Actually, it’s just so small that it would take a very, very long time to happen. It’s provably possible for a universe to arise out of nothing but basic physical laws. To preempt you, demanding to know what defined those laws is about as good an argument as asking where God came from, and I’d rather not have that debate.

God defined those laws, just as he did the laws of physics and every other part of nature. And as for how possible a universe not made by God is, here’s some detailed information about just how incredibly fine-tuned our universe really is, from an article by Dr. Hugh Ross:

“Recently, it has become possible not only to investigate the transcendence of the Creator, but also to investigate something of His personality. Now that the limits and parameters of the universe have come within the measuring capacity of astronomers and physicists, the design characteristics of the universe are being examined and acknowledged; Astronomers have discovered that the characteristics and parameters of the universe and our solar system are so finely tuned to support life that nothing less than a personal, intelligent Creator can explain the degree of fine-tunedness. It requires power and purpose.

Approximately two dozen parameters of the universe have been identified that must be carefully fixed in order for any kind of conceivable life (not just life as we know it) to exist at any time in the history of the universe. Some examples of these are given in Table 5.

Table 5: Evidence for design in the universe101 – 110

1. gravitational coupling constant

if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar lifespans
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production

2. strong nuclear force coupling constant

if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life are unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen

3. weak nuclear force coupling constant

if larger: all hydrogen is converted to helium in the big hang, hence too much heavy elements
if smaller: no helium produced from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements

4. electromagnetic coupling constant

if larger: no chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron are unstable to fission
if smaller: no chemical bonding

5. ratio of protons to electrons

if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

6. ratio of electron to proton mass

if larger: no chemical bonding
if smaller: no chemical bonding

7. expansion rate of the universe

if larger: no galaxy formation
if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation

8. entropy level of the universe

if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation

9. mass density of the universe

if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars bum too rapidly
if smaller: no helium from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements

10. age of the universe

if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

11. initial uniformity of radiation

if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

12. average distance between stars

if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planet production
if smaller: planetary orbits become destabilized

13. solar luminosity

if increases too soon: runaway green house effect
if increases too late: frozen oceans

14. fine structure constant (a function of three other fundamental constants, Planck’s constant, the velocity of light, and the electron charge each of which, therefore, must be fine-tuned)

if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses

15. decay rate of the proton

if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life

16. 12C to 16O energy level ratio

if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon

17. decay rate of 8Be

if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible

18. mass difference between the neutron and the proton

if greater: protons would decay before stable nuclei could form
if smaller: protons would decay before stable nuclei could form

19. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons

if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form

The degree of fine-tunedness for many of these parameters is utterly amazing. For example, if the strong nuclear force were even two percent stronger or two percent weaker, the universe would never be able to support life.111, 112 More astounding yet, the ground state energies for 4He, 8Be, 12C, and 16O cannot be higher or lower with respect to each other by more than four percent without yielding a universe with insufficient oxygen and/or carbon for any kind of life.110 The expansion rate of the universe is even more sensitive.113 It must be fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in 1055! Clearly some ingenious Designer must be involved in the physics of the universe.

The discovery of this degree of design in the universe is having a profound theological impact upon astronomers. Fred Hoyle concluded in 1982 that “a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.”114 Paul Davies moved from promoting atheism in 1983115 to conceding in 1984 that “the laws [of physics] … seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design”116 to testifying in his 1988 book The Cosmic Blueprint that there “is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming.”117

Words such as superintellect, monkeyed, exceedingly ingenious, supernatural Agency, Supreme Being and providentially crafted obviously apply only to a Person. But, more than just establishing that the Creator is a Person, the findings about design provide evidence of what that Person is like. One characteristic that stands out dramatically in His interest and care for living things and particularly for the human race.

For example, the mass density of the universe determines how efficiently nuclear fusion operates in the cosmos. As Table 5 indicates, if the mass density is too great, too much deuterium (a heavy isotope of hydrogen with one proton and one neutron in the nucleus) is made in the first few minutes of the universe’s existence. This extra deuterium will cause all the stars to burn much too quickly and erratically for any of them to sup-port a planet with life upon it. On the other hand, if the mass density is too small, so little deuterium and helium is made in the first few minutes that the heavier elements necessary for life will never form in the stars. What this means is that the approximately one hundred billion trillion stars we observe in the universe, no more and no less, are needed for life to be possible in the universe. Evidently, God cared so much for living creatures that He constructed a hundred billion trillion stars and carefully crafted them throughout the age of the universe so that at this brief moment in the history of the cosmos humans could exist and have a pleasant place to live. Of all the gods of the various religions of the world, only the God of the Bible is revealed as investing this much (and more) in humanity.

