Proving God Exists: Physics, Cosmology, and the Universal Mind

INTRODUCTION

Philosopher and atheist Kai Nielsen contends it is impossible to prove God exists. The reason is linguistic. The problem, Nielsen argues is when we say the word God we have no idea what we're talking about. So, when we ask the question, Does God exist, that question . . . is not as straightforward as it may seem (Moreland and Nielsen 48). We use the term, of course, all the time, on a daily basis. We talk about God so much it seems like we know exactly who we mean. We invoke God’s name so often, it takes on a life of its own. But, in fact, Nielsen argues, we have no referent for it. We have nothing to point to, the way we might point to Joe or Mom, or apple. We never stop to question just what it is or who it is we’re alluding to. So, the question of evidence is meaningless; evidence for what? How can we prove or disprove something exists, when we don’t know what that something is in the first place?

Most people have some image of God in their heads that gives them the impression they know what they mean when they refer to Him. But on closer examination, this impression has to be wrong. If we picture a figure in a flowing white robe and beard, like Michelangelo famously depicted in the Sistine Chapel, then we are simply imagining a man, a Zeus-like persona with super-human powers. Nielsen refers to this as the anthropomorphic God (50). Indeed, early images of God in Christianity were borrowed directly from the Roman likeness of Jupiter. But such a conception, Nielsen argues, is plainly false and superstitious (50). Why? It’s basically idolatry, a belief in a totemic figure with magical powers.

Moreover, any specific individual that we could point to and observe would have to be limited. Consider, for example, the Greek and Roman deities. Being so much like us in shape and form, they suffered human frailties. They could be tricked, deceived, overpowered. They could be angered, pleased, seduced, bribed. Aside from having super powers, they suffered from all of our weaknesses. So, the problem is two-fold. On the one hand, we have no evidence of such beings. On the other hand, even if we did, precisely because they are so much like us, they would share our faults.

Instead, the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam cannot be seen by humans. He is defined as an infinite individual and transcendent to the Universe (51). He is everywhere and eternal, and He exists outside time, space, and material constraints of the concrete realm that the rest of us inhabit. Well, what do we mean by an infinite individual? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms? What possible conception can we form of a Being Who is not only immaterial, but also outside of time and space?

Our God is a transcendent entity, not a material entity. He is invisible to us and exists everywhere, but nowhere we can specifically point to. But You can’t encounter a transcendent being (52). Such a conception, Nielsen argues, is incoherent. We can't picture what it is we're talking about. We can't point to anyone. We can't even search for Him in hopes of eventually tracking Him down because, by definition, He can't be observed. According to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, …anything that could be pointed to or literally seen or literally observed or literally experienced or literally noted would be some kind of temporal something and therefore limited (51). So, we have no tangible referent for the term God, nothing we can point to. In effect, we are referencing someone who, by definition, is both empirically and logically incapable of being referenced.

Moreover, the very notion of an infinite individual is illogical. It is like saying one and not one; or, a round square; or, a married bachelor. Just because we can use the words in a sentence, doesn't mean they make sense. So, Nielsen argues, when we talk about God, we are actually saying something akin to round square. We are casually using words to refer to something which, on closer inspection, cannot logically be. Therefore, you can’t embark on a discussion of whether or not God exists. It is like asking whether or not poy exists. Well, what is poy anyway? And for that matter, what is God? What are we talking about? Once we abandon the anthropomorphic crutch of picturing God as a quasi-human - a concept which Western religions explicitly deny - then all we are left with is an ethereal entity who can neither be observed empirically (by definition) or logically defined.

Aside from the linguistic difficulties, there are many other criticisms of the concept of God. For example, there's the whole question of where did God come from. If He created the Universe, then, who created Him? Then, there's the moral dilemma that if God exists, why is there so much suffering and evil in the world? Plus, there's the empirical objection: if science can explain all the natural phenomena in the Universe, anyway, then isn't it superfluous to seek spiritual causes? The fundamental objection, however, is the linguistic one. That has to be the starting point. What are we talking about when we make reference to God? Do we really know? If not, doesn't that render all other questions about God irrelevant?

To meet that challenge this paper will attempt to define what we mean by God. It will present a definition that is not only necessary and sufficient, but also which avoids the linguistic inconsistencies Nielsen describes. The definition will be coherent. Specifically, God will not be defined as either a transcendent being or an infinite individual. My definition will also be subject to proof. Faith is an admirable quality, but it is also vulnerable to demagoguery, and hucksterism, and snake oil salesmen of all stripes. The single most important question in our lives should be subject to at least the same careful, objective, and scientific rigor that lesser questions about our Universe must meet. Whether or not God exists should not be resolved by conjecture, or the weight of public opinion, or peer pressure, or clerical bullying, or guesswork, or instinct, or wishful thinking, or tradition, or the mere say-so of other persons. Nor should it rest on the basis of Pascal’s wager, namely: if you believe in God and you’re wrong, then you have nothing to lose; but if you do not believe in God and you’re wrong, then you’re in serious trouble. So, the safest bet is belief.

This may be the most prudent course, but not the most scientific. In addition, belief is not a question that should rest on the brittle and dubious grounds of mere faith. In courts of law we do not convict someone of a crime unless we can prove his guilt objectively and through the force of evidence. We don’t convict him based on a feeling, or an intuition, or even on belief. Certainly, we should not settle for anything less than the same standard of proof when dealing with the ultimate question of God.

Proving the existence of God through reason may sound like Deism, a concept which arose during the Age of Reason in 17th and 18th Century England. Its earliest proponents include the philosophers Hobbes, Locke, and Spinoza, and some of its notable adherents in America were Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and Madison. Deism can be defined as a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme god created the Universe, and that this and other religious truth can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for faith. (Byrne 70).

Deism rejects revealed religion (70). Deists contend that Beliefs to be followed in the present must be based on evidence available in the present (70). We today have no evidence of revelations that supposedly took place thousands of years ago. Instead, religions institutions, including Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims, require us to rely on the word of authorities or traditions that such revelations took place. Such blind faith, such a total dependency on the word of others, introduces a blank cheque to superstition and falsity (Toland, 26). It makes us vulnerable to a religion of priests, exerting their own worldly and political interests (Byrne 79). Such interests often run to the detriment of human happiness and liberty (80).

To that extent, the term Deism does apply here. However, on closer inspection, it does not. In place of revealed religion, in place of the mere say-so of priests, Deism requires us to base our beliefs on reason. So far so good. However, early, prominent Deists qualified what they meant by reason, which they divided into two types: self-evident and demonstrative. Demonstrative reason uses argument and proof. But self-evident reason consists of intuitive knowledge, that is, truths that are so obvious that you just know them to be fact. This second kind of reason is akin to having a gut feeling about something. It is basically what J.P. Moreland and other modern-day authorities mean when they use the pseudo-scientific term numinous evidence (Moreland and Nielsen). Such evidence may be personal, as opposed to revealed, but it hardly qualifies as irrefutable proof. We wouldn’t convict someone in a court of law based on our gut feelings. Nor would we accept a scientific theory on that basis. We won’t accept the existence of God on those grounds either. .

The following sections attempt first to define the essential characteristics of God, and then provide evidence that a Being with those characteristics exists. The evidence must be demonstrative. It can’t be merely revealed or even intuitive. It must be based on argument and proof. Following that standard, Part I focuses on the concept of omnipotence and the necessary implications of that concept for other aspects of God. Part II focuses on the concept of omniscience and those other facets of divinity that flow from it.

Part III examines the prevailing theories in physics and cosmology concerning the origins and nature of the Universe. To what extent are these scientific theories consistent with the concept of God? Part IV focuses in on what may be the most critical question of all. What evidence do we have for the existence of a Universal Mind?

In the end, the ultimate objective of this essay is to produce a coherent definition of what it is we mean by God, and to provide enough objective proof to sway even an impartial jury that such a Being consistent with that definition exists

PART I. OMNIPOTENCE

Section One. Omnipotent

A. The Concept of an Omnipotent God

God would not be God if He were not omnipotent. Being all powerful is the essence of what we mean when we refer to God. In effect, the word God is just a shorthand way of saying a being who has ultimate power. Nothing can be more powerful than God by definition. If any force were more powerful than God, then that force would, in effect, itself be God. The term ultimate power is a sufficient substitute for the word God. Anything less would be, at best, merely a superman.

If there are any powers in the Universe beyond God's control, then He is not supreme. He is limited by something greater than Himself. This is the case with pantheistic deities. Neptune and Loki and Odin and Zeus are all anthropomorphic super men. In mythology, they are constantly being opposed and frustrated and tricked and duped. By contrast, we refer to God as a Being supreme over everything. We worship a Supreme Being, not an almost supreme being; not a pretty powerful being; but the One Who is supreme over everything; the ultimate.

That is the essence of what we mean by the All Mighty. Anything less would not be God. He sits at the apex of forces that govern our Universe, all of which are, and must be, subordinate to Him. God is omnipotent by definition.

Might Makes Right

A problem with the omnipotence argument is the implication that might makes right. If we say that God's essential characteristic is power, then all else, morality included, is subordinate.

But God's power is not like man's power. Omnipotent might does make right. God created the Universe. He created life. He created being itself. He is the definitive positive force. Everything that exists, everything we hold dear, is thanks to Him. He is the ultimate source of good. But this can only be true of the Supreme Being. Only for Him are might and right synonymous.

For lesser beings, such as the rest of us, might and right are by no means the same. Man's might can be constructive or destructive. Even at his most constructive, however, man can only grope toward an understanding of the rightness of his course. He never has all the facts. He never realizes all the implications. He never controls all the unintended consequences. His best laid plans often go awry. Therefore, even super-men must be humble and cautious in the exercise of their might. Because we exercise our power imperfectly, man's might can never be synonymous with right. But when we talk about one omnipotent God, His might and right are the same. The design and purpose of the Universe are His. Only His.

B. Evidence for an Omnipotent God 

Scientists today hold a modern version of omnipotence. They call it GUT - or the Grand Unification Theory. It posits a Universe governed by four elemental forces: gravity, by which the curvature of space effects the path of an object; electromagnetism, which causes positively and negatively charged ions to join; the strong force, which binds the nuclei of atoms; and the weak force, which induces a form radioactivity. At super high temperatures, such as existed at the beginning of the Universe, something interesting happens. At 100 million million million million million degrees Kelvin, three of the four forces are combined into a single force (Weinberg 2). The only holdout is gravity (which may not be a force at all, but simply the effect of mass on spacetime). The GUT theory, however, maintains that all four forces came from a single force, one all powerful force from which all the elemental powers of nature emerged.

So, here is a case where science and religion converge. Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion contends that a single, omnipotent Power governs the Universe. Science does, too. The scientific law of parsimony equates to the religious concept of monotheism. Simpler is better. One is best. A single force makes more sense than a multitude.

Plus, the laws of nature appear to apply everywhere. The speed of light is the same everywhere. The conservation of matter and energy is the same everywhere. The relationship between mass and gravity is the same everywhere. The Universe obeys a single set of laws. These scientific observations reflect what our major religions teach. A single order prevails.

Section Two. Omnificent

A. The Concept of God the Creator

If God is omnipotent, then, by definition, He created everything. The act of creation shaped and defined the Universe and all the forces that govern it. If God did not create these forces, then He cannot be omnipotent. Something besides Himself is determinative. Even if God were presently in control of all the forces of the Universe, if some of those forces were not of his design, then their nature is independent of Him.

For example, I may plant a seed, and determine where it will grow, and nurture it until it becomes a flower. But I didn't create the process by which a seed becomes a flower. The flower obeys the laws of nature, and as a gardener, so must I. Both the flower and I are subordinate to a higher power, the power that created the laws of nature in the first place. For that reason, I am far from being omnipotent in regard to the flower. Nor would God be omnipotent in regard to the Universe, were He not its Creator to begin with.

The ancient Greeks believed in a Universe that was ruled by a set of gods who did not originally create it. Gaia supposedly formed the Earth, only to be succeeded by the Titans and then the Olympians Zeus, Hera, Apollo, and the rest. To the extent these deities reigned over a world not of their own making, however, they contended with forces outside of and frequently greater than themselves. Thus, they were not supreme beings, but rather demi-gods. Moreover, when we say God is all powerful, we aren't saying He's totally in control today, but not yesterday. Omnipotence is a term that covers all things, all spaces, and all times. If we take omnipotence to literally mean all powerful, then it includes present, future, and the past as well.

The concept of creation, and, more specifically, creationism, has been used to counter evolution. Adherents of creationism believe that everything, including all species were directly created by God on Day One. But this is a supremely silly argument. Taken to its extreme, it implies there has never been any growth, any generation, any invention, or, literally any progression whatsoever after Day One. Anything at all that happened after that moment of creation would have to be considered anathema. Obviously, this