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!

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.

Has Darwin Made Atheism Respectable?

 

The evolutionist Richard Dawkins famously stated that Darwin made atheism respectable. However, atheism requires far more than Darwin. There are also many other phenomena for which Darwin’s naturalism cannot begin to “explain” – life, the cell, DNA, The fine-tuning of the universe, the “natural” laws of science, consciousness, freewill…

Simply put, this world seems to be strangely designed for our benefit. It’s as if we had been ship-wrecked on an uninhabited island. Upon exploring, we find a house with our name written across it. Inside, we find all of our favorite food, drink, clothing and music – everything we need to survive and even thrive. If we conclude that these fortuitous circumstances just happened, we would be blind. If we failed to give thanks for them, we would be ungrateful.

Just one example of our fortuitous circumstances is the nature of water. It exhibits characteristics unlike other liquids. When it freezes, it expands, making it lighter than water. It therefore floats. Consequently, it doesn’t kill all the life within the lake. Vett and Malone have written about water’s perplexing, yet fortuitous properties:

·       Most liquids become heavier and sink when frozen, but not water. Frozen water floats. As water cools to 39^O F, it contracts; then a strange thing happens from 39 to 32^oF.  It expands until it freezes. This expansion creates spaces between the molecules causing the ice to float. Ice floats in water because it is less dense than water. Water expands 9% when it freezes. (Inspired Evidence)

God has stocked His creation with millions of such gifts, all pointing back to our Benefactor. As Scripture proclaims, we are without excuse for not acknowledging them (Rom. 1:18-20). However, we cling to atheism and claim that it is respectable, because a Benefactor implies moral obligation – the very thing from which we want freedom, a costly freedom.

Evolution Did It!

How you ever heard scientific creationism or intelligent design (ID) disparaged as the “Goddidit Theory.” What does this mean? The evolutionist claims that ID is not science but a veiled way of saying “God did it. End of story!” as if ID refuses to engage the same evidences as do all other scientists.

However, this charge can just as easily be reversed into the “Evolutiondidit Theory.” Nobel laureate in physics, Robert B. Laughlin, wrote:

• Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! (A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down, New York: Basic Books, 2005, 168-69)

Is there therefore no difference between ID and the theory of evolution? At its core, ID sets forth an adequate cause to explain all of the marvelous phenomena of this universe – life, fine-tuning, the laws of physics, DNA, consciousness, freewill – but evolution can only say “it just happened naturally!” Naturally? Where did the natural come from?

When God is eliminated, a God-substitute – the natural laws - must be found! However, what was so wrong with the original?

God and the Cosmos

Does such a universe as ours require a master Creator? Astronomer Hugh Ross explains that there have been many nay-sayers:

• In the days before the telescopes, when an observer could count a few thousand stars in the night sky, many considered the universe too small and unimpressive to be the work of an almighty, all-knowing Creator.

However, now with our monster telescopes and the knowledge of fifty billion trillion stars alone, the atheists now complain that a Creator God would never have been so wasteful. Victor Stegner writes,

• If God created the universe as a special place for humanity, he seems to have wasted an awfully large amount of space. (God: The Failed Hypothesis)

Stephen Hawking agrees about the wastefulness:

• Our solar system certainly is a prerequisite for our existence…But there does not seem to be any need for all these other galaxies. (A Brief History of Time)

Consequently, if the universe is small, there can’t be a God. If it’s huge, there can’t be a God. Heads I win; tails you loose! In opposition to the “wastefulness” hypothesis, Ross argues that every last spoonful of matter is vital to the life-supporting nature of our universe:

• The mass of the universe must be fine-tuned to produce the just-right abundance and diversity of elements essential for life…the mass density must be precisely fixed to allow for the just-right rates of expansion throughout cosmic history so that the just-right kinds of stars and planets will form at the just-right times and in the just-right locations for life. The combination of these astronomical improbabilities clearly defies any explanation other than transcendent intentionality. (Salvo Magazine, Issue 20, 48)

Ross’ conclusions depend upon the acceptance of Big-Bang cosmology, accepted by perhaps 98% of astronomers. If these conclusions are so certain, then there shouldn’t be atheists but just a God. They inescapably reflect “transcendent intentionality”- intelligent design. These conclusions require that a Super-intelligence both created and now maintains this glorious universe.

If this is the case, then nothing has changed for three thousand years since the Psalmist proclaimed:

• The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. (Psalm 19:1)

The heavens still make the same declaration, but now with statistics and formulae. Ross understandably concludes:

• This degree of cosmic fine-tuning also declares the worth of human beings. It tells us that the Creator of the universe considered humans to be of such value that he willingly and meticulously crafted a universe of fifty billion trillion stars, and a hundred times more mass besides, just to produce an appropriate planet to be their home.

Do you feel loved? I do!