Converging and Convincing Proof of God: At the Limits of Science

12/13/2012

(Page 2 of 2)

universe is open or closed.

The simplest model of the Big Bang theory assumes the whole universe is described by it. That is, it assumes that there was no universe "before" the Big Bang, and it assumes that the universe beyond that which we can observe (the observable universe) is the same as the part that we can observe. No empirical evidence exists that can disprove these assumptions. So we are standing on solid ground, or perhaps better said, at least not standing on unsolid ground.

As Fr. Spitzer puts it, in this simplest model, "the big bang was actually the beginning of the universe in a very strong sense: it was the beginning of time itself (and space too)."

What this means is that, contrary to some of the pagan philosophers (who believed that the universe was eternal), the Christian concept that creation occurred in time seems to concur with modern science. The Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) does not seem either irresponsible or unreasonable.

If science has proved the universe to be finite, and not infinite, then it begs the question: what happened before the universe as we know it, before physical history, before time and place, before the Big Bang?

Here, we reach the limits of science. As Fr. Spitzer puts it, "science cannot deductively prove a creation or God. This is because natural science deals with the physical universe and with the regularities which we call 'laws of nature' that are obeyed by the phenomena within the universe. But God is not an object or phenomenon or regularity within the universe."

"When we speak of a beginning (a point prior to which there is no physical reality), we stand at the threshold of physics and metaphysics (beyond physics)." We cannot rely on "laws of nature" where there is no more "nature" in time and place.

Science, in other words, must here decrease, so that metaphysics can increase.

Drawing from Shakespeare's King Lear (Act I, sc. 1), we might entertain this dialogue between science and metaphysics at the limits of science:

Metaphysics:     What can you say as to what was before the Big Bang? Speak.
Science:            Nothing, my Lord.
Metaphysics:     Nothing?
Science:            Nothing.
Metaphysics: How? Nothing will come of nothing. Speak again.

It's unfair for Metaphysics to ask Science to speak again. Science cannot speak again, for at the edge of science, only metaphysics can speak. Science stands mute, deaf and dumb.

But Metaphysics is not at a loss of words. Drawing from the Parmenidian insight (which is self-evident and cannot be denied as untrue without absurdity) that nothing comes from nothing, we know that there must be something behind the physical nothing that science knows nothing about and which lies "behind" and "before" the Big Bang.

Since whatever this "thing" is, is a physical nothing in time and place (because it is before the Big Bang, where only after physical things in time and place began to be), it must be a transcendental Something.

Et hoc omnes intelligunt Deum. And this everyone understands to be God.

(Note. There has been substantial development and speculation about the Big Bang theory beyond its classical formulation, including suggestions of "bouncing universes," an "eternal inflation," "higher dimension theories" such as the Kaluza-Klein theories, supergravity theories, super-string theory, Randall-Sundrum theories, ekpyrotic theory, etc. These suggest that the Big Bang, in its classical formulation, is not perhaps the beginning of time and space, but only one beginning of time and space. Fr. Spitzer calls these Past-extended Big Bang Models. But there are very complex problems with these theories, and the better arguments suggest that "even in Past-extended Big Bang Models, the universe and time itself had to have a beginning at some time, even if that point was not the big bang itself." So long as we have a beginning of time and space, even under a theory more complex than the classical Big Bang theory, this proof of God as a transcendent cause of the universe is valid. For those interested in more detail, one should consult Fr. Spitzer's work for starters.)

-----

Andrew M. Greenwell is an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas, practicing in Corpus Christi, Texas. He is married with three children. He maintains a blog entirely devoted to the natural law called Lex Christianorum. You can contact Andrew at agreenwell@harris-greenwell.com.
- - -

Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer Intentions for January 2013
General Intention: The Faith of Christians. That in this Year of Faith Christians may deepen their knowledge of the mystery of Christ and witness joyfully to the gift of faith in him.
Missionary Intention: Middle Eastern Christians. That the Christian communities of the Middle East, often discriminated against, may receive from the Holy Spirit the strength of fidelity and perseverance.

Keywords: proofs of God, existence of God, Big Bang, nothing comes from nothing

NEWSLETTERS »

