Science and God

 

 

   A quick note to the more secular followers of our We Must Unite! movement: You, also, are welcome here and are a 
member in good standing. I do not write this to convert everyone. As it has been said before “For those who believe in 
God, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe in God, no explanation will suffice.”
   And I accept this with no hostility towards anyone but simply write this out of a sense of duty. For there are some 
elite sectors of society that now hold traditional values in utter contempt. "Science" now somehow justifies every new 
radical, brainless notion of the Far Left. And that hostility towards basic, traditional values has taken on a more and 
more militant turn. Despite being a country founded on freedom of religion, I even fear that religion is turning into a 
critical fault line in today’s society/cultural wars.
   It should not happen that way, I am against it happening that way, but I fear that it is still going to happen that way 
anyway. Thus, my article: I simply choose to defend the reasonableness of belief in God - and the reasonableness of still 
getting along with each other even if we hold different beliefs about God. With this said, I now present the following 
article to all our readers – both the religious and less religious equally alike.

                                               IN THE BEGINNING … GOD!

   For those of you with just a little Bible knowledge: The Bible opens with Genesis 1:1 – “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” So, there is a simple test: If God was at the beginning – and you can trace something back to it’s very beginning – do you wind up back at God?

   I, as a believer, say yes – and that there are many things that can take us down this path. For the moment, however, let us just start with a general test of this matter. For how, precisely, could our universe even have a beginning – and then be where we are at right now? It is not as straightforward a process as one might assume. For example:

   We have entropy. What this means is that, if the universe is around long enough then it will eventually burn out. And thus, we will all wind up being nothing but exhausted bits of (former) energy. I will call this the Existential Deadline. After a certain amount of time, everything burns out and is done doing anything for ever after.

   But here is the problem when you reject God and can only work with natural processes. We know that the universe has not been around long enough (at least in its present form) to hit this deadline. We can be sure of this because I am not writing this article to you as a permanently inert heat ball. And this fact leaves us with only a limited number of possibilities:

   1) The universe has not been around this long (at least in its present form) and therefore had a point where it did not exist. Which means that there must have been some point where it went from not existing to existing. But some people like, say, Carl Sagan want to maintain that science calls for a universe that “Is all there is, or ever was or ever shall be.”

   But then how could it have had a point of non-existence? And then something made it start having existence – when there is nothing else out there (but it) in the first place? Or we now go with a second possibility.

   2) The universe has always existed but not in its present form. Therefore, to solve these problems, ‘science’ (the distorted version) ultimately had to come up with some form of a Big Bang theory. It is simply assumed that the universe used to be a tiny little egg of matter, lying inert for an indefinite duration, that is then acted upon by some quote “perturbation unknown”. This then jump starts the current process – to now have the universe be the way that it is today. But where does this ‘perturbation unknown’, itself, come from? If all of the universe is in an inert state, and the universe is all that there is, then how can there still be a ‘perturbation unknown’ – outside of the universe – so that it could then act upon it to do the jump start?

   Thus, how does the simple use of some verbiage somehow make something become any less ‘religious’? The use of different verbiage (calling it some type of a ‘perturbation unknown’) does not a ‘scientific’ make. But what about the third possible explanation for how the universe is where it is today?

   3) There must be a something – more than just the physical universe – that does not have to act under the constraints of natural law. From before: natural processes can only go back so far, thus, it is ultimately a linear logical reasoning that has to take you the rest of the way. If all you can keep going back with is natural law and a natural universe, you will eventually hit a some point where you simply have to assume that something was there just because it was there. And since there is nothing currently in nature that has this capability then there must be a Something Else (besides just this) that must exist also.

   This is where, say, the Ancient Greeks started off from. They used to simply refer to this as First Cause or the Unmoved Mover – and accepted that it was just a Something Different. So the misuse of science does a disservice by simply referencing a ‘perturbation unknown’. Why is it any less religious than, say, the Ancient Greeks – since it is ultimately a distinction but without any real difference? Or, for that matter, what about the Ancient Hebrews?

