The 12th century physician philosopher theologian, Moses Maimonides, wrote that if you want to find God, the first place to look is in nature. He writes in The Guide for the Perplexed, published in 1190: Study the science of nature (in Hebrew: madah teva) if you want to comprehend the science of God (madah Elokoot). Science has indeed discovered God and it did so as it unraveled the secrets of nature.
Until the late 1960’s, the majority opinion of the scientific community was that the universe was eternal; no beginning and perhaps no ending. That opinion was so strongly embedded in the scientific psyche that even Albert Einstein changed his famous cosmological equation from a dynamic model (expanding or contracting universe) to a static unchanging model. The work of Edwin Hubble and Henrietta Levitt corrected that misconception.
Based on the stretching of light-waves emitted from distance galaxies, they discovered that the universe was expanding, that space was actually stretching. However, the idea of an eternal universe remained. That an eternal universe totally contradicted the opening sentences of the Bible did not seem to bother the scientific community. The Bible has crucial ethical teachings but certainly it is not a source for discovering our cosmic history.
And then in the late 1960’s came the discovery by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of the “echo” of the big bang creation, the residual energy of the original energy of creation that today fills all space. The theory was that if the universe had had a creation, it would have been a burst of super-powerful radiation (essentially super-powerful “light beams”).
Overnight the picture of an eternal universe evaporated. There was a beginning: a phenomenally important paradigm change.
Over eons of time, as the universe expanded and enlarged, the initial energy would have become ever more dilute in the increasing volume of the universe. Based on the current distribution of matter in the universe, the estimated energy density remaining from the initial creating burst and filling all space would be in the range of 2 to 5 degrees above what is known as absolute zero (about minus 273 degrees centigrade or minus 460 degrees Fahrenheit). The universally distributed 3-degree C micro-wave background energy that Penzias and Wilson discovered matched exactly the prediction of what that energy would be if there actually had been a beginning, a creation of our magnificent universe (cf., Genesis 1:1). Indeed, that radiation accounts for about 1% of the snow-like static you see on your TV screen if you happen to tune to a channel on which there is no current transmission.
The pair was awarded the Nobel Prize for their discovery. Overnight the picture of an eternal universe evaporated. There was a beginning: a phenomenally important paradigm change. The Bible Genesis 1:1 had gotten it correct after all. There had been a creation. Now the only question remaining was that creation orchestrated by God or was it some kind of bizarre fluke?
Robert Jastrow, one of the founding members of NASA, described his relationship with religion as follows: When a scientist writes about God, his colleagues assume he is either over the hill or going bonkers. In my case it should be understood from the start that I am an agnostic in religious matters. My views on this question are close to those of Darwin who wrote, "My theology is a simple muddle. I cannot look at the Universe as the result of blind chance, yet I see no evidence of beneficent design in the details" (God and the Astronomers).
With Jastrow’s “agnostic” approach to theology, his evaluation of the discoveries made in astronomy is a bit of a surprise:
"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
“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.”
That our universe had a beginning, a creation, seems to be “a scientifically proven fact.” (God and the Astronomers, by Robert Jastrow)
The brilliant realization that this creation of our physical life-rich universe could have been created from nothing physical via a quantum fluctuation, that is by the laws of nature, was first conceived by Professor Ed Tryon.
Prof Tryon recently summarized his insight. “In 1973, it occurred to me that relativity and quantum theory might imply the spontaneous creation of universes from nothing. If so, matter and energy would not be fundamental but manifestations of underlying laws. Ultimate reality would be the laws themselves – the mind of Einstein’s God.”
He first published this work in the prestigious peer reviewed journal Nature, one of the world’s two leading peer reviewed scientific journals with the title: “Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation?” (Nature, December 1973). Information currently on the NASA web site attributes the creation of our universe to a “quantum fluctuation.” All that you needed to have a big bang creation of a universe are the laws of nature – that “all that you need” is a huge “need.” From where do such creative laws of nature originate? Seems according to Professor Jastrow, we might ask the theologians.
That God may have used a quantum fluctuation that is the laws of nature to create the universe poses no theological problem. Throughout the Bible, God consistently uses nature when nature can get the job done. If you create the laws you might as well use them! God used a wind to open the sea at the Exodus (Exodus 14:21) and a wind to bring the biblical plague of locusts. So as with winds of nature, a quantum fluctuation can be a tool used by the biblical God.
The term big bang was coined by Professor of Astronomy Fred Hoyle as a term of derision, even mockery. Originally, Hoyle was in that group that favored the eternal universe. In the early 1950’s, during a radio interview on the BBC, the person interviewing Prof Hoyle asked what Hoyle thought of those scientists who said there was a creation. He answered, Oh they think there was a big bang. The press picked up the big bang term and that has remained the secular way of saying creation without having to say “creation” which for a secular person has the unwelcome implications of a Creator. (Hoyle’s later research into the generation of the elements between hydrogen {#1} and uranium {#92} within the cores of exploding stars convinced Hoyle not only that there had been a creation, but more so, that there had been an Intelligence behind the entire enterprise.) The term, big bang, does not say what made the big bang go bang.
Four scientific statements describe the nature of the creation:
- our universe was created from absolutely nothing physical;
- it was created via pre-existing laws of nature;
- this was the only creation of physical matter (in this case in the form of energy); and,
- conscious life emerged from the burst of chaotic energy that marked the big bang creation, even though there is no hint of life or consciousness in that initial burst of chaotic energy or in the atoms and molecules of matter that formed from the energy of creation.