Previous Page 1 | 2

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 9 of 9 Comments

DLL
5 months ago
After reading so many of these articles that deal with science vs faith,I can only believe that faith is! and faith is a gift! Faith proves itself in so many ways in life. We all,in fact,have faith wether we know it or not. I have to go to work tonight. I have faith that my car,recently serviced,will get me to work and back home again. My employer has faith that I will go to work and do a competent job when I get there. We all elect politicians and most have faith that they made the right choice. My Father and sister live half a world away from me and I have faith that they will be okay. I have faith in the way weather is forecast,for the most part. My point without getting monotonous,is that faith actually governs our entire lives. Faith in God is easy to understand,as some of the things we must put our faith in simply are not so easy. God is as he says he is,"I Am"! The Catholic Faith makes sense. Like any thing we learn to have faith in,we must come to understand what is being taught,so it needs to be studied. No one can understand what they do not study,or refuse to understand. God is Love. Understand that! and all will come to love and understand God,as they study the life,death and Ressurection of Jesus Christ. Choose the right place to learn about Christ. In my opinion it is the Holy Catholic Church. Salvation from sin makes sense. Sin is contagious,as real as any devastating physical illness. Salvation is our gift of a Faith in Christ,that is the anecdote to the destructive force that is sin. Faith and science is reasonable each a study worthwhile,both are of immense value,they work together. Those that have faith in science they must believe in their findings so it is with all that is studied. Christian Science is the fact of being and that human beings were made in the image and likeness of God. This science insists that human beings are the stewards of the planet because of their ability to imagine,create and understand that the universe is in itself a Divine and infinite source,intelligently designed.
vance
5 months ago
For the last 250 years anti-Christ has thrown down the challenge to prove that God exists via scientific explanation. Again, Jesus Christ is proof of God's existence. When Christ performed cures for advanced leprosy, the leper was 'Instantly' cured. This means that all the flesh he lost to where his bones were exposed were instantly restored. This power is the same power of "Creation". These were not magic tricks but acts of creation. We did not have video cameras around when Christ was with us. Since Christ performed his miracles in the present of large crowds as witnesses. As we know there were witnesses who still refused to believe. Even if there were video cameras to record Christ's miracles like a news report, today's anti-Christs would still not believe. When Christ fed a crowd of 5,000 plus people from 3 loaves of bread and a couple of dried fish, he demonstrated his power of creation. This is the same power that brought Adam and Eve from the soil of the earth. This is the same power that created matter from nothing.
michael
5 months ago
@ Mr. Greenwell...I see your point, but I am concerned that for the past few decades we are arguing based on the tenants of scientism vs. revealed truth and basic philosophy. Mathematics dominates the scene today, but it is a science infinitely below Catholic theology and well below the science of philosophy. Higher sciences trump lower ones. We cannot grant to a lesser thing the power to bring about something greater than itself. It is philosophically untenable. How could a chimp become a man without the good Lord going against nature which is impossible? And how could an explosion bring about such a wonderful order in the heavens above? Such lower things do not have the potency in them that can be actualized. Therefore, since theology and philosophy are far higher sciences than mathematics, we can rule out such ridiculous claims as Big Bang and evolution. To grant a power to a thing beyond its potency is the very definition of superstition. The Big Bang deserves ridicule not merit. As a final note, Fr. LeMaitre refused to use the Big Bang theory as a proof for God. In fact when some Catholics, unfortunately, stated that such a theory could point to God and a beginning, LeMaitre was disturbed and stated that the Big Bang theory allows an atheist to remain one and a believer never too become to familiar with such a God that began it all with an explosion.
Andrew M. Greenwell
5 months ago
@michael: I tried to articulate in my article that "proofs" of God based on science have limits and are therefore "less stable." The "proof" assumes, without conceding, that the Big Bang theory (which is the regnant theory) is true. Frankly, I have no competence to judge this issue. But supposing it to be true as science says, then it suggest a beginning, and then we ask the question: well, then, what before the beginning? And whether the beginning is 13.7 billion years or 50,000 years is no real significance to the "proof," because that length of time is clearly insufficient to explain life as we know it. (This will be the subject of a subsequent article.)

This "proof" is on the origin of the cosmos (of matter), it has nothing to do with the origin of biological life. It takes no position on evolution. Whether the existence of biological life, especially intelligent life (man), suggests God's existence is another "proof" altogether. Nor does this proof address the problem of the "Fall," which is a revealed doctrine, and not one science could prove anyway.

Again, the essential point is that if science has said, because of empirical evidence, there must be a beginning of matter in time and space, then it forces us to ask the question: then from Whom did all this come?
DarthJ
5 months ago
Y'all should check out the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation for a true representation of Church teaching on science.
Jimmy J
5 months ago
Being a mathematician, and having studied the sciences of biology, chemistry, physics, probability and statistics, it is clearly obious that Genesis Chapter One explains everything about the big bang. Time being relative, it is also clear that God is TIMELESS, dimensionless and the concept "Day" included in Genesis, with the Six Days of creation is a seperation of eras in God's magnificent work, creation to make this clear for the simple mind of man, another creation . "The Tech School," MIT that is, still teaches light as a wave and as particle, because the phenomena is not understood by us lowly men other than, "it is good." I would wager a dozen donuts that Einstein had quite a number of questions while waiting to be issued a cloud and a harp. So do I, but one thing I am certain is God The Father Almighty created heaven, earth, and all things seen and unseen, and He did some great work. Gravity, heat, pressure, time, length, width, height, pi, and all things we study in science are but little trinkets in His creation.

I will not forget Biology lab, and my first disection: earthworm. Such a magnificent, intricatly detailed creation that LIVES in dirt, eats dirt, wiggles in dirt, and begets others of its kind in dirt, and without which the thought of natural balance make me shutter, for surely there would be no life on this speck of dust in the vast universe we call earth. Earthworm is a prime example of Our Heavenly Father's attention to detail, and His love of us. Read how easy it was for Him to make man.

Thank God this topic is discussed freely.
mike robertson
5 months ago
Would it not be a spectacle to see scientists who used to think only immature people could believe in a god, come to the conclusion thru their research that God as Creator is the most plausible reason for the existence of the universe. At the other end of the spectrum, we have members of the Church, specifically Catholic democrats, acting as if we are in no need of Him. After all, Catholic democrats have voted for one who brags to a Muslim audience that we are not a Christian nation. They voted for one who refused to acknowledge God on Thanksgiving Day. They voted for one who thinks it should be legal to kill girls and boys (made in the image of God) outside of their mom's womb even after they survived the attempt to kill them in the womb. Catholic democrats voted for one who wages an unjust and immoral war against the Church for our "crime" of obedience to God. And Catholic democrats voted for one who thinks he, not God, knows what constitutes marriage. Let judgment begin in the House of God. Amen.
michael
5 months ago
For the life of me, I cannot understand why Catholics, especially one so gifted as Fr. Spitzer, fall for such a ridiculous idea as the Big Bang Theory. Common sense tells us that explosions are not the best way to build or create things. I mean, if I wanted to build a house, I would not start with TNT. Explosions are destructive not creative and if you doubt that look at Hiroshima in 1945.
This is just another example where the membership of Holy Church has retreated in the face of scientism. The Big Bang Theory is just another form of evolution, but this time present in the heavens. They tell us that all life on earth came from some primordial goo making the chimp, fish, bug, and tree my cousins. In the heavens they suggest that all celestial bodies came from one little, tiny bit of matter that was immeasurably dense. It exploded and all comes from this one, tiny bitty thing. The hoax of evolution now becomes the hoax of Big Bang theory. The devil must be laughing at our gullibility. By the way, Fr. Lemaitre was a big time evolutionist before he thought up the Big Bang Theory. In the end, this all points to how we view the good Lord. Is He some sort of mad scientist experimenting with creation in some laboratory, failing here and there until He comes to that eureka moment? The Bible is clear that God did not bring death and destruction into the world. He did not bring disease, mutation, or any imperfection into creation. We did. Yet for the evolutionist...and yes the so called theistic evolutionist trying to baptize the hoax...and the Big Bang theorists, who are all evolutionists...God brought death, destruction, and disease into creation as part of the original plan. That's not only wrong, it's actually blasphemous. OUr God is a perfect God and He makes perfect things. I would suggest that the author of this article and Fr. Spitzer for that matter, actually read what the FAthers of the Church taught on these matters and what the Magisterium has taught not in papal audiences before modern scientists, but in encyclicals and other official acts of the Magisterium. Also, I would a visit via website of the great Cathedral in Sicily called Mon Reale which shows creation in mosaics. You will learn much about our perfect God in these pieces of art. And as for the world being 13 + billion years old, a number that is always changing because evolutionists always need more and more time for there ridiculous theory to work...how could we possibly think that the universe could last that long? Heck, I'm in my forties and falling apart. This world is falling apart too...the sun is running out of gas, too. How could a star last for a billion years? Wouldn't it burn out far sooner than that? Read the Fathers and don't be afraid of scientism. And don't be afraid of another Galileo case.
Mathew Thankachen O.Praem
5 months ago
science is not born from the matter about the matter. Rather, it is the human mind which is beyond the scope of laboratory to test and prove that science is born. The reasoning, intuition, insight, co-relation, formulation of hypothesis etc.first originates in the mind which in turn, prompt the scientists to put the tangible matter into test. Even if mind is the fruit of electrons and neutrons, the end product of " ideas and insight" remains intangibles, qualitatively so different from the matter as much as milk is essentially different from the grass a cow eats. So, It is neither possible for the science to confirm the existence of God nor it is rational to deny. It is this ' rational nadir of nothingness" of the quest of man of the ultimate that he " slips into the bliss of faith", thereby " faith enlightened", helping man to find " God in matter". " In you is the source of life and in your light we see light". This is Enlightenment". such an experience of rationalization made many scientists great men of child like faith. This is the " mental state of ex- nihilo".( out of nothing) which Jesus speaks of " faith like a mustard seed" which is too powerful even to move mountain. So, the 'Big Bang theory" experimented in CERN to discover "God's particle" as the very term stands for can only better affirm God than deny Him.
Mathew Thankachen O.Praem.

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment