A Likely God

A horse goes into a bar and orders a drink. The bartender says, “You come here a lot. Are you an alcoholic?” The horse says, “I don't think I am,” and immediately disappears. Of course this joke is based on the assumption that you've heard of philosopher Rene Descartes and his famous conclusion, “I think, therefore I am.” I could have mentioned that first but that would be putting Descartes before the horse.

Don't blame me; blame the person who posted that on Facebook.

But I do want to start by talking about epistemology, the investigation of what we know and how we know it. People used to think we could be certain of at least some things. And then Descartes, in his thought experiment, realized he couldn't be sure that anything truly existed, outside of himself. And he knew he was not an illusion because he could think of things like “I have no sure knowledge that anything is real except me.”

Now the idea that reality is just an illusion might seem absurd to most people. And I will wager that the people who can't entertain the idea that what they see is an illusion have never laid in an ICU for weeks doped to the gills and hallucinating, like I did. I was absolutely convinced that I was being kept in a parking garage or in a cultic site in the wilds of Big Pine or in a 1950s diner. I talked to people I thought were standing in front of me. I only knew I was hallucinating when I realized while holding a conversation that my eyes were closed. And when I opened them, most of the people in the room vanished. But they looked as real to me as you all do now. (Are my eyes open?)

Descartes' philosophy began with what he felt absolutely sure of and then he reasoned from there to the existence of the rest of reality. I am not here to defend his philosophy. I think we can concede that while his observation that everything might be an illusion is possible—after all, some scientists do think we are living in a simulation—it is, nevertheless, extremely improbable. And, in general, it is better to count on what is probable than what is possible but highly improbable. The mechanics of Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None or Edgar Allan Poe's Murders in the Rue Morgue are within the realm of the possible but very unlikely. If a police officer came across those situations in real life and proposed the solutions in those stories, he would have to explain why all of the more probable solutions were impossible.

For instance, we prepare our homes for hurricanes but not for strikes by meteorites because of the higher probability of the first and the much lower probability of the second. Although in 1954 a woman in Alabama was hit by a grapefruit sized meteorite that went through her roof, bounced off her console radio and hit her as she lay on the couch. And yet we don't reorder our lives according to threats that are possible but wildly unlikely.

So let's do a thought experiment. We are here to worship God. Many people think there is no God. And we have no absolute proof God exists. But we can ask how likely that is.

First, like Sherlock Holmes, let's eliminate the impossible. Contrary to popular belief it is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist. Because it is logically impossible to prove a negative. I can't prove that unicorns don't exist. I don't have all the data. They might exist on another planet. They might have existed here on earth and we just haven't found the fossils yet. Hitherto unknown dinosaurs get discovered all the time. I can only say that based on the evidence I have examined I doubt that unicorns exist. I can reasonably be agnostic on the matter. However, to declare oneself an atheist, to assert in no uncertain terms that there is no god, is to admit one doesn't understand logic and its limits.

I do think there is good evidence God exists, but not absolute proof. So, as we said, the real question is: is the existence of God likely? And to make the subject manageable, let's limit the argument to a Creator. Is it likely that the universe has a Creator?

What is the alternative? That the universe was not created but just happened. Which means the laws that govern it on a micro and macro level, the fact that we have a coherent reality that we can study and understand, and that we can use what we learn about it to predict phenomena and alter parts of reality are just the fortunate result of an unimaginable series of random accidents. Our existence is just a matter of our winning a lottery with literally trillions of factors that just happened to go our way. Now Israeli scientist Gerald Schroeder points out that the number of particles in the universe—protons, neutrons and electrons—is 10 to the 80^th power or 1 with 80 zeros after it. Of all the possible combinations of the particles, the odds that this combination happened by random chance is so astronomically unlikely that the universe, at 13 ½ billion years, is not old enough for all that to play out. That math was one of the things that got Antony Flew, the philosopher who set the agenda for modern atheism, to change his mind about the probability of there being a God. It's possible that everything from the forces that hold your atoms together, to the code in every cell of your body that determines who and what you are, to the natural laws that allow life to exist came about entirely by blind chance...but it is so unlikely that the most addicted gambler wouldn't take that bet. It is much more likely that our amazingly organized universe has a Creator.

If so, would such a Creator be more likely to love or hate its creation? Let's not get sidetracked by the possibility that the Creator might not be completely happy with how everything turned out, because people love imperfect things all the time. Most inventors, writers, coders, artists and performers will admit their creations or performances aren't perfect but it doesn't mean that they aren't proud of them or fond of them. J.R.R. Tolkien kept revising his Lord of the Rings saga, to the point the publisher had to take it away from him to get it in print. But Tolkien never renounced it, even though he agonized over how he got moon phases wrong. So how likely is it that the universe's Creator, having spent so much thought and eons of time on it, would hate it? I, for instance, have a few sermons and some stories that I have written that I really like, though they do not compare to the works of Shakespeare or the sermons of Barbara Brown Taylor or the stories of C.S. Lewis. But if I created a planet, or a galaxy, much less an entire cosmos, I would be delighted with them; I would not disdain them. Is it likely that a Creator who made butterflies and orchids and otters and the painted desert and geodes and the Great Barrier Reef and parrots and puppies and the Milky Way and the atom and the double helix and tardigrades would hate it all? Or would such a Creator delight in it and pronounce it good? Again, it's possible that a Creator might feel like Kafka, who told a friend to destroy all his stories after his death. But the universe is a much grander achievement than a story where a man turns into a bug. I think it's much more likely that the Creator would love its creation.

So then in making this vast universe and populating at least parts of it with life, is it likely that the Creator would include nothing that would be like the Creator and reflect its nature? (And just to eliminate the awkwardness of expression, I will now use alternating personal pronouns for this hypothetical Creator, because of the fact that, unlike Greek, English has as yet no genderless singular personal pronouns.) Anyway, living things make other living things that are like them. We call them offspring. And artists from Rembrandt to Van Gogh to Picasso have made self-portraits. Writers and actors use parts of themselves in creating characters. James Bond is very much an idealized version of author Ian Fleming. In My Dinner with Andre, Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory used their own names for their characters and admitted to playing somewhat heightened versions of themselves. So is it likely that in this vast universe that its Creator would not make some version of him or herself? That he would not create a being in his image, a being with his intelligence, his creativity, his ability to make choices, his ability to love? Would any artist not put her signature on her work? I think it unlikely that the Creator wouldn't at least put into his creation a being capable of appreciating it and of using its mind to explore and commune with the mind of the Creator.

Then is it likely that the Creator, having put into the creation she loves beings like her, would not care if such beings do not also love that creation? Would a Creator who loves his creation and the creatures bearing his image be indifferent if they hate each other and hurt and destroy each other? Or would it be more likely that the Creator would care very deeply that her creatures also love and help and nurture and protect each other? I think it highly unlikely that a Creator who invested so much into those creatures would be neutral on whether they should harm each other or be in harmony with each other.

So would it be likely that a Creator who cared that her beings be good to each other and not act badly towards their fellow beings, then not try to communicate that desire to them? Would it be likely that the Creator would not in fact try to lay down rules of good behavior for them to follow? Wouldn't it be more likely that the basics of these rules, like treating others the way these beings would prefer to be treated themselves, would end up in some form in every version of the rules? And as soon as writing was invented wouldn't this Creator see to it that the rules and the reasons behind them be set down and preserved? Or is it more likely that despite his love and care for these beings made in his image that he would refrain from communicating the basic rules for loving him and loving each other? I find the idea that a Creator who cares for her creatures and loves them would then stay silent about those basic truths a very unlikely possibility. I would think it more likely that a loving Creator would find a way to communicate his expectations of how his creatures should treat one another.

But then would it be likely for a Creator, having communicated her rules for behaving justly and lovingly towards each other, simply leave it at that—just words, no actions? Would the Creator, seeing his image-bearing creatures ignore the rules they received, nevertheless decide not to work with at least some of them to try to get it right? Wouldn't the Creator try to have some of them be an example for the others to emulate? Wouldn't the Creator try to incentivize this by rewarding good behavior on the part of the group of creatures she chose and actively discourage their bad behavior? Or is it likely that the Creator not work with the creatures on these rules but simply leave them to their own devices? I think it more likely that, like a loving parent, the Creator would get involved with the creatures and direct their efforts to put the rules of love and justice into practice.

So if the creatures still were not successful at following the rules, would it be likely that the Creator decide not to step into the situation herself and show by the example of one of their own how to act lovingly and justly towards others? Would it be likely that the Creator not create a body for himself and the Creator-turned-creature not show through his actions how the rules should work? After all, if you want something done right, you do it yourself. If so, would it be likely that the Creator-turned-creature not restate the rules, stripping them down to the basics, so as to not let people hide behind technicalities nor misuse the rules to hurt and harm rather than help others? And wouldn't it be likely that the Creator would anticipate opposition to this and even foresee the ultimate hostile reaction? And wouldn't it be likely that, to show that acting lovingly towards others is paramount, the Creator-turned-creature not retaliate but let the creatures do their worst? But then would that Creator-turned-creature let that hostile act towards him be the final word and not make some decisive act to reveal that he is the Creator and source of life? I think it likely that the Creator-turned-creature would act and react lovingly to profoundly communicate her unconditional love towards her creation and creatures.

And finally, having shown his power to enter into one being and demonstrate a life of love and justice and mercy, would it be likely that the Creator, seeing creatures having trouble imitating his life, refuse to enter into those beings and help them get things right? I think it more likely that the Creator would have a back door, so to speak, by which she could enter into her creatures and help them as they try to change from their dysfunctional way of doing things to a better way of living with each other and with the Creator. And having taken billions of years to create their habitat, and millions of years to get the species to this point, isn't it likely the Creator would be willing to take a few thousand additional years to let the message of his project spread and give everyone a chance to get on board with it?

I think all this is much more likely than not. I think this is a likely picture of what God is like: a Creator who loves his creation, who wants his creatures to love it and each other, who communicates that love as a rule of life, and then chooses to show how it works, first through an experimental group of people, and then by entering his creation himself, showing how the rule of love looks in practice, even in the face of the worst opposition his creatures could mount. I think that Creator would not let his creatures think they won against his love and permanently silenced the Creator-turned-creature but would reintroduce himself into creation. I think he would also give help to those who wish to follow him in spite of any internalized negative experiences by working with them internally. I think this is much more likely than that the universe is a vast and intricate machine with trillions of parts that accidentally came together or that a Creator would either hate or be indifferent to his creation and its fate.

This is just the outline of the argument. There are numerous details to work out. And as I said, while there is evidence for it, there is no absolute proof of it. I will grant that it is possible that at some of the points of the argument things might take a very different, if highly unlikely, turn.

But this likely scenario does resemble to a great degree what the Bible reveals and what we believe. And I think an intelligent person could follow this train of thought and even give assent to it.

But this is just a thought experiment. It is an hypothesis, a proposed explanation of the evidence we have which can serve as a starting point for further investigation.

So this is where we turn the thought experiment into a real experiment. If you actually want to test the reality of this, you need to open your mind and open your heart to the Creator who very likely made you in his image and then entered into his creation in the person of Jesus Christ and who can also enter into your life through his Spirit, and then say, “Lord, make me like Jesus. Make me a clear image of your love and justice and mercy. Make me an example that your ways are better than the ways of the world. Make me living proof that you exist and you love us and you forgive us and you transform us and you restore us to the persons you intended us to be. Purify my soul, illumine my mind, set my heart on fire for you. I ask this in the name of your Son, our Savior Jesus Christ and through the power of your Holy Spirit. Amen.”