A Tentative Proof for God Based upon Quantum Findings

I am a non-scientist. I cannot personally vouch for the “findings” of science. Therefore, this proof is very tentative and is based upon the consensus regarding the quantum world. It would go like this:

1. The universe is not material. 

2. It is mind-dependent, but the human mind cannot account for the universe.

3. Therefore, there must be a greater mind – God!

PREMISE #1: Arjun Walia observes:

• Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature… Again, what quantum mechanics reveals is that there is no true “physicality” in the universe, that atoms are made of focused vorticies of energy-miniature tornadoes that are constantly popping into and out of existence.  The revelation that the universe is not an assembly of physical parts, suggested by Newtonian physics, and instead comes from a holistic entanglement of immaterial energy waves stems from the work of Albert Einstein, Max Planck, and Werner Heisenberg, among others.

PREMISE #2: This also seems to be widely accepted among quantum physicists:

• A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. (R. C. Henry, “The Mental Universe”; Nature 436:29, 2005) (14)

James M. Kushner affirms that:

• Every prediction quantum theory makes has been tested with consistent results... A photon, for example, may be either a wave or a particle state, but which it appears to be depends on a choice made by the observer... Some scientists like John Wheeler... have reached tentative conclusions:

• Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world eists "out there" independent of us, that view cannot longer be upheld. There is a strange sense in which this is a "participatory universe." (Salvo, #32, 64)

But are we the only participants? If the human mind is able to impact external reality, there clearly seems to be severe limitations in place. We do not seem to be able to impact gravity, the expansion of the universe, or the laws of physics. Certain realities of this universe seem to be universal and immutable and impervious to our thinking. Besides, the laws of physics pre-dated our own existence. Our thinking therefore cannot account for them.

PREMISE #3:  If the universe is not material, is mind-dependent, and if human thinking cannot account for the universe, then a greater, all-determining Mind must account for it.

A Metaphysical Multiverse or a Metaphysical God

Let’s be reasonable! Although we might not have any absolute proofs, we can still ask the question, “Which makes more sense – that the universe was designed by a superior Intelligence or that our universe just happened naturally, as one out of an almost infinite number of universes, the multiverse?”

Evolutionary Biologist Austin Hughes expresses his dissatisfaction with multiverse proponents:

• They don’t realize that they themselves are incapable of answering the really big questions. Take these multiverse theories. Basically, they’re just a way to deny that the universe has the appearance of design. “The universe was not designed,” these scientists say. “It’s just that there are lots and lots of other universes, and we just happen to be in one that’s favorable to life.” But that doesn’t solve the metaphysical problem, does it? Where did all of these universes come from? Who established the rules within each universe? Who established the rules by which new universes are generated?”

Does the invocation of the multiverse hypothesis explain anything? Not according to Hughes! Where do our immutable, universal, and elegant laws come from? From an explosion – the Big Bang? Hardly! Explosions are unable to produce such things! What evidence do we have for a multiverse? None! What keeps the many universes from colliding with one another and self-destructing? Nothing! What generates them along with their accompanying laws? And what generates the generator?

To explain these things, we would have to postulate a god-like uncaused causer. Why not just take the easier explanation: Eternal God designed it all – life, the cell, DNA, the laws, consciousness, and the moral absolutes we find impossible to escape!

Lies and Propaganda: Tyson’s “Cosmos”

If you don’t think of our scientific establishment as repressive propagandists, you might think again. Casey Luskin asks the question:

• Are scientists today free to express their views when they feel there are problems with authoritative paradigms, like modern evolutionary biology?

Luskin then allows the evolutionists to answer this question:

• "There's a feeling in biology that scientists should keep their dirty laundry hidden, because the religious right are always looking for any argument between evolutionists as support for their creationist theories. There's a strong school of thought that one should never question Darwin in public." (W. Daniel Hillis, in "Introduction: The Emerging Third Culture," in Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution, edited by John Brockman (Touchstone, 1995), p. 26.)

