has already been communicated and shared with them? Moreover what justification does a temporal contingent effect have upon setting the law towards the eternal causation of a Creator as the supreme authority who as the Potter molds the clay? Regardless, the skeptic will always remain skeptical and the critic will be determinately critical no matter what, as unbelievers they serve the god of cynicism?

This is like the religious Jews of Jesus time who said to Jesus to give them a sign and though He gave them many wonders they still failed to believe. His religious critics had a God concept but they determined to go to whatever extremes it took to avoid a commitment to Jesus as their Messiah.

And just like in the “Parable of the Rich Man” who wanted someone to return to warn his brothers about the impending dangers of Hell; it still wouldn’t be sufficient to sway others from evil and prophetically this happened to the nation of Israel in respect to the resurrection of Jesus.

Also to demand that God reveal everything is just too great for the human mind to fully understand or comprehend anyway and what information He has given is sufficient to at least begin the process or journey to faith.

We may have a desire to place God under the light of the operating table to inspect and dissect Him through human instrumentation but God eludes this form of observation and is not even fully possible as Einstein comments in contrasting us with the Supreme Intelligence as stating that our reflection is utterly insignificant. Furthermore God is spirit and is not confined to a corporeal body as the universe cannot harness or contain Him even though He acts within it. We as humans are limited in our knowledge as we are evidently not God and still there is enough observable evidence to understand the grandiose design of the material universe as being under the care of a Divine Architect. Thus God cannot simply be dismissed by not meeting our demands for more information and if we have only just discovered the tip of the iceberg then it becomes ludicrous to demand that the God of the iceberg fully unveil Himself in the same way as a materialistic thing which becomes an improper methodology towards this kind of assessment as limited creatures who are only able to recognize the symptoms of this reality through studying His creative works.

Anyway the purpose or goal to there being a clear path of communication through these codes or languages was meant as a way of discovery apart from some obscure form or cryptic message of gnosis as leading not only to a basic concept about God’s being but as a means in leading into a communing relationship or fellowship as joining ourselves to Him through an act of our self conscious will as moral agents who are able to reciprocate His higher order of intelligence towards loving Him and others as stewards of His created order, not as gods who want to usurp His glory. This knowledge is more than about making a passing glance as a mental recognition in postulating the possibility of God but serves as a witness to stimulate worship towards our Creator instead of some trivial mental exercise to entertain the frontal lobe of our brain.


Pslams 19:1-4

The heavens declare the glory of God,

and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Day to day pours out speech,

and night to night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech, nor are there words,

whose voice is not heard.

Their voice goes out through all the earth,

and their words to the end of the world.


Perhaps in some cases there are people who are comfortable in believing that there is a God somewhere out there like the impersonal watchmaker of deism as winding up the universe as to run itself unattended and unconcerned. Yet this position lacks credibility as well because it is inconsistent that an impersonal God would make us personal and social creatures that are relational as capable of having or experiencing the traits of love in all of its definitive parts and expressions. This is just unbelievable that God could be aloof while we are so well connected and this does nothing to adequately explain why God would even want to waste His time or energy in creating, like an act of boredom, as having nothing else better to do and then standby idly as an impassive bystander as others destroy His handiwork.

Some may think that God is responsible for all the calamity of life just like a kid who likes playing cowboys and indians as correlating play time with real time. Yet for God to be both equally loving and capricious is confusing and chaotic unlike the life permitting order which he have observed in the universe and this post is beyond dealing with the problem of evil but I would like to simply say in passing that the real problem is not God but us and our conscious bears witness to this reality and responsibility.


Romans 2:14-16

14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.


Also it is not our privilege to probe God as our subject and it is His right alone and prerogative to discern the motives of our hearts by disclosing our thoughts and even if we think that we are being sincere in our efforts to ascertain truth He will lay us bare as having the knowledge to discriminately expose mankind as possessing the omniscience to see the nakedness of a soul through ever human coverup as reserving this right as the eternal judge who is supremely just. And to take confidence in ones thinking apart from God is foolish and will prove to be like a faulty crutch which will eventually break under the pressure of leaning on a deceitful heart as falling into the pit. Psalms 139, Jer. 17:9.


Hebrew 4:12-13

12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.


Essentially if you were able to get an honest answer from the atheist or agnostics the real problem is not an intellectual objection as lacking information but a moral dilemma as such arrogance is precipitated by fear and self idolatry as mankind being the lord to freely rule and reign over their own heart and life without restraint and consequence. Yet Pascal said this position is untenable to gamble with ones eternity like this  as betting on yourself especially as the odds are stacked against you. Is is worth rejecting God in pursuing autonomy? Jesus said what would a man give in exchange for his soul?  Even if you gained the whole world would it ever be enough? Perhaps you can already think of someone who has had it all but was never happy or fulfilled. Life apart from God  will attempt to promise you everything as demanding your whole life but will never fully give back what you had expected in return.

In closing the concept of the anthropic principle, which was coined by physics not theology, may not answer every aspect in defining God but as you take the first step to coming to know Him with honesty and earnestness of heart then more can be obtained in your pursuit of Him. Perhaps to start your endeavor I would at least encourage you to begin with the person of Jesus and by referencing the scholarly works of previous atheists who have gone down a similar path of skepticism but ended up on the narrow path of life through well known publications such as Lee Strobel’s “case for” series and Josh McDowell books. If you want something even more in depth and challenging then perhaps someone like William Lane Craig would be more your style nonetheless I want you to know that there are  people from all walks of life that continue to embrace Christianity as a reasonable form of belief including scientists. Here are some helpful links to help you in your studies.