  The scoffers may not think much of me for saying so but the ultimate reference on this matter that I find to be the most scientific is the Voice that came from out of the Burning Bush. For me this is ultimately the most scientific way of wrapping up this point. You may remember the story: Moses asked how the Children of Israel would know what God he was talking about – when he was to say that God had spoken to him. Do you remember what he was told?

   He was told to just tell them that “I AM THAT I AM” – has sent you. And this has never been thought through thoroughly by most Bible readers. What he was being told is that they would know what precise God is being talked about by referring to …

 

THAT WHICH IS SIMPLY BECAUSE … IT IS (OR “I AM THAT I AM”)

   We have already seen, just by linear logical reasoning, that no matter how you approach the matter you are still ultimately stuck with some form of “that which is simply because it is”. But are we to assume that if we simply say “God” (rather than, say, a “perturbation unknown”) that we are suddenly less ‘scientific’.

   At the end of the day, whether you call it “I AM THAT I AM”, First Cause or a ‘perturbation unknown’ there is still only so far that the physical sciences can take you. Once you are forced back to this point you have no choice but accept a Something Else behind it that does not have to do natural law and is beyond the natural universe. Or there is nothing to do that initial jump start of  the whole process in the first place.

   It is just pure logic that takes you to the point where you have to realize that there must, ultimately, be a something that simply is just because it is. So why should the type of verbiage you use make you any more (or less) ‘scientific’?

   And, thus, I see no logical reason why our Scriptures can’t describe God as THAT WHICH IS SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS – and have it be just as logical a possibility as any other one. And/or just as scientific also. And this would clearly be the most logical way to connect us back to the very beginning point as it relates to our current physical universe.

  But let us now move on to a more concrete discussion. We have talked about the universe itself but what about some of the specific elements that make up our universe? If you trace each of these to a beginning point – do their beginning points also lead us back to God?

 

NOW, LETS TRY OUT A FEW PARTICULARS . . .

   Since this is (hopefully) a basic discussion, I will stick with just a few basic items. I will focus on the following:

      1) The primary building block for all the universe: The Amazing Atom.

      2) The primary building block for all the living universe: The Impossible Existence of the Living Cell (But it still exists?)

      3) There is the ‘jump start’ of the universe (that we have already talked about). But what about the ‘jump start’ that every one of us must go through to start living in this universe? And, finally,

     4) The Origin of Order itself– how the whole process itself is an important ‘beginnings’ question. I am leaving this one for last because it is simply a little more lengthy than the others.

 

1) THE AMAZING ATOM

   A repeat of our simple logic. If the universe really is an “In the beginning … God” affair, then each time you take something back to the beginning – it should take you back to God. And it does, e.g., like the Amazing Atom. Starting simply: an atom consists of the heavy nucleus, the protons and the electrons.

   In the nucleus, you have all the protons clustered together with each other. BUT (but,but,but,but,but) they are all also positively charged – and yet still congregate with each other. Do you remember that like charges ALWAYS repel? And since all protons are like charges, they will ALWAYS repel – if, that is, there is nothing but natural law at work. Yet they do not repel so … is it possible that there is more than just natural law at work?

   Outside the nucleus, it is surrounded by all electrons – all bonding together properly to maintain the cohesion of the atom. Except that all electrons are also all negatively charged – and therefore repel each other (if left strictly to natural law). Yet they do not repel so … is it possible that there is more than just natural law at work?

   Now, just for the sake of argument, lets’ say a Scripture passage will be our first foray out of strictly natural law. I will refer to Colossians 1:17 where it reads “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” That is, that the ‘cosmic glue’ (that causes the structure of the atom to defy the physical laws of the universe) is like God’s little finger being in the middle of the atom – and that that is what is holding it all together. Or how “by him all things consist”.

   Next suppose another ‘silly’, non-scientific notion. What would it take for the entire earth to melt away – and with an enormous heat involved? Most scientists would have a difficult time thinking of anything that would cause the earth to simply start melting away – and then, literally, melt into nothingness. For, after all, doesn’t science say that matter can neither be created or destroyed? And, yet this Biblical ‘silliness’ is a matter of sheer simplicity itself.

   Suppose the cosmic glue factor should be allowed (or be caused) to slip apart. Like, say, God removing his little finger from the center of the atom. What would happen is that the atoms would start ripping apart. The outermost layer of the earth’s atoms would be the starting point at simply splintering into nothingness. As the outer layers would vanish, then the inner layers would no longer have any restrains and the process would continue until all the earth would totally ‘melt’ away. And to do so with a ‘fervent heat’.

   And as the apostle Peter writes, “and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.” Note even his precise terminology “the ELEMENTS shall melt …” The reason the earth will melt away “with a fervent heat” is because the very elements themselves will be melting away. And the only way that anything can totally ‘melt’ away (seemingly defying the natural law that matter cannot be destroyed) is through the loosening of the ‘cosmic glue’.

   Thus, you have no logical, scientific explanation for the configuration of the atom – but you have a Scriptural one. And, in step two, if you assume the Scriptural explanation is true then the seemingly absurd spectacle of the very elements “melting with a fervent heat’ is, in fact, quite scientific. That is exactly what would happen, and how it would happen – scientifically – if there was first a cosmic glue (and then there was its removal.)

   Thus, we get back to the beginning – at the main building block of the universe. And it somehow forms in a way that does not seem to be very ‘scientific’ – and yet has still managed to form. It could not form together ‘scientifically’ in the way that it did – and yet it still did. So, what, ultimately, caused it: something ‘scientific’ – or something else?

 

2) THE IMPOSSIBLE CELL

   ‘Scientifically’ the cell is also put together in a way that is not possible – and yet still came together that way anyways. So, just using linear logical reasoning – and being neither ‘scientific’ nor ‘religious’ – is it at least possible that there exists a something else (beyond ‘scientific’) that made it so it was possible – since it did, in fact, still happen? And I am just asking a logics question – not trying to be ‘religious’.

   Example one of this: say that you are just dealing with the chemical components of living cells (but not inside a living being). They will bond together – in a natural setting – in a way that will ALWAYS form what is called a perfect covalent bond. You look at it under a microscope and you just see one item. But in all actual living cells, under the same microscope, you will see a shadow effect from the bonding ALWAYS happening with a skew angle involved. So how did they bond together this way? All that exists, we are told, are natural processes. And all natural processes would work differently than this and yet … here we still are.

   But then there is the more fundamental problem about our basic cell structures. All scientists, atheists included, acknowledge that DNA can not possibly exist without having RNA exist first. And that RNA cannot possibly exist without having DNA exist first. So, ‘scientifically’ we have neither of them existing. But in actual reality (where something more than just ‘scientific’ could, at least possibly, exist) you have both. So, does actual reality contain more than just ‘scientific’?

 

3) YET ANOTHER JUMP START PROBLEM

   I have already mentioned three instances of this so far. The universe needed an initial ‘jump start’ (a fact that even atheists admit). But cannot answer what was (also) there to do the jump starting. 

   The atom had to have an initial happening where it got force fitted into the right configuration – and then got inserted into some type of a containment field. And someone is still going to argue that it happened through all through natural forces? Even though they would be contradicting the natural laws in what they would be doing???

   The human cell is the third instance. First you must have the one thing (DNA) to have the other (RNA). Then you must have the other before you can even get to the first one. Like all things in science, the process can only take you so far (to a point of beginning?) then you must have a ‘something else’ that takes it from there.

   Otherwise, you would now be reading something being written by an inert heat ball. Plus, I would be an inert heat ball that never had my atoms form into living cells. Plus, I would also be an inert heat ball that never even had any atoms – from to form the living cells. And on we could go – if all there was was nothing more than just natural causes only.

   So, up to this point: First, we have the jump start for the universe. Next, some type of a jump start where an atom is simply together in a way where it could never have formed that way naturally. And, finally, the jump start that gave us either the chicken or the egg of the RNA/DNA difficulty – so that we can now have actual life. But now to a fourth one: what about actual life as it lies there in the human womb?

   Well … what does the actual jump start in this instance? When we are talking about human life as it exists in the womb? For the basic problem is that a brain is either working or not working. And what causes a brain (that is not working) to be told to start working – and then have it begin working?

   For example, I am injured, and my brain stops working. It never simply restarts itself; some form of CPR is always needed. But this is also the state we start our lives in when we are in the womb. We are brain dead and (were it at any other point in life) we would need an intervention.

   But none is done. So how does the brain first get started if there is nothing there to start it? Look at the example of your car. You give the engine that first kick of electricity, it starts and then (through its operations) it keeps generating its own electricity and sending it back to the battery. This is the self-sustaining process of both automobile engines and human brains.

   The jump start begins the process, the process feeds back to the beginning point and then it is self-sustained through to the next cycle. But we start the engine to the car ourselves (it does not start on its own) and nothing (that we are aware of) starts the brain for that first firing. So how does it still fire?

   Also: why does this process only work that first and only time? If you could have a car that could jump start itself, then why would it work one only time – when you first buy it – and never again? Yet we have a brain that seems to jump start itself – but then can only do it on that first and only time. Why?

   It is because it is APPOINTED that way. That is not the way that it would work ‘scientifically’. Science would say that the one car (the mother) would have to be the one to give the other car (the infant in the womb) that initial jump start that then begins the self-sustaining process. Except that it does not – and nothing else does either. And why does it only work that one time?

   It is because “It is APPOINTED unto every man once to die and after that the judgment.” It works that way that one first time (a self-jump start) by way of an appointment. And it never works that way again (all by itself) because you are only appointed to it but one and only one time.

 

4) THE ULTIMATE BEGINNING POINT ARGUMENT: IT’S AN ORDERLY WORLD (BUT WHY?)

   As mentioned earlier, I saved this for last because it is a little lengthy. But it is the most ultimate beginning of the beginnings questions. For both the skeptics and believers maintain that it is an orderly world. But where does the Order, itself, come from?

   The skeptic says that the Order just naturally ‘evolved’ out of Chaos. On the other hand, the real argument of the believer is not just that there is an Argument-from-Order to be made. It is that we live, not just in an orderly universe, but in a universe where it is an Order-from-Order universe – and not one that became orderly by, say, evolving out of Chaos.

   So, you have two competing ‘beginnings’ involved: does our entire process (of Order) ‘evolve’ out of Chaos? Or does our Order only come from out of Order in the first place? Thus, we have ourselves another ‘beginnings’ issue and we will assume, for the moment, that the skeptics are right: that the world is an Order, but it is an Order from Chaos. But then what would it actually look like?

   Consider: There is a good argument to be made about the absurdity of an Encyclopedia Britannica evolving out of random ink splashes by monkeys. And then making the point about a lot of the universe being equally unlikely. But it is still not the best argument.

   Granted, the arguments of Order through Chaos can wear thin. The argument is that if you just have enough time then even the impossible becomes the inevitable. And, thus, Order will always evolve out of Chaos if you just have enough millennia involved.

   But in the encyclopedia example, is there even enough time available in the entire universe to accommodate it? Eventually, entropy will turn us all into fully exhausted heat balls. And the Encyclopedia example is so extreme it seems that there would not be enough time to get it done to even beat this Existential Deadline: the amount of time in the whole universe before we all become an exhaust product after entropy has done its full run.

   So, there is a point where the “Given enough time” argument is too strained for most reasonable people. But still, there is a much better argument available. For the universe directly declares itself to be a case of Order-from-Order as well as just being a good Argument-from-Order.

   It revolves around two problems for the skeptic – not just one. The first is the more talked about probabilities problem. But there is also what I would refer to as the sorting problem. For, in the encyclopedia example, let’s say someone has asserted that an encyclopedia is now sitting before us that evolved that way. But here are the questions that I would ask – even apart from the questions of probabilities and statistics.

  Where are all the rejects at? If you still want to argue that an Encyclopedia can evolve itself, then what about all the unsuccessful attempts along the way? Where are all of them at right now? And, lastly, since it is siting in front of us in a neat and sterile environment then who did this sorting process? So that you now have an Encyclopedia in a sterile environment in front of us? Arguing that an encyclopedia can evolve doesn’t explain how it came to be sitting on my desk – so there would still need to be something more involved even if it was just someone doing a sorting process and then placing it into a neatly sorted area.

   For our encyclopedia: once a random ink blot got involved with one of the attempted copies then the copy would be no good. (And this is like all natural processes – natural processes don’t work like something being written on a piece of paper. Where you can just erase something out of existence to get a fresh do-over.) This is the basics of the sorting problem. It is a second problem in addition to the probability one.

   Another example (with somewhat lower odds): picture, for a moment, a group of twigs with a “MWC” configuration – shaped to make my initials. If it is the result of nature (only), then it would be out in nature. And whatever caused the stirrings that produced the “MWC” twig configurations would be surrounding it with a mass of chaos and randomness. Thus, if a “MWC” configuration was, instead, at the end of my driveway I would still know, and beyond all doubts, that at least that particular “MWC” was not the result of random chance.

   That is, if something is caused by random chance it will be encompassed by randomness and the results of random chance. If it is not encompassed by randomness, then it was not caused by randomness. And all the theoreticals about “Given enough time” become irrelevant. This is another aspect of the sorting problem. How does a random event get neatly sorted out to become a neat line event – even while (presumably) being caused only by randomness?

   That is why I can always out argue someone who points to an encyclopedia on my desk – and talks about how it could have evolved over enough time. Not the one on my desk – because it is neatly on my desk and is in a neat and tidy environment. Therefore, at least that particular one, came about by a neat and orderly process. However, this is what all nature ultimately looks like also.

   So how is all the universe in an orderly and sterile environment – with no surrounding chaos? It is because it is Order that came from Order – and Chaos had nothing to do with it. Similarly, there are also neat and tidy separations between all items in the universe.

   For example: Is it possible to arrange all living species’ in a neat line such that Species #1 has only one minor leap to ‘evolve’ into a Species #2, Species #2 has only one minor leap to ‘evolve’ into Species #3 and etc.? No, it is not. Thus, we have another case of a sorting problem for ‘science’ (as some define it).

  If you ‘evolve’ things from, say, a step #1 to a step #10 you still must go through Steps #2 thru 9 along your way there. The problem is that, if enough trials will make even the impossible inevitable, then it must also make everything that is slightly less impossible become the inevitable also. Thus, you can’t get to “the impossible eventually becoming the inevitable” – making it to a Step #10 – without making all that is slightly less than impossible becoming the inevitable too – and thereby also creating Steps #2 through #9 along the way.

   But that is not how things are actually formed. You, again, have a neat sorting of all the species. All are distinctly in their own category, with their own particulars involved and do not, in fact, ‘link’ to other species in a way that shows a strictly natural fusion from one to the other. No matter how you do the arrangement, a Species #2 will still have, say, ten thousand steps between it and Species #1 while there will be, say, ten thousand steps between it and a Species #3 and so on one could go. But what happened to the intervening steps?

   But we need to come to the final step of reasoning here. As laid out, there are two problems – not just one – in trying to stick with an orderly world but maintaining that it all arose out of chaos. There are not just the probabilities involved but what I would refer to as a sorting problem.  But here is where we come to our final step – it is where the two problems merge together to create a final impossibility for an Order-but-from-Chaos argument vs. an Order-from-Order argument.

   For suppose we go back to the Encyclopedia experiment – and try to ‘evolve’ one of them through random chances. Suppose there is no sorting process and the efforts are done in total randomness and through total randomness. The first problem is that you can’t ‘evolve’ straight from total randomness to the Encyclopedia Britannica without going through all of the intermediate steps.

   First, you would have to have 10 to the massive powers of failed efforts to get one copy that has one correct entry while all the rest is still gibberish. And ten to the massive powers before you would get one with two correct entries and the rest is gibberish. The same with one that has three correct entries …

   … and then when you are at success minus just three gibberish entries how many efforts are gone by? Until you then get to minus two, minus one and success – a perfectly formed encyclopedia. With each level taking 10 to the massive powers of failures before reaching it. And here is why Darwin is the only intellectually honest Darwinist.

