The Case For God’s Existence

Author: Walter Nuñez

The song “Imagine” by John Lennon of the Beatles, could only envision: a world without God,   a world without religion, and a world without heaven. But hardly can it be proved in reality that such is the case, especially so that science is not in the business of proving which things or beings do exist or do not exist. Of course, for all the grandeur and majesty of science, it can determine and validate to a certain extent that some thing/s really exist, but not without limitation. Science is not the be all of existence. Most often than not, science is always behind the trail, before it can tell that such things exist. It would rather be best for science to be left alone to wonder and discover and make sense of the things in the natural world, than to venture on a quest to prove the entities of the vast expanses of the universe, and even go beyond it.

The Limits of Science

Going by the scientific consensus, all are in agreement that:

“Science does not always provide final answers, nor it is always a search for ultimate truth.” It stressed that “If an idea cannot be tested, it may not be wrong, but it isn’t a part of science.”

Science may have the best of all possible answers and the best tentative explanation to offer as far as our view and knowledge of the natural world is concerned:

“But some questions cannot be answered by the methods of science. No physical or chemical test will tell us whether or not the painting is beautiful, nor can any test be devised that will tell us how we are to respond to it. These questions are simply outside the realm of science. In fact, the methods of science are not the only way to answer many questions that matter in our lives.” Such fundamental questions are  the pillars of Hercules for science: “Ne Plus Ultra” (no further).

Existence of God is not a Scientific Question

“While science will provide us with a way of tackling questions about the physical world, such as how it works and how we can shape it to our needs, many questions – some would say the most important questions – lie beyond the scope of science and the scientific method. Some of these questions are deeply philosophical: what is the meaning of life? Why does the world hold so much suffering? Is there a God? … these are not questions that can be answered by a cycle of observations, and testing. For answers, we turn instead to religion, philosophy, and the arts”.

Case in point:

“A symphony, a poem, and a painting, are not, in the end, objects to be studied scientifically. These art forms address different human needs and they use different methods than science.” (p.p.  7, 9 General Science by Gil Nonato C. Santos and Jorge P. Ocampo, 2000 Rex Bookstore)

In addition, “Without an operational definition, the scientific method cannot be employed. Science cannot, for example, tell us whether or not a biblical heaven or hell exists. Such metaphysical concepts are generally not reducible to operational terms. They lie outside the realm of observation and are best left to the areas of religion and philosophy.” (p. 199 Critical Thinking, 1999 Gary R. Kirby, Jeffrey R. Goodpaster, Marvin Levine, Prentice Hall, Inc. Pearson Education Company, New Jersey, U.S.A)

Science Can’t Prove Beyond All Doubt

Accordingly, science is not without its inherent limitation being a human construction in the first place:

“When a powerful yet simple model makes predictions that survive repeated and varied testing, scientists elevate its status and call it a theory. Some famous examples are Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, and Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity.”

“Despite its success in explaining phenomena, a scientific theory can never be proved true beyond all doubt, because ever more sophisticated observations may eventually disagree with its predictions.” (p.p. 70 & 71 The Essential Cosmic Perspective Third Edition by Jeffrey Bennet et. al., 2005 Person Addision Wesley, San Francisco)

Seeming Conflict with Science and Religion

On the other hand…

“the same can be said about religious faith. Strictly speaking, there should be no conflict between science and religion, because they deal with different aspects of life. Conflict arises only when zealots on either side try to push their methods into areas where they aren’t applicable.” (p. 10 General Science by Gil Nonato C. Santos and Jorge P. Ocampo, 2000 Rex Bookstore)

Scientists are not Necessarily Nonbelievers or Atheists

To digress, it is a misconception to think that most, if not almost all, of the scientists are necessarily atheists just because they are able to provide natural explanation to the workings and wonders of the world. However, given such orientation it does not cancel out their belief in God.

According to an intensive study:

“Throughout modern history, science and religion have often been portrayed as irreconcilable opponents, continually locked in a struggle over the meaning of the truth. Scientists themselves are often characterized as fundamentally anti-religious or atheistic. In 1916 a survey of 1,000 scientists and mathematicians in which they were questioned regarding their religious belief, revealed that roughly 40 percent of respondents believed in a God who communicated to humankind and to whom it was possible to pray “in expectation of receiving an answer”. Forty-five percent of the respondents stated that they did not believe in God as defined in the survey, and 15 percent answered that they were either agnostic or did not have a definite opinion on the question. In 1997 the same survey was conducted again and the results nearly mirrored those of 81 years earlier. The only large variation in the 1997 results came from respondents who did not believe in a God as defined by the questionnaire – three percent more.”