The Bible, 3500 years ago, discussed the beginning of our universe. It took a few thousand years, but science has caught up to the Bible. Equally significant is that both science and Bible agree that there was only one physical creation. Everything in the universe, from the stars of the galaxies to the molecules of your body, is made from that initial burst of energy.
This is not poetry or new age. It is reality. When you look in the mirror in the morning, you are literally looking at the energy of creation in a very special form, you. It is as literally true as the unquestionable fact that when you drink water you are drinking hydrogen and oxygen in a very special form called water.
But how did this stunning flow of inanimate matter develop into the intricately balanced complexity of life? What drove it? The light beams of the big bang creation literally became alive, conscious of being alive. Light beams learned to love, feel joy, wonder about their being. The wonder of life is not how long it took, 6 days or 14 billion years. The wonder is that it happened and essentially all science agrees with this scenario.
The laws of nature are not physical. They created the physical.
Consider the phenomenal implications of this scientific statement. If the laws of nature created the universe, they must predate the universe. They predate the physical world. They predate our concept of time. The laws of nature are not physical. They created the physical.
Put this together.
A force, not physical but able to interact with the physical, outside and pre-dating our understanding of time, and outside and predating our universe, created our universe from absolutely nothing physical.
Does that sound familiar?
You might note that that is also the Bible’s description of the creating God of the Bible.
In response, atheists have said to me: "If you want to call that God, call it God." But these skeptics would insist that the God that science has discovered would not be a God who might interact with its creation. The God of science is a deist God, a God that wound up the universe, inserted the laws of nature and then let it run itself. The Bible however claims that the God of creation is interested and active in the creation It brought into being.
So how do we determine if the God of creation is the God of the Bible, a God that is active in Its creation?
Moses teaches in Deuteronomy 32:7 that there are two sources of information that reveal a God active in this world. There Moses states that if you seek evidence of an active God, “Remember the days of old” – study the stream of events during the six days of creation, or "consider the flow from generation to generation” – look for hints of divine intervention within the passage of history.
An example of a hint of divine intervention is when statistical data show that a series of events is so unlikely that the best answer is “luck.” In the first Gulf War, Iraq shot 39 Scud missiles into the densely populated parts of Israel in and around Tel Aviv. In those 39 hits, there was only one fatality directly from the bombs’ explosions or collapsing buildings. The science journal Nature, one of the two most highly esteemed science journals world-wide, published a statistical analysis for the expected number of fatalities in accord with the population densities and building types of the bombed sites. The statistically expected number of fatalities was vastly higher than what actually occurred. The journal’s written conclusion for the thank God low kill rate was “luck.” Location after location was “lucky.” It could be luck, but then one asks why the luck time after time?
The origin of life from non-living, seemingly inert rocks and water and a variety of elements and then the development of complex life from the first forms of life are two puzzles for which even the famous avowed atheist Richard Dawkins calls upon luck, or if not luck, then the dream of a never observed, never proven, eternal realm of existence populated with a near infinite number of universes, each with its unique set of laws of nature. Here are the words from Dawkins’ own The God Delusion concerning the origin of life and its development:
“We can deal with the unique origin of life by postulating a [never proven and never observed and never even scientifically hinted at] very large number of planetary opportunities. Once that initial stroke of luck has been granted … it may be that the origin of life is not the only major gap in the evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck … The origin of the eukaryotic cell (our kind of cell with a nucleus and various other complicated features such as mitochondria, which are not present in bacteria) was an even more difficult and statistically improbable step than the origin of life. The origin of consciousness might be another major gap whose bridging was of the same order of improbability” (emphasis added) (archived full text version – search “of luck” – page numbers are absent in the archived version).
Francis Crick, one of the scientists who received the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure and role of our DNA genetic code, and who described his theological belief as agnostic with a prejudice toward atheism, struggled to account for the appearance of life on Earth: “An honest man armed with all the knowledge available to us now could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”
And yet for all its complexity, life started surprisingly rapidly on Earth. The oldest rocks that can bear fossils already have fossils of microbes, some undergoing cell division. The fact that the DNA genetic code and the system for reading the information held within the DNA code are identical across all life forms, indicates that when DNA was first derived, the system got it right, right at the start!
Equally intriguing, there is no evidence of evolutionary change or modification within the DNA, yet one might have expected an evolutional or developmental change for improvement or novelty over the billions of years that the system has been operating. Other basic systems of information storage and transfer, such as language and writing, have undergone vast and fundamental developmental changes over time and over location. One is led to wonder whether an unguided nature could have produced such genetic perfection in one burst.
So how does the secular scientific community account for the life-supporting success of our universe? By invoking the speculation of there being a near infinite number of other universes, each with its own unique laws of nature formed by the random roll of the cosmic dice. An infinite number of universes means an infinite number of chances to get by randomness exactly the laws of nature needed to form complex life. We of course live in that lucky universe. There are no direct data that reveal an infinite number of universes, or any number of universes other than our one.
On these imagined but never observed unique places in space, atoms randomly couple and de-couple, trial after trial a near infinite number of times, until life emerged by chance, or similarly, random coupling of molecules and then of cells for the emergence of eukaryotic cells and then consciousness within a cluster of cells. If this guessed vast number of universes or planets does not exist, then the only explanation is “luck,” just like the luck of the Scud hits.