It is not just the universe that bears evidence for design. The sun and the earth also reveal such evidence. Frank Drake, Carl Sagan, and Iosef Shklovsky were among the first astronomers to make this point. They attempted to estimate the number of planets (in the universe) with environments favorable for life support. In the early 1960s they recognized that a certain kind of star with a planet just the right distance from that star would provide the necessary conditions for life.119 On this basis they made optimistic estimates for the probability of finding life elsewhere in the universe. Shklovsky and Sagan, for example, claimed that 0.001 percent of all stars could have a planet capable of supporting advanced life.120

While their analysis was a step in the right direction, it overestimated the range of permissible star types and the range of permissible planetary distances. It also ignored many other significant factors. Some sample parameters sensitive for the support of life are listed in Table 6.

Table 6: Evidence for the design of the sun-earth-moon system121 -139

1. galaxy type

if too elliptical: star formation ceases before sufficient heavy element buildup for life chemistry
if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion is too severe and/or heavy elements for life chemistry are not available.

2. parent star distance from center of galaxy

if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets.
if closer: stellar density and radiation would be too great.

3. number of stars in the planetary system

if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits.
if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life.

4. parent star birth date

if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase.
if less recent: stellar system would not yet contain enough heavy elements.

5. parent star age

if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly.

6. parent star mass

if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would bum too rapidly.
if less: range of distances appropriate for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period for a planet of the right distance; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen.

7. parent star color

if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.

8. supernovae eruptions

if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated.
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.

9. white dwarf binaries

if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated

10. surface gravity (escape velocity)

if stronger: atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane.
if weaker: planet’s atmosphere would lose too much water.

11. distance from parent star

if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle.
if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle.

12. inclination of orbit

if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme.

13. orbital eccentricity

if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.

14. axial tilt

if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great.
if less: surface temperature differences would be too great.

15. rotation period

if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.

16. gravitational interaction with a moon

if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe.
if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities.

17. magnetic field

if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe.
if weaker: inadequate protection from hard stellar radiation.

18. thickness of crust

if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.
if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.

19. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)

if greater: runaway ice age would develop.
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.

20. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere

if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly.
if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly.

21. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere

if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis.

22. water vapor level in atmosphere

if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land.

23. ozone level in atmosphere

if greater: surface temperatures would be too low.
if less: surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the surface.

24. atmospheric electric discharge rate

if greater: too much fire destruction would occur.
if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere.

25. oxygen quantity in atmosphere

if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would bum up too easily.
if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe.

26. oceans to continents ratio

if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.

27. soil mineralization

if too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would he limited.

28. seismic activity

if greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed.
if less: nutrients on ocean floors (from river runoff) would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift.

Each of these 28 parameters cannot exceed certain limits without disturbing a planet’s capacity to support life. For some, the limits have been measured quite precisely. This is typically the case for the stellar parameters. For others, the limits are more uncertain. This is typically the case for planetary parameters. Trillions of stars are available for study and star formation is quite well understood and observed. On the other hand, only nine planets can be studied, and though a fairly good theory of planetary formation is available, the details have yet to be worked out, nor can planetary formation be fully observed.

To get a feel for how confining these limits can be, the least confining would be parameters #1, #3, and #12 which would eliminate respectively 30%, 60%, and 20% of all candidates from contention. More confining would be parameters such as #2, #13, #15, and #19 which eliminate respectively about 80%, 90%, 90%, 90%, and 90% of all candidates from contention. Most confining of all would be parameters such as #6, #9, #11, #18, #21, and #25 which eliminate respectively about 99.9%, 99.9%, 99.9%, 99%, 99%, and 99% of all candidates from contention.

Of course, not all of the listed parameters are strictly independent of the others. Dependency factors could reduce the degree of confinement considerably. On the other hand, all these parameters must be kept within their limits for the total time spans needed for the support of life on a candidate planet. This will increase the degree of confinement.

About a dozen more parameters, such as the atmospheric transparency, atmospheric pressure, atmospheric temperature gradient, other greenhouse gases, location of different gases and minerals, and mantle and core constituents and structures, currently are being researched for their sensitivity in the support of life. However, the 28 listed in Table 6 in themselves lead safely to the conclusion that much fewer than a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of all stars will have a planet capable of sustaining advanced life. Considering that the observable universe contains less than a trillion galaxies, each averaging a hundred billion stars,j we can see the not even one planet would be expected, by natural processes alone, to possess the necessary conditions to sustain life.k No wonder Robert Rood and James Trefil,121 among others,140 have surmised that intelligent physical life exists only on the earth.

It seems abundantly clear that the earth, too, in addition to the universe, has experienced divine design. Evidently, personal intervention on the part of the Creator takes place not just at the origin of the universe but also at much more recent times.”

And why do I want that particular cure? I know my flaws, and I know that being human is one of them, but there are ways to fix that without abandoning all pretense of logical thinking.

Because it isn’t just about us being better people. Spiritual death does exist, and if you don’t accept Jesus as the one to atone for your sin, you will pay that price instead when the time comes. I don’t like talking about that but it’s part of what Jesus spoke about and why he came. There’s a part of us that nothing can fill except God, an emptiness that only he can close. We’re made that way.

“God’s been asking us to check our brains at the door ever since our tests became sophisticated enough to come back negative. I’m well aware that people used to both expect and see evidence of divinity in their lives; I’ve read accounts of missionaries in centuries past using what in those days passed as empirical tests to convert people. Nowadays, however, we’re better at correcting for experimental error, and there are a lot of scientists with an emotional investment in proving God’s existence. That none of them have is telling, and that most religious people now feel the need to protect their God from falsification is even more so.”

You’re wrong about evidence, though. More and more, as people study cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, and the like, it reveals the extreme fine-tuning of the universe and the impossibility of its existence without a designer. All time, matter, space, and energy has a finite beginning. And for them to have that beginning, there must be a Beginner. Albert Einstein himself came to that conclusion, even if he didn’t take the next step in admitting who that Beginner was. He at least admitted there had to be one. You really think you know better than him? Also, eyewitness testimony is considered legal evidence in a court of law, and eyewitness testimony is exactly what the gospels are. The earliest texts have been conclusively dated to within just a few decades of Jesus’ death and resurrection, well within the lifetime of the apostles, confirming their authenticity.

“I know how simple it is. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t turn your brain into a ball of contradictions and cognitive biases that Escher would have been proud to have painted. Pull just about any entry from this list and there’s a good chance that the religious show signs of it when defending their faith.”

And yet you haven’t mentioned a single one here. You made a claim but didn’t make it up, so your argument fails.

“I do not have faith that my body isn’t going to suddenly act out; didn’t you read what I said? I know that my body has a better chance of not acting out if I maintain its systems to a certain minimum standard, and I’m just hoping that none of them decide to stop working before I can trade up for an intelligently designed equivalent. I have no faith at all in a system that’s prone to sudden failure and provides positive feedback for things that reduce its functionality, it’s just that the only current alternative to maintaining that system is dying.”

You said it yourself, you know your body has a better chance of not acting out if you maintain it. That knowing is faith. That’s what I’ve been trying to say. You’re operating from a distorted definition of faith rather than what it actually is.

“God tells Satan, “Look at this dude, he’s really pious and always prays to me and gives me sacrifices and stuff. I think he’s my favorite human.”
Satan says, “Mind if I destroy everything he’s ever loved, ruining him financially, emotionally and physically?”
Your just and ever-loving God responds, “Nah, go ahead. It’s not like he’ll stop worshiping me. Just don’t kill him, okay?”
There is something very wrong with that picture.”

What you’ve just shown is that you haven’t learned how to look past the surface. Do you really think God didn’t know what would happen? Of course he did. He allowed it because we’re all tested and live in a fallen world, and suffering is an inevitable part of that. However, if you had read through the entire book, you would have found that after it was over, God blessed Job and gave back all that was lost, even more than Job had originally had. Also, you would have understood that the devil is, basically, on a leash. He can only do what God lets him do. The fact that you allowed yourself to be so easily discouraged makes me think that you never really committed yourself to God in the first place. You could have asked someone to help you understand the story if you were having a hard time with it, instead of just abandoning everything.

“That’s fine, it would be stupid if an omnipotent being was bound in such a way. Just don’t go saying that a guy failing to hide in a house, in a boat, and in a whale is proof of that. He wouldn’t be able to hide from me in any of those places either if I had one of those tags they use to track dolphins, and he wouldn’t be able to hide from schizophrenia if he independently invented a generation ship and fled the Milky Way. Even if his account were honest it wouldn’t be a very strong support for your conclusion.”

Except that it’s hardly the only account of God’s nature in the Bible. Throughout the whole thing, God is described as being beyond time, doing things before time, before the universe existed. He, as Jesus, appeared in a locked room after the resurrection, another example of his extradimensionality. And those are just a few examples.

“That’s good. I never thought of God any other way. But when you bring up Jonas and say that he couldn’t escape God no matter how far he fled, there’s an implication there that Jonas fled far. If he didn’t, then that claim is like if I were to take five steps without leaving my dorm and conclude that my dorm encompasses the whole of reality.”

Jonah attempted to go as far as he could in the complete opposite direction of Ninevah. The only means of transportation in those days were by foot, riding an animal, or ship, and by ship would take you the farthest, which is what Jonah had attempted.

Can you at least admit that you may not have come to the right conclusions, that it’s possible? There’s far more evidence of God as the Creator and Designer of the universe than you realize. Go here to learn more, and don’t just dismiss it because then you’ll be acting just like a copyright maximalist. Actually spend time reading the articles and listening to the podcasts and try to take everything in. You might be surprised.

http://www.reasons.org

Oh, and RTB’s founder, Dr. Ross, was a scientist before he became a Christian, and of course still is one (with multiple PhD’s, as I recall). So any claims of superimposing faith over science have no merit.

The full text of the article I quoted above can be found here.