   Without going through a prolonged argumentation, he still stated, correctly, that “nature does not jump”. You do not get to go to Evolution Point Ga-jillion without going through all the intermediate steps as well. He even set this up as a future test for his theory. He stated that if nature does not start simple – and move simply through every step – then his theory should be rejected by future generations. His theory has failed his test but how many people do hear acknowledging his own arguments?

   So, here we now sit with the time involved from a ten to the ga-jillionth power of failed efforts where not a single workable entry occurred in any of the randomly produced encyclopedias. Then there was the time involved of the failed efforts that occurred to produce a copy with one correct entry. And so on. Won’t we eventually wind up with a ten to the ga-jillionth power of time involved, a ten to the ga-jillionth level of matter and energy expended and what if … the entire physical universe is not even big enough to accommodate the process?

   Suppose the process has such unwieldy probabilities that you will wind up using all of the time up to the Existential Deadline. Suppose it is so unwieldy – that just the small amount of matter and energy involved in each transaction (times the number of transactions that it would take to do a “impossible eventually becoming the inevitable”) would exceed all of the matter and energy that exists in the entire universe? Then it is, in fact, not only the impossible but it will also remain impossible – and throughout all the entire continuum of all time and space.

   This is what leads to something called the Borel’s limit. Put clumsily, it seems – at first – to be hard to understand. Essentially, you have, say, a 1 in 10 to 100th power of improbability. Then you have, say, a 1 in 10 to the 199th power of improbability. But you then switch into a 0 in ten to the 200th power of improbability and nothing ever changes: you just keep going to a 0 in 10 to the 2000th power, 0 in 10 to the 200,000th power etc. Where the impossible becomes truly the impossible and remains that way no matter what.

   But is not difficult to understand this when you realize what is really happening. Borel’s limit is simply the point where more and more improbable odds (the number of failed attempts keeps becoming larger and larger) will eventually collide with more and more ‘sorting’ problems (how do you deal with the time, matter and energy being expended that is getting larger and ever larger) until it has to hit that final breaking point: where there is no longer enough time, matter and energy available in the entire physical universe to sustain the process and to keep it going.

   In the ‘evolving’ encyclopedia problem suppose I could turn the entire physical universe into paper and ink products to help sustain the experiment. But even after using up the entire new universe we are still just scratching the surface of the number of experiments needed (because of the extreme odds) to have a single success. Thus, after having run out of all of all time, matter and energy we are now forced to end it. It has ended unsuccessfully because it ultimately had to: the numbers involved were simply too large.

   But it is best to end with a simple logical proposition: forgetting the odds question for a moment (or even Mr. Borel and his limit) what type of a universe does it look like to you? Does it look like a universe of one chaotic mass with just the few pin pricks of Order in it that it takes to sustain us? Or does it look like one orderly sphere with everything ‘sorted’ into it in an orderly manner?

   When you actually do the logic and think about what a universe of Order-from-Chaos would have to look like does our universe actually look like that? No, it does not. And it is because that is not the nature of our universe’s origins – and end of argument.

   Therefore, it is time to end the matter of arguments. I simply urge all people of good will to accept the reasonableness of belief in God – as well as the reasonableness of us all getting along however we may feel about God. In a country founded on religious freedom you would not think an argument about the reasonableness of belief is even necessary. But, as I said at the start of this argument, I worry about our country’s present course. I pray that we will, indeed, remain a country where such an argument is not even needed. But I am uncertain of our nation’s present course.

 

9 thoughts on “Science and God

  1. Wow in actual fact a great post. I like this.I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him. Overall, Lots of great information and inspiration, both of which we all need!

  2. Took me time to read all of the feedback, but I actually loved the article. It proved to be very useful to me and I am sure to all the commenters here! It is always good when you cant solely learn, but in addition engaged! Im sure you had pleasure writing this article. Anyway, in my language, there arent a lot good source like this.

  3. This article has geniunely proven to be an eye opener. This field is generally full of such a large quantity of junk, but youve written a real treat amongst the dross. Thanks.

  4. Simply desire to say your article is as astonishing. The clarity in your post is just cool and i could assume you’re an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to grab your feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please keep up the rewarding work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *