Is there a God?

Not a mere genius, movie-star, rock-star, or such things that we can erect as idols like money, sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll, not a mere such idol nor even a prophet, but a master mind, an epitomizing heart, an infinite soul, master of all physics and beyond, not something created but a creator. 

Is there a God?  If there is such a being...

• Does it, she, or he think and care?
• Is it possible to connect with the creator by reason and intelligence—science?
• Or can we understand intelligence only if the connection is by faith?

If we were created, were we designed to gain any knowledge of our creator? And, if the connection is possible by faith, we must have been created with the capacity for faith. If we are too stubborn to connect with faith and if the creator still cares, we must have been created with the capacity for understanding. We might be able to discern whether the creator cares, if we can believe through faith or at least understand something about him, her, or it.

Is there a creator? That is the question! What is the answer?  (Click on title to read more.)

Science has become so advanced that we can draw irrefutable conclusions. In fact, upon doing the math, the most famous scientists, physicists, and cosmologists have been simply awestruck with their calculations.

Depending on how fast you can think will determine how long it will take you to bring into mind the beginning of time, which started when the first physical substance came into existence, be it in the form of an electron, an atom, or a molecule as the first speck on the universe…or maybe I should say as the universe, because being the first speck, it was the universe.

To bring into mind the first speck, it may take you five minutes, an hour, a month, or a year. If you are quicker than I, and most likely you are, it will only take you several seconds.

The statement “Every effect must have a cause” is the mere commonsense of philosophers. Such commonsense accelerates the understanding in such a deep question. When we “do the math”, the question “Is there a God?” becomes very simple.

Well, if the first speck was the effect, what was the cause? In that question, what implies physical substance; therefore the obvious word would be “who”—who was the cause? So when thinking about the correct pronoun to use—it, she, or he—it can be canceled-out.

I happen to have the great fortune of knowing some extremely smart men and women from different parts of this beautiful planet. Two men I’d like to introduce to you are my friends—Bob and Mitch.

Bob is kind of a nerd and Mitch is kind of a cowboy. I don’t see them as often as I used to, but they are often on television. When I know they are scheduled to be on television, I make sure to set my VCR. They just seem to amaze me every time I hear them talk. I’ve seen Mitch on television on quite a few occasions. In fact, I have managed to fill an entire tape of about six hours, and his brilliance becomes all the more obvious each time. I haven’t seen Bob on television quite as often. Each of them is very interesting; but I’m sometimes too lazy to make the effort to listen to the intense subjects that Bob’s explanations require.

Recently, I caught on tape the majority of a lecture on historical material that Mitch presented somewhere abroad, in Egypt or somewhere else far away, maybe Jerusalem. I also heard a few presentations given by Bob on leadership, which were exceptional. Unfortunately, I didn’t have a blank tape, so I couldn’t record a copy.

Yesterday, I turned on the television and was shocked to see Bob and Mitch having a conversation. I didn’t know the two of them knew one another! I thought, “Wow, small world!”

I immediately put in a blank tape to record it. The conversation shocked me more than the fact that they were together on television. I had no idea either of them knew as much about physics and cosmology as I did, let alone much more!

Their conversation was so profound that I will write it verbatim or as close as possible but only the first few minutes just to convey the general idea. I think it’s important to mention so as to convey what huge achievement human beings have contributed regarding scientific phenomena toward human comprehension in both cause and effect!

I thought about studying their conversation to rephrase it in my own words; but it will be much easier to convey if I just write down exactly what they said. I had to listen to the tape about three times to really understand the entire conversation. I guess I’ll embarrass myself here if it only takes you one read.

I will occasionally interrupt with remarks on their conversation. They begin with some boring small talk on sports and who won and blablabla, so I will fast forward and begin when they get to the point. Their conversation is quite deep, so be prepared!

Here goes…

Mitch:  Is faith something for cowardly people afraid of the modern world, running to belief in God as a refuge?

Bob: (laughing) Well, obviously no…ah, if you look at what faith is really doing…is bringing the human being to fruition in God. And ah…it takes as much courage to have faith, especially in this world, as you know…as to ah…as to contend with the forces of nature by oneself. I think that old argument which really dates back to some Foyer Bachian and Freudian arguments are very outmoded; and ah…

Mitch: …Ah…for those who don’t know, Foyer Bach was a philosopher back in the eighteen hundreds, and Freud, of course, the psychologist from the eighteen hundreds to the middle of the twentieth century.

Bob: That’s right. And, in the late twentieth century and now in the twenty-first century, I mean…no one really, I doubt, takes those arguments that seriously. I think much more serious right now in light of contemporary physics honestly…it’s just amazing what’s been going on. I think people are acknowledging not only the reasonableness of God but almost the inevitability of God as an initiator and a creator of the universe. And, ah…ah…they’re doing that out of scientific as well as philosophical traditions, but in…

Mitch: Well, let’s look at some of these, ’cause now again, you’re saying science helps, especially physics, ah…how? What does physics say?

Bob: Well, there are two approaches that are coming out now, which I talk about extensively in the series; but one is a cosmological approach, where you’re actually talking about the creation-event itself…

Mitch: Wh-When you say cosmological, you mean what they do at a beauty shop? What do you mean by cosmological?

Bob: (chuckling) No that means from the cosmos and from the universe.

So you’re basically looking at an argument where you see that there is an intrinsic limit somewhere in the universe. In this case, there are two limits—a spatial limit and a temporal limit. And, right now, through a series of observations that have been made by the COBE satellite (the Cosmic Background Explore Satellite) and the DEMAP satellite very recently, ah we can map the observable universe right now to approximately 13.7 billion light years in radius, and to have an age of approximately 13.7 billion years old plus or minus 100 million years.

Mitch: Alright so, again…l-l-let’s j-j-just ah highlight why that’s important. So there’s a physical limit—how big the universe is. It’s big enough, there’s enough room for the both of us, 13…ah (Bob laughs) 13 point something…13.7 billion light years in radius, alright! And, a light year is…?

Bob: …How far light travels in a year, which is quite distant, ’cause light travels at 300,000 kilometers per second. But ah, technically speaking though, ah, you’re right, it is large, but it is quite finite; and even if there were a pre-big-bang era of the universe, ah that would be finite too. And so, what you’re really dealing with is a limit to the time of the universe; and…

Mitch: …S-So the universe had a limit in space and a time when it began! It had a start! It wasn’t…because this is what, as a matter of fact, some ancient philosophers thought that the universe was eternal; and physicists say, “No?”

Bob: That’s correct. I mean there were physicists, who based their observations on the Newtonian Paradigm and that Newton held, you know, of course, that the universe was infinite and extend to say infinite in space and infinite in time and probably had an infinite amount of mass points to fill that infinite amount of space. But that ah…no one really holds that anymore; I mean since Edwin Hubble (an American astronomer), and since Einstein published the general theory of relativity, and since Pensias and Wilson (two astronomers who discovered the 2.76 degree calvin uniform of distributive radiation)…those discoveries were so significant along with the mapping of the universe that really most people would hold today and find that evidence credible; and that’s most people.

Mitch: So someone like Newton, who did not have anything close to the ability to observe the physical universe like we do, thought it was infinite, because he just couldn’t see far enough.

Bob: Well, that’s true! He made an assumption; and the assumption was not based on observational evidence; ah, whereas today, it is based on observational evidence. And, when you really look at it, it probably had a beginning around 13.7 billion years ago. Maybe there was ah…a…a…a pre…a…ah…big-bang era of the universe, you know, which would be like a string theory conception, or maybe a quantum cosmological conception; but that probably destabilized and became our current universe in a very, very, quick fashion. And, so for all intents and purposes, we’re probably looking at somewhere around 14 billion years ago, at the very longest. We’re probably looking at…ah…the universe wasn’t around period. And, therefore, it needed a creator, outside of what we call space, time, and asymmetry in order to create it! In other words, outside of our space, time era (right?) It actually needs a creator because this occurrence happens before the universe is around. You need a creator outside of our space, time, and asymmetry to create the universe. And, ah, that creator may have created it out of singularity, could have created it out of a very small very highly unified field, or could have even created it right at the big bang itself. But, whatever the case is, looks like the creation probably would be required, ah, even by physics, simply because of the intrinsic limits…ah…that ah…seem at least even in inflationary theory seem to be required; and so people even say, okay, you know, ah…

Mitch: Okay, alright, l-l-let’s take some of that apart now. So, because the universe…again 13 billion years seems…maybe 14 billion years at most seems like a long time for a lot of us; but you know…but not everybody…for God, that would be nothing…that would be, you know, he’s infinite.

Bob: That’s right!

Mitch: And, the universe has all these different light years across and is huge compared to us; but what we also see ultimately, because it had limits in time and space, somebody had to make it. If it were infinite, then it would be “God” itself. But if there was a limit, then it couldn’t be God; but that’s not even possible; there’s something beyond it, outside the universe…there was a time before the universe! Who made it? And, that’s one of the questions that has to arise when you can prove the universe is limited.

Bob: Yeah that’s exactly it! And when you say, “Who made it?” I mean, you know, ultimately as I discuss in this series, you know, in a very lengthy way, whatever the creative force outside of space, time, and asymmetry (course, we call it God) that force has to be timeless. That is to say, it cannot be limited or qualified by some magnitude of time or some magnitude of space. So um, you know, it has to be completely outside. And when, when you look at a timeless reality, you can’t conceive of it. And, you know, again, what I try to show in this series in a lengthier way, a timeless reality has to be an unchangeable reality; and an unchangeable reality gets right back to what Thomas Aquinas talked about namely a pure act of existence or pure act—something that cannot be in potency to anything.

Mitch: W-w-wa-wait a second…e-e-explain what that means!

Bob: If something’s gonna be changeable you would say it moves from potency to act. It moves from a state of not acting in a particular way to a state of acting in a particular way.

Mitch: For instance, I have potency to move from this chair to that other part of the room, so I make a change, but God doesn’t have that potency to change.

Bob: That’s right. He is unchangeable; and because of that, that means he is pure act. And, pure act, as I say in the series, is absolutely simple…that means: it has no intrinsic or extrinsic boundary, no boundary of any kind, (right?) completely unrestricted in his power, in his acting power, in his being, or in his existence. And, in that sense, of course, we know that God is infinite, we know that God is one, we know that God is this pure being, pure existence; and we can actually see that in a way that is partially manifested through physics. You cannot prove through contemporary physics the existence of God the same way you prove the existence of God through a philosophical argument, because of course physical tenants can change; also and of course, physics talks about this universe in particular.

But, you can get a very good clue that you can combine with philosophical evidence that shows you: you probably need a creative force outside of space, time, and asymmetry. And then, as you kind of philosophically analyze (Well what kind of creative force can this be?), you can then see that this creative force has to be timeless, and then has to be unchangeable, and then has to be pure act; and your right back to Thomas Aquinas’ profound view of God.

Mitch: So, again, just so we have all this nice and clear for ourselves…um, you can’t prove God exists from physics the way that you prove, say, the size of the universe or the amount of time, because God is not someone whose changes that you can observe (you just said he doesn’t change); and so…but, you can look at this universe and raise a lot of questions.

Bob: You can look at this universe and you can also discover an intrinsic limit. And, when you discover an intrinsic limit of the universe, you can say, aha…the universe could not have caused itself, or the universe couldn’t have done anything to itself…and then you have to literally postulate a causative force outside of space, time, and asymmetry—we call it creator (God) outside of space, time, and asymmetry—to bring that universe literally out of nothing into something.

Mitch: A-A-And, we look at ourselves, you know…I did not make myself; none of us make ourselves!

Bob: Right!

Mitch: We have to have someone who makes us.

Bob: Yeah!

Mitch: And, the same principle is applied to anything that is limited, right?

Bob: Oh absolutely! In fact, another kind of evidence that you can garner from physics is teleological evidence; and what that means is evidence of a designer.

Mitch: Teleology refers to the purpose that something has. And, if something has purpose…!

Bob: …It’s designed for that purpose.

Mitch: Yeah, exactly! You know-ah-ah-I have a book, and it’s got letters in there and they’re not random.

Bob: Yeah.

Mitch: They are in order.

Bob: Yeah, exactly!

Mitch: So who put it there, and in order?

Bob: Mmmhmmm

Mitch: …So that I could read it? And, the same goes with the universe.

Bob: Well, yes! And, some of the most remarkable evidence today concerns what we call cosmological constants. Now, a constant is a measurable quantity that literally determines the inter-relationships among mass, energy, space, time in all their forms.

Mitch: …Alright.

Bob: So they are numbers such as the speed-of-light. The speed-of-light is constant, which is 300,000 kilometers per second.

Mitch: So, no matter what happens, the speed-of-light goes at 300,000 kilometers per second?

Bob: Absolutely! It is an invariant reference frame. And so, by the way, is electromagnetic energy; it also succumbs to the speed-of-light constant; it can’t go faster and it can’t go slower.

And, you’ve got, of course, what you call a strong force constant…there are four fundamental forces in the universe—electromagnetic forces, strong nuclear forces, weak forces, and gravitational forces, which are very much connected to space and time. But, the key thing to remember is that these four forces—they all have their constants! So there’s a strong force constant, a weak force constant, there’s a gravitational constant—three constants associated with electromagnetism right there, the mass of an electron, the mass of a proton-charge of an electron/proton. So you take a look at those constants and here is the remarkable, remarkable thing, which honestly physicists acknowledge very much, I mean, like people like Fred Hoyle, who use to be a very outspoken atheist who just turned on a dime, when they look at the resonance-structure, say, of, of, of, of carbon and oxygen. I mean…here are just some examples that are remarkable.

There’s a physicist by the name of Roger Penrose…and Roger Penrose has a number, and he basically says: look you’ve got these initial conditions of the universe and our universal constants have to have very specific values in order for those initial conditions to give rise to a universe of galaxies and gasses.

Mitch:  Alright, so l-l-let’s again put this into normal English here, that one of the things that you’re saying…if, you know, we take for granted the universe.

Bob: Right!

Mitch: Planets…!

Bob: Right!

Mitch: …Suns…!

Bob: Yeah!

Mitch: …Things moving around in gravity…!

(It cracks me up! Bob wants to GO on talking deep! He gets impatient and almost in a temporary boredom with Mitch’s slowing him down. Mitch is quite good at interviewing—obviously! If he weren’t, Bob would simply be off on tangents giving a high-tech lecture, and those like me would have a very hard time keeping up and understanding the content!)

Bob: Ab’ze’luly! (mumbling “absolutely”, as if to say, “Yeah, yeah, hurry up, do your thing!”)

Mitch: For that to happen, the only way it can happen is if there are certain constant speeds of different forces.

(This is where I cannot help but laugh each time I watch the dialogue as I’m trying to write it verbatim. Mitch, although humble and extremely knowledgeable in many subjects, is trying so hard to keep it at a level where the audience can understand, but Bob goes right back to his level of depth…)

Bob: Or just say, values of constants like Planck constant or gravitational, weak forces, or whatever, of these forces, right! So you have these constants…if those values of those constants—and these values could have been anything—but those constants all have the right values in relationship to one another, honestly! They have the right values within a very narrow window of opportunity! If they are a little larger or a little smaller, the entire universe could not have supported life; or in the case of Penr…

Mitch: …Or gravity...

Bob: …Or gravity...

Or in the case of Penrose…Penrose is saying: “What are the initial conditions of our universe? What are the values of the constants we need to have?” So he did a little calculation. The universe should have coughed-out black holes, which would have made life impossible! But instead, it coughed-out gasses and galaxies, and what are the odds against gasses and galaxies? Or, what are the odds in favor of black holes, which would have never given rise to life?  …Ten-to-the-ten-to-the-thirty-to-one. Now that number is so huge…that’s like saying: ten, and then in your exponent you have a one with thirty zeros after it. That number is so large…

Mitch: You don’t have a word for it.

Bob: You don’t have a word for it.  It’s…that number is so large that, let’s just say, if each zero had the size of a micrometer, this universe currently couldn’t hold that number. It…it…that’s the odds against the constants in our universe having the values to give rise to galaxies and gasses instead of black holes! And, you believe this, this is a, you know, Penrose is saying, “You believe that’s a coincidence?”

Mitch: Just to, also, you know, to make it just a little concrete…the speed-of-light, as one of these constants…

Bob: Yeah!

Mitch: If it were, say, five miles-an-hour faster or five miles-an-hour slower, say, then it would never allow for forming planets; it wouldn’t have gravity possible.

Bob: Well, it wouldn’t just be that one constant; it would probably be several of the…

Mitch: But, that’s the other thing…

Bob: But, you’re right, yeah!

Mitch: Just a slight five miles either direction…for that five miles-an-hour, or, or, per second, per second…that’s what…rr…talking about, not five miles per hour, five miles per second variation in gravity…and all these other constants…if any one of them were off, the universe would not be able to hold together the way it does.

Bob: It wouldn’t be able to sustain any life of any kind. I mean…give you another example. There are these two constants; one is called the weak force constant or the gravitational constant…if they are off not by five miles per hour Mitch, but if they are off by one part of ten to the fortieth. You know what ten to the fortieth is? …A ten with forty zeros.

Mitch: (playfully) That’s larger than the last number!

Bob: (laughing) This is such an iddie, biddie, little, tiddle, number…

Mitch: You can’t make it that small.

Bob: You can’t because it’s, if you write, ’cause it’s one part to the ten to the fortieth. It is so small! But, if those constants are off one part of ten to the fortieth—either one of them—the cosmological constants would be so drastically changed that the universe would expand so fast in a hyper-inflationary stage that no galaxy would ever have occurred; or alternatively, the universe would collapse into a black hole and gone—no life form. In either case, one part to the ten to the fortieth, you don’t have any galaxies or black holes…in either case, life is impossible.

Mitch: Now, the point of all this is that for all these constants to be precisely right, again, as you say, one to the ten to the fortieth difference, to figure that out, you gotta be really smart!

Bob: You gotta be really smart; but on the other hand…

Mitch: Who ever figured this out had all of them at the right speed…not only is smart but had to be really powerful! And, who is smart enough and powerful enough for the whole universe to hold together the way it does…is what you’re saying!

Bob: (chuckling) Well, in fact, you know, I was talking about this astronomer, Fred Hoyle, you know, and it’s kind of interesting, you know, Fred Hoyle was a very outspoken atheist, and the whole time the big-bang-theory was coming up, and people were talking about creation, and you know, he really was an atheist…and he turned on a dime and he literally started talking about: “There must be a super intellect and there must be a super calculating intellect to hold together the various constants of the universe!” But, the one that really got him was the resonance-structure of the carbon-atom, right! And, resonance is just a special…it’s what basically what holds together carbon- or oxygen-bond.

And, what Hoyle and a couple of the other astronomers, who were his confers, noticed is: if that carbon-atom’s resonance-structure were just increased by four percent, there wouldn’t be any carbon. And, if the resonance-structure of oxygen was off by one-half of one percent of its current value, everything would be oxygen. And, therefore, I mean, he looks at it and he says: “Do you know the odds that that resonance would be exactly what it is and the oxygen-resonance relative to the carbon…?”

Mitch: (playfully) How many zeroes in the exponent would…?

Bob: (laughing) I mean…it’s just…exactly! It is so stunning. Hoyle just said, you cannot think of this or conceive of it without a super calculating, super intellect, which of course is God!

Mitch: You see, usually, I’m happy to stand at the ocean and say, “Boy, that’s beautiful; who ever made this is really good!” But, this is beyond looking at a beautiful sunset, a mountain range, or the ocean—the beautiful things—this goes to the most profound structures of the whole universe! And, somebody super, super smart and super powerful enough to make it happen had to make it happen! …And, that ends up being God.

Bob: And, there’s a very good amount of evidence in physics of this! I mean there are j-j-just hundreds of examples of this! Even a strong nuclear force, you can’t alter that pup by two percent. You go two percent in either way (there’s a constant for a strong nuclear force) you alter that by two percent…and either…if it’s two percent one way, you have nothing heavier than hydrogen in the universe, in which case you don’t have any carbon-atoms and you don’t have any life. You go the other way and alter it by two percent and you have everything heavier (helium and above) but you have no hydrogen, in which case you can’t have life again. And, either way, just two percent alteration—either way…!

Mitch: And so, the other thing is that these same principles apply in every single part of the universe! It’s not just in our solar system or something…!

Bob: For every part of the universe…for all the time…for all the 13.7 billion years that the universe has existed—correct!

Mitch: Well, we can’t go through those hundreds of examples, because we got to take a break, but we’re gonna come back; and we hope you have some questions (especially if you’re a physicist out there!) because he knows what he’s talking about! So please stay with us!

.                .                .                .                .                .

Wow! How the heck did Mr. Aquinas know so much stuff without the luxury of the advanced science and technology we have today at our fingertips? …Understanding through faith perhaps?

Could it be that God gives to the humble that which he leaves for those of us, too proud, to find out the hard way? His generosity seems so caring to the humble; but since we have such irrefutable science, he also cares obviously about those of us who are rather stubborn and proud. He, evidently, gives us knowledge and the wherewithal to understand! He is obviously extremely patient and generous! I wonder what happens if we’re too proud! Does science then become a mere foolish toy to those of us who are ungrateful for such a clear gift?

This highly advanced information is possible to comprehend so simply because of human beings like Einstein, Penrose, Hubble, and Pensias, who have cared enough to pursue their interests and talents, develop their skill, and discover authentic data. Obviously, once a human being acknowledges that their abilities are gifts and, therefore, wisely gives God the credit and the gratitude for such gifts of cerebral talent, then God allows them to understand rather than to simply collect lots of data, information, and intelligence that would remain “raw”.

The more brain power a human being has, the greater his informational contribution can become, “relative” to understanding or misunderstanding.

One thing’s for certain—if we fail to acknowledge that our gifts come from Almighty God, understanding obviously will not be within our grasp. God will allow us to understand only to the degree that our arrogance is minimized and our humility is maximized. Any human being who arrogantly attempts to challenge Him is a human being who will exponentially reach imbecility at record speed into anything but bright. Others will aimlessly follow the mere plausibility. Therefore, the more brain power a human being has, the more powerful in either of the two directions—confusion or brightness! “To those who are given much, much is required!”

Philosophy has rules. Philosophy is only valuable if it’s based on true reason. Incorrect reason would not be bad philosophy but not philosophy at all (or a mere contradiction in terms).

In order to understand philosophy, one would be wise to first understand the mere commonsense among philosophy. One who wishes to contradict philosophy is one who defies logic with the argument that everything is relative; and understanding becomes a destructive ball of confusion that occupies the clever with mere amusement.