As Bernard Carr, professor of mathematics and astronomy of Queen Mary University, London wrote: “If you don’t want God, you better have a multi-verse” (quoted in Discover Magazine, December 2008). Carr’s logical conclusion derives from the reality that there are many physical constants that must work seamlessly together. Changing any one of them or all of them could preclude the possibility of complex life.
But could we really have all those matched physical constants by lucky chance on one roll of the cosmic dice?
According to the most widely read scientific journal, Scientific American, this would be statistically just about impossible on one roll of the cosmic dice, since the properties of atomic and sub-atomic particles conducive to forming life are so specific.
Just a few of the many examples of our life-supporting “luck”:
-
For complex life in any form, there must be three spatial dimensions (length, width, height), and one-time dimension (time only moves forward, never backward.
-
The electric charge of the proton (the particles in the center of atoms that give the atoms, and hence give matter, much of its mass) must be exactly equal and opposite to the electric charge of an electron (the particles that surround the proton-rich center of atoms), even though the proton has a mass 1,837 times that of an electron (It is the sharing of these ultra-light electrons among atoms that allows molecules to form – no molecules, no life).
-
The force that holds atoms together, the strong nuclear force, is balanced on a knife edge for allowing hydrogen atoms to be super-abundant in the universe. No hydrogen, no stars. Stars make their shining light and energy by fusing hydrogen, the lightest of all the elements, into helium, the second lightest of all the elements. In that fusion, energy is released. This is the energy of the sunlight we see. If this did not occur, there would be no heavier elements such as carbon and oxygen. No heavier elements means no life. As with all elements heavier than hydrogen, carbon, the one element able to form the complex chains required for life, is built from lighter elements within the cores of stars. But the process involves a complex, exquisitely-tuned series of reactions.
The process of forming the essential carbon atom is so tenuous, and none-the-less so abundant, that the knighted astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who started his scientific career as a theological skeptic was moved to write in the science journal of the esteemed California Institute of Technology (CalTech):
“Would you not say to yourself, ‘Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom [carbon] through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule?’ Of course you would… A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (California Institute of Technology Journal Engineering and Science, November 1981, pp 8-112)
Almost incredulously, carbon is the most abundant element in our universe that is solid in the temperature range that water is liquid. Liquid water and carbon, two essentials for life as we know it.
So now we have a universe with physical properties fine-tuned for life. But that does not guarantee that life will arise. We need a life-friendly platform. We call it Earth. It has just the right mass, to have just the right gravity, to hold just the right atmosphere with enough oxygen to allow combustion (for energy production), but with an abundance of “inert” nitrogen in the atmosphere so that there is not spontaneous combustion of organic matter.
Then there is our tilted axis, allowing sunlight to be distributed over much more of the planet’s surface than if the axis were either vertical or horizontal relative to the plane as it circles the sun. All at a distance from the sun that allows for water to be liquid; and not all ice as on Mars, the next planet out from the sun or all steam as on Venus, the next planet in toward the sun (the temperature at the surface of Venus is approximately 460 C; lead is molten at that temperature).
Many persons have pointed out that as we progress out from the sun, each of the 7 inner planets and the asteroid belt (what would have been a planet had not the massive gravity of Jupiter disturbed its formation) is approximately [+/- 10%] twice as far from the sun as the previous planet – with one exception, the earth. In that distribution, there would not be an earth where the earth is. And this “out-of-sequence earthly location puts the earth in the only habitable zone in our solar system (adequate sun energy reaching the earth to keep water liquid, but not so hot as to vaporize the water).
Even with all this fine-tuning, human beings and all other terrestrial forms of life would not exist if not for yet another "chance" quirk of nature: In the very early stages of its formation, the planet earth was molten. Gravity formed the molten earth into a sphere [that is why the moon, the planets, the sun are all spheres and not for example cubes] that had a more or less “smooth” surface – not like the smoothness of a billiard ball but also not with high mountains and deep ridges. As the surface cooled, a solid crust formed on the surface. The crust broke into continent-sized blocks that moved away from each other, a phenomenon known as continental drift.
For example, looking at a globe we see that the bulge of South America’s Brazil, fits into the recess of western Africa. As the blocks moved [at about 30 mm a year], the crust before them piled up, increasing the elevation of the blocks’ surfaces, thus forming the continents. If this shifting (referred to as plate tectonics) and the subsequent rise in elevation had not occurred, the dry land of the continents would not have formed. It sounds benign, until we discover that had there not been continental drift, the earth would have remained relatively smooth, and the amount of water in the oceans would cover the entire earth to a depth of 2.5 km (1.5 miles). Even with the continents, the earth’s surface is approximately 70% covered by water. There are intelligent aquatic species, but none with the achievements of our land-based technologies.
These are just a few of the many examples of what is known as the "anthropic principle." As renowned physicist Freeman Dyson stated, it's as if “the universe knew we were coming.”
Seeking an answer to the beginning of life, Nobel laureate biochemist Christian de Duve was moved to write:
“If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one... The speed at which evolution started moving once it discovered the right track, so to speak, and the apparently auto-catalytic manner by which it accelerated are truly astonishing... [Yet] chance and chance alone did it all. But it is not, as some would have it, the whole answer, for chance did not operate in a vacuum. It operated in a universe governed by orderly laws and made of matter endowed with special properties. These laws and properties are the constraints that shape evolutionary roulette and restrict the numbers that can turn up. …Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe” (A Guided Tour of a Living Cell, by Christian de Duve).
In other words, given that the universe seems so exquisitely designed for life, it would be unreasonable to conclude that the complex, hospitable life-friendly universe is a result of an accident.
The late Nobel laureate biochemist George Wald, early in his career, emphatically stated that all life needed to get going was time and lucky random reactions. Yet based on his later discoveries, Wald wrote:
“It has occurred to me lately – I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities – that both questions [the origin of life from non-living matter and the origin of consciousness that arose from non-living matter] might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality – that stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create: science-, art-, and technology-making animals. In them the universe begins to know itself.” (Life and Mind in the Universe; International Journal of Quantum Chemistry; Quantum biology symposium; 11 [1984])
“Mind” as the fundamental quality of all existence, and “matter” as the expression of an idea that is written into the fabric of the universe – nowhere does this fit with Dr. Hawking’s portrait of an unguided nature.
It is worth noting that the scientific description of our world has consistently moved from a totally physical understanding to one that is steeped in the meta-physical.
For two centuries Isaac Newton was science. Force equals mass times acceleration; the three laws of motion. It was a totally materialist, classically describable, logical world. Then came Albert Einstein and the laws of relativity. The rate of time's passage, we discovered, actually varies from place to place in the universe. Bizarre as it seems, time passes faster in some places relative to other places. Space bends. Energy can change form and become matter. A universe much less logical than that which Newton had described.
And now quantum physics, quantum mechanics, and the solidity we perceived as matter has metamorphosed into what might be called a thought, an idea, even a mind.
Each advance of science has moved our understanding further from a materialist world to one ever closer to the meta-physical. Science has abandoned the myth of materialism.
The first part of Deuteronomy 32:7, “remember the days of old” is in place: the Divine creation of the universe. The second part of that verse, “consider the flow from generation to generation,” claims that we can realize God being active in the flow of events by studying the social flow of history. Does social history shed light on a biblical God, a Force intimately interested in the creation It brought into being as opposed to the deist disinterested version of the Creator?
The Bible claims that there is a marker in history that indicates God’s active involvement in history. That marker according to the explicit statement in the Bible is the Jewish nation. The Bible claims that the Jewish nation will always stand out, for better or for worse, but always be abnormally evident in the flow of history. The word “holy,” in Hebrew kadosh, does not mean better or wonderful. It means separate, apart. This is an exact parallel to the word “Hebrew” which means “from the other side,” “separate.”
God has used the Jewish people as a marker of God’s presence to make this Presence known among the nations. The fact that the Jewish people have survived – even thrived – in the face of exile, dispersion and enduring anti-Semitism testifies to this.
As Leo Tolstoy famously wrote:
What is the Jew?...What kind of unique creature is this whom all the rulers of all the nations of the world have disgraced and crushed and expelled and destroyed; persecuted, burned and drowned, and who, despite their anger and their fury, continues to live and to flourish. What is this Jew whom they have never succeeded in enticing with all the enticements in the world, whose oppressors and persecutors only suggested that he deny (and disown) his religion and cast aside the faithfulness of his ancestors?!
The Jew – is the symbol of eternity. ... He is the one who for so long had guarded the prophetic message and transmitted it to all mankind. A people such as this can never disappear. The Jew is eternal. He is the embodiment of eternity. What is the Jew? printed in Jewish World periodical, 1908
After discussing some nuances of nuclear physics with Nobel laureate physicist, Leon Lederman, I brought up the subject of spirituality. He said that it was “spooky” that after 2,000 years of exile, the people of Israel have returned to the land of Israel. Spooky, meaning abnormal. Yet the Bible over 3,000 years ago predicted that the Jewish nation would stand out, be different.
In the act of creation, science has discovered God Who is active in the history of the creation that It brought into being. As Maimonides wrote, study nature if you want to comprehend the nature of God.
(29) jerry schwartz, August 18, 2019 4:41 AM
Incredibly BRILLIANT! Thank you for this enlightening insight...
(28) Gordon Graham, August 3, 2019 8:10 AM
Thank you for these remarkable insights.
When I first heard a summary of your work on “Genesis and the Big Bang” it blew me away. All my life I was sure there must be an answer and that God would reveal it to me. I heard many explanations which seemed plausible but on checking they all fell down. How remarkable that the Bible all the time contained the information that science, until Einstein, was unable to understand. Now we know that instead of science proving the Bible wrong the reverse is the case. This article is outstanding in refuting the atheistic hypothesis. Thank you.
(27) Anonymous, August 2, 2019 7:54 PM
August 2, 2019
Maimonides was born in Cordoba Spain ! in 1135 !
(26) Anonymous, August 1, 2019 4:28 AM
This article is amazing!
I read this article and for some reason it made me cry. Just reading this has made me happy. Thank you!
(25) Patricia Deneen, July 31, 2019 2:56 AM
It's a rough life today for secular cosmologists
For my whole lifetime (81 years) scientists have been looking for evidence to prove that random chance macro evolution accounts for life on earth. But the harder they look, the more the evidence mounts against them. Instead of finding the 'missing link," they found the sudden appearance of new species in the fossil records. Poor scientists. How many more sleepless nights will they spend searching for evidence which relieves them of the responsibility to acknowledge the Creator? Thank you, Dr. Schroeder, for providing the rich
context for this argument.
(24) David L Bump, July 30, 2019 12:08 AM
Good, but only the beginning
Good article! However, the study of nature can only give us a beginning of understanding the nature of God; if we could learn all we need to know, there would be no need for the written Word. Science can only take into account natural things, and yet as this article shows, it leads to the logical conclusion that it is logical to believe there is much more!
Relativity and quantum mechanics are just as logical as Newton's physics, and do not supersede Newton as extend beyond those limits, hinting at a more complex basis to existence. The early scientists, and Francis Bacon who described the scientific method, acknowledged that science tells us about the here and now, but we must turn to the written Word of the Creator to understand how it all came to be.
All the blessings of science, through technology and medicine, come from studying nature around us. It was the philosophical presumption that science can reveal the past, indefinitely and thoroughly, that led to the greatest boost to atheism. As this article shows, following such philosophy has still led to opening the door again to belief in God.
Further study will show that natural processes alone cannot account for the origin of life, nor could they have produced all living things from microbes. The god of the Deists will not suffice.
(23) Scott, July 28, 2019 6:22 PM
G-d's Imagining
Physical reality is an illusion of consciousness, and science supports this. Reality is a thought, story. G-d did not "create" us - some act in the past - He creates us at this moment, always. If He stopped thinking of us, we would not be. https://www.scottowen.org/lucid-dream/
(22) Mario Zamora, July 27, 2019 10:20 PM
From nothingness to God
If God didn’t exist as we in many ways believe It exists, and “there was” only nothingness, nothingness would be God. There can’t be emptiness ever. Emptiness would then be God. Whatever rules above all else is the supreme God. Just a thought.
(21) British Exile. Sogod. Philippines., July 27, 2019 2:50 AM
The existence of God is best proved by the existence of Life.
This was certainly an excellent and thought provoking article. I certainly feel that the Big Bang Theory of creation moves the world of Science to it's meeting point with the Creation of the Universe being an act of God. The Bible describes the act of Creation by an all powerful, all wise and all loving God and Science has come to the same conclusion that there was an instant when all material matter was created along with all the Laws of Science. The Bible tells mankind that God has always existed and always will exist and that He exists outside of time and space and the Natural Laws that He created at the same moment that He created the natural Universe. I have been a God believer for fifty years and read a chapter of the Bible every day. Everything that I read convinces me of God's act of Creation, of HOW he created it and WHY He created it and for WHOM He created it. It was primarily for Him to enjoy fellowship with Mankind. Earth is the one place that God has a special interest in and it agrees with the idea that Mankind exists to have fellowship with God. I think that the simplest way to PROVE that God exists is to look at LIFE. Every volume of soil, every volume of water and every volume of atmosphere teems with life. Man has been trying to prove the existence of life elsewhere in the Universe and has found no evidence of it, nor can mankind create life himself even though he has tried for many decades.
charles galant, July 28, 2019 5:15 AM
Excellent Comment
Thank you.
(20) Roger M Pearlman, July 26, 2019 6:33 PM
good work can be even better, as science now explains how/why past, not ongoing, cosmic expansion..
Per the YeC Moshe Emes series for Torah and science alignment: nice, but it assumes a very weak hypothesis as a fact, thus very probably does not understand the nature/science ie the highest probability explanation of the empirical observations, thus based on what we do agree on, does not give the clear understanding of Torah and Hashem.
'The work of Edwin Hubble and Henrietta Levitt corrected that misconception.
Based on the stretching of light-waves emitted from distance galaxies, they discovered that the universe was expanding, that space was actually stretching.' ongoing cosmic expansion is a deep-time dependent and weak assumption. Einstein's true biggest blunder was premature capitulation to this.
Yes cosmic expansion, but in the past, including some sort of cosmic inflation expansion, but it ended by the end of day four.
Based on Torah and corroborating by the strongest science Hashem 'stretched out.' the universe into the mature density and size 'like a tent'
Thus it started (hyper) dense. reference Psalms and Isaiah ____.
Thus the true meaning of Hashem known as 'ShaKai' The One that said 'enough' reference Talmud __: _ and Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer as referenced in volume III 'Distant Starlight and Torah' aka
www.amazon.com/dp/1519262205
so no need to invoke time dilation ala Dr. Moshe Carmelli to equate 6 days w/ 13.8B years when based on a light speed limit of 'c' we find the vast amount of empirical evidence that is CMB and the prevalent cosmological redshift of distant starlight corroborates Torah narrative and thousands, not millions or more literal age of the universe and falsifies all deep-time dependent scientific hypotheses (such as SCM-LCDM) and assumptions.
(19) Edward Zarabi, July 26, 2019 4:30 PM
Phewww!!!!
I love science and I love Hashem, but this is a one hard article to comprehend.
(18) Aaron Kinsberg, July 26, 2019 3:50 PM
Big bang does not prove ‘yesh mehayin, something went Bang
Science is the tool of Hashem that keeps the world going. But a few points. Big bang cannot prove creation (yesh mehayin) since there was something that went bang. While it can only be hypothesized what that seed was, it nevertheless existed and went bang. 3779 years old? Torah is not read for its literal meaning so why is perek 1 (creation)? Was the length of those days the same as ours? Day or era? Isn’t Hashem’s day much longer? (Not a legit question on my part as anything of Hashem is beyond our scope) Based on Ibn Ezra , ‘barah’ does not mean create yesh mehayin but something existed prior (perhaps the seed of the big bang) and ‘barah’ should be used in the same way as ‘vayivrah’ to describe later steps in the ‘creation’ of our world.
(17) Anonymous, July 26, 2019 3:02 PM
Who made God?
Where did God come from?
David Bump, July 30, 2019 12:16 AM
from Eternity
As someone pointed out, if there had ever in the past been absolutely nothing, then there never would be anything. Or in other words, something had to have always been, or else there would always be nothing. God is the One Who IS -- beyond time, or from everlasting to everlasting, forever and ever past and future.
Daniel, August 9, 2019 12:16 AM
Ha'Zohar Explains
At the start was nothing (Ayn).
From Ayn came Ayn Sof, which had the potential for everything.
From Ayn Sof came Ayn Sof Or and Elohim as everything existent.
And from Elohim comes HaShem, blessed be, whom we may know as the Personal manifestation of G-d Almighty, which is ECHAD.
Sounds confusing, yes, but G-d is complex and THANK G-D he showed himself to us as HaShem, blessed be, that we may know him.
And science is even coming to find these uber complex truths in the Zohar to be facts! See:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X?via%3Dihub
(16) Anonymous, July 25, 2019 9:18 AM
Dear Schroeder,thank you for your article Science and God by Dr. Gerald Schroeder(aish.com).Let´s discuss your mistakes.The universe is not only infinitely improbable.I´ve found thousands of clearcut proofs that the universe is impossible(Ex20.4).Only short:One is the orbits of planets.If there is a law of gravitation,the orbits are unstable(see chaos pendulum).Every physicist knows that. Newton knew that.Newton was one of the best kabbalists,nearly as good as me.Every scientist knows that time doesn´t exist(Ex20.4), space doesn´t exist(Ex20.4), causality doesn´t exist(Ex20.4).Read Kant,Critique of Pure Reason.Only god exist(Ex20.3).Einstein knew that. Every scientist knows that. The universe is not dead,but alive(Gaia).Same as every jew I can talk with stones and stars.We make treaties.I can change the laws of nature.I have built a time machine.Everything is written in the tora.Please comment.
(15) Peter, July 25, 2019 3:49 AM
וּזְכֹר֙ אֶת־בֹּ֣ורְאֶ֔יךָ
Brilliant, Dr. Schroeder, many thanks for these awesome reminders.
'Remember your Creator...' As though the wisest King Shlomo who said this realized there must have been a memory of Him beforehand.
Amazing that Shlomo also said:
אֶת־הַכֹּ֥ל עָשָׂ֖ה יָפֶ֣ה בְעִתֹּ֑ו גַּ֤ם אֶת־הָעֹלָם֙ נָתַ֣ן בְּלִבָּ֔ם מִבְּלִ֞י אֲשֶׁ֧ר לֹא־יִמְצָ֣א הָאָדָ֗ם אֶת־הַֽמַּעֲשֶׂ֛ה אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂ֥ה הָאֱלֹהִ֖ים מֵרֹ֥אשׁ וְעַד־סֹֽוף׃
הָעֹלָם֙
'...eternity He has put in men's hearts...'
May all of Dr. Schroeder's children be blessed to see by Hashem's light and have the same joy as he does to teach their own likewise!
(14) Carl Goldberg, July 24, 2019 8:33 PM
Science and God and the Jewish People (part 3)
The argument about the existence of the Jewish people being proof that God meddles in our earthly affairs is also illogical. To us, with our short earthly lifespans, three thousand years of Jewish history seems like a very long time, but on the scale of human culture, it is not all that long. For most of human cultural history, the Jewish people did not exist. And, the way things are going, the day is foreseeable in the not too distant future when the Jewish people, as a cultural community, might cease to exist. Given the assimilation and the intermarriage that is taking place in America, we see the gradual disappearance of the Jewish community before our eyes. In Israel, too, the tendency toward secularism is on the rise. Therefore, the fact that the Jewish community has "miraculously" survived such a gruesome history of hate and violence proves nothing about the existence of a deity.
Peter, July 25, 2019 4:47 AM
The Highest Proof
'Miraculous facts' are the highest form of proof of the One and Only God. Do you not see that such are the sum total of everything Moshe was instructed to include in the Torah?
Every Jewish life is a blessed miracle - the highest form of real evidence of Hashem's eternal love.
May your heart also be blessed to witness the birth of one of your own and hopefully, in that moment of joy, avoid proclaiming that the child is not one of His awesome miracles.
charlie galant, July 25, 2019 7:08 AM
Once an optimist now a believer.
Carl,
I felt the same way prior to my younger son's passing. And I must say I can sympathize with your disgust and anger. I come to realize everything spiritual cannot be compared quantitatively. In other words, time and space hold no value in this realm. I can only conclude by the fortunate and unfortunate occurrences that are happening to me in life are attributed to an entity to which I address as Hashem is the cause. I clearly have been touched by Divine providence experiencing the birth of my Children as well as one's passing. I only hope and pray that as a fellow Jew you will one day see the light of peace and tranquility in your heart through Judaism.
Carl GOldberg, July 25, 2019 4:23 PM
Disgust and anger?????
Wherever did you get the idea that I am disgusted and angry??? Nothing of the sort! I marvel at the miracle of life and nature. My heart is at peace and is tranquil without faith in HaShem. And, I have the intellectual courage to admit that I do not know the ultimate answers.
charles galant, July 25, 2019 7:01 PM
Intellectual Courage
Question; With No disrespect intended.
In your response you used several spiritual adjectives. This compilation of adjectives are all derived from Historical encounters between HaShem and Man.
How can you use them to describe your "marvel" without giving them credence to the existence of HaShem ? Your response seems conflicted .
Words used in your statement; Marvel, Miracle, Nature, Heart, Peace, Tranquil, intellect, courage, know (knowledge)
We have a compilation of 5779 years of Knowledge with analysis on top of analysis with people that have far greater intellectual courage and insight than you and I. In fact this collaboration between you and I that has been prompted by this forum should give you motivation to learn more about all this information before you rush to judgement. There have been many times in my life where I have taken the same position you have and have been surprisingly proven wrong by ephinal encounters. Hopefully this is one for you. These encounters have been both physical as well as emotional. So, take my words to heart. There is a HaShem. And may you find love and peace in your discovery.
Carl Goldberg, July 28, 2019 9:22 PM
Science and God
Rest assured, I have already found love and peace -- without a belief in God. The spiritual words which I have used express my feelings, but they do not in any way prove the existence of a supernatural beings. Atheists can feel awe, wonder, peace and love, too. We can even feel a deep sense of gratitude for the miracle of life-- even though we have no one to be grateful to!
Intellectually, neither you nor anyone else knows the origins of life and the universe. Your belief in HaShem may give you comfort, but it does not make you any more knowledgeable about the origin of life than and atheist without such belief.
Dvirah, August 1, 2019 5:24 PM
Not So
For most of recorded history, Jews are documented. And despite assimilation & secularism, the core is alive, well and propagating.
(13) Carl Goldberg, July 24, 2019 8:31 PM
Science and God (part 2)
Let us consider this question from the point of view of semantics. We have no words, or even concepts, to describe or explain what, exactly, it means to say that "God exists". We use the word "exist" to describe all sorts of phenomena, and we understand what the word means. But, when we say that "God exists", or a "supernatural intelligent Designer" exists, we are using the same word "exists" but in a wholly different way without realizing it. We think we know what it means to say "God exists", but, in fact, we haven't the slightest idea of what it means. It just sounds good, and it creates the illusion that we have said something meaningful about the origin of the universe and of life. Unfortunately, it is only an illusion because we cannot explain it or describe it or verify it or make predictions based upon it.
Therefore, essentially, the conclusion that "God exists" is nothing more than a disguised admission that we do not know the origin of the universe or of life. This argument from ignorance may be comforting, but it is semantic nonsense.
The great scientific philosopher, Hans Reichenbach, said that the analysis of error begins with the analysis of language. When we analyze the words like "intelligent Designer", "almighty God", "omniscient God", "exist", we see that there is no such thing as a proof of God's existence. We cannot even define our standard of proof. If you believe, you do so as a matter of faith, not proof.
Therefore, essentially, the conclusion that "God exists" is nothing more than a disguised admission that we do not know the origin of the universe or of life. This argument from ignorance may be comforting, but it is semantic nonsense.
On the lighter side, two passengers were sitting next to one another on a long, boring plane ride. One of them says to the other: "Let's pass the time in an interesting way. You believe in God? I don't. You don't believe in God? I do. Let's argue!"
Anonymous, August 1, 2019 5:27 PM
The Last (Missed) Connection
Perhaps conciousness is/comes from G-d.
(12) Carl Goldberg, July 24, 2019 8:16 PM
Science and God
None of the arguments which Dr. Schroeder presents are new.
In a nutshell, the argument below is the same as human beings have been making ever since the dawn of consciousness. We marvel at the wonder of the universe, and, because we cannot explain it, we conclude that some supernatural force or entity or Designer must have done it. The difference between today and hundreds or thousands of years ago is that we have far more scientific knowledge available to us. Yet, all of that scientific knowledge is still not sufficient to explain how the universe came about and how life came about. So, while we are on a much higher level than our ancestors who grappled with these questions, we, too, are unable to answer those questions. Essentially, we are ignorant on a higher level than our ancestors, but we are still ignorant. In order to give us a feeling of overcoming our ignorance, we posit that some supernatural intelligent Designer must have done it. This is akin to the prime mover argument which goes back at least to Aquinas. There must have been a first cause, or a prime mover. On the surface, this sounds like a logical conclusion, but it is not. The reason it is not a logical conclusion is that we still do not know in the slightest how this supernaturally intelligent Designer actually did it. Positing an intelligent Designer gives us not one iota of new information about the origin of the universe or of life. We have merely pushed our ignorance one step farther away, but we are just as ignorant about the origin of the universe and life as we were before we posited the eternal existence of a supernaturally intelligent Designer.
(11) David E Kamins, July 24, 2019 8:13 PM
Fantastic article.
The "facts" presented makes any person need to consider the existence of a supreme being. Once that conclusion is reached or enforced everything else one can think of about "God" and what "God" has done is not only possible but is undeniable. I believe in God no matter what religious form God is presented in.
(10) Anonymous, July 24, 2019 7:30 PM
Utter nonsense
You’re desperate to prove God, and the “proofs” are the result of your desperation. The Biblical account of creation in six days is nonsense, the universe is 13 billion years old. But theists always believed “six days” was literal, until science educated them. Theists just adapt their doctrine as they go. 99% of the Bible can be instantly dismissed with a brief glance at archeology, history, biology, chemistry, and physics. At that point, the 1% can be discarded as well. Besides, you clearly don’t understand natural selection at all. If Earth was closer to the Sun, life would’ve evolved to the hot and steamy conditions. Our form of life is all we know of, because with the present conditions on Earth, it’s the only form that could exist. Ever heard of “the God of the Gaps?” Because we can’t explain something doesn’t mean God. It means I don’t know, and it means you don’t know. Me not knowing doesn’t give you license to make up whatever you want. Try being intellectually honest, without presupposing God exists, then finding “evidence.” Try being a skeptic. I wish you success.
Anonymous, July 24, 2019 9:58 PM
Who is desperate?
Your theory is willing to label the biblical account nonsense, and write off God offhand, although you yourself say you really don't know. You make a few statements with no proofs and assume that the people you are demanding be intellectually honest will just accept them as fact because you say so? First - is it a fact that theists always believed six days was literal? And if it is indeed true, can an intellectually honest person not change that without disproving the bible? You say 99% of the bible can be instantly dismissed, etc. I'm sorry, but I have not seen any serious compelling evidence to this. And tell me; if natural selection means believing that life "would've evolved", whose beliefs are more desperate? Look, I'm not a scientist just a simple layman, and I can't work out all of the atoms and quantums etc. But to me the most compelling "proof" to a supernatural force lays simply in the fact that the world is full of wisdom, that is beyond our understanding. The fact that we cannot understand it does not say there's nothing there. To me it says there is obvious wisdom there, beyond my understanding. I call that God.
Anonymous, July 25, 2019 7:23 AM
Relax see below. Please go in Peace.
To all non believers,
Can you explain the essence of electricity ? I see you explained the physical properties and man kinds ability to manipulate it. However, you still haven't explained it's ESSENCE. Please don't beat yourself up. No one can explain it. Since it's the Hand of Hashem. See below.
es·sence
/ˈesəns/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character.
"conflict is the essence of drama"
synonyms: quintessence, soul, spirit, ethos, nature, life, lifeblood, core, heart, center, crux, nub, nucleus, kernel, marrow, meat, pith, gist, substance, principle, central part, fundamental quality, basic quality, essential part, intrinsic nature, sum and substance, reality, actuality; More
(9) Nofyah Shem Tov, July 24, 2019 10:45 AM
break this up
it's way too long in one go!
(8) eli, July 24, 2019 7:26 AM
Guide to the Perplexed
Very clear article-Maimonidies would be proud of you!
(7) Charles Galant, July 24, 2019 4:29 AM
Electricity
A simple question to the Author or anyone else who might know. Has science discovered the origin of electricity yet ? I believe and correct me if I'm wrong, the only thing mankind can do with electricity is manipulate it. However, they still can't explain it's essence. Everything alive is charged with Electricity but science still cannot explain it's essence. I'm a little old and out of touch with current discoveries so if someone out there knows the scientific answer to this question I would greatly appreciate the information.
Anonymous, July 30, 2019 12:30 AM
That's answered but there is still more...
Electricity is simply the flow of electrons! Oh, but what are electrons? Well... you can go on a bit farther, but it's true that before long you get into physics that are quite strange compared to our normal experiences and perceptions, and we are still struggling to understand it all, because we cannot see beyond the realm of our natural senses and scientific sensors to the supernatural realm where God upholds everything.
(6) paula, July 24, 2019 1:32 AM
Interesting use of Jews as a marker in history
That would explain the world's fascination with and constant focus on tiny little Israel with 7 million people on a tiny piece of land. Every time Israel sneezes, it makes the headlines of all the newspapers in the world. Logically it makes no sense that anyone anywhere would care about what happens in such a tiny nation. Only G-d could make sure that the world doesn't forget His nation, His chosen, and thus remember that there is a G-d.
(5) Anonymous, July 23, 2019 7:52 PM
Ron Brandt, read the author’s previous article “Age of the Universe”, or his book “Genesis and the Big Bang”.
(4) John, July 23, 2019 4:55 PM
loved the article
Next blogger i see that says he believes science rather than the "myth of a god", is going to get a log quote from this article.
(3) E Wilson Leeds England, July 23, 2019 3:28 PM
Suns Split into two
The first sun (or suns) formation must be connected with an atom revolving on its own axis and creating electric energy. It also created gas and planetary gas clouds and it was this gas from which all life, insects, beasts and man comes from. As for the Universe expanding, This is fairly simple to explain: When suns reach a certain size, they become unwieldy, split and form two half's which become Suns in their own right.
Chana H., July 24, 2019 1:55 AM
1)How did that first sun get there?
2)Why isn't the whole universe full of suns then? Why is there Earth and Jupiter and Mars?
Anonymous, July 25, 2019 9:16 PM
There are millions of suns in the universe.
We call them stars.
(2) Ron Brandt, July 23, 2019 2:58 PM
Impressive Article
The more science I learn, the more I am certain that such a complex system, both at the very small and very large scale, could not be an accident. There must be a guiding plan
Only disappointed that the author did not address the medieval belief that the world was created 5700 years ago
Alan Perlman, July 23, 2019 9:00 PM
Schroeder reconciles the biblical and scientific age of the universe
Just not in this article. See his book The Science of G-d.
Daniel, July 24, 2019 4:06 AM
Professor Schroeder is a gift to Humanity
Like Alan said, read his book, The Science of God. Everything you are looking for is there including the 5,700 year creation. Einstein's Law of Relativity proves the dates.
Emil M Friedman, July 25, 2019 9:15 PM
But Schroeder's description
of how time dilation explained the difference between 5700 and many millions of years was completely wrong because the equation he used reversed our years and the "origin of the universe's" years.
(1) Dvirah, July 22, 2019 6:40 AM
Thank You!
Finally, someone with "clout" is saying things I've been claiming for decades. My thanks!