In speaking about scientists perhaps you have been given the gift of a scientific and analytical mind as the person who has been given the task  to gain, collect and interpret the information or data which gives you even more responsibility for someone who has this first hand experience concerning the intricacies as seeing the fine tweaking and deliberateness as having less excuses with this in-depth knowledge and not only that but if the conclusion of the research is misused as persuasively preaching a presumptuous message in converting unsuspected souls from the pulpit of the lab then this becomes a matter of not only unprofessionalism but of heresy as a scientific apostate.

Perhaps you may think that you have approached your field without bias as in a vacuum of neutrality but if you factor out God then this is fallacious position as to pre-determinately filter the criteria based on yours and others expectations for a more explicable model or outcome as a preconditioned result to fit the interpretive expectations as determined within the confines and boundaries of scientific acceptance. To make special accommodations for certain cosmological models as multiverse and cyclic theories readily assumes that there must be a naturalistic explanation as that is the only game in town and yet this kind of make believe of proposing  ridiculous and unfounded stories as limiting oneself to these hypothetical views is no different than offering the sacrilegious sacraments of superstition on the altar of pseudo science as idolizing an unseen and imaginary god of naturalism.

The commitment to neutrality would better be defined as truly seeking after answers and truths no matter where it would take them even if it is beyond the acceptance of the scientific community or outside the pages of its journals. The pursuit may be novel and make you feel uncomfortable or even embarrassed but allowing human emotions of fear to interfere with your results is untrustworthy or unreliable. To introspectively flush out your level of sincerity just ask yourself  if God were to really exist would you be willing and ready to know Him or would there be a concern or reason to avoid Him as to reluctantly give Him the throne of your life. Perhaps this may help show what your motivation is in your non compliance to the God idea. 

Also its funny but sad how that there are some people who are educated enough to effectively argue both sides of a debate even though there is undoubtedly one truthful conclusion. Such as the Apostle Paul who went from being a Pharisaic Jew that was opposed to Jesus but upon his conversion became an effectual defender with almost the same knowledge that he had prior to his conversion and yet I am wondering if perhaps a scientist is able to do the same in some instances and the only thing holding them back is just a matter of preference and taste not a firm conviction for truth.

In the final analysis there is no really good reason to say that God is an absolute impossibility as not only is He plausible or probable but is inexcusably blatantly obvious even if He can’t be fully known or understood and to put more faith in the gods of chance, randomness, and luck takes more of a blind leap than its competitor of theism.

Perhaps your faith has been strictly confined to a materialistic worldview as the ultimate reality and the pursuit of God is beyond your immediate training or field of expertise but the higher purpose to discovery is finding not the effects but the root cause of origin as being the most significant discovery of all as defining the ultimate purpose which extrapolates to our deepest and most  personal questions of existence as to who am i and why am i here. Therefore to fit everything within the box of materialism is just ad hoc and leads nowhere significantly except down the dead end road of Nietzsche’s nihilism.

Also to dismiss yourself from a connection to a higher reality as the work and concern of theologians as being outside your professional expertise does not dismiss you from the greater message as being able to make important and direct inferences which can be effectively integrated rather than seeing it as the craft of mystics. This again would be missing the whole point as it was primarily intended as a means to a higher level of  discovery beyond the mere effects or symptoms to the cause of all things. Science is important but by itself it can only give little answers serving as the messenger of a much bigger question rather than the end result or the reality itself.

Personally I think it is dishonest to overlook the teleological evidence of God’s ontology based on the findings within cosmology and astrophysics as overlooking the overarching principle towards a firm commitment to naturalism or naturalistic philosophy. To stop in a quest just short of transitioning to a more profound theological application is like scratching the surface of something with a knowledge that is only skin deep.

In conclusion as an individual observes all of these things as fitting within a tight range of constants it should elicit an overwhelming response much like the first astronauts who had a front row seat as looking back towards the earth that was shrouded in the darkness to see such a wondrous and beautiful blue marble of life in stark contrast to everything else as a spectacular show of God’s glory on display for them to see. Likewise science too has been given the privilege and responsibility to catch a closer view or glimpse to see such intelligent information as DNA which has led some scientists in various fields and disciplines to recognize the light as crossing over into theism and I hope that you too would be one of them.

Finally if you would just look or observe one amazing component of the created order such as the human eye which which has such irreducible  complexities as over 40 different components which must work together to properly function and could not have survived otherwise to evolve simplistically, a person is left to ponder how is it that it knows how to make itself work and cooperate with the brain?

As a famous Rabbi once said that he who has eyes to see but does not perceive is blind to the reality of God. Yet for those whom Jesus would heal they will see truth as it was meant to be understood apart from the nearsightedness of mans fallen and sinful condition which only looks the other way in rebellion against God. Lastly I hope that you would find God, not that He is far off, as He is present in plain sight for those who are willing to apprehend Him through His wondrous creation.



How to know God

Atheist and Agnostic Resources

English Articles on Atheism and Agnosticism





Encyclopedia of Religion Second Edition, copyright 2005 Thomson Gale a part of The Thomson Corporation, Lindsay Jones Editor in Chief, Vol.12, pgs.8180-8192, Ted Peters

Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics, copyright 2006 by Doug Powell, “Reprinted and used by permission.”

Leave a Reply