Science and the existence and omnipotence of God

Summary: This essay argues that scientific evidence strongly supports the existence of God, challenging the idea that such discussions should be confined to faith alone. It highlights the Big Bang theory and its proof from cosmic background radiation as evidence of a universe created by God. The unity and design of the universe, as seen in the laws of physics and the Standard Model, further imply a purposeful creation. The author critiques Darwinian evolution's randomness, suggesting that God guides both biological and physical processes. Ultimately, the essay advocates for the integration of science within religion, asserting that scientific discoveries affirm God's existence.

My riveting book that explains our current world

"The Struggle for Utopia - A History of Jewish, Christian and Islamic Messianism" by Arnold Slyper. Wonderful reviews. Available on Amazon, at US bookstores, and at Pomeranz Bookseller in Jerusalem (with courier service available). " Brilliant and thought-provoking."

In the past, our understanding of the natural world was greatly influenced by the Greek philosopher Aristotle, much of whose research into natural science was focused on demonstrating the purpose within nature. Since we live in a purposeful world, a fertile symbiosis was able to exist between the writings of Aristotle and Catholic theologians, and thus on the theology of the Christian church. However, as the centuries progressed, Aristotle’s approach became an impediment to scientific progress, and the study of purpose was replaced by the study of etiology and mechanisms. Nevertheless, even an influential 17th century scientist such as Isaac Newton continued to view his scientific work from a religious perspective in demonstrating the glory of God within the natural world.

By the 19th century, science and religion had severed their relationship. Religion was expected to keep its nose out of science and science to distance itself from religious matters. The notion of a randomly developing universe became dominant within science, while the concept of design within the universe was regarded as a matter of religious faith.

Even the influential Jewish religious thinker Rabbi Jonathan Sacks would seem to have agreed that science has little to contribute to theological issues. In his book “The Great Partnership: Science, Religion and the Search for Meaning” he wrote:

The heavens proclaim the glory of God; they do not proclaim the existence of God. All that breathes praises its Creator; it does not furnish philosophical verification of a Creator.1

Nevertheless, Sacks does devote an entire chapter of his book to discussing the improbability of the natural world being other than the creation of God. But this does not dissuade him from the proposition that only religion provides meaning to life and only religion, not science, provides answers to such ultimate questions as the existence of God.

This chapter argues that this approach to science and religion shortchanges both. The scientific evidence for the existence of God is irrefutable, and it defies logic to confine discussion of His existence solely to the straightjacket of religion. Moreover, limiting discussion of His existence to faith implies that science-based arguments provide only intimations of His existence and are therefore open to doubt. While it is true that science cannot provide moral direction to humanity, this does not mean that science is silent about the purposefulness of the cosmos.

In actuality, science has much to say about God and the purposefulness pervading the universe. This in turn should lead to the question — what then is the purpose of this purposefulness?

First, a definition. This chapter will define a proof as a proposition that cannot be refuted, either because of its internal logic or because of the weight of circumstantial evidence.

Clearly, God’s existence can never be demonstrated experimentally. However, this does not mean that His existence is not open to proof through scientific evidence, particularly in relation to the beginnings of the universe.

Proof for the existence of God in this essay is based on the following:

Scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning at which time energy, matter and time were brought into existence from non-existence.

Scientific evidence that the universe possesses unity.

Scientific evidence that the physical and biological aspects of our world are purposeful.

Matter and energy from nothing

It is suggested that the following two propositions constitute logically irrefutable proof for the existence of God:

No physical process can begin without a Primary Cause.

Matter and energy cannot create themselves spontaneously but require the creative activity of a Supreme Being.

The Big Bang Theory has been considered proven since the 1960s. Prior to this time, most physicists favored the Steady State Theory, which postulated a stable universe without beginning or end. However, by the beginning of the 20th century a series of discoveries in astrophysics began casting doubts on a steady-state universe. Using ever more powerful telescopes, far-away galaxies were found to be a lot more distant from planet Earth than previously assumed. Light emanating from these galaxies also demonstrated a spectral shift, implying that these stellar bodies were moving further away from earth, a fact incompatible with a steady-state universe.

The work of Penzias and Wilson working in Bell Labs in the 1960s transformed the Big Bang Theory from theory to fact. Their discovery was fortuitous. Background interference was noticed in their radio telescopes and they began investigating its source. Pointing their telescopes to distant galaxies made no difference to this interference, which seemed to permeate space.