“Scientists felt this way in 1997. In both surveys, approximately 400 of the scientists who received the questionnaires did not respond. The results of the survey seemed to debunk the general caricatures of scientific intolerance for religion. The 1997 study seemed to indicate that beliefs, at least among scientific community, had remained stagnant.” (p. 102 Compton’s by Encyclopedia Britannica by Elliot Mitchell Volume 21, article on: Science, 2007)

In Perspective

Now, that we have the right perspective in which to make our case for the existence of God, I would like to begin by underscoring the aforementioned excerpt:

“…Is there a God? These are not questions that can be answered by a cycle of observations, and testing. For answers, we turn instead to religion, philosophy, and the arts.”

So here let us turn our attention to religion and philosophy or more appropriately philosophy of science. Incidentally, I will still be citing scientific sources as indirect evidence, but only as means to an end, in order to build a cumulative proof on the case for God’s existence.

The Belief of God is Universal

According to the scientific study of human cultures which is in the field of Sociology, in general, and Anthropology, in particular, and more specifically under the discipline of Ethnology, it is a fact that there are no human cultures since time immemorial that had not held a belief in gods or God. Or, a belief of a supreme being often conceived possessing with supernatural powers.

The prehistoric period attests to this fact: when it found that caveman dwellers like the Neanderthal (then contemporary specie of early homo sapiens)  and Cro – Magnon (early form of Homo Sapiens) had some kind of religious beliefs, especially a belief in the afterlife. Through the relics they left behind, they were known to have practiced of burying their dead.

Throughout history, human cultures became fertile grounds for various religious beliefs, especially belief in gods or God. This status quo (state of affairs) was unchallenged until the renaissance, especially during the period that ushered the age of enlightenment. The chief expression of this period which was known in history as the movement of free thought, was deism. Deism is a belief that God created everything in the world and the universe, but after that left its own mechanistic laws to operate, and never interfere since then. It was mainly championed by John Locked, Voltaire, Denis Diderot, and Thomas Paine. It may have had challenged the Church authority in matters of doctrines and dogmas. But even so, their belief in the existence of God, remained steadfast and unwavering. Although, some of them like Denis Diderot may have turned atheist in later life, and others of their kind may have followed suit, but all of them included, do not constitute a human culture.

All things considered, even though, all human cultures embody a belief in gods or God, this, however, does not prove that God exists. On the contrary, this just tries to establish the fact that the belief of the existence of God is universal. Going by the apothegm: “against a fact no argument can prevail”.

“God Part of the Brain”

Latest finding in the field of Neuroscience and Psychology tends to upheld this fact. It found out that belief of gods or God is something inherent or built-in in the human brain. It concluded that there is definitely a “God part of the brain” than otherwise… meaning “without a God.” So that explains the universality of the belief in God.

Atheism is not a Human Culture System

In contemporary times, atheism, however, hard it tries to push the limits can never become a system of human culture. A culture is a way of life where such practices and customs become institutionalized. Culture as defined in standard dictionary is:

“The behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought, especially as expressed in particular community or period. [<Lat. cultura, colere, cultivate].” (p. 213 The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 2004)

By and large, atheists are deluded into thinking that just because traditional proofs of God (e.g. ontological argument, teleological argument, cosmological argument, argument from design, etc.)  are debunked, and demolished the corollary popular conceptions and the subjective ideas of God, then they disprove the objective and independent existence of God. But this is not the right line of thinking. The truth of the objective existence of a certain thing such as God is not contingent to the subjective perception of the observer.

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence

On the other hand, atheists are wont to say that if it can’t be proven, then it does not exist. If it (presence) can’t bring about an effect on the natural world, then it is not real. On the contrary, this line of reasoning can easily be invalidated. After all, it is a fallacy in logic that just because one cannot prove the case (e.g. the existence of God) as true, then it follows that the other side (e.g. nonbelievers and atheists) automatically proves it false. It does not follow that the case is false, since the other side has not proved it true. This fallacy is called an appeal to ignorance.

Furthermore, just because there is absence of evidence does not mean that it is an evidence of absence.

To illustrate my point:

Supposed no evidence is found as yet that a certain specie exists. Does that mean that no such specie exists? Of course not! So there! Absence of evidence does not necessarily mean as evidence of absence. Since, science is always behind the trail in the game of discovery. Soon a specie of said kind may be discovered. Like in the case of Darwin’s moth, the one with a long vacuum tube used for sucking of nectar. In Darwin’s time, there is no evidence that such specie exist, but after a long time, a specie of that kind is discovered somewhere in Indonesia.