• "It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection ... My skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense. This is especially true with regard to the origin of life ... I realize that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science. ... In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture... by the defenders of intelligent design. ... [T]he problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair." (Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, p. (Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 6-7, 10.)

• "Honest critics of the evolutionary way of thinking who have emphasized problems with biologists' dogma and their undefinable terms are often dismissed as if they were Christian fundamentalist zealots or racial bigots. But the part of this book's thesis that insists such terminology interferes with real science requires an open and thoughtful debate about the reality of the claims made by zoocentric evolutionists." (Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, (Basic Books, 2003), p. 29).)

• "It is dangerous to raise attention to the fact that there is no satisfying explanation for macroevolution. One easily becomes a target of orthodox evolutionary biology and a false friend of proponents of non-scientific concepts. According to the former we already know all the relevant principles that explain the complexity and diversity of life on earth; for the latter science and research will never be able to provide a conclusive explanation, simply because complex life does not have a natural origin." (Günter Theißen, "The proper place of hopeful monsters in evolutionary biology," Theory in Biosciences, 124: 349-369 (2006).)

• "We've been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn't say so. Not, anyhow, in public. To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal is to bring Science into disrepute. ... [N]eo-Darwinism is taken as axiomatic; it goes literally unquestioned. A view that looks to contradict it, either directly or by implication is ipso facto rejected, however plausible it may otherwise seem. Entire departments, journals and research centres now work on this principle." (Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010), pp. xx, xvi.)

Luskin adds:

• A 2008 article in Nature on the Altenberg 16 conference explained that some others willingly self-censor their own criticisms so as to avoid "handing ammunition" to "creationists."

• Says [Jerry] Coyne: "People shouldn't suppress their differences to placate creationists, but to suggest that neo-Darwinism has reached some kind of crisis point plays into creationists' hands."

• Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen [claims]: "In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government. In America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin."

In such a politically correct, hostile, propagandistic, and self-censored climate, it would seem that the average “Joe” needs to be careful about what he absorbs from the scientific elites.

In the Christian Research Journal, Luskin warns about the reboot of Cosmos - Neil Degrasse Tyson’s current series to sell evolution:

• The Cosmos reboot has been sharply criticized – even by evolutionists – for inventing stories and religious persecution of scientists while whitewashing religion’s positive historical influence on science. It promotes “unguided” and “mindless” evolution while omitting scientific evidence that challenges neo-Darwinism or supports intelligent design… It was created by celebrity atheists seeking to advance a materialistic worldview… Public school teachers have already expressed their intent to use Cosmos. (CRI, Vol. 37, number 04, 34-41)

The executive producer admits its propagandistic intentions:

• Seth Macfarlane acknowledges the series’ intent to oppose “a resurgence of creationism and intelligent design… theory”… Macfarlane is concerned about “the rise of schools questioning evolution,” which is “incredibly damaging to the evolution of any society.” (35-36) 

Are these adversarial views a danger to science or just to the religion of naturalism, which requires that only natural explanations are allowable? Instead, many have written that Christianity has largely contributed to the flourishing of science:

• [Ian] Barber answers: “Many historians of science have acknowledged the importance of the Western religious tradition in molding assumptions about nature that were congenial to the scientific enterprise.” Thus Ronald Numbers explains, “The greatest myth in the history of science and religion holds that they have been in a state of constant conflict.” (37)

However, for many evolutionists, ideology should trump the accurate presentation of scientific findings:

• Historian Joseph Martin proposes granting Cosmos “the artistic license to lie” when done “in the service of a greater truth.” He writes, “Perhaps the greater truth here is that we do need to promote greater public trust in science if we are going to tackle some of the frankly quite terrifying challenges ahead and maybe a touch of taradiddle [lies] in that direction isn’t the worst thing.” (37) 

Since when do lies “promote greater public trust in science?” In the long run, they will not; nor will their repressive and censorious culture:

• Epidemiologist W. Daniel Hillis laments “a feeling in biology that scientists should keep their dirty laundry hidden, which creates “a strong school of thought that one should never question Darwin in public.” Two Rutgers cognitive scientists say essentially the same: “We’ve been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn’t say so. Not, anyhow, in public.” (38) 

Nor even in the media, the public schools, and in the university! They present a monolithic front. We are faced with a conspiracy of silence in the face of the militant enforcement of what the elites now call “science.”  This is well-oiled by a slick and aggressive propagandistic machine. Tyson likens macro-evolution deniers to Hitler supporters:

• Cosmos shows crowds cheering for Hitler while Tyson says, “Human intelligence is imperfect, surely, and newly arisen. The ease with which it can be sweet-talked, overwhelmed, or subverted by other hard-wired tendencies [like religion and ID] sometimes themselves disguised as the light of reason is worrisome.” (40)

Meanwhile, generations have been “sweet-talked, overwhelmed, or subverted” by the notion that humanity arose uncaused out of nothing.

The Naturalist and his Religious Commitments

I have found that dialoguing with atheists can be very tedious and unsatisfying. Perhaps this is because they too have religious commitments, but they refuse to acknowledge them and yet cling to them as tenaciously as we cling to ours. This small piece of a dialogue reflects this problem and my exasperation.

I am saddened that we don’t seem to be able to find agreement on even the most obvious points. You again claim:

• Naturalism is not a religion, and you know it is not. We've had that debate already. And naturalism is not imposed on the public - if by that you mean public school kids. Teaching evolution by natural selection does not in any way "impose" naturalism on kids.

Darwinism rests upon “natural selection” and “random mutation,” neither of which is provable. In fact, you lack even the slightest shred of evidence to support this claim that selection is just natural and mutations are just random. You have repeatedly failed to offer any evidence that these processes are not divinely guided.

This is merely an unsupported – and I would add insupportable – belief. As such, I call this a religious belief. However, it is a belief that is being pushed on our youth in the name of science, while science has nothing directly to say about it. If I am wrong and there is scientific evidence to the contrary, please show me.

Ironically, naturalism is an incoherent belief. It invokes “natural” processes when, as yet, there were none! Instead, our laws of physics give many indications – their elegance, immutability, universality - that they were intelligently designed and operate transcendently.

Where do these laws come from? How does naturalism account for them? The naturalist can only appeal to a vain hope – the multiverse – that there are an almost infinite number of universes. He reasons that, if this is the case, it is reasonable that one of them should have just the right set of laws – our laws. However, there are countless problems with such a theory/religious belief:

1. There is no evidence for even a second universe, let alone an almost infinite number of universes.
2. Besides, even if there are an infinite number of universes, it would still remain a mystery how a universe could generate immutable laws.
3. There is no known mechanism to generate a universe.
4. The laws are elegant and immutable. Explosions and their necessary molecules-in–motion nature fail to explain their creation and stability. Besides, temporal causes are always changing. Thus, they fail to explain our laws can be unchanging.

Recently, Scientific America commented about the vain attempt to explain the origin our universe naturalistically:

• The real criticism of cosmological natural selection as a scientific hypothesis is its lack of direct evidence at this point. There is no direct evidence that the universe reproduces. Without that, no natural selection, even before issues of variation and selection come into play. True enough. But keep in mind that from a direct evidence perspective, cosmological natural selection is no worse off at this point than proposed scientific alternatives. There is no direct evidence that universes are created by quantum fluctuations in a quantum vacuum, that we live in a multiverse, that there is a theory of everything, or that string theory, cyclic universes or- brane cosmology even exist.

As such, the “multiverse” cannot be considered a scientific theory, but a religion. I am therefore surprised and saddened that you continue to claim that naturalism does not represent a religious commitment foisted upon us as science.