A Case for the Existence of God

by Dean L. Overman

Some of the brightest scientific minds of our time, from Albert Einstein to Stephen Hawking, have made incredible insights into the earliest origins of the universe, but have failed to ultimately discover why there is something rather than nothing--why we exist. In A Case for the Existence of God, Dean L. Overman examines the latest theories about the origins of the universe and explains why even the most sophisticated science can only take us so far. Ultimately we must make a leap of faith to understand the world, and Overman argues that a leap into theism provides the most satisfying conclusions.

Overman explores fundamental questions about why our world exists and how it functions, using principles of logic, physics, and theology. In a time when religion and science are often portrayed as diametrically opposed, A Case for the Existence of God presents a refreshing view of the interplay between science and religion and makes a compelling case for the existence of God and his role in our world.

Genres: Religion, Science, Philosophy, Christian

229 pages, Hardcover

First published October 17, 2008

About the author

former Oxford University Templeton scholar

Reviews

[Nicolas Shump · Rating 5 out of 5]

If it is not quite evident yet from my reviews, religion and theology are two topics of great interest to me. I have no formal training in either area, however, I do have a strong interest in these topics. I would have to say that what I have learned is typical of the auto-didact, my reading is not particularly structured or systematic, but I think I am fairly well-informed on the issue of the existence of God. Dean Overman's A Case for the Existence of God is a serious, intellectually dense, stimulating, and compelling in arguing for the existence of a God, a creator. Overman, though he doesn't beat you over the head with it, is also a Christian. However, as someone who is a lawyer, a theology student at Princeton Theological Seminary, and a former Templeton scholar in information theory, physics, and religion at Oxford. Overman is a formidable intellect in defense of God's existence, not an evangelist for Christianity.
The book is only 160 pages long and contains 13 chapters. However, if you read the afterward and the three appendices, the book stretches out to around 200 pages. In these pages, Overman packs a tremendous amount of argumentation and information. I would not recommend reading it in one sitting. You need time to digest the information presented.
Overman begins by arguing that if science can theorize about imperceptible objects, then one cannot be prevented from making arguments about God using theoretical and not empirical concepts too. I think this argument is particularly timely given the fact that physicists recently spoke about finding the God particle (Higgs Boson), but cannot actually see it, we can only find traces of it.
Overman argues that there is sufficient reason for the universe to be not only intelligible, but also rational and not merely random. "The conundrum of using reason to argue against the existence of reason appears odd if not self-defeating. The intelligibility of physical reality appears to require the principle of sufficient reason." (25)
He goes on to also show why it is reasonable to conceive of a creator who is outside of its own creation and that our universe likely has a creator. "Don Page, one of Stephen Hawking's collaborators, understands this issue well and uses the example of an artist's drawing of a circle to illustrate that the absence of a beginning or an end does not remove the artist as the cause of the circle." (40)
Overman next goes to the problem of a supernatural creation, but first he uses science to show how difficult a natural and random creation would be. "Moreover, because a creation out of nothing is not within the power of natural causes, one rationally conclude that, if the universe began to exist, it had a supernatural cause." (43) Why is it tough to prove a natural creation? Overman argues that at the very beginning of creation, at what is known as Planck time, there were no laws of physics, actually no physics at all. He elaborates," To be rational the atheist must show how something comes from nothing. Otherwise, the existence of something is not explained, unless that existence is a necessary existence, independent of anything else. One has to have a starting point, and if an atheist is not going to beg the question why her starting point exists, she must begin from really nothing- what Francis Schaeffer called nothing-nothing. This means no laws, no quantum fields, no wave functions, no observers, no energy, no particles, and no motion." (51)
The advantage of the theistic view is that God who is outside of the universe is the cause of creation. As a another trace of a creator, Overman spends the better part of "The new mathematics of information is consistent with the reasons for the existence of God emphasized in this book. These reasons are based on the argument for a necessary being, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, the order and rationality inherent in the universe,the fine-tuning of the universe for the development of conscious life, the evidential force of religious experiences, and the reason there is something rather than nothing." (73) Chapter 6 detailing how intelligle and mathematic the universe truly is. Overman writes, "The new mathematics of information is consistent with the reasons for the existence of God emphasized in this book. These reasons are based on the argument for a necessary being, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, the order and rationality inherent in the universe,the fine-tuning of the universe for the development of conscious life, the evidential force of religious experiences, and the reason there is something rather than nothing." (73)
As he continues building his case for God, Overman spends some time considering the implications of quantum physics for the universe and for the history of the debate over God's existence. As Overman notes, many of the most famous skeptics and opponents of religion based their arguments on a Newtonian scientific paradigm. With the work of scientists like Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, and Albert Einstein, the atheistic arguments have not ncessarily kept pace with science. To use one example, Overman shows that a purely materialistic view of reality creates problems for trying to make sense of our world. He writes, "The observer cannot make the measurement or observation, and also be part of the probability description of a physical system. The observer must always be someone outside of the probability description of the wave function."(77) this is an application of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Overman devotes most of chapter 8 to a discussion of the relatively new field of algorithmic information theory. Making use of this field, Overman makes a strong case that information may be the new paradigm for energy and an integral component of reality. It is also not reliant on matter for its existence. Overman explains, "Even when one attempts to apply a reductionist method and press on to deep-down reality, one finds that the foundation for all energy and matter appears to be an expression of information. This may remind one of the claim that 'in the beginning was the Word (Logos)." (86-87)
As you might expect from a trained lawyer, Overman does spend some space on the formal proofs for God's existence, relying heavily on the philosopher and writer, Mortimer J. Adler's book How to Think About God. Overman doesn't think that proofs are superfluous to a belief in God and to the Christian faith, but he also doesn't feel there is any particular reason that one has to be convinced by reason to be a theist and Christian.
One of the weakest parts of the book is his argument, which isn't original, that without God there is no morality and no manner by which we can establish morality or distinguish between good and evil. The famed philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell's classic What I Believe convinced me that an atheist can be moral and can make a case for ethics and morality. Overman's hyperbolic argument leads him to make comments like this: OUr distinction between good and evil between right and wrong are absurd if there is no God. If there is no God, a serial killer and a benevolent charity are ultimately of equal moral value. (Actually there is no moral value if there is no God.)" (89) Now, this is just rhetorical grandstanding, in my opinion. Overman is too smart to not be aware of philosophies like Utilitarianism that could make a compelling argument why a charity is more morally valuable than a serial killer. If taking to its limits, Overman's argument makes some sense. In other words, I believe that one should not murder or steal because I believe that God has created all of us humans. Similarly, I can argue for environmental restraint because again God has created our world. I do have an absolute standard that an atheist does not. However, just because there is no absolute moral or ethical standard does not preclude the development of a secular ethical and moral framework. Also, this type of absolute standard has not prevented Jews, Christians, and Muslims from committing horrible atrocities against one another and even within their own faith traditions.
Overman does do a nice job of trying to argue for other approaches to God beyond the merely rational method. In this portion of his work he appeals to famous scientists and philosophers like Blaise Pascal, Soren Kierkegaard, Martin Buber, Simone Weil, Mortimer Adler, and others. Everyone one of these individuals possessed a keen intellect, but they also saw clearly the limits of reason. I was familiar with most of these thinkers and their arguments, but if you are not, this is a good introduction to some alternate ways to attempt to develop an understanding and relationship to God.
In his appendices, Overman expands on why he sees the materialist and atheistic case for creation fall short. Appealing once again to information theory, Overman argues, "The laws of physics are basically compact formulas, the millions of instructions (information) contained in the smallest living organism's DNA requires sequences that are too random and contain too much information to be derived from compact formulas. If I understand this correctly, Overman is arguing that life as we know it cannot be derived from the relatively simple algorithms available in the natural world. He cites the work of physicist Paul Davies, who has written a series of books that have over time drawn him to the side of theism. Davies writes, "The heart of my objection is this: The laws of physics that operate between atoms and molecules are, almost by definition, simple and general. We would not expect them alone to lead inexorably to something both highly complex and highly specific. ... genomes are more or less random sequences of base pairs, and that this very randomness is essential if they are to play the role of evolvable, information-rich molecules." (Davies, The Fifth Miracle, 254-256)
Overman concludes by invoking the work of the mathematician Kurt Godel and his Incompleteness Theorem which argues that mathematics and other systems of information cannot ultimately prove their own validity. I am butchering this, but you can look up Godel's argument if you wish. Here is Overman's take on it: Godel's theorem demonstrates that mathematics is incomplete because the system leaves unanswered the truth or falsity of certain mathematical propositions that are the logical results of valid mathematical inferences. . . . There is clearly a limit on the ability of human reasoning to know that logical thought processes will lead to truth."
This is not an easy read and requires the reader to ponder many new and difficult concepts. Overman does a masterful job of making many of these concepts comprehensible. His use of appendices allows the non-specialist to stick to the text, but does offer more detailed analysis of these ideas, if you are interested. He also uses extensive footnotes, but I did find these to be mostly helpful. A most important book for the ongoing debate regarding the existence of God.

[Bernie · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a believer, one might wonder what compelled me to choose to read a book that presents the case for what I already believe. Mortimer Adler, philosophy professor gives a quote that summarizes my motivation, “... if God in whom (I) believe created (me) with intellectual and rational power, this imposes upon (me) the duty to try to understand the creed of (my) religion. Not to do so is to verge on superstition.”

And so I read it. It’s not an easy read. The arguments are complex… philosophical… scientific. But I trudged through.

In his book, Overman attempts to answer such basic questions as: Why is there something instead of nothing? Why does the something have the particular members and order that it has. Why does the universe have an order that makes it intelligible? For Overman, the answer, in a word, is God. And he spends the first part of the book convincingly giving evidence that points to this inescapable conclusion.

So what is some of this evidence?
• An expanding universe cannot have an infinite past. Anything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
• Our universe exhibits mathematical order.
• Science like faith is built on the assumption, or faith, that there is a rational and intelligible structure to the universe.
• Science gives supportive evidence to many aspects of faith in God.
• Our universe is so remarkably fine-tuned to allow for the origin of life that one my think of it as a finely sharpened pencil standing vertically on its graphite point in a precarious balance. Accidental processes could not possibly allow for this to happen.
• Our distinctions between good and evil and between right and wrong are absurd if there is no God.
• While some ask why God doesn’t prevent evil, it is difficult to imagine a practical basis for how such a prevention could occur without giving up authentic good.
• Why is there suffering? Overman gives no definitive answer but notes that if Jesus is the Incarnation of God, then we have a God who understands and participates in human suffering.

All of us live by faith-- even atheists. Given the evidence, it takes much more faith to be a believer in God than to be an atheist. And while reason and logic point to God they are not definitive, because God can not be defined. Says Overman, we have to recognize that we cannot examine God by placing him in a neat category, because by definition, God is beyond and infinitely above the categories of human reason. Because this is true, some use this as an excuse to reject his existence. And while he offers convincing logical arguments, Overman notes that the most compelling evidence for the reality of God is from personal experience. For example, we gain one type of knowledge about Julius Caesar by reading about him but an entirely different type of knowledge would be gained by (if we could) actually meeting him. Likewise, we gain one type of knowledge by studying Jesus Christ, and a deeper, more personal, more convincing one, when we actually meet, and get to know him. Indeed says Overman, “We can never draw close to God in a merely objective, neutral manner. Our understanding depends in large measure on our relationship to God, our trust in him, and our willingness to ALLOW him to transform our character.”

Because this is true, Overman switches the emphasis of his book from scientific inquiry to the testimonies of nine people who relate their experiences as they begin new understandings initiated by a personal encounter with God. These moving testimonies include Aurelius Agustinus, Blaise Pascal, Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Clare Boothe Luce, Malcolm Muggeridge, Simone Wiel, Basil Mitchell, & Moritmer Adler,

Overman concludes that both reason and faith are needed to have knowledge of God. “Reason without a faith experience is dead. Experience without reason can be fantasy” An experience of God, has the ability, as some researchers believe, to change the actual physical structure of a person’s brain. Perhaps this is why Paul describes those who have had such a transformational spiritual acknowledgment of God as “new creatures.”

[William Schram · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have issues with the idea of God in the light of human reason. I understand that reason can only take you so far at this point in time, but I like it better than the metaphorical surrender that entails attributing all of existence to God. This is my main complaint against the idea of God.

So I chose this book from the library on a whim. I was passing by the religious section, saw the title and grabbed it off the shelf. I don’t really plan these ahead of time.

A Case For The Existence of God is written by a man named Dean L Overman. I don’t know his religious history or how he came to know what he knows about science, but it doesn’t really matter all that much. Overman’s main claim is that the idea of God’s existence is supported by science. It isn’t really too much of a stretch since there are a lot of things that science can’t explain. So Overman cites Information Theory, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, and other heavy bits of math and science.

Overman’s main method is to use science to prove that science is woefully incomplete. Overman also uses the Cosmological Argument to moderate effect and discusses how the existence of morals proves that some higher being must exist. Overman argues that we all live on faith, basing it on people we don’t know and on systems that exist in society. He argues in favor of Pascal’s Wager, an insulting cop-out if ever I heard one.

Another interesting thing is that Overman talks about how every ancient tribe and group of people had a creation myth but doesn’t grant them the same credence as that of the Bible. Why isn’t there a pantheon of gods and goddesses? When you give that much leeway to a myth it begs a lot of questions.

On the one hand, I have nothing but contempt for this book, but on the other hand, I can’t really fault the man for finding his own meaning in his life. That is the other theme that he loves to talk about. If God doesn’t exist then everything is permitted. This is not true. I still have to live in society and follow its laws.

Anyway, this is all I really got on this book. It wasn’t phenomenal, but it didn’t make me vomit with rage. When it comes to religious books, that is a pretty good thing in my opinion.

[Ken Roebuck · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a lucid, well-reasoned, and thought provoking treatise that would be of interest to anyone with a penchant for meticulous philosophical and religious arguments that address the big questions in life such as whether God exists. Dean Overman makes an erudite case for the existence of God and argues vociferously that theism explains more about the nature of the universe than atheism which he asserts also requires a leap of faith.



Overman, a corporate lawyer for four decades, opens his book with this statement: “This book is intended for people who have open minds concerning the question of god’s existence. I am specifically addressing those individuals which are interested in the question from a personal perspective and are willing to think through the possibility of God’s existence and the potential of humankind to engage in a transformational relationship with such as being.”



If you approach this book with a positive attitude and an open mind with a ken for rigorous philosophy, you will find convincing evidentiary arguments for belief in the existence of God “beyond a reasonable doubt” but not “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” After all there is no proof for God but as Overman demonstrates there are ample solid philosophical arguments that will bring you to the brink of the precipice. Each of us just needs to muster the will to take that ultimate leap of faith into the light.

[Denny Penticoff · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a theologian this book moves closer to the specialist than the layman. It presumes a familiarity with theological arguments and, in some instances, apologetics. Nevertheless, I urge non-specialists to give it a go if they want to uptick a level or two in sophistication. Overman makes a strong case that an atheistic belief system is far less scientific than a deist belief system. I find it ironic that many of the most notorious atheists like Dawkins became deists after they made big bucks promulgating a nihilistic arrogance that the moral relativists in today's world suck up like Kool Aid.

[Reba]

Um...I'm only on Chapter 3 and I already feel like I am in over my head. Perhaps I am not intelligent enough for this particular book....

Maybe this quote from Chapter 10 sums it up, "Swiss theologian Emil Brunner understood that one could never really objectively analyze the question of God's existence." Right, so why am I trying again?

This is a hard book to rate, I don't think I can give it a rating. Half of it, I felt to unintelligent to understand, the other half seemed like an overdose of common sense and/or double talking logic riddles.

[Donald · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rather simply, the best argument for Theism written in recent years. Overman's natural milieu, law, affords a salient opportunity to state his case. Those interested in the Four Horsemen need to bear arms to this formidable foe. The existential leap has become more evidential than presuppositional.

Thanks to Overman.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very erudite book that nicely covers many of the issues surrounding the "God Debate." As an attorney myself, I appreciate the way Overman skillfully crafts a case for God's existence. His knowledge of science and theology is vast, and he interweaves them in a logical fashion that will appeal to readers looking for a thorough exploration into this subject.

[Ron · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting read. I do not accept all he presents, but he does present some interesting views.