To See is to Believe

Yet, some other atheists would say” to exist is to be perceived with the five senses (e.g. sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch), plus scientific instrumentation otherwise, such object of perception or belief is just a figment of imagination. They reason out that since God is beyond sense-perception, then it necessarily follows that He (God) does not exist. According to them (practical and rugged and even hardcore atheists), if God exists, so where is He?

The Concept of God

To arrive at an objective and proper understanding, one must have to analyze first the very concept and nature of God. First and foremost, God is an intelligible concept. Hence, it must be conceived in the mind through the process of logical abstraction. A logical abstraction is a process by which the mind grasp the existence of an object through logical reasoning (i.e. to deduce the existence of the object based on the known or given effect).

This is how we arrived at the logical and scientific conclusion that exotic and virtual particles of matter especially dark matter and dark energy (i.e. otherwise known as invisible matter and mysterious force, respectively) objectively exist in the real world despite the absence of direct observation. We deduced its objective and independent existence through the traces they left behind or through the effect they create. Though, we do not yet know its nature, composition, and structure, but we are certain that they objectively exist because of the effect they exerted on the observable universe. The fact of their existence is established by scientific consensus.

“Scientists who study the smallest units of nature have learned that this vacuum is actually seething with activity at the subatomic levels as particles pop in and out of nothingness. Though these are virtual particles, laboratory experiments have shown that they have real and predictable effects.” (p. 33 National Geographic October 1999  Vol. 196 No. 4,  Kathy Sawyer)

Going to the core of the matter: the case for the existence of God is not a demonstrable fact  which means that the evidence of His existence cannot be demonstrated by means of sense-perception.  Since, God is an intelligible concept the fact of His existence can be established through methodological reasoning using scientific principles specifically the philosophy of science.

Coup de Grace

The proof for God’s existence is predicated on the big bang event. The big bang describes that the universe has a definite beginning in the past. It states that matter, energy and even space and time are created in the big bang. It implies then that before the big bang there was absolutely nothing:

“Before the universe as we know it existed, there was no space or time. The big bang and its associated theories try to explain or describe the moment of change from nothingness and no time to the existence of the universe filled with space and marked by time. Many physicists  describe this event as an explosion, or flash, hence the name big bang. ” (p. 399 Time Almanac 2006 Borgna Brunner, Person Education, Boston)

“Big Bang theory holds that everything in the known universe – all time, space, energy, and matter – was once contained in a point of singularity. Scientists leave the “why” of that state of affairs to priest and poets.”  (p. 20 National Geographic October 1999  Vol. 196 No. 4,  Kathy Sawyer)

If that is the case, so what causes the big bang? According to the fundamental law of science which is embedded in the law of causality: nothing can come from nothing. For something to exist there must have been something to cause its existence to begin with. Therefore, it is a logical necessity to posit the existence of God as the cause of the big bang. Otherwise, everything will not make any sense: the law of causality, which is the bedrock of science, will be broken, and consequently logic will fall prey as its first casualty. Thus there must be an ultimate cause to account for the effects as the product of the chain of causes that brought about the existence of order and hierarchy of beings in the natural world as we know it.

“By definition, there can be nothing outside the universe to collapse the whole cosmic panorama into concrete existence (except God, perhaps?).” (p. 116 God and the New Physics by Paul Davies, 1983, Simon and Schuster, New York)

Moreover, according to Sir Isaac Newton’s third law of motion which is the law of interaction: it states that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. This implies then the logical necessity of the existence of a certain cause or action that is equally integral and crucial to explain and account for the effects or reaction (e.g. the unfolding of the universe) we observe today.

Beyond the Physical World Order

However, The big bang is delimited by the plank time which is 10 to the power of -43 fraction of a second. Before this prescribed limit, it can go no further. Beyond this boundary of space-time, all the laws of physics breaks down, since the so called known condition of this event impedes and defies observation and measurement in the absence of an operable scientific definition and a viable scientific theory.

Pillar’s of Hercules: The Plank Time

“Once upon a timeless, most cosmologists believe, all that is our universe was incredibly small and dense. Neither space nor time as we know them existed. Nothing is known of this instant. Scientists use the term big bang (1) to describe this moment of creation. Somehow the universe – all matter, energy, space and time – exploded from the original singularity. Because time did not yet exist there is no way to measure this event, but scientists have agreed to start the universal clock at the Planck time (2) – a moment defined as 10 -43 second, which is a decimal point followed by 42 zeroes and a 1.” (p. 12 National Geographic, January 1994  Vol. 185 No. 1)

“Scientists acknowledge that they have no way of proving any theories about what happened less than 10 (-43) of a second after the big bang began. Known as Plank time, or 10 to minus 43, this is the first fraction of a second in which the laws of physics apply.” (p. 25 National Geographic October 1999  Vol. 196 No. 4,  Kathy Sawyer)

“No one knows – and we may never know of our current understanding of physics is correct, all history of that initial infinitesimal slice of time is irretrievably lost.”

“Ordinary matter did not exist under those conditions. Our familiar laws of physics did not apply.” (p.p. 33-34 National Geographic, January 1994  Vol. 185 No. 1)

The Unity of Faith And Reason to Affirm the Existence of God

The following are selected excerpts in an article : Have Astronomers Found God? written for the Reader’s Digest on August 1980 by Robert Jastrow, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and professor of astronomy and geology at Columbia University, he is also the author of Red Giants and White Dwarfs, Until the Sun Dies and God and the Astronomers:

In The Beginning…The moment of Creation

“The essence of these developments is that the universe had a sharply defined beginning-that it began at a certain moment in time. Was the creative agent one of the forces of physics, or was it, as the Old Testament Apocrypha says, “thy almighty hand, which created the world out of formless matter.”

“The essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: The chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly  and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

“Some scientists are unhappy with the idea that the world began in this way. Until recently, many preferred the steady-state theory, which holds that the universe had no beginning, and is eternal. But astronomical evidence makes it certain that the big bang really did occur.”

“Now that evidence pointed to the fact that the universe had a beginning, a few scientists dared to ask, What came before the beginning?” Some, even bolder, asked, “Who was the Prime Mover?” The British theorist Edward Milne wrote a mathematical treatise on kinematic relativity, which concluded by saying, in the context of the expansion, “The first cause of the universe is left for the reader to insert. But our picture is incomplete without Him.”

“Nevertheless, the views of most physicists and astronomers were closer to that of the theologian who, when asked what God was doing before He created the materials of heaven and earth, replied, “He was creating hell for people who asked questions like that. ”

“Theologian generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind-supposedly a very objective mind-when evidence uncovered by science itself conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. A few years ago in a British Broadcasting Corporation film on cosmology, astronomer Philip Morrison of M.I.T. said, “I would like to reject the big bang theory, but I have to face the facts.”

“This reaction and similar responses by other astronomers have an odd ring of feeling and emotion. They come from the heart, whereas you would expect such judgments to come from the brain.”

“I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon that cannot be explained. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes that every event in the universe can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event. This faith is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces we cannot discover. when that happens, the scientist has lost control. He reacts by ignoring the implications, or by trivializing and calling it the big bang, as if the universe were a firecracker.”

“Consider the immensity of the problem. Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter and energy into the universe? Was the universe created out of nothing, or was it gathered together out of pre-existing materials? And science cannot answer these questions, because, according to the astronomers, in the first moments of its existence the universe was compressed to an extraordinary degree, and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination. The shock of that instant must have destroyed every particle of evidence that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion. The scientist’s pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. ”

“This development was unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But we scientist did not expect to find evidence for an abrupt beginning because we  have had, until recently, such extraordinary success in tracing the chain of cause and effect backward in time. We have been able to connect the appearance of man on this planet to the crossing of the threshold of life, the manufacture of the chemical ingredients of life within stars that have long since expired, the formation of those stars out of the primal mists, and the expansion and cooling of gasses out of the cosmic fireball.”

“Now we would like to pursue that inquiry further back in time, but the barrier seems insurmountable. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” (p.p. 87-91 Reader’s Digest: Have Astronomers Found God? By: Robert Jastrow, August 1980)

By now, it is firmly established how far science can carryout and pursue its scope and object of study. So here! The end of science is the beginning of religion. Or,for want of a better term: the end of reason is the beginning of faith. Although, it is not only with mere faith that we believe that God exists but it is with reasoned faith as we submit our trust or intellectual assent along the lines of logic and methodological reasoning in accepting the reality of the existence of God.  This is made possible since philosophy is the handmade of theology – by the way, “theology is the study of the nature of God and religious truth.” As such, the methodology of philosophical and scientific reasoning complement with that of the revealed truths of religion, in general and the deposit of faith in the Church, in particular.