Meanwhile, another group of physicists postulated that if the Big Bang theory was correct, light from this event should permeate the universe. Very shortly after a Big Bang, neutrons, protons and electrons would combine into hydrogen atoms. Light would no longer be trapped, and photons, or particles of light, would be disseminated into the universe. Since the universe is expanding, the frequency of these light waves would be “stretched,” and this echo would be discernable as radio-waves, or more accurately microwaves which have a broader frequency than light waves. This was the cosmic background radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson. For their discovery, they were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1978.

It is estimated that the universe began about 13¾ billion years ago. At this time, all matter and energy in the universe were concentrated within a small primordial focus. All subatomic particles, energy and light are derived from this focus. Before this time there was nothing — neither matter nor time. The initiation of a process whereby matter and energy were created from nothing cannot be described scientifically, or even imagined, since it is in the realm of metaphysics. But this does not make it less of a fact.

At least one prominent physicist has attempted to remove God from this scenario by suggesting that our universe is one of an infinite number of universes. Only by chance does the one we live in possesses the physical laws and scientific constants that make our existence possible. However, the existence of multiple universes is unproven and un-provable. Moreover, all universes, whether one or many, require a beginning and the creation of matter and energy from non-existence.

An alternative argument, that all matter and energy spontaneously spun themselves into existence equally defies logic and all principles of science. The creation of something from nothing cannot be other than a metaphysical happening and the work of God.

Not only can God’s existence be proven from the Big Bang, but it is also possible to derive important philosophical principles from this event. Since God’s existence preceded the creation of matter, it follows that He is non-corporeal. Nor is He limited by any of the forces or constants of nature.

The unity of the universe

The universe possesses unity, in that it functions as an integrated whole. This unity was not an add-on to the universe sometime during its billions of years of evolution but was present from its inception, being a function of the fundamental forces of physics created at the time of the Big Bang. These forces exist throughout the universe and are equally operative on a speck of dust on a window ledge and in a particle of matter in a far-off galaxy.

These forces are described by the Standard Model, a mathematical model linking together three of the four primary forces of physics, namely electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. These forces are derived from subatomic particles called bosons, which were also created at the time of the Big Bang. The word boson is a technical term describing the quantum properties of these particles.

The force of electromagnetism is transmitted by a boson particle called a photon, which holds electrons in orbit around the neutrons and protons of atomic nuclei. The strong nuclear force is derived from a particle called the gluon, which is responsible for the binding together of protons and neutrons within atomic nuclei. The weak nuclear force is responsible for processes like beta decay in radioactive atoms, whereby a neutron turns into a proton (or vice versa), emitting a particle such as an electron or neutrino. It acts at a very short range — within atomic nuclei — and is mediated by heavy particles called the W and Z bosons. Though weaker than the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism, it plays a crucial role in nuclear reactions, particularly in the sun and stars.

The fourth fundamental force of physics is the force of gravity. This is described mathematically by Einstein’s general theory of relativity, but has yet to be linked to quantum physics and is not included in the Standard Model.

The more recently discovered Higgs boson has nothing to do with the transmission of forces, but provides subatomic particles with mass by their interaction with the associated Higgs field. If not for this particle, subatomic particles involved in the weak nuclear force would speed away into the universe at the speed of light. The excitement regarding the discovery of the Higg’s particle, or “the God particle” as it is sometimes called, stems from its role as the lynchpin of the Standard Model. The existence of this particle was first postulated by Peter Higgs in 1964, and its discovery provides a unification of much of the subatomic world, with the exceptions of gravity, dark matter and dark energy. The latter is another unknown force that appears to permeate the universe.

A useful analogy for the unity of the universe is a smart phone. This is highly integrated in terms of its internal functioning. It defies logic to suggest that this integration arose spontaneously and continues by chance or that it was the product of unsupervised doodling by multiple programmers. If true for a smart phone, how much more so for the integration of our exquisitely coordinated universe.

The essential unity of our universe was already evident within milliseconds of the Big Bang, being represented by the fundamental forces of nature, their bosons, their linkage within the Standard Model, and the physical constants of nature.

The unity of the universe follows directly from the notion of a single Creator of the cosmos.

Regarding the scientific discoveries of his time, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch had this to say as early as the 19th century in his Collected Volumes:

". . would Judaism not be justified in viewing this idea of a universal unity, which inquiring minds have already pieced together from the textbook of the universe and which man's consciousness yearns to express, as nothing less than the long-awaited triumph of the truth of Judaism? This is the truth with which, thousands of years ago, Judaism first appeared in the midst of a chaotic multitude of gods, proclaiming that there is only one sole God in heaven and on earth, and that all the phenomena of the universe are founded upon His Law."2

Purposefulness within the physical and biological world

Our universe possessed purposeful design from the moment of its inception. It is this design that permitted the “science” of Aristotle to flourish for hundreds of years. However, his science was based solely on observation. Modern science has enabled us to take this field of science considerably further.

The design within our universe began from very simple beginnings. The first atom formed as a result of the tremendous heat of the Big Bang was hydrogen. This is the simplest atom that exists and consists of a single neutron, proton and electron. This monatomic element constituted the building block from which all subsequent matter was derived. Hence, the heat of the Big Bang permitted the fusion of two hydrogen atoms to form helium, which is composed of 2 neutrons, 2 protons and 2 electrons. More complex atoms were formed under the influence of the extreme heat of decomposing stars, a process termed stellar nucleosynthesis. Our planet Earth is composed of a multitude of natural elements formed from the dust of far-off stars that clumped together under the influence of gravity.

The complexity of the 94 chemical elements or atoms comprising the universe is described by the periodic table. Each element in this table differs from the proceeding element by the addition of one proton plus one electron, with the number of protons constituting its atomic number. Atoms can be conceptualized as building blocks, with the first piece of the set (hydrogen) so designed that additional complexity can be added under the appropriate physical conditions. Conceptually it is a simple system expressed in a beautiful arithmetic progression, whereby the first simple matter created carried within it the design potential for the formation of all future complex matter.

In the biological world, modern science accepts with little argument that it evolved in an evolutionary way. All animals arose from unicellular organisms. This entailed changes in the genetic material of these organisms.

Judaism has no problem accepting evolution. What it cannot accept is Darwinian evolution — the notion that the biological world arose as a result of random mutations, that the evolutionary process proceeded without guidance, and that the biological life around us arose purely by chance.

Thus, the development of plant life is described in the first creation account as being “lemino,” or as we would say nowadays by species. Animals and other creatures were also created “by its kind (lemino)":

And Elohim said: “Let the earth sprout vegetation of plants bringing forth seed, trees of fruit yielding fruit each after its kind (in Hebrew lemino), which have their seed in them on the earth. And it was so (Genesis 1:11).

And so for the animal world:

And Elohim said: Let the earth bring forth living soul, each according to its kind (lemino); animal, and creeping thing, and beast of the land each according to its kind (lemino). And it was so (Genesis 1:24).

All the animal and plant species we see around us are viable species. We never see incompletely evolving or mixed-up species, although we may see defects as a result of rare mutations. However, these rare and harmful mutations are unable to perpetuate themselves. Furthermore, each animal and plant species is biologically unable to mix its genetic material with other species. Everything biological from the simplest to the most complex stays within “its kind.”

This means that on the one hand the genetic material of each species is bound extremely tightly at a molecular level so as to prevent genetic drift. However, at the same time there is enough genetic flexibility in the system to allow for the evolutionary process. How can both these opposing trends be the case? So far, this defies explanation.

Not only this, but the male and female of each plant and animal also stays perfectly true to “its kind.” Thus, for the evolution of each species, evolution must proceed along two tracks producing males and females of the same “kind.” But why would this happen, since there is no Darwinian advantage for any individual evolving species to be able to reproduce itself. There is obviously a biological advantage for the entire species to be able to do so, but a plant or animal in the process of evolution cannot “know” this. Similarly, there is no way for an evolving male or female to “know” how it will function in relation to the evolution of the other sex.

Moreover, the evolutionary process must involve multiple steps so complex that it is impossible that it proceeded without direction. Even the development of a single, new enzymatic reaction requires processes that permit its embryonic generation, the development of means of interaction between other proteins, the means to affect cellular action, and processes that influence this reaction rate at an organelle, organ and whole animal level.

It is unlikely that any evolutionary step arises in a manner that does not follow the laws of nature, i.e., that proceeds miraculously. Hence, if we accept natural evolution, we have to say that chance itself is controlled by God.

Until the 1920s, the notion that God controls and influences the natural world would have been difficult to accept since there was no place for Him other than as an observer. Until that time, it was held that the universe functions like the pool balls on a pool table. Every action leads to a further reaction, all of which follow the laws of Newtonian physics. If God wishes to control nature, He would have had to break these laws, i.e., He would have had to do it miraculously.

However, we now know that God does not need to break the laws of physics. Quantum physics tells us that the subatomic world is a very strange place indeed. There is a duality in the subatomic world, such that light and subatomic matter can function both as particles or in the form of waves. The position and momentum of subatomic particles can also never be precisely determined (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle). This means that the positions of electrons in an atom can only be described in terms of probabilities. Potentially, electrons can be found at any distance from the nucleus, although depending on their energy level they exist more frequently in certain regions around the nucleus than others. In other words, the quantum world is not a precise, deterministic world but a fuzziness of probabilities. God is able to operate within this subatomic fuzziness and influence nature in a natural way as He wills. Or put another way — God controls chance.

Albert Einstein believed in God. He also had philosophical problems with the quantum physics being described in his day. He believed in a deterministic universe governed by the forces and laws of nature and could not conceive of a universe functioning by chance as implied by quantum physics. “God does not play dice with the universe” he is reported to have said in a debate between himself and the well-known physicist Niels Bohr. Chance produces chaos, which is the very opposite of design.

There is a solution to Einstein’s dilemma — it is God who throws the dice. Within the fuzziness of the subatomic quantum world, God creates the design of His purposeful universe as He wills.

Disseminating the notion that God controls evolution

The role of the Jewish people is to imbibe the truths discussed in this chapter and to disseminate them to the rest of mankind through the performance of Judaism’s precepts.

The following laws are found in the Book of Leviticus:

You shall observe my statues: you shall not mate your animal with another species, you shall not plant your field with mixed seed; and a garment that is a mixture of combined fibers shall not come upon you (Leviticus 19:19).

These laws are repeated again in the book of Deuteronomy, although with slightly different emphases:

You shall not sow your vineyard with a mixture, lest the growth of the seed that you plant and the produce of the vineyard become forbidden. You shall now plow with an ox and a donkey together. You shall not wear combined fibers, wool and linen together (Deuteronomy 22:9-11).

A Jew should not mate a male beast with any kind of domestic or wild animal that is not of its species. Nor should a Jew plant together two species of crops in his field, such as wheat together with barley or beans with lentils. Different trees can be planted together, but not in a vineyard.

A way of explaining these statutes is to say that God created a perfect world and He does not wish for man to interfere with His creations.3 But this is an inadequate explanation. Different animal species cannot be successfully mated together. (An exception is the union between a donkey and a mule which produces a donkey. However, the donkey is infertile). Planting two crops in a field has no influence on subsequent generations of plants. Spinning together wool and linen in a garment has no effect on the future source of the fibers. Rather, what these laws are emphasizing is the perfection of creation and the work of the Creator who made it so. These statutes have no practical benefit to society but are meant to impress on the Jewish people these fundamental religious concepts. This is explained by Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch in his commentary to the Torah:

It is quite evident that already in mixing of seeds the prohibition goes further than forbidding any interference in God’s Laws of Nature regarding mating. It is rather to bring man in his work of plant culture to the thought of the Creator’s rule of leminahu (by its species) and thereby to God Himself, the Lawgiver in Nature whose lawgiving does not begin with the Jewish nation or even with man, but whose law rules all formative force, and to Whom the smallest seedling and the tiniest fiber of all organic life yield obedience.4

In conclusion, science can provide the notion of meaning to the universe, since science is the investigation of a universe formed by a Creator who endowed it with purpose. However, science cannot tell us what this meaning is, although it can, and should, provide the impetus for humanity to search for it. Science can also provide us with appreciation of the omnipotence of a Creator Who has the ability to influence every subatomic particle in the universe, and Who controls the evolution of the animal, plant and physical worlds by influencing chance.

It may indeed be appropriate to omit religious ideas from scientific articles, but it is highly appropriate to include within religion the scientific principles that prove the existence and omnipotence